Bill Overview
Title: Train Noise and Vibrations Reduction Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Transportation to develop and submit to Congress a report containing recommendations to reduce train noise and vibrations near homes and estimates of the costs and benefits of such recommendations.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: People living near railroad tracks
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill aims to reduce train noise and vibrations, which primarily affect individuals living near railroad tracks.
- Populations in urban and suburban areas with significant rail networks would be particularly impacted.
- The number of people affected globally includes all countries with active rail networks near residential areas, but the focus here is on potential impact in the U.S.
Reasoning
- The policy targets residents living close to train tracks where noise and vibrations are a daily disturbance.
- The estimated population in the U.S. affected by train noise is large, but not all experience high levels of disruption.
- Some residents may not be affected at all due to either living further from tracks or having noise mitigation measures already in place.
- The policy will have greatest impact in dense urban areas where train traffic is frequent and close to homes.
- Budget constraints mean that not all affected communities can be fully served, with priority given to those most impacted.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Train noise makes it difficult for my kids to sleep at night.
- I support the policy as it would improve quality of life.
- I am concerned about how long the implementation will take.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The vibrations from passing trains are annoying.
- This policy sounds beneficial but I'm skeptical about its funding and execution.
- My wellbeing is okay as I have adjusted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Noise is mostly during the day which is manageable since I am retired.
- I support any measures that might improve the situation.
- I hope they prioritize areas with older residents.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The subway noise is part of city life, but less would be better.
- I think it won't affect me much due to a planned move soon.
- I hope it helps locals more.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Factory Worker (Buffalo, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could help my sleep if the noise drops.
- I have doubts about whether it will pass due to competition for funds.
- If it's done right, it could substantially improve local life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Teacher (Rural Iowa)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rarely hear the train and it's not an issue for me.
- I think resources should be directed where the problem is severe.
- This policy doesn't impact me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Civil Engineer (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements have already been made, lessening the noise.
- The policy seems redundant in areas already treated.
- It's good it will help others still affected.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Barista (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Construction noise and future train noise are concerns for us.
- Hoping this policy speeds up soundproofing efforts before trains begin.
- I plan to stay living here, so it matters to me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Trains are a minor annoyance, mainly when on deadlines.
- I think the policy makes sense but doesn't impact my daily life much.
- Improvements might boost property values.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Research Scientist (Boston, MA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Area is still noisy despite ordinances due to heavy train traffic.
- Policy could be very beneficial if it enforces stricter measures.
- Public transport is necessary but it needn't be uncomfortable.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill is focused on providing recommendations rather than implementing changes, so costs are limited to research and reporting.
- The Department of Transportation would need to prioritize this study against its other obligations, which might affect the timeline or scale of the research.