Bill Overview
Title: To amend title 49, United States Code, to limit the preference for Amtrak using rail lines, junctions, and crossings near ports and rail yards, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill limits Amtrak's preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing if such rail line, junction, or crossing is located within 50 miles of a port or rail yard. The Department of Transportation may issue regulations to continue the preference waiver if necessary.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals using rail transportation services near ports and rail yards
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill impacts those who use Amtrak services, as it addresses how Amtrak's access to rail lines, junctions, and crossings is prioritized.
- Freight transportation companies will be affected as they may have increased access to rail lines near ports and rail yards, potentially improving their efficiency.
- Ports and rail yards are critical logistics hubs, and the change could affect operations related to freight, enhancing throughput capabilities.
- The bill impacts regional economic ecosystems dependent on rail transport logistical efficiency.
- Residents and businesses within 50 miles of ports or rail yards may experience changes in rail service priorities, potentially affecting local commerce.
Reasoning
- The allocation of the budget suggests that the policy is intended to make targeted improvements in rail logistics and passenger services without disrupting operations significantly. This should lead to modest but noticeable impacts for certain users over time.
- Freight companies will likely see improved efficiency due to increased access, potentially lowering costs which could, in theory, be passed down the supply chain. Primary beneficiaries are businesses reliant on prompt freight services.
- Amtrak users might experience varying effects; some could face reduced punctuality near the areas affected, while others may see little change if freight timing is well managed.
- The broader economic impact could be more pronounced in areas where freight logistics are a cornerstone of economic activity. However, increased efficiency in freight might see longer-term benefits through economic growth in these regions.
- Considering commonness, businesses and residents in harbor cities (such as Long Beach or New Jersey) might be disproportionately represented compared to areas where impacts are negligible. Further, those whose wellbeing is tied more closely to efficient freight operations will feel more directly impacted.
Simulated Interviews
Logistics Manager (Newark, NJ)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The changes will be positive for our operations if rail freight can be streamlined near the port.
- I don't use Amtrak very often, so changes there don't concern me much.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Port Worker (Long Beach, CA)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Faster freight lines might mean more work for us, that's beneficial.
- Amtrak's service levels changing doesn't directly impact me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Amtrak Passenger (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about delays on my daily commute if Amtrak is deprioritized.
- Freight needs are important, but passenger services should not suffer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficient freight operation can reduce logistics costs for my business.
- I rarely use Amtrak, so I won't feel the passenger impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Seattle, WA)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I enjoy the relaxing Amtrak journeys; I hope this doesn't mean frequent delays.
- Freight trains should be faster, but not at the passenger's expense.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Freight Broker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is great for my work; easier freight access improves my job prospects.
- I don't have any specific insights on Amtrak's service issues personally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Community Planner (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill will require careful planning to ensure community needs aren't neglected.
- We might benefit from smoother freight timings without impacting passengers severely.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Non-Profit Director (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Amtrak services are crucial for accessibility, and any reduction in service can hurt marginalized communities.
- Freight efficiencies are important, but social impacts must be addressed.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Oakland, CA)
Age: 43 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved freight operations could reduce environmental impacts if done sustainably.
- It's vital to prioritize sustainable and integrated urban transport systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
School Teacher (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Amtrak needs to maintain service levels for those who rely on it, like during family visits.
- Freight progress shouldn't compromise passenger rail, as many depend on it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $3200000, High: $7200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $3400000, High: $7400000)
Year 5: $6000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $8000000)
Year 10: $6500000 (Low: $4500000, High: $8500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The extent of rail congestion near ports and the potential economic benefits of easing this congestion.
- Balancing the needs of passenger rail services with freight logistics optimizations.
- Potential opposition from Amtrak and passenger rail advocates concerned about service reductions.
- The regulatory burden placed on the Department of Transportation to ensure an effective preference system.
- Impact on local economies heavily dependent on either passenger rail or freight logistics.