Bill Overview
Title: Bus Rapid 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 bus rapid transit systems, including for the redesign, retrofit, renovation, update, and repair of existing bus systems. As a condition of receiving a grant, eligible entities must certify that fares for riding the bus rapid 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 in urban areas using or planning to use bus rapid transit systems
Estimated Size: 54000000
- Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems are public transportation systems designed to increase efficiency and reduce congestion in cities, potentially impacting those who rely on public transit.
- Populations in urban areas with existing or planned BRT systems would be directly impacted, as these systems are primarily in cities.
- There are estimates of over 7 billion people globally, but given that a significant portion lives in urban areas and has a propensity to use public transit, the target population will be lower.
- The legislation prioritizes economically disadvantaged communities, suggesting a focus on poorer urban areas, which are prevalent globally.
- Globally, it is estimated that approximately 4 billion people live in urban areas, many of whom rely on public transportation, making up the broad target group.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy consists mainly of urban residents who rely on public transit. In the United States, this number is significant, but the policy's direct impact will vary based on proximity to BRT projects, usage patterns, and individual reliance on public transit.
- The policy prioritizes economically disadvantaged communities, so the direct effects will be more pronounced in these areas. This means that some people who live outside of these communities but use transit aren't directly impacted by improvements in their area.
- The policy's budget limitations mean that not all proposed projects can be funded, resulting in selective improvement of urban transit systems. As such, the primary impact will be localized around funded projects.
- The improvement in transit systems might lead to a modest increase in wellbeing, marked by reduced commute times and improved reliability of public transport, while indirect benefits might enhance the wellbeing of the wider community due to reduced congestion.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Worker (New York City, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely heavily on buses to get to work every day. The proposed changes could make my commute faster and more reliable.
- If buses are more frequent and less crowded, it will reduce my stress and give me more personal time.
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 | 7 | 5 |
College Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I usually drive, but I sometimes take the bus to save on gas. Faster buses will make it an even more attractive option.
- I like the idea of prioritizing disadvantaged communities. It's fair and helps close the gap.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Engineer (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm all for public transit improvements, even though I don't use buses daily. Anything that can reduce rush hour traffic is great.
- I might use the bus more often if it's faster and more reliable.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who's on a limited budget, keeping fares the same is really important to me.
- If buses are more frequent and less crowded, it will give me more freedom and control over my daily schedule.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Freelancer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't need to commute every day, but when I do, better transit options will definitely reduce the hassle.
- It's good to see the government investing in making commuting easier for people who need it most.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Medical Assistant (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't rely on buses every day, so the changes probably won't affect me much.
- Investing in public transportation is necessary, even if it's not something I benefit from directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I already have a good lifestyle and public transit doesn't impact me heavily.
- Improved transit means less traffic congestion, which is a plus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been using the bus system for years. It's about time we saw improvements, especially in the poorer areas.
- Stable fares are vital for folk like me who are living paycheck to paycheck.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Graphic Designer (Portland, OR)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bus improvements align with my environmental goals. The prospect of more efficient buses is exciting.
- Public transit investment is vital for sustainable urban living.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've just begun using public transit. Improving it would help me integrate into city life.
- BRT systems would make it easier to travel around the city and connect me with more opportunities.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 3: $2000000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2400000000)
Year 5: $2300000000 (Low: $1800000000, High: $2700000000)
Year 10: $2600000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3200000000)
Year 100: $3000000000 (Low: $2400000000, High: $3600000000)
Key Considerations
- Infrastructure investments typically require long-term commitments and entail risk depending on economic, political, and environmental factors.
- Successful implementation relies on effective coordination between federal, state, local, and tribal governments.
- There are potential barriers to rapid implementation, including community opposition, regulatory issues, and potential logistical hurdles.
- The impact varies widely based on urban density, pre-existing infrastructure, and local governance support.