Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9204

Bill Overview

Title: Recycled Plastic Asphalt Act

Description: This bill directs the Department of Transportation to develop a research program to review and evaluate the use of recycled plastic modified asphalt mixtures and mixtures using additives derived from recycled plastics.

Sponsors: Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2]

Target Audience

Population: People using or involved in infrastructure projects utilizing recycled plastic asphalt.

Estimated Size: 300000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Construction Company Manager (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm interested in how these new materials could reduce costs and improve our company's environmental footprint.
  • There could be an initial learning curve and equipment costs, but it might pay off in the long-term.

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 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Civil Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could significantly change how we design roads, making them more sustainable.
  • I think it’ll help meet our city's sustainability goals, though it might take years to see the results.

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 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Recycling Plant Operator (Houston, TX)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased demand for recycled plastics could mean more business for us, which is exciting.
  • We might need to upgrade our facilities to handle more production; that’s a significant investment.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Truck Driver (Miami, FL)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Better roads could mean fewer repairs and accidents, which is good for my line of work.
  • I hope this leads to smoother roads but remains cost-effective for taxpayers.

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 7 5

Environmental Advocate (Seattle, WA)

Age: 46 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Using recycled materials is a step in the right direction for environmental sustainability.
  • I'm supportive but cautious; we need to ensure that the new materials don't introduce other environmental issues.

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 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Asphalt Mixture Researcher (Chicago, IL)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 1/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could broaden my research field and open up new funding opportunities.
  • It's an exciting time for innovation in road materials; the environmental impact prospect is positive.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

City Planner (New Orleans, LA)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Adopting new road materials can enhance city planning outcomes environmentally.
  • There might be initial hurdles in public acceptance and adaptation to new materials.

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 8 7

State Transportation Official (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The cost and longevity benefits of these materials could be substantial for our state budget.
  • We need to ensure quality standards with these materials are maintained.

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 8 6

Environmental Science Graduate Student (New York, NY)

Age: 24 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy aligns well with my research interests in eliminating plastic waste.
  • However, we need to carefully consider the lifecycle impacts of the new materials.

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 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Retired Highway Engineer (Raleigh, NC)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Innovations in road materials are essential, I support this bill.
  • We should consider both long-term benefits and any unforeseen issues it might bring.

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 8 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)

Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $16000000)

Year 3: $13000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)

Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)

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

Key Considerations