DOCSLIB.ORG

Travel Behavior: Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity August 2017 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Travel Behavior: Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity August 2017 6 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Shared Mobility Primer | 2 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. PL-18-007 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Travel Behavior: Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity August 2017 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report Susan Shaheen (UC Berkeley), Corwin Bell (UC Berkeley), Adam No. Cohen (UC Berkeley), Balaji Yelchuru (Booz Allen Hamilton) 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. 11. Contract or Grant No. 20 M St. SE, Suite 1000 DTFH61-13-D-00013 Washington, DC 20003 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Office of Policy & Governmental Affairs Covered Federal Highway Administration August 2016 – August 2017 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC 20590 HOTM 15. Supplementary Notes The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) was Heather Rose and Technical Support was Jasmy Methipara. 16. Abstract Shared mobility—the shared use of a motor vehicle, bicycle, or other low-speed transportation mode that allows users to obtain short-term access to transportation on an as-needed basis—has the potential to help address some transportation equity challenges. In an effort to categorize the myriad of transportation equity barriers facing transportation system users, this primer proposes a ‘STEPS to Transportation Equity’ framework including: Spatial, Temporal, Economic, Physiological, and Social barriers. For each barrier category, shared mobility opportunities and challenges are explored along with policy recommendations. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Shared Mobility, Transportation Equity Framework, No restrictions. Shared Mobility Subsidies, Planning, Carsharing, Bikesharing, Ridesharing, Ridesourcing 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 66 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. Shared Mobility Primer | 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FHWA would like to thank the eleven subject matter experts from the private, public, and non- profit sectors who participated in discussions on shared mobility and equity. Their input was instrumental in guiding the creation of this document. Shared Mobility Primer | 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................11 WHAT IS SHARED MOBILITY?....................................................................................................................13 SHARED MOBILITY IN THE CONTEXT OF TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ...........................................14 CHAPTER 2. SHARED MOBILITY USERS ..................................................................16 WHO USES SHARED MOBILITY? ................................................................................................................16 WHO IS NOT USING SHARED MOBILITY AND WHY? ............................................................................18 GEOGRAPHIC PLACEMENT .........................................................................................................................18 UNBANKED .....................................................................................................................................................19 SOCIAL BARRIERS ........................................................................................................................................19 DIGITAL DIVIDE ............................................................................................................................................20 CHAPTER 3. OPPORTUNITIES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED ......21 BARRIERS TO ACCESS AND USE ...............................................................................................................22 SPATIAL ...........................................................................................................................................................23 BARRIER DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................................23 SHARED MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES ..................................................................24 POLICY OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................................................................27 TEMPORAL ......................................................................................................................................................28 BARRIER DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................................28 SHARED MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES ..................................................................28 POLICY OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................................................................30 ECONOMIC ......................................................................................................................................................30 BARRIER DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................................30 SHARED MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES ..................................................................31 POLICY OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................................................................34 PHYSIOLOGICAL ...........................................................................................................................................34 Shared Mobility Primer | 5 BARRIER DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................................34 SHARED MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES ..................................................................36 POLICY OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................................................................38 SOCIAL .............................................................................................................................................................40 BARRIER DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................................40 SHARED MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES ..................................................................40 POLICY OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................................................................43 GOVERNMENT ROLE ....................................................................................................................................44 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND PARTNERSHIP FACILITATION...........................................................45 FUNDING .........................................................................................................................................................46 REGULATION/LEGISLATION ......................................................................................................................46 DATA AND METRICS ....................................................................................................................................47 POTENTIAL AREAS FOR NEEDED RESEARCH ........................................................................................48 USER DEMOGRAPHICS.................................................................................................................................48 IMPACT OF SHARED MOBILITY PARTNERSHIPS ...................................................................................49 POLICY BARRIERS ........................................................................................................................................49 CHAPTER 4. KEY STUDY TAKEAWAYS.....................................................................50
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2003 Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K. Neumann Jr. Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Richard K. Neumann Jr., Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally?, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 375 (2003) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/153 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR.* On December 9, 2000, the United States Supreme Court stayed the presidential election litigation in the Florida courts and set oral argument for December 11.1 On the morning of December 12-one day after oral argument and half a day before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore2-the Wall Street Journalpublished a front-page story that included the following: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 76 years old, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70, both lifelong Republicans, have at times privately talked about retiring and would prefer that a Republican appoint their successors.... Justice O'Connor, a cancer survivor, has privately let it be known that, after 20 years on the high court,'she wants to retire to her home state of Arizona ...
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Guidelines
    GUIDANCE ON PREPARING WORKPLACES FOR COVID-19 TRANSPORTATION 1 The transportation and warehousing sector includes industries providing transportation of passengers and cargo, scenic and sightseeing transportation, and support activities related to modes of transportation. Wisconsin has more than 117,000 workers and 6,600 businesses in this sector, all working to keep the state’s economy moving. As many people stay safe at home, COVID-19 has significantly affected public transportation services such as ride sharing, taxi services, buses and air transportation. The nature of these services makes it difficult to practice social distancing. Trucking and rail industries have also been affected, but with a distinct difference between those that work in essential versus nonessential industries. Nonessential commercial transport is not allowed under the Safer at Home Order. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation is providing additional permits to truckers, adding rest areas, and relaxing weight and driver hour restrictions to aid the delivery of crucial food, medical supplies and other supplies during the pandemic. The guidelines contained in this document can help protect safety and maintain operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, please see the “General Guidance for All Businesses” document for guidance that applies to all industries and consult the other available industry guides as relevant for your specific business type. Recommendations for Transportation Employee health and hygiene Personal protective equipment (PPE) and cloth face coverings Employees who have a fever or other symptoms of COVID-19 should not be allowed to work. Develop a plan to have sufficient PPE on hand for both Emphasize effective hand hygiene, including washing routine operations and emergencies (for example, offering an hands for at least 20 seconds, especially before ill employee or customer a face mask until they can leave the preparing or eating food; after going to the bathroom; workplace).
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Analysis of Fixed Route Shared Taxi Services (Jitney) - Case Study of Tehran, Iran
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Performance Analysis of Fixed Route Shared Taxi Services (Jitney) - Case Study of Tehran, Iran Ataeian, Shervin and Mostafavi, Alireza and Nabiloo, Roya Department of Industrial Engineering, Urmia University, West Azarbaijan, Iran, Department of Transportation Planning, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran, School of Civil Engineering, Department of Transportation Planning, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran March 2020 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99871/ MPRA Paper No. 99871, posted 27 Apr 2020 06:21 UTC Computational Research Progress in Applied Science & Engineering ISSN 2423-4591 CRPASE Vol. 06(01), 52-59, March 2020 Performance Analysis of Fixed Route Shared Taxi Services (Jitney) - Case Study of Tehran, Iran Shervin Ataeiana, Alireza Mostafavib, Roya Nabilooc a Department of Industrial Engineering, Urmia University, West Azarbaijan, Iran b Department of Transportation Planning, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran c School of Civil Engineering, Department of Transportation Planning, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran Keywords Abstract Fixed Route Shared Taxi, The fixed route shared taxi, known as Jitney, is one of the common modes in paratransit Jitney, services and covers a significant proportion of daily trips in some developing countries, Paratransit, including Iran. Such system, despite its disadvantages to transportation networks, has always Performance Analysis, been the most feasible solution to overcome the shortcoming in public transit supply. As a Performance Index, result, it has formed users’ travel habits over the decades. Therefore, it is not possible to Decision Criteria. remove or replace Jitney lines with standard services suddenly but gradually.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting of the Livable Roadways Committee Hillsborough County MPO Chairman Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 9:00 AM
    Commissioner Lesley “Les” Miller, Jr. Meeting of the Livable Roadways Committee Hillsborough County MPO Chairman Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 9:00 AM Councilman Harry Cohen City of Tampa MPO Vice Chairman I. Call to Order Paul Anderson Tampa Port Authority II. Public Comment - 3 minutes per speaker, please Wallace Bowers HART III. Approval of Minutes – March 22, 2017 Trent Green IV. Action Items Planning Commission Commissioner Ken Hagan A. Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Update Hillsborough County th Commissioner Pat Kemp B. TIP Amendments (34 St., SR 674) Hillsborough County V. Status Reports Mayor Kim Leinbach Temple Terrace A. “Getting to School” Survey Results (Patti Simmons, SDHC) Joe Lopano Hillsborough County B. City of Tampa Livable Projects– Downtown Curb Extension Project, Aviation Authority Mayor Rick A Lott Laurel Sreet & Doyle Carlton Drive Intersection and Bayshore Blvd City of Plant City Councilman Buffered Bike Lanes and Traffic Calming (Cal Hardie, City of Tampa staff) Guido Maniscalco City of Tampa C. Plant City Walk-Bike Plan Update (Wade Reynolds, MPO staff) Commissioner Sandra Murman VI. Old Business & New Business Hillsborough County Cindy Stuart A. MPO Regional Coordination Structure Research & Best Practices Study Hillsborough County School Board (Beth Alden, MPO Executive Director) Councilman Luis Viera City of Tampa B. Hillsborough County has opened up a comment period for several of their Joseph Waggoner Public Works and Public Utilities Technical Manuals until May 31. Link Expressway Authority Commissioner HCFLGov.net/en/businesses/land-development/technical-publications Stacy R. White Hillsborough County VII. Adjournment Beth Alden, AICP Executive Director VIII. Addendum A. MPO Committee Report B.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Citizen Journalists: Why Congress Should Adopt a Broad Federal Shield Law
    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Protecting Citizen Journalists: Why Congress Should Adopt a Broad Federal Shield Law Stephanie B. Turner* INTRODUCTION On August 1, 20o6, a federal district judge sent Josh Wolf, a freelance video journalist and blogger, to prison.' Wolf, a recent college graduate who did not work for a mainstream media organization at the time, captured video footage of an anti-capitalist protest in California and posted portions of the video on his blog.2 As part of an investigation into charges against protestors whose identi- ties were unknown, federal prosecutors subpoenaed Wolf to testify before a grand jury and to hand over the unpublished portions of his video.' Wolf re- fused to comply with the subpoena, arguing that the First Amendment allows journalists to shield their newsgathering materials.4 The judge disagreed, and, as * Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2012; Barnard College, B.A. 2009. Thank you to Adam Cohen for inspiration; to Emily Bazelon, Patrick Moroney, Natane Single- ton, and the participants of the Yale Law Journal-Yale Law & Policy Review student scholarship workshop for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts; and to Rebecca Kraus and the editors of the Yale Law & Policy Review for their careful editing. 1. See Order Finding Witness Joshua Wolf in Civil Contempt and Ordering Con- finement at 2, In re Grand Jury Proceedings to Joshua Wolf, No. CR 06-90064 WHA (N.D. Cal. 2006); Jesse McKinley, Blogger Jailed After Defying Court Orders, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 2, 2006, at A15. 2. For a detailed description of the facts of this case, see Anthony L.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit
    Different School’s of Thoughts Car Oriented Approach Public Oriented Approach Spaced Required for same amount of Passenger Based on Avg. occupancy 1.6 Passengers/Vehicle BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) SYSTEM BRT Features for Effective Implementation • Exclusive bus lanes • Traffic signal priority for buses • Smart fare collection system that speeds up the boarding process • Same-level boarding platform and bus floor • Effective, clearly designated off-street facilities to handle increased numbers of buses in the central business district • Hierarchical system of services • Supportive land use policy BRTS Around the Globe Source: Embarq Need of Integration • For due patronage to Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) in terms of ridership • For door-to-door service • For reduction in travel time • To decrease the out pocket cost • Providing services to new areas or new communities and to more people • To enhance comfort level and safety to commuters & to eliminate wasteful duplication • To increase the desirable modal share • To provide better service to existing and future demand BRT System with Modal Integration (e.g. Bicycle parking, Taxi stations, Easy transfers between public transport systems) Curitiba, Beijing ,Hangzhou, Kunming, Nagoya, Taipei, Adelaide ,Brisbane Sydney, Paris ,Amsterdam ,Edinburgh, Ottawa, Pittsburgh ,Bogota Modes Used For Integrated Public Transport System Public Transport (PT) Modes • Medium & Mini Size Bus Paratransit Modes • Van/Mini-Vans • Taxi/Share Taxi • Dial-a-ride Taxi/ Radio Taxi • Auto Rickshaw • Tempo Non Motorised Transport (NMT) Modes • PediCabs/Cycle Rickshaw • Bicycle Paratransit • Paratransit is an alternative mode of flexible passenger transportation that does not follow fixed routes or schedules. Typically mini-buses, mini vans , share taxis and dial-a ride taxis are used to provide paratransit services.
    [Show full text]
  • Tod Policies and Guidelines
    MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOD POLICIES AND GUIDELINES DRAFT Revised March 31, 2017 CONTENTS Part I: Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 What is TOD?.................................................................................................................................1 What is the role of the MBTA and MassDOT? ..................................................................................2 Why is TOD important to the MBTA and MassDOT? .......................................................................2 Part II. TOD Policies ........................................................................................................................3 The Conduct of TOD.......................................................................................................................3 Joint Development ......................................................................................................................3 Station Area Planning and Development .......................................................................................4 Value Capture .............................................................................................................................5 The Content of TOD: Foundational Principles...................................................................................5 A. Density and Mix of Uses .........................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Open Chambers?
    Michigan Law Review Volume 97 Issue 6 1999 Open Chambers? Richard W. Painter University of Illinois College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Richard W. Painter, Open Chambers?, 97 MICH. L. REV. 1430 (1999). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol97/iss6/11 This Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OPEN CHAMBERS? Richard W. Painter* CLOSED CHAMBERS: THE FIRST EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF THE EPIC STRUGGLES INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT. By Edward LazarU,S. New York: Times Books. 1998. Pp. xii, 576. $27.50. Edward Lazarus1 has written the latest account of what goes on behind the marble walls of the Supreme Court. His book is not the first to selectively reveal confidential communications between the Justices and their law clerks. Another book, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's The Brethren2 achieved that distinction in 1979. Closed Chambers: The First Eyewitness Account of the Ep ic Strug­ gles Inside the Supreme Court, however, adds a new twist. Whereas The Brethren was written by journalists who persuaded former law clerks to breach the confidences of the Justices, Lazarus was himself a law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Guidelines
    ALAMEDA County Transportation Commission Alameda County Transportation Commission GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM GUIDELINES Updated July 2017 Contents The Alameda Introduction 2 County Guaranteed Program Basics 3 Ride Home Program Program Registration 4 When unexpected circumstances arise, the Alameda County Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Program provides What is Eligible for Reimbursement 5 a free ride home from work for employees who choose to commute by not driving alone. The GRH program Program Limits 5 is free for employees who register for the program, work in Alameda County, and use sustainable forms of Requesting and Receiving Reimbursements 7 transportation including walking, biking, taking transit, or ridesharing. When a registered employee uses a sustainable mode to travel to work and experiences a personal or family emergency while at work, they can take a taxi, Transportation Network Company (TNC) service such as Lyft or Uber, rental car, car share, or public transportation ride home and be reimbursed for the cost of the ride. This program allows commuters to feel comfortable taking the bus, train or ferry, carpooling, vanpooling, walking, or bicycling to work, knowing that they will have a ride home in case of an emergency. The Guaranteed Ride Home Program helps to reduce traffic and improve air quality in the Bay Area by encouraging commuters to leave their car behind for their commute to work. The Alameda County GRH program is a commuter benefit provided by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). The Alameda CTC plans, funds, and delivers transportation projects and programs to improve accessibility and mobility in Alameda County. Funding for the Alameda County GRH program is provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District through a Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant in partnership with the Alameda CTC.
    [Show full text]
  • King County Metro Transit Five-Year Implementation Plan for Alternatives to Traditional Transit Service Delivery
    King County Metro Transit Five-year implementation plan for alternatives to traditional transit service delivery June 15, 2012 This page intentionally left blank. King County Metro Transit Five-year implementation plan for alternatives to traditional transit service delivery June 15, 2012 Department of Transportation Metro Transit Division King Street Center, KSC-TR-0415 201 S. Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104 206-553-3000 TTY Relay: 711 www.kingcounty.gov/metro Alternative Formats Available 206-263-5277 TTY Relay: 711 12025/comm Contents BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ………………………………… 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE SERVICES …………………… 4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE DELIVERY ……… 6 PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY COLLABORATION ……………… 10 TIMELINE AND PLANNING …………………………………… 12 POLICY CHANGES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION …………… 14 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………… 14 Appendix A: REVIEW OF BEST PRACTICES ……………………………… A-1 B: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT …………………………… A-10 C: CONSTRAINTS TO IMPLEMENTATION …………………… A-15 D: STRATEGIES TO BUILD RIDERSHIP ………………………… A-18 E: MEASURING SUCCESS …………………………………… A-20 F: CASE STUDIES ……………………………………………… A-21 G: BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………… A-38 H: LOW-PERFORMING ROUTES ……………………………… A-45 I: PRODUCT MATRIX ………………………………………… A-49 Note: Appendix I is formatted to fit 8.5” x 14” (legal size) paper. ii KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE SERVICE DELIVERY FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As the primary public transportation provider in King County, Metro Transit strives to provide transportation choices that make it easy for people to travel in the county and the region. This requires us to find a fair and acceptable way to deliver transportation options throughout the county. To meet this challenge, we offer a variety of public transportation services, including fixed-route service, ridesharing, paratransit service, Dial-a-Ride Transit, and community shuttles.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 19-1392 THOMAS E. DOBBS, State Health Officer
    No. 19-1392 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ___________________ THOMAS E. DOBBS, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al., Petitioners, v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, et al., Respondents. ___________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ___________________ BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE AFRICAN- AMERICAN, HISPANIC, ROMAN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS AND LEADERS SUPPORTING PETITIONERS ___________________ Mathew D. Staver Counsel of Record Anita L. Staver Horatio G. Mihet Roger K. Gannam Daniel J. Schmid LIBERTY COUNSEL P.O. BOX 540774 Orlando, FL 32854 (407)875-1776|[email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................. iii INTEREST OF AMICI ............................................ 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................... 4 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 6 I. ABORTION GREW OUT OF AND REMAINS ROOTED IN EUGENICS IDEOLOGY THAT ELIMINATES “LESS DESIRABLE” RACES AND CERTAIN CLASSES OF PEOPLE TO EVOLVE A SUPERIOR HUMAN POPULATION. .............. 6 A. The Birth Control Movement, Abortion Advocacy, and Eugenics Are All Rooted In Social Darwinism and the Elimination of Undesirable Populations. .................................................. 7 B. The Eugenics Movement’s Racist Roots. 10 C. A Dark Stain Upon This Court, Buck v. Bell Legitimized the Eugenics Movement.
    [Show full text]
  • SYLLABUS the ROBERTS COURT – from BAD to WORSE 1. INTRODUCTION I Went to Law School When the Decisions of the “Liberal” Su
    SYLLABUS THE ROBERTS COURT – FROM BAD TO WORSE 1. INTRODUCTION I went to law school when the decisions of the “liberal” Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Earl Warren defined what our Constitution meant – an end to “separate but equal”, limits on police power, the right to a lawyer even if you couldn’t afford one, separation of Church and State, ‘one man, one vote’ – the list goes on and on. These decisions are in fact why I went to law school, with the fantasy of fighting for justice, truth, and the American Way….as the Warren Court had defined it. But I instead have lived a professional lifetime under the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, and most awful of all, the Roberts Court of the last 15 years – a Court that seems determined to turn our Constitutional clock back to pre-New Deal, if not further. From 2011, when Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, until the present, Congress has enacted hardly any major legislation outside of the tax law President Trump signed in 2017. In the same period, the Supreme Court dismantled much of America's campaign finance law, severely weakened the Voting Rights Act, permitted states to opt-out of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, weakened laws protecting against age discrimination and sexual and racial harassment, gave corporations control over much of our economy, but held that every state must permit same-sex couples to marry. This powerful unelected body, now controlled by six very conservative Republicans, has become and will continue to be the locus of policymaking in the United States.
    [Show full text]