Bill Overview
Title: Passenger Rail Station Security Report Act
Description: This bill directs the Transportation Security Administration to submit a report to Congress on counterterrorism security at the five largest passenger rails stations by annual ridership and a representative sample of eight other-sized passenger rail stations. The report must contain (1) an analysis of the effectiveness of counterterrorism measures implemented in each passenger rail station to include prevention systems; (2) a description of any actions directed as a result of the analysis; (3) recommendations for passenger rail station owners and operators, and state and local transportation entities to improve counterterrorism measures; and (4) proposals for legislative actions and funding needed to improve counterterrorism measures.
Sponsors: Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
Target Audience
Population: People commuting or traveling via passenger rail globally
Estimated Size: 32000000
- The bill focuses on counterterrorism measures at passenger rail stations, indicating the primary impacted population is rail passengers.
- The focus on the five largest and eight other-sized passenger rail stations suggests a significant focus on high-traffic areas.
- Passengers, staff, and potentially nearby communities of these large rail stations could be impacted.
- Improvements in security measures would directly impact all rail travelers using these stations, likely leading to increased safety and potentially influencing travel behavior.
- While the bill primarily targets U.S. rail stations, international travelers using these stations would also be affected.
Reasoning
- The policy targets improvements in counterterrorism measures at significant rail stations, directly impacting daily commuters and casual travelers who rely on passenger rail transport.
- Urban areas with high rail traffic will see more implications, while rural areas might not notice much change, allowing for a varied sample of perspectives.
- The budget constraint suggests focused implementations rather than broad nationwide changes, emphasizing major rail hubs.
- Understanding changes in subjective wellbeing scores requires examining perceived security improvements alongside potential inconveniences of increased security procedures.
- The direct impact on rail passengers will vary by frequency of travel, relevance to their daily routine, and personal attitudes towards security measures in public transit.
Simulated Interviews
Media Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I definitely feel safer knowing there will be better security measures.
- I hope it doesn't mean longer delays or heavier policing.
- Safety is essential, but I do wonder if the resources could have been utilized on more frequent issues causing insecurity, like maintenance or cleanliness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
IT Specialist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased security sounds good.
- I rarely use the rail, so it might not affect me as much.
- Hope it prevents potential threats and doesn't add unnecessary stress.
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 |
Teacher (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security improvements are always welcome if they are thoughtful.
- I hope this doesn't mean excessive screenings like at airports.
- As long as the well-being and privacy of travelers are considered, I am supportive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If it's making travel safer, that's great, but I hope tickets don't become more expensive.
- I'm concerned about how this might affect travel times with additional screenings.
- If executed well, it could improve my trust in public transport.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel pretty safe as it is, but more security can't hurt if it doesn't slow things down.
- Hope the measures are clearly communicated and executed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who studies policy, I've seen how crucial security is in high-transit areas.
- This policy better addresses prevention rather than just reaction to threats.
- Positive measure, but assessing cost-benefit is essential to ensure it's a wise use of funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Freelance Photographer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety is important, and I'd rather it doesn't compromise the flexibility and ease of travel.
- Interesting that they are proposing legislative actions as part of findings.
- Could lead to positive changes if done without causing hassle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've always thought rail security was lacking compared to airports, so this is a welcome change.
- Just hope it doesn't complicate travel more than necessary with over-the-top measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retiree (Miami, FL)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security is crucial, especially in these unpredictable times.
- Hopefully policies like this don't mean too much waiting around.
- Would love to see recommendations that help integrate technology efficiently.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Construction Manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better security could definitely improve the image of rail travel.
- I support it as long as it's cost-effective and not purely performative.
- The report might bring up interesting points on balance between safety and convenience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 3: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $750000)
Year 5: $200000 (Low: $100000, High: $300000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Assumes TSA can utilize existing resources for a majority of the assessment and report development with minimal need for additional allocations.
- The recommendations part of the report could entail further costs if legislative actions are undertaken.
- Coordinate findings with state and local governments could require time and bureaucratic negotiation.