Bill Overview
Title: To direct the Surface Transportation Board to require any high-speed rail project to acquire all land for the project before starting construction, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from approving a high-speed passenger railroad or magnetic levitation system project unless the project has a distance of at least 10 miles and the land needed for the project is acquired.
Sponsors: Rep. Ellzey, Jake [R-TX-6]
Target Audience
Population: People living in areas affected by high-speed rail projects and potential users of high-speed rail
Estimated Size: 3000000
- High-speed rail projects typically require the acquisition of large tracts of land, often impacting people living in the areas where these projects are developed.
- The bill will primarily affect individuals who live in areas where new high-speed rail lines are proposed, especially those who may need to sell their land.
- Additionally, the bill can affect people who might benefit from such rail systems, including regular commuters who would have benefited from an expedited construction timeline.
- Stakeholders in the rail industry might also be impacted as they could face delays in project start times and potential increases in costs due to the conditions set by the bill.
Reasoning
- The policy affects individuals residing in areas where new high-speed rail or magnetic levitation systems are planned. These individuals might experience a variety of impacts, from needing to sell land to benefiting from the convenience of new transportation infrastructure.
- High-speed rail constructions are often controversial due to land acquisition issues and potential demographic changes in communities, impacting both rural and urban areas.
- Business stakeholders and potential users of high-speed rail services might be anticipating different outcomes depending on project timelines and completion predictability.
- Budget limitations will constrain the number of projects started in the initial years, affecting regions differently based on project readiness, thus impacting people's lived experiences and expectations.
Simulated Interviews
IT Consultant (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the idea of new high-speed rail projects, as they would significantly reduce my commute time.
- However, I'm concerned about the potential delays if the policy means projects get stalled over land acquisition issues.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Teacher (Fresno, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The threat of losing my home is distressing.
- I'm not against the development, but there should be better considerations for those of us who might be displaced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Urban Planner (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could significantly delay important infrastructure projects that would benefit urban mobility.
- I'm worried that our plans will need reevaluations leading to inefficiencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Farmer (Springfield, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This project might mean I lose my family's farm, which is worrying.
- I hope if it happens, I'm compensated fairly and promptly, otherwise I might have to fight it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Developer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I want these projects to start sooner with clear timelines.
- Delays due to this policy could mean continued long commutes without the benefit of rail systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Environmental Scientist (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Projects should adhere to environmental burden reduction standards.
- The policy might add constraints but if it ensures sustainable practices, it could be beneficial in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 75 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't travel much due to age, but improved rail might make visits to family easier.
- I hope the policy doesn't slow down improvements in general rail services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fast projects mean better logistics for my business.
- Delays due to policy constraints might impede my expansion plans relying on better connectivity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Rail Industry Executive (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Managing these projects with new policy guidelines will require more strategic planning.
- There could be positive outcomes if it leads to more accountable processes despite initial challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Commuter (New York, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm looking forward to faster routes for my daily commute.
- This policy could mean adjustments to timelines but at least projects will be more solid once started.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $600000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $700000000)
Year 3: $700000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $800000000)
Year 5: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)
Year 10: $900000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy mandates land acquisition before project approval, inherently delaying commencement but potentially streamlining the overall process by reducing mid-project disputes.
- There is potential for increased resistance from landowners, which could impact public perception and support for the projects.