Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7902

Bill Overview

Title: Freight RAILCAR Act of 2022

Description: This bill provides a new tax credit through 2024 for 10% of freight railcar fleet modernization expenses (i.e., railcar replacement and modernization expenses for meeting fuel efficiency and performance standards). The bill provides that no more than 2,000 freight railcars per taxpayer may be taken into account for purposes of determining the credit in a taxable year. The Department of the Treasury must report to Congress on the credit to provide information on the number of times the credit was claimed and the number of railcars scrapped or built as a result of the credit.

Sponsors: Rep. Schneider, Bradley Scott [D-IL-10]

Target Audience

Population: People employed in the global freight rail industry

Estimated Size: 220000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Railcar Maintenance Technician (Omaha, Nebraska)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could create more work opportunities for me with modernized railcars needing more specialized maintenance.
  • It helps our industry stay competitive and reduces environmental impact. I hope it leads to job security.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 9 4

Environmental Policy Analyst (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Encouraging railcar modernization is essential for emission reduction. This policy is a step towards sustainable rail transport.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Railcar Manufacturer (Houston, Texas)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • With the cap on railcars, small manufacturers might not benefit as much as larger companies.
  • I worry that only the big players will be able to maximize this tax credit.

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

Railroad Operations Manager (Fort Worth, Texas)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This tax credit could really help us push forward our fleet modernization plans faster.
  • It's a necessary incentive for the industry to reduce our carbon footprint.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 9 4
Year 20 9 4

Retired Railroad Worker (Cheyenne, Wyoming)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support anything that keeps railroads modern and efficient.
  • My friends still working can benefit if this means more stable jobs.

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 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Freight Broker (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If rail companies modernize faster, it might lower freight costs and help my business.
  • Rail can become more competitive with road and air transport.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Transportation Policy Advocate (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 40 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This tax credit is positive for moving towards sustainable rail transport.
  • I would like to see more incentives for passenger rail improvements as well.

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 8 6

Railcar Inspector (Scranton, Pennsylvania)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could require us to learn new inspection techniques for modernized cars, which I find exciting.
  • More high-tech cars mean better safety and efficiency.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 9 3

Automotive Engineer (Detroit, Michigan)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I am not directly impacted, more modern rail transport could reduce road traffic and emissions.
  • This might open collaborations between rail and automotive tech in the future.

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

Supply Chain Manager (Atlanta, Georgia)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A modernized rail fleet might improve supply chain reliability.
  • This isn't directly impactful for my work, but anything that helps freight efficiency is positive.

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 7 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)

Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)

Year 3: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)

Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations