Meet In CommonNews

Local

Midterm election to decide key transit outcomes for Stanford students

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: The Stanford Daily

Five Bay Area counties will decide the fate of a key transit policy on Tuesday, affecting multiple transit systems that Stanford students rely on. The Regional Transit Measure, also known as Measure RTM, would enact a 0.5% sales tax in four of the counties, alongside a 1% sales tax in San Francisco, to raise funds that proponents say are necessary to rescue public transportation in the Bay Area. Most at risk of service cuts, according to proponents of Measure RTM, are the Bay Area Rapid Transport (BART) and Caltrain systems. “Measure RTM will prevent severe cuts to Caltrain and BART,” Adina Levin, executive director of transit advocate not-for-profit organization Seamless Bay Area, wrote to The Daily. “If the measure fails that will limit the mobility of Stanford students.” Urban studies and public policy double major Minji Cho ’28 agrees.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at The Stanford Daily

Featured places to meet in Stanford, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Avanti

Avanti 591 Los Arboles Avenue Stanford, CA, 94305 US

Beefeaters

Beefeaters 591 Los Arboles Avenue Stanford, CA, 94305 US

City guide for Stanford, CA

Community Poll

Institutions should demonstrate equal treatment through people's actual experiences, not just written policies.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

A disgraced billionaire's name is on the beloved campus library. Does it come down?

A major donor funded a beloved public building decades ago. New evidence shows they also caused serious harm that was legal and accepted by many peers at the time. Removing the name may jeopardize future donations.

What does an institution owe the truth when its history funded the present?

Explore this quandary