Bill Overview
Title: Erie Canalway National Heritage Reauthorization Act
Description: This bill increases the maximum amount of funding that may be authorized for the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor in the state of New York and extends the authority of the Department of the Interior to provide financial assistance for the corridor through FY2037.
Sponsors: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor reauthorization
Estimated Size: 800000
- The Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor is located in New York.
- This corridor is a significant cultural and historical area; therefore, it will likely impact people interested in heritage and those living in the area.
- The reauthorization and increased funding are expected to benefit local communities through tourism and conservation efforts.
- The funding extension to FY2037 suggests long-term benefits for those involved in maintaining, operating, and visiting the corridor.
Reasoning
- Considered the location-specific nature of the policy, focusing primarily on individuals from New York.
- Included a mix of demographics reflective of the impacted communities, such as local residents, business owners, and conservationists.
- Balanced the impact levels among those directly affected versus those minimally impacted due to less involvement with the corridor.
- Accounted for the long-term nature of the policy in the wellbeing scores, emphasizing gradual improvements over time.
Simulated Interviews
Tourism Office Manager (Albany, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will boost local tourism, which is vital for our economy.
- I'm optimistic about the financial support for historical preservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Local Historian (Syracuse, NY)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding will greatly aid in preserving the canal's history.
- I'm concerned about ongoing maintenance without this funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Restaurant Owner (Buffalo, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased tourism could bring more customers to my restaurant.
- I'm hopeful but cautious given past fluctuations in local economy.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Rochester, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More funding for conservation is beneficial.
- This policy helps secure future sustainability projects I am part of.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired (Utica, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This helps preserve our cultural heritage.
- The funding ensures our legacy continues.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Travel Blogger (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New funding means more content opportunities.
- I'm excited for more community engagement through travel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Schenectady, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There will be more jobs with increased funding.
- Our work will have lasting impacts.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (Troy, NY)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is great for educational programs.
- I'm pleased students will benefit from enhanced experiences.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Volunteer Coordinator (Rochester, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More funding means better resources for our work.
- I'm passionate about the positive change this brings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Buffalo, NY)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased funding will bring more business.
- I'm hopeful this will improve our tourism sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4500000, High: $5500000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4500000, High: $5500000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $4500000, High: $5500000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4500000, High: $5500000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $4500000, High: $5500000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4500000, High: $5500000)
Key Considerations
- The corridor's potential for boosting local economies through tourism.
- Long-term financial support aids local conservation efforts and historical preservation.
- The broader economic benefits such as employment and tax revenue from increased funding.
- Cultural heritage significance and public engagement are essential for the continued funding impact.