Bill Overview
Title: RATES Act
Description: RATES Act This bill revises the mission and goals of Amtrak. It encourages an economically sustainable intercity and commuter passenger rail system and requires Amtrak to ensure route profitability proportional to the federal share of investment.
Sponsors: Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who utilize Amtrak services
Estimated Size: 3500000
- Amtrak services include intercity and commuter rail, primarily serving the northeastern corridor but also other states across the U.S.
- Intercity and commuter rail passengers will be directly impacted as the bill requires profitability, potentially changing service availability or pricing to ensure profitability.
- Amtrak's workforce, which includes conductors, engineers, maintenance staff, and administrative personnel across the U.S., could be impacted by changes in operations or demand.
- Local businesses and economies in areas where Amtrak routes might be reduced or removed could face indirect impacts.
- Federal and state governments subsidize Amtrak currently; any financial revisions might impact budget allocations.
- Travelers who rely on Amtrak for eco-friendly transportation options may be affected if services are reduced or become more expensive.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to make Amtrak routes financially self-sufficient, which could result in service cuts or increased prices on less profitable routes, affecting the passengers who rely on these services.
- Amtrak's budget constraints might lead to enhanced focus on profitable routes in densely populated areas like the Northeast Corridor, potentially reducing services in less populated regions.
- Changes could impact not just passengers but also Amtrak employees, with potential job cuts or redeployments, impacting their wellbeing.
- Communities that depend on Amtrak for economic benefits might see a downturn if routes are removed or reduced.
- The policy could push towards more efficient services, benefiting passengers on highly-trafficked routes.
Simulated Interviews
IT Project Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I depend on Amtrak for comfortable and efficient travel to Washington, D.C. Any improvements in service and sustainability are welcome, but not if prices skyrocket.
- Profitability concerns make me worry about ticket prices increasing. However, if service quality improves, it might be worthwhile.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Freelance Photographer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't use Amtrak regularly, so changes in service probably won't affect me too much.
- If prices increase, I might just choose to drive or fly when necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Marketing Executive (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Amtrak has been reliable for my business trips. I hope the policy brings better service, but I'm cautious about potential price hikes.
- The profitability requirement makes me worry about the feasibility of my routine travels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student, I'm concerned about ticket prices becoming too expensive. A price increase could limit how often I can see my family.
- I hope the policy considers affordability for students like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Amtrak is a convenient travel option during my retirement. I hope routes remain comprehensive and affordable for continued use.
- The focus on profitability sounds like it may restrict options for leisurely travel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Amtrak Train Conductor (Harrisburg, PA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about job security if routes in rural areas aren't profitable enough. The policy could affect my employment.
- I hope management ensures that the workforce isn't negatively impacted by these changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Environmental Advocate (Portland, OR)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that focusing on profitability might reduce service frequency, pushing more people to less sustainable alternatives.
- However, a financially healthy Amtrak could in the long-run support environmental goals better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business is reliant on foot traffic from Amtrak travelers. Reduced services would directly hurt my revenue.
- I hope profitability doesn't mean cutting off routes that support small communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I take Amtrak for relaxing, scenic journeys. I fear ticket prices could rise and limit my travel options in retirement.
- I hope the changes focus on maintaining accessibility for leisure travelers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I currently don't use Amtrak much, but improved service could make it an option for regional travel.
- Sustainable and economical improvements might encourage occasional travel for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 2: $480000000 (Low: $430000000, High: $530000000)
Year 3: $460000000 (Low: $410000000, High: $510000000)
Year 5: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $0, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- Operational shifts could temporarily affect reliability and availability of Amtrak services.
- Potentially sensitive impacts on Amtrak staff and employment levels as profitability measures are implemented.
- Community and environmental impacts from potential route closures or service frequency changes.