Bill Overview
Title: AAIM Act
Description: This bill establishes a pilot grant program to support advanced air mobility (AAM) infrastructure. AAM infrastructure refers to an air transportation system that transports individuals and property between points in the United States in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace using certain aircraft, including remotely piloted, autonomous, or vertical take-off and landing aircraft. The Department of Transportation (DOT) must award planning grants for AAM infrastructure to (1) state, local, or tribal governments; (2) airport sponsors; (3) transit agencies; (4) port authorities; (5) metropolitan planning organizations; or (6) consortia of such entities. Entities that receive these grants must develop a comprehensive plan for AAM infrastructure, including vertiports (sites that support the landing, takeoff, loading, and other operations of vertical take-off and landing aircraft). Topics covered in the plan must address matters such as identifying locations for AAM infrastructure and available sources of funding. DOT must brief Congress about the plans it receives. The briefing must include an evaluation of the planned or proposed locations for vertiports and a description of best practices or lessons learned through the review of comprehensive plans. If the Federal Aviation Administration issues type certificates for at least two aircraft models designed to provide AAM transportation and other requirements are met, DOT may award construction grants to entities that submitted comprehensive plans. Recipients may use grant funds for design, environmental studies, and other capital costs related to the construction of a public-use vertiport or associated infrastructure. Grants may not be awarded after September 30, 2023.
Sponsors: Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2]
Target Audience
Population: People using or benefiting from Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) infrastructure
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill focuses on establishing a pilot grant program for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) infrastructure aimed at supporting and potentially transforming air transportation systems within the United States.
- Key stakeholders include state, local, or tribal governments, airport sponsors, transit agencies, port authorities, and metropolitan planning organizations, all of whom could receive planning and potentially construction grants.
- AAM infrastructure is expected to directly impact individuals and businesses that will make use of new airborne transportation modes, particularly in urban and densely populated areas.
- This infrastructure is expected to benefit people by potentially reducing congestion on roads, leading to improved travel times and possibly lowering pollution levels in certain urban settings.
- The act may influence economic activity, creating new job opportunities in the construction, operation, and maintenance of AAM infrastructure systems.
- Indirectly, individuals in areas where AAM systems are adopted might experience changes in urban planning, land use, and local economies.
- Benefits of AAM systems could extend globally as advancements in urban air mobility technology could be adopted internationally.
Reasoning
- This policy is likely to primarily affect people living in urban areas with high congestion, where advanced air mobility (AAM) infrastructure can alleviate transportation issues.
- Various stakeholders, including governmental entities and airport authorities, will be directly involved, hence, individuals working within these entities might see job creation or increased workloads.
- The policy focuses on planning and initial infrastructure development, suggesting that immediate impacts might be more localized to areas chosen for pilot projects.
- Project selection and funding is limited, which means not all regions or stakeholders will be equally benefited in the short term.
- Over time, as AAM infrastructure becomes more established and possibly integrated into wider transportation systems, the broader population could see indirect benefits such as reduced pollution and faster travel times.
Simulated Interviews
city planner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the AAM infrastructure could be revolutionary for urban planning, especially in cities like LA with notorious traffic issues.
- There's a potential for ecological benefits if the infrastructure reduces car dependency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
aerospace engineer (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The AAIM Act could boost our industry by enabling testing and deployment of new drone technology.
- I'm eager to see how the regulatory environment will support this growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
taxi driver (Chicago, IL)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried these changes might reduce demand for traditional taxis.
- If these flying taxis become common, it might make it harder for me to earn a living.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
tech entrepreneur (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy opens doors for new business models in urban transportation.
- I'm hopeful about the potential collaborations with city planners and tech companies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's exciting to think about advanced transportation reducing congestion.
- However, I'm concerned about the changes in urban infrastructure and potential noise pollution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
real estate developer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- AAM infrastructure could make suburbs more accessible, boosting real estate interest.
- It's crucial to be involved early to understand new development permission processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
environmental activist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautiously optimistic about AAM if it truly reduces city pollution.
- There must be strong environmental assessments and protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
theme park manager (Orlando, FL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Connecting tourist areas through AAM could massively improve visitor experience.
- I'm concerned about potential costs involved in integrating this technology.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
college student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone studying this field, the AAIM Act is encouraging for future city planning.
- I'm eager to see sustainable transport systems become more prevalent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
mechanic (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the AAIM Act might bring more jobs and training opportunities.
- I'm interested in how my role could change with this new tech integration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7500000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $50000 (Low: $10000, High: $100000)
Key Considerations
- Timing uncertainty as the program nears termination and decisions depend on FAA certifications.
- Technological advancements in aviation markets can create unpredictable financial impacts.
- Policy-based support fluctuation and market readiness are significant elements of upward or downward cost and tax impacts.
- Regional adoption variances of AAM technology influencing degree and duration of potential benefits.