Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9581

Bill Overview

Title: Short Line Railroad Relief Act

Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Transportation to provide grants or enter into contracts and other agreements for capital projects to protect, repair, reconstruct, or replace short line railroad equipment and facilities in danger of suffering catastrophic damage, or that has suffered catastrophic damage, as a result of an emergency.

Sponsors: Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]

Target Audience

Population: People involved with or dependent on short line railroads

Estimated Size: 3000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Short Line Railroad Engineer (Rural Ohio)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will secure my job and ensure the railroad can continue functioning without interruption.
  • Without the railroad, our community would face economic hardships.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Farmer (Kansas)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is a relief as it will support transportation for our grains.
  • If the railroad fails, it would drastically affect our income due to increased transportation costs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired (Alabama)

Age: 59 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Although I'm retired, I think the policy indirectly supports retirees by stabilizing local businesses.
  • My children and grandchildren will benefit from this policy if the community's economy is stable.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Tech Company Employee (Urban New York)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy isn't directly relevant to my life as I don't use or interact with freight railroads.
  • I'm aware of them but they don't impact my day-to-day life.

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

Short Line Railroad Maintenance Worker (Texas)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy ensures job security since it will fund much-needed repairs and innovations.
  • I feel more secure about future infrastructure improvements.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Small Business Owner (Pennsylvania)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is essential for ensuring the survival of many local businesses like mine.
  • Timely train shipments are crucial for order fulfillment and customer satisfaction.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Freight Company Manager (California)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy offers logistic stability and can lower potential transport costs.
  • Given the importance of short line rail in our supply chain, this will have a positive outcome.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Transportation Policy Analyst (Montana)

Age: 31 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy demonstrates a valuable investment in less-visible but critical infrastructure.
  • Long-term impact will stabilize rural economies.

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 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Community Center Director (Georgia)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Even though the policy is not directly impactful yet, it provides confidence for future job stability for our youth.
  • Infrastructure stability is vital for community programs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Agricultural Equipment Operator (North Dakota)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy helps assure timely delivery of crucial equipment for us, which reduces downtime.
  • Agriculture here depends on consistent transport links.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Key Considerations