Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6688

Bill Overview

Title: NO TOD Act

Description: This bill restricts the use of certain transportation funds for transit-oriented development projects.

Sponsors: Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]

Target Audience

Population: people in urban areas affected by changes to transit-oriented developments

Estimated Size: 30000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Software Developer (Brooklyn, NY)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The transit options near me have made life easier in terms of commuting.
  • I'm concerned that restricting TOD funds might delay enhancements to the local public transport system.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Urban Planner (New Orleans, LA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could potentially disrupt the development projects on which we are relying to improve city living standards.
  • It might impact future planning strategies significantly.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 6 8
Year 5 6 8
Year 10 7 9
Year 20 8 9

Retired School Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 60 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If TOD projects are restricted, access to essential transport might become more difficult.
  • The community development in my area could be hampered, affecting social activities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 6 7

Graduate Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 25 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The affordability and accessibility of living close to transit are crucial for a student budget.
  • Funding restrictions might mean persistently outdated infrastructure, complicating daily commutes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 5 6
Year 20 5 6

Environmental Activist (Portland, OR)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • TOD projects reduce city's carbon footprint, crucial for our sustainability goals.
  • Funding restrictions set back environmental progress and undermine hard-earned advancements.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 9
Year 2 7 9
Year 3 6 9
Year 5 6 9
Year 10 7 9
Year 20 6 9

Real Estate Developer (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could reduce investor confidence and slow down projects.
  • Financial viability of TODs might shrink without this funding, affecting profits and urban living standards.

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 6 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Public Transport Driver (Houston, TX)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Without TOD projects, improvements to public transport systems remain limited.
  • Restricting these funds could mean fewer job opportunities and reduced infrastructure investments.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 7
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 5 7
Year 10 5 7
Year 20 5 7

Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • TODs are fundamental to urban tech developments we focus on.
  • Policy change might slow innovation and affect market dynamics negatively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 9
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 8 9

Local Government Official (Miami, FL)

Age: 40 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy creates additional budgetary challenges and can slow down public approval processes.
  • Our ability to service growing city demands might be impeded.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 7
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 6 8
Year 10 6 8
Year 20 6 8

Public School Teacher (Seattle, WA)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • TODs have allowed me to move around the city efficiently with minimal environmental impact.
  • Funding cuts could increase my commute time and decrease the quality of available transit options.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 6 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $5000000)

Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $5500000)

Year 3: $4700000 (Low: $3700000, High: $5700000)

Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)

Year 10: $5500000 (Low: $4500000, High: $6500000)

Year 100: $6000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $7000000)

Key Considerations