Seattle Times special feature on Sound Transit/Puget Sound transit tax referendum
One of 2016's major transportation stories is how the short extension of the Link light rail line in Seattle to Capitol Hill and the University of Washington has resulted in a doubling of light rail ridership there, from around 30,000 daily riders, to more than 60,000 daily riders.
It's proof that with the right conditions of density and in-demand destinations, transit service can be very effective.
This fall, Sound Transit has a big tax referendum, called Sound Transit 3 (ST3) on the ballot to continue the expansion of the transit system, primarily beyond Seattle.
The Seattle Times, not known for its support of tax referenda, has a nice graphically-oriented feature on the referendum, with a map of the system and the proposed extensions, information on cost and revenue sources, a listing of pros and cons (not particularly deep) and related articles.
-- ST3: What you'd pay, what you'd get, Seattle Times
The feature is a good model for how government agencies of all types--not just transit agencies--might want to up their game in terms of communicating about tax proposals, benefits, costs, etc.
Although Sound Transit has produced a very good website related to the referendum on their own.
-- Sound Transit 3 referendum webpage
Although were it produced by a government agency, rather than a newspaper, I'd also include live links to more information for each of the sections. Which is what the ST3 website does do.
Labels: elections and campaigns, transit funding, voting and referendums
2 Comments:
very off topic:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/10/bill-simmons-chargers-stadium-any-given-wednesday-tony-hawk
Bill Simmons attacking the san diego stadium proposal.
It was on HBO, I think you can find the video segment on the ringer (his new website).
thanks. we get HBO so I should be able to find it.
Plus a lot of interesting stuff out there about stadium for Las Vegas.
2. off topic, what do you think?
http://www.richmond.com/business/local/article_f361b40f-1f21-5292-82b6-85a148d7baa8.html
probably should mention it. They go to Richmond because they can pay avg. $60K salary. It would have to be 25% higher or more here. Plus the running costs for space would be higher too.
Post a Comment
<< Home