Bill Overview
Title: Reliable Rail Service Act
Description: This bill revises freight rail transportation policy to require rail carriers to provide transportation or service in a manner that meets the shipper's need for timely, efficient, and reliable rail service and fulfills the shipper's reasonable service requirements. It also establishes specific criteria for the Surface Transportation Board to consider when determining whether a rail carrier has violated its obligations under the policy.
Sponsors: Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on goods transported via freight rail
Estimated Size: 200000000
- The bill focuses on freight rail transportation policies, which affect industries that rely on rail to ship goods.
- Various sectors like agriculture, manufacturing, and retail rely on rail transport for distribution and supply chain activities.
- Improvement in rail service reliability can lead to economic benefits for industries by optimizing their logistics and reducing delays.
- Changes in freight rail policies can also indirectly affect consumers through potential changes in product availability or prices.
Reasoning
- The Reliable Rail Service Act primarily impacts those engaged in industries that utilize freight rail for transporting goods, especially in sectors like agriculture, manufacturing, and retail.
- Given the budget constraints and scale of the targeted population, the policy would likely lead to varying degrees of enhancements in rail service dependability, thus directly benefiting some businesses more than others.
- There's a secondary impact on consumers potentially experiencing changes in prices or availability of goods, albeit less directly.
- The policy's effectiveness would correlate with improvements in efficiency and reliability, which could manifest as increased economic activities and reduced delays in logistics.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvement in rail services can significantly reduce delays I face in getting my produce to markets.
- Better rail reliability could lower my transportation costs.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Automotive Supply Chain Manager (Michigan)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Freight rail bottlenecks currently hamper our operations, affecting timely product delivery.
- If resolved, this policy might streamline our supply chains and reduce costs.
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 |
Retail Store Owner (Illinois)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced rail service reliability can ensure consistent inventory levels at my stores.
- I expect minimized disruptions in the supply chain with this policy.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Consumer Goods Distributor (California)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvement in freight reliability would directly benefit our company's operations.
- Faster shipments could enhance our competitiveness in the market.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Steel Mill Operations Manager (Ohio)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The unreliability of rail freight has posed significant logistical challenges.
- I hope this policy addresses these issues as it's crucial for our operational efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Energy Sector Analyst (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better freight services could optimize the energy supply chain.
- The reliability of rail transport is essential for timely delivery of parts and materials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Food Processing Plant Supervisor (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving rail service reliability could significantly boost our plant's productivity.
- Frequent delays hold back production and impact inventory levels negatively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Chemical Plant Manager (Georgia)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The current state of rail services significantly impacts our bottom line.
- I believe this policy could alleviate some logistical issues we've faced for years.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Agricultural Equipment Distributor (North Dakota)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our distribution timelines hinge on rail transport efficiency.
- I expect this policy could help mitigate the occasional delays we face.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired, Former Logistics Manager (Missouri)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potential in the policy to enhance efficiency in freight services.
- However, it must be implemented robustly to see tangible results.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Key Considerations
- Impact on current rail infrastructure and needed updates for compliance.
- Potential economic ripple effects on industries that are heavily reliant on rail transport.
- Costs associated with regulatory compliance and administrative measures for monitoring.
- Long-term economic benefits versus short-term implementation costs.