Bill Overview
Title: Light Rail Transit Act
Description: This bill directs the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to establish a grant program to provide grants to state, local, and tribal governments for the design and implementation of light rail projects, including for the redesign, retrofit, renovation, update, and repair of existing light rail systems. As condition of receiving a grant, eligible entities must certify that fares for riding the light rail transit system shall not increase solely due to improvements carried out with grant funds and for any reason for at least one year after completion of a project funded by the bill. In carrying out the program, the FTA must prioritize projects located in economically disadvantaged communities.
Sponsors: Rep. Bush, Cori [D-MO-1]
Target Audience
Population: People who use or are affected by light rail systems, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill aims to improve light rail systems, impacting commuters who use these transit systems regularly.
- Economically disadvantaged communities will be prioritized for these projects, meaning residents in these areas are a primary target group.
- The improvement and potential expansion of light rail systems may create job opportunities, impacting the unemployed or underemployed individuals.
- Government bodies such as state, local, and tribal will be awarded grants, impacting the officials and departments involved in these projects.
- Environmental impacts may occur as improved or expanded light rail services can reduce the reliance on personal vehicles, affecting a broader population concerned with environmental issues.
Reasoning
- The urban population relying on public transport is vast, but only certain areas will be directly impacted by the policy due to budget and specific targeting of economically disadvantaged areas.
- Many individuals indirectly affected by this policy may not perceive significant changes in their daily lives unless they are frequent light rail users or directly involved in project execution.
- The potential indirect benefits include employment in construction and environmental improvements, which although beneficial, may not drastically alter an individual's reported wellbeing immediately.
- For some individuals, the influence of upgraded light rail systems will only become apparent in the long-term as the systems contribute more significantly to regional mobility and economic opportunity.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on the light rail for daily commuting to work, improvements would be great.
- I hope this won't just mean construction hassle without real benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Unemployed (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potential jobs from light rail projects give me hope.
- I'm worried if local politics might keep these jobs away from residents like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvements to public transport systems is beneficial for the city.
- It's good to see focus on low-income areas—those residents need better services.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I may not directly use light rail, but this should help cut down city traffic.
- It's unlikely to change my life or how I commute significantly.
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 |
City Planner (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy aligns with sustainable city goals.
- Education on benefits must accompany construction to minimize public frustration.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Barista (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Predicting improved rail services would make city life easier.
- Transit disruptions during improvements are a concern for my daily routine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
School Bus Driver (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Light rail improvements are great for the environment and city air quality.
- I worry if taxpayer money is being spent wisely.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Portland, OR)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better rail systems may increase my customer foot traffic and employee satisfaction.
- Influx during construction is a worry, but manageable if handled well.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Social Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding projects in disadvantaged areas is essential -- it's a big win for us.
- Consistent delays in public work projects concern me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanding rail support is crucial for environmental health.
- Public awareness and acceptance will be key challenges.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1800000000, High: $2200000000)
Year 2: $2200000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $2400000000)
Year 3: $2400000000 (Low: $2200000000, High: $2600000000)
Year 5: $2600000000 (Low: $2400000000, High: $2800000000)
Year 10: $2800000000 (Low: $2600000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 100: $3000000000 (Low: $2800000000, High: $3200000000)
Key Considerations
- Project funding must be sustained over extended periods to ensure successful completion and operation.
- Regulatory compliance and environmental assessments may extend timelines and affect costs.
- Federal and local coordination is essential for optimized implementation and resource allocation.
- Monitoring and evaluation of the impact on communities and the environment will be necessary.