urbanMSP

I think including swearing does water down the argument a bit, but spitting is rightfully a Gross Misdemeanor and should be considered a zero-tolerance type thing.

Maybe a counterpoint, how often does assault start with something littler like spitting or even swearing, and can an operator reasonably know that swearing or spitting won't also escalate into an assault?

How easily do they open? I'm mostly wondering how much extra time this would take when wheelchair users board.

Definitely pro-driver safety and feel for them in bad situations, but my thought is that this is also would make them a little less concerned about passenger-to-passenger bad behavior.

Excellent point, but what do they do on the train? Answer: nothing.

Absolutely legitimate concerns on both sides (pro-shield and shield-skeptical), but I haven't heard a persuasive argument why bus drivers should be viewed any differently than train drivers. In general, the less interaction the driver has with passengers, the better. They're there to pilot the vehicle safely, above all else. Everything else (fare issues, giving bus information or directions, idle chatter, thanking the driver, etc.) is secondary to driving the bus safely and not hitting anyone/anything.

Sidebar: How the hell is it nearly 2018 and bus drivers still need to get up out of their seats to manually tie down wheelchairs? Surely other transit agencies or bus manufacturers elsewhere in the world have come up with technology that does not require the assistance of the driver. Anyone aware of alternatives to this ongoing ridiculousness?

I've seen some transit system somewhere (and I think I've posted it somewhere here) where the chairs are rear facing with the back of the wheelchair pressed up against something, and that's apparently good enough? And obviously trains don't need it, I think it has to do with the lack of lateral motion? I think it's ADA that sets the requirements either way.

CTA buses have the same set up with wheelchair restraints, but I've never seen a driver get up to use them. CTA buses are pretty slow though, I wonder how much of a factor that is.

So was just wondering, Jeff Johnson is running for governor again, and he wants to put in a moratorium on Light Rail Transit. Can he only prevent the state from studying and funding or can he prevent counties and cities too?

So was just wondering, Jeff Johnson is running for governor again, and he wants to put in a moratorium on Light Rail Transit. Can he only prevent the state from studying and funding or can he prevent counties and cities too?

I wish we could put a moratorium on his Governorship runs! If I had to guess, he's talking about via the Met Council (Governor appointed), who handle all the long-term transit planning for the Metro. I'd guess that such a thing would prevent Counties and/or Cities from doing anything themselves, as they have to work with Met Council, which would not be allowed to do so. I'm sure it would face legal challenges though - however, let's hope his attempt meets the same fate as 2014. #thanksbutnothanks

So was just wondering, Jeff Johnson is running for governor again, and he wants to put in a moratorium on Light Rail Transit. Can he only prevent the state from studying and funding or can he prevent counties and cities too?

I wish we could put a moratorium on his Governorship runs! If I had to guess, he's talking about via the Met Council (Governor appointed), who handle all the long-term transit planning for the Metro. I'd guess that such a thing would prevent Counties and/or Cities from doing anything themselves, as they have to work with Met Council, which would not be allowed to do so. I'm sure it would face legal challenges though - however, let's hope his attempt meets the same fate as 2014. #thanksbutnothanks

Agreed, do we know how Tim Walz stands on expanding LRT? He doesn't list it on his website.

What do we mean by moratorium? Via statute, the state can probably block lower levels of government from doing pretty much anything, as they are all subordinate. By himself, it probably goes how HG said.

Probably like the Dan Patch Line gag order where the Met Council and MnDOT can't study it but cities (and maybe counties?) can. Of course unless the route is within one city or county then its kind of meaningless to discuss it. Or just do what MnDOT has done and rename it. Can't study Dan Patch commuter rail? Fine, we'll call it the "I-35 Corridor" and study intercity passenger rail instead.

Probably like the Dan Patch Line gag order where the Met Council and MnDOT can't study it but cities (and maybe counties?) can. Of course unless the route is within one city or county then its kind of meaningless to discuss it. Or just do what MnDOT has done and rename it. Can't study Dan Patch commuter rail? Fine, we'll call it the "I-35 Corridor" and study intercity passenger rail instead.

MnDOT for the win, that is so petty I love it!

But Johnson has said he would do it on all LRT, I don't know how you would rename it. I guess it wouldn't prevent Streetcars. I don't think we will elect him, but I guess just incase it is good to talk about it.

Probably like the Dan Patch Line gag order where the Met Council and MnDOT can't study it but cities (and maybe counties?) can. Of course unless the route is within one city or county then its kind of meaningless to discuss it. Or just do what MnDOT has done and rename it. Can't study Dan Patch commuter rail? Fine, we'll call it the "I-35 Corridor" and study intercity passenger rail instead.

MnDOT for the win, that is so petty I love it!

But Johnson has said he would do it on all LRT, I don't know how you would rename it. I guess it wouldn't prevent Streetcars. I don't think we will elect him, but I guess just incase it is good to talk about it.

Guess we'll have to make it a subway.

Or call it an interurban railway-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interurban

Southwest Interurban, Bottineau Interurban, Riverview Interurban.

I would actually like to see someone propose a blanket repeal of any study bans that may still be on the books. I've heard about others besides Dan Patch, including some that were previously used to hold up LRT, but I haven't been able to find anything conclusive in my (very lazy) research. It's such a blatant, bad-faith way of showing you make decisions based on emotion and politicking instead of data and reality. If you're so confident that (e.g.) the Dan Patch line is a bad idea, then surely you'd also believe that that will be the obvious conclusion of any study undertaken on the line, and you can vote against it before any real chunk of money goes to actually building the thing.

I don't know if it still exists but it came up at caucuses many years ago (which I was attending with an at the time MN House Page who knew the specific law) that there was a moratorium on studying nuclear power, and the hippies in Seward were very happy about the moratorium, but I think someone had introduced a resolution about removing the moratorium, and I made the exact argument you just did tmart, that an idea should live or die on its merits alone, and one of the ladies just kinda stammered "well I don't like nuclear!"

So yeah moratoriums are dumb and I would unironically support a constitutional amendment to prohibit them (an idea I literally just came up with as I typed).

I would actually like to see someone propose a blanket repeal of any study bans that may still be on the books. I've heard about others besides Dan Patch, including some that were previously used to hold up LRT, but I haven't been able to find anything conclusive in my (very lazy) research. It's such a blatant, bad-faith way of showing you make decisions based on emotion and politicking instead of data and reality. If you're so confident that (e.g.) the Dan Patch line is a bad idea, then surely you'd also believe that that will be the obvious conclusion of any study undertaken on the line, and you can vote against it before any real chunk of money goes to actually building the thing.

The only other moratorium on rail I've found is the Los Angeles Orange Line BRT. The route uses abandoned railroad right-of-way, and originally the purpose of buying the right-of-way was to extend the Red Line subway or build light rail. During planning a bill was passed prohibiting rail use on the right-of-way, the only exception being subway. That was in the 1990s, and in 2014 that law was finally repealed so the Orange Line can be upgraded to LRT.

I love the notion of a knee-jerk constitutional moratorium on legislative moratoria premised on their knee-jerk bad-faith approach to problems.

It wouldn't be the first constitutional amendment that came about because of the inability of the legislature to act in good faith...