Bill Overview
Title: Bicycles for Rural African Transport Act
Description: The bill requires the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to establish a program to provide bicycles in rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa. The program must focus on providing bicycles to rural communities to promote access to education, health care, and livelihood opportunities.
Sponsors: Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa
Estimated Size: 1000
- The bill focuses on rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa, which contain a significant portion of the global population living in rural areas.
- Sub-Saharan Africa's population is approximately 1.1 billion people, with about 60% living in rural areas, equating to around 660 million people.
- Not all rural individuals will directly receive bicycles, but many will potentially benefit from increased access to services facilitated by bicycles.
- Bicycles will mainly affect those reliant on remote education, healthcare, and economic opportunities, which is a substantial portion of these rural populations.
Reasoning
- Given the policy's focus on sub-Saharan Africa, its impact on U.S. citizens is expected to be indirect and limited mainly to those involved in the bicycle supply chain, administrative roles, or living temporarily in sub-Saharan Africa. Hence, only a fraction of the U.S. population will perceive any changes in their wellbeing connected to this bill.
- The budget constraints indicate a scalable, targeted rollout, potentially affecting a larger portion of the sub-Saharan population over time but with minimal direct effect on the U.S. domestic population.
- We anticipate that most U.S. citizens will experience a 'none' to 'low' impact, given the distant focus of the program.
Simulated Interviews
Bicycle Manufacturer (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might boost our exports which is great for business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
USAID Employee (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a vital program, though it doesn't directly affect my personal life, professionally it's fulfilling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might provide me more opportunities through NGOs.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Logistics Manager (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased exports mean more work for my team and me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my values and enhances overseas humanitarian work.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
NGO Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy can enhance the effectiveness of our projects.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Grad Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Interesting case study for my research, the policy could provide new insights.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Freelancer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It might provide me with more writing opportunities and contribute to my work satisfaction.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Bicycle tech doesn’t relate directly to my projects but nice to see improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Health Policy Analyst (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased with broader health improvements these can bring indirectly.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $145000000 (Low: $115000000, High: $175000000)
Year 3: $140000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $170000000)
Year 5: $135000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $165000000)
Year 10: $130000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $160000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Key Considerations
- The program could set a precedent for further international aid initiatives, impacting future U.S. foreign aid policy.
- The program's success heavily depends on local engagement and user adoption, which can vary significantly across diverse rural communities.
- Monitoring and evaluation frameworks are critical to ensure proper implementation, requiring detailed and adaptable management plans.