Bill Overview
Title: Transportation Assistance for Olympic Cities Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes through FY2034 the Department of Transportation (DOT) to prioritize providing grants for surface transportation projects relating to international Olympic, Paralympic, and Special Olympics events, including for temporary facilities, equipment, operations, and maintenance that meet the extraordinary needs associated with hosting such events. DOT must take all reasonable efforts to provide assistance for such events, including by developing intermodal transportation plans and expediting federal review of requests with regards to the events. Authority under the bill to provide grants and assistance terminates on September 30, 2034.
Sponsors: Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26]
Target Audience
Population: People visiting or residing in cities hosting Olympic, Paralympic, and Special Olympic events
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill targets cities hosting international Olympic, Paralympic, and Special Olympic events, which occur every few years and involve multiple countries.
- These events attract a large number of international visitors, including athletes, coaches, sporting officials, tourists, and media from around the world.
- Transportation infrastructure improvements funded by the bill will facilitate movement for both local and visiting populations.
- The Olympic Games typically involve thousands of participants and millions of tourists globally.
- Host cities will experience increased demand on transportation services during the events.
Reasoning
- The policy provides grants for transportation improvements related to large-scale international events, which are infrequent but intense in their demand for infrastructure.
- Citizens most affected include those living in host cities, participants attending events, and those who work in transportation-dependent roles.
- Los Angeles is a high-impact city due to hosting the 2028 Olympics, necessitating targeted investment.
- Immediate effects will be on local infrastructure development, easing congestion, and improving logistics around event times, but longer-term benefits include sustained transport improvements.
- Cost constraints mean not all cities can benefit, and funds will focus on areas demonstrating the most need during event times.
Simulated Interviews
Public Transport Planner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this grant will significantly improve our infrastructure.
- We were struggling with outdated systems, and this seems like the perfect opportunity to upgrade.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic that better transport will mean more customers.
- I worry about construction disruptions, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited that locations hosting events might be easier to travel to with better public transport.
- I don't see direct benefits unless NYC hosts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Retired (Denver, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm happy for Los Angeles but wish more cities could benefit.
- We likely won't see direct effects here.
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 |
Taxi Driver (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more fares, but construction might hurt business temporarily.
- Overall, the improvements should be good for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Hotel Manager (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These improvements might help future opportunities in SLC if we host again.
- Immediate impacts are negligible.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Event Coordinator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If Chicago ever bids and wins, this will be crucial.
- Right now, it's only indirectly relevant.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about construction affecting commutes.
- If managed well, post-construction will be beneficial.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Civil Engineer (Boston, MA)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Great opportunity for cities currently hosting.
- Would advise careful planning to manage costs.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Sports Journalist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Looking forward to covering the games; transport improvements are essential.
- Hopeful overall but cautious about disruptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 3: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 5: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The total cost will largely depend on the number and types of transportation projects funded, which can vary greatly by host city and event size.
- Upcoming events such as the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles need focused planning and funding, which may lead to variable spending in different years.
- Environmental and social impacts of transportation projects and expedited approvals should be closely monitored.