Browsing by Subject "Public opinion"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessing Neighborhood and Social Influences of Transit Corridors
    (Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2012-07) Fan, Yingling; Guthrie, Andrew
    This research investigates neighborhood and social influences of major transit improvements in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. To delineate a comprehensive picture, this research focuses on four transit corridors—Hiawatha LRT, NorthStar Commuter Rail, Cedar Avenue BRT, and Central Corridor LRT—each of which is at a different stage of planning, construction, or operation. The project undertakes a general quantification of neighborhood social change in transit served areas. For each corridor, the researchers also investigate inter-neighborhood and inter-corridor variations in social change, and examine residents' and business owners' perceptions of neighborhood social change, as well as of the specific impacts of transit corridors. A mix of quantitative analysis and survey research is used. By examining a wide range of system development stages including planning, construction, and operation, research findings will help policy makers determine at what point in the timelines of major transit capital projects policy responses are needed and likely to be most effective. By covering a variety of transit technologies including LRT, BRT and Commuter Rail, as well as a diverse range of urban and suburban neighborhoods, results from this research will help policy makers make more informed decisions about how to prevent and mitigate socially harmful neighborhood changes associated with various types of transitways. The research also presents strategies for engaging residents and businesses with negative, neutral and positive perceptions of transit projects in the transitway development process.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Identifying Issues Related to Deployment of Automated Speed Enforcement
    (Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2012-07) Douma, Frank; Munnich, Lee; Loveland, Joe; Garry, Thomas
    Automated speed enforcement (ASE) has been shown to be one of the most effective strategies for reducing speeding by vehicles and improving road safety. However, the perception that ASE is unpopular and controversial has limited its use by policymakers in the United States. This report investigates whether this perception is justified in Minnesota by conducting a public opinion survey of Minnesota residents about their views of ASE. In light of the survey results, the report then examines the legal and related political obstacles for deploying ASE in Minnesota, and outlines a strategy for moving forward with ASE in Minnesota in select areas.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Public Comment Form about Mining in the Lake Superior Basin
    (2013-12) Lake Superior Binational Program
    This is a 291-page raw data summary of comments downloaded from Survey Monkey, and published on the LSBF website. The pdf is undated. The LSBF website contains a short article about the survey, noting that the survey was open for public commentary from March 15 to July 31 2013, and that nearly 1,600 individuals provided comments. There were 45 questions posed to respondents. Some key findings relevant to mining and water resources are extracted and reproduced below. “When asked if there should be specific criteria to prohibit mining activities in environmentally or culturally sensitive areas, 64.9 % said yes, 18.8% said mining should not be restricted in any areas. “When asked ‘Which of the following statements best describes your opinion about mining operations in the Lake Superior basin?’ the most picked response was ‘I do not support any new mines in the Lake Superior basin,’ (38.8% response rate) followed by ‘I support mining operations that can be done using proven responsible management practices that minimize environmental damages’ (25.8% response rate). “When asked is there should there be a moratorium on new mining activity in the Lake Superior basin until it can be proven that new mines won’t pollute surface and groundwater, 63.4% said yes, and 31.8% said no.” Among other results, 68% felt that mining should be restricted in areas where culturally significant food is harvested or grown. 76% felt that mining should be restricted where wetlands have international significance or in locations with endangered plants or animals. 70% felt that mining should be restricted in areas with historic importance. 96% disagreed that taxpayers should pay for clean-up and restoration of damages; while 95% felt that mining companies should pay for these costs. 91% felt that open public meetings should be held to inform the public about mining company compliance. 89% want disclosure of chemicals used in the mining process.”
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Vox Populi Vox Curiae: public opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court
    (2014-08) Bryan, Amanda Clare
    Chapter 1: Public Opinion and Counter-Attitudinal Voting.For decades, Supreme Court scholars have asked whether the Court is responsive to public opinion. Despite the importance of this question, however, unsettled and often contradictory theory combined with several empirical barriers have prevented scholars from answering it. This paper takes both theoretical and methodological steps to resolve this debate and argues that there is a direct relationship between public opinion and the choices justices make. Specifically I examine the conditions under which justices deviate from their ideologies to cast votes in line with the majority will. I find that justice are generally constrained by public opinion. However, the level of that constraint is conditional on the political environment. In short, justices are most responsive to public opinion when specific support is critical -- when they expect the probability their decision will be reversed or ignored to be high.Chapter 2: Public Opinion and Setting the Agenda When the U.S. Supreme Court decides which cases to hear it weighs a number of legal and policy considerations. While scholars understand a great deal about how each of these considerations factor into a justice's decision to grant a case, each term the Court faces this same set of considerations in hundreds of issue areas. Much less is understood about why the Court chooses to hear some issues and reject others. Adding to this literature, I argue that justices choose cases with public opinion in mind. Using a novel issue-specific and justice-specific measure of likely divergence from public opinion, I argue justices are forward-looking and select cases in which they are least likely to face pressure from public opinion to deviate from their ideological preferences at the merits stage. However, the relationship between public opinion and agenda setting is not direct. Rather, it is conditioned on the level of diffuse support the Court enjoys and the legal importance of the case. I also present some of the first systematic evidence that the Court is responsive to public issue salience when deciding what to decide.Chapter 3: Public Opinion and Stare Decisis.The U.S. Supreme Court, through the norm of stare decisis is responsible for setting the direction of the rule of law in the United States. However, to date the exploration of the Court's use of precedent in the literature has focused on internal ideological and institutional explanations, largely ignoring the potential for external constraint. Taking a step away from the traditional formulation of the Court's use of precedent, I explore the role of public opinion on the Court's treatment of its own precedent over time and in its majority opinions. I find no effect of public opinion on the decision to treat precedent even when conditioning the effect on the salience of the treated case, the Court's level of diffuse support, nor the level of threat posed by Congress. In short, while justices may be highly responsive to public opinion in the more conspicuous aspects of its decision-making, they seem to largely ignore public opinion when applying or creating legal rules.