SDOT & Metro Propose Straightening RapidRide C

Map of Proposed C Line Change, near Alaska Junction

Proposed C Line Change

SDOT and Metro are proposing a simple improvement to RapidRide C:

The proposal would revise the northbound RapidRide C Line route from its current routing on 44th Avenue[…]. Instead of turning left onto SW Edmunds Street, inbound RapidRide buses would remain on California Avenue SW before turning right onto SW Alaska Street. This realignment would reduce morning peak travel times an average of about one minute. It provides a more direct route through West Seattle and eliminates transit delay time due to vehicle congestion at the existing transit stop on SW Alaska Street at 44th Avenue SW. Routing for outbound service would not change under this proposal.

Transit riders heading into Downtown Seattle would board the RapidRide C Line east of California Avenue, across the street from the new Junction Plaza park. Four parking spaces on the SW corner of SW Alaska Street would be removed to provide enough space for the transit stop. […]

If approved, the new routing is proposed for implementation in early 2015.

It seems to me that this change will make the C Line faster, more reliable, and more direct, while maintaining the utility of the Alaska Junction transfer point. Relocating a bus stop shouldn’t be particularly expensive, so it sounds like a great idea to me. If you have thoughts on the project, email them to Jonathan Dong.

The same SDOT study which yielded this proposal is also studying improvements on the outbound D Line in Ballard, namely a queue jump northbound at Emerson, and a northbound BAT lane between Leary and Market (which might entail widening the roadway). Information on the feasibility of those potential D Line improvements are expected before the end of the year.

News Roundup: Sounding Board

Where should this bus go in 2016? (Oran – Flickr)

Where should this bus go in 2016? (Oran – Flickr)

This is an open thread.

TransitScreen Launches Downtown

transitScreen

SDOT:

The TransitScreen service is a live, real-time display of all transportation options within close proximity of a determined location (including bus, light-rail, bikeshare, and carshare). The screen makes multi-modal travel information more accessible, viewable and engaging so that commuters, visitors, and employees can make informed decisions about travel options. TransitScreen is currently available in 20 other locations in North America including Washington DC, San Francisco, Baltimore, Houston, Raleigh-Durham, Salt Lake City and San Diego.

The screen installed in the lobby of the Seattle Municipal Tower is the first Transit Screen in Seattle. We are proud to showcase this new technology along with companies such as Amazon and Children’s Hospital who also plan to install these screens.

This is a great development for riders, especially the combination of modes such as bikeshare and carshare. I hope it gets more widespread adoption, and I love how SDOT is getting scrappy and installing real-time information where they can, whether it’s these transit screens or the One Bus Away signs that started appearing a couple years back.

And yet, if I can be a design pedant for a second, it bothers me that Seattle transit information systems put so little thought into a common visual vocabulary. Metro has their signage and schemes, ST has theirs, and SDOT is just looking for ways to make people’s lives easier on a shoestring. Nothing stands out to give the rider a uniform sense of “oh, there’s transit service over here.”

It would be so wonderful if, at some point, someone came along and did for Seattle’s transit wayfinding and signage what Vignelli’s 1970 standards manual did for New York’s MTA.

Election Results Roundup

wikimedia

Locally, the election story is pretty good for transit advocates. Seattle voters decisively supported more bus service 59% to 41% and the monorail revival is losing by 60 points. These are both victories for the local political establishment and, in our opinion, transit riders.

In the legislature, all of our endorsed candidates are winning except Matt Isenhower in the 45th. The bigger picture, however, is entrenched Republican control of the Senate and the probability of no action on most issues. The good news is they may block bad highway projects the Democratic majority supports; the bad news is they may make the path for ST3 that much more difficult.

Nationally, as you’ve probably heard, Republicans retook the U.S. Senate. In our world that’s mainly notable for Patty Murray no longer being chair of the Budget Committee, where she has been very effective delivering federal money for local projects.

Election Night Open Thread

With transit on the ballot here, prospects for a GOP takeover in the U.S. Senate, Washington Democrats trying to retake a Senate majority, and lots and lots of ballot initiatives, there is no shortage of things to talk about as tonight’s election results come in.

Locally, expect results to start coming in shortly after 8pm. Seattle’s Prop 1 campaign will also be hosting a party at Comet Tavern from 7-9pm tonight.

This is an open thread. 

No Link Service on November 15th

3841817078_f969a2e893_z

Wings 777 (Flickr)

In order to complete systems upgrades in advance of University Link’s opening, still 15-17 months away, Link will be entirely shut down on Saturday, November 15th. Bus replacement service will be offered in two variants:

  • For those who pine for the old 194, Route 97A will offer nonstop express service from SeaTac to Westlake (3rd/Pine)
  • Route 97 will make all stops between Westlake and SeaTac Airport except Beacon Hill and Mount Baker, which will see no replacement service.

Due to SDOT construction, riders at Beacon Hill and Mount Baker should prepare for additional travel time and reduced frequency. Route 36 (22 minutes) is 69% slower than Link (13 minutes) between Westlake and Beacon Hill, while Route 7 (30 minutes) is 100% slower than Link (15 minutes) between Westlake and Mount Baker. In addition, cash payers headed to Beacon Hill should plan an additional $.25 fare, as Route 36 is $2.25 vs. Link’s $2.00.  Finally, riders headed to Mt Baker from SeaTac, Tukwila, or the Rainier Valley should be prepared for a transfer to Route 8, which runs every 15 minutes during the day but only every 30 minutes after 7:30pm.

At the time of publishing, there is no information yet on Metro’s alerts page, but Sound Transit sources confirm that this will be a full closure of the Downtown Transit Tunnel as well. Riders on weekend tunnel routes (41, 71, 72, 73, 101, 106, 150, 255, and 550) should board at designated surface locations. Sound Transit staff will be on hand at Westlake to help direct both ST and Metro passengers to appropriate stops.

UPDATE: I emailed Bruce Gray for further information on the closure, and more specifics about the system upgrades, and this is his response:

[The] Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system [is] being upgraded. It’s the system that essentially tracks and can control where all the trains are on the line at any given moment. The upgrades include new displays and hardware at the Link Control Center and the communications software and hardware system wide that talk to the LCC. We may also have to do similar shutdowns in the spring as we upgrade the emergency ventilation systems and building management systems for the underground stations. Think of it like going from Windows 95 to Windows 10.

It wasn’t an easy decision to take the entire line down for these upgrades, but the more the engineers looked at it, the more sense it made to do the cutover over the span of one service day instead of piecemeal during the brief overnight maintenance windows.

Sound Transit’s full release after the jump.

[Read more…]

Metro’s Xcelsiors hit the streets

This is a guest post.

Metro’s 35 foot Xcelsiors hit the streets for the first time this week. These coaches replace and supplement the retired 35 foot Gilligs (3185-3199). Coaches 3702-3705 have been seen on routes 246 and 269. The coaches will be numbered 3700-3759 and will be spread out amongst South Base (28), North Base (12) and Bellevue Base (20). Next year we should begin to see sixty 40 foot Xcelsiors arriving at Bellevue Base.

King County Metro New Flyer XDE35
Photo by the author
[Read more…]

Sawant Revives Head Tax

Kshama Sawant

Kshama Sawant hasn’t given up on more progressive different taxes for transit ($):

Whether or not voters approve Seattle Transportation Benefit District Proposition 1, Sawant says, she will ask her council colleagues to support a budget amendment that would raise additional money for Metro Transit…

Her plan calls for an annual head tax of $18 per employee and a commercial-parking-tax hike of 5 percent, which she says could together raise an estimated $20 million a year

“Many council members said, ‘This is not the right time to talk about it. We need Prop. 1 to pass. Let’s talk about it during the budget,’ ” she said. “Well, here were are.”

Good for Ms. Sawant to call attention to the continuing need for investment in the bus system. Even if Prop. 1 passes, we will not have reached the point of diminishing returns for bus service.

Her office has not yet clarified if she is open to funding bus speed and reliability capital improvements using this money. Prop. 1 regrettably excludes this purpose, which through a one-time expenditure could improve the experience of riders, make transit viable for more people, and often save Metro and the City operating costs in the long run. It is often both a cheaper solution than adding a bus trip and better for riders. Although there are cases where more bus trips are the right answer, additional flexibility for SDOT will allow them to do the most good for the most riders.

A good list of projects to start with is in the Transit Master Plan, pages 3-14 to 3-24. The Council does not need a ballot measure to approve these taxes.

Building Transit on I-405

This is a guest post.

Photo by Oran

Photo by Oran

In recent weeks, Sound Transit has released several corridor reports for the Eastside.  These were previewed in meetings in May and June, but I thought it might be interesting to take a closer look at the options for Sound Transit on the Eastside. The reports offer quite a bit more detail, and some occasional editorial comment. First up, I-405.

Sound Transit has a long-held commitment to BRT on I-405, dating to Sound Move in 1996, and updating the I-405 master plan in 2002. The master plan envisioned all-day service with 10 minute headways along the length of the corridor. Since then, Sound Transit has built a number of HOV direct access ramps on the highway and transit center projects serving local and regional service along the corridor more generally. Most of those are toward the north end of the corridor, in places such as Totem Lake in Kirkland. Practically speaking, this has translated to a set of express services on the highway that are low-frequency outside peak, and subject to reliability issues in the increasingly crowded HOV lanes.

The challenges in serving the corridor are obvious. Development potential in Renton and downtown Bellevue is substantial, but low to moderate elsewhere in the corridor. Most potential stations are park-and-rides far from walkable communities. Building ridership requires more direct access to neighboring communities, but that adds cost and hurts reliability. Travel markets are widely dispersed, particularly at the ends of the corridor. Most trips on I-405 are only a few miles in length. But with 800,000 daily trips on the highway, it’s tempting to look to BRT as a strategy for reducing traffic.

Two representative infrastructure models are analyzed. Combined with two service models, there are four scenarios considered (they briefly discuss a fifth option, a variation in the alignment within Renton). But the infrastructure models are not either/or choices. They are representative models of a portfolio of infrastructure elements, so expect the ballot to involve some a la carte selection from among the individual elements.

The ‘phased build-out’, A3, assumes WSDOT will complete the BRT projects that are currently funded or have been identified as ‘next priority projects’. The ‘full build-out’, A2, assumes several additional capital improvements. It might make sense to think of A3 as one reasonably feasible set of projects for the 2016 ballot, and A2 as a wish-list for the LRP. A2 does depend in important ways on fulfillment of the full I-405 master plan by WSDOT, an effort likely to extend over decades.  The incremental projects are mostly freeway stations and direct access ramps.

[Read more…]

This is a guest post.

Sound Transit Updates Long Range Plan

Where to next? Photo via: Dennis Hamilton

Yesterday the Sound Transit (ST) Board met to review the Long Range Plan (LRP) update, including discussion of the existing LRP text and corridors. As a reminder, the LRP represents the fiscally unconstrained vision of the Sound Transit system, selections from which will be used to develop a Sound Transit 3 (ST3) ballot measure. This workshop (materials available here) was a check-in on the LRP process that began nearly a year and a half ago when the board decided to accelerate ST3 planning for a potential 2016 ballot measure. Over the next two months, the ST Board will finalize the updated LRP, which will then be used to develop ST3 investment scenarios which would emphasize investment priorities such as completing the “spine” or maximizing system integration.

Staff began the meeting by presenting a “Chair’s Mark-ups” of the 2005 LRP text. Staff updated the text to begin the discussion and reflect some of the changes that have occurred since the plan was adopted in 2005. These changes included adding recent board policy decisions concerning station access and transit-oriented development. It also included updated definitions of bus rapid transit (BRT), including grade-separated busways and bus-only lanes. Staff also attempted to “tighten” the goal language to reduce repetition.  Finally, staff presented a high-level overview of the light rail, high capacity transit, bus rapid transit, express bus and commuter rail projects identified by the public as part of the plan update.

Councilmember Roberts asked that text around system integration be added to reflect the integration work currently underway between Sound Transit and Metro. Secretary Peterson said that WSDOT should play a larger role, that there need to be better integration of long-term land use planning with LRP corridors and that Sound Transit’s projects need to support local land use decisions. Another member wanted to add citizens’ health to the goals, but was unsure how to measure it.

Corridor Changes

The workshop maps show the new rail and HCT corridors that came out of the public process. There aren’t many of them because the existing LRP is already extensive. The biggest addition is West Seattle-Downtown light rail, formerly a monorail corridor. The map below shows the existing long-range corridors in gray, and the new corridors in bright colors and numbers. In some cases rail and BRT corridors overlap; e.g., Renton-Kent-Puyallup has both an LRT corridor (#7) and a BRT corridor (#33). Only one would be built, but the plan has both options. The BRT corridor continues to downtown Seattle, basically a variation of the 578. But BRT implies more than ST Express: it means frequent service and transit lanes.

[Read more…]

ST3 Funding Options

This is a guest post.

Potential ST3 Revenue Sources

Revenue Options for a “Large” ST3 package

Sound Transit held a board workshop on Thursday to begin considering financing options for ST3, the draft update to its Long Range Plan (LRP), and the timeline to a potential ST3 vote in 2016. This article covers the funding aspect (slides here) and timeline because that’s where most of the new information was. The LRP will follow in a later post. The 3 1/2 hour workshop consisted of the ST board and staff who did all the talking, and some forty observers including people from Metro and your reporter.

ST’s current state-granted taxing authority is 0.9% sales tax, 0.8% rental car tax, 0.8% restricted MVET (Motor-Vehicle Excise Tax), and an employer tax ($2.5000/ employee / month). Of these ST is currently maxed out on the sales tax and rental car tax. The MVET can only be used to pay existing bonds and expires in 2028. ST has never collected the employer tax so it’s an unused capacity. When ST2 construction ends in 2023 it will free up $1 billion, mostly in the Pierce and Snohomish subareas.

The staff presented three potential levels for ST3. The lowest level (“ST2a”) stays within the existing taxing authority and could complete planning and engineering of the “Spine” (meaning the Everett, Tacoma, and Redmond Link extensions) — but not construction. The middle level (“Incremental”) would require more taxing authority from the legislature and could construct one or two of the “best-performing” light rail segments (which ones were left unspecified). The highest level (“Large”) would be a similar size as ST1 and ST2 and require $15 billion in new taxes.

The board seems to be leaning toward the Large option. One board member cited deep public hunger in both Seattle and the suburbs for high-capacity transit (HCT). Another said a larger package would have a better chance of being approved by the legislature and by voters. A third said the board’s consensus seems to be for a “bold” legislative proposal, “more than we need”. The staff are assuming a Large proposal for planning, and the board can scale it back if it decides to go smaller. Mayor Murray emphasized the importance of clarifying their legislative ask and making sure any ST3 package goes big.

The presentation listed ten revenue sources used by other North American transit agencies: sales tax, rental car tax, payroll tax, MVET, car sales tax, car fuel tax, parking tax, utility bill levy, toll revenue, or property tax. Staff chose three of these for comparison and presented tax rates based on the use of one, two or all three sources. The three slides above show the results of this analysis. Of course these could be mixed and matched to balance the revenue among two or three sources.

Staff identified reliance on a single revenue source as potentially problematic because it would increase sales tax above 10% or hit constitutional property tax limits in King County. Property tax is also harder to bond against. Staff also noted that property tax is the least objectionable revenue source, as determined by rider surveys. Using this as guidance, Sound Transit staff will be developing a legislative agenda including adequate revenue capacity for any of these scenarios.

One board member suggested the staff consider additional funding sources such as LIDs (local improvement districts), the TIF model (taxing the added real-estate value of being near HCT), partnerships with companies benefiting from the service, and federal and state grants.

The potential timeline for a 2016 vote and subsequent ST3 construction is as follows:

[Read more…]

This is a guest post.

News Roundup: 140 Minutes

New Xcelsior coach at Bellevue TC (Atomic Taco – Flickr)

New Xcelsior coach at Bellevue TC (Atomic Taco – Flickr)

 

This is an open thread.

The Monorail’s Interesting Governance Structure

wikimedia

Buried in the text of the Monorail petition is this explanation of the proposed governance structure:

(a) Nominating Entities – Allocation of Nominating Sources and Nominated Candidates for Board Positions. The first and successive board members for the Board shall be selected only from the ranks of each of the following Seattle-based organizations or institutions of the successors thereto: for Board Position 1 – one individual from the Sierra Club Cascade Chapter, for Board Positions 2 and 3 – two individuals only from the Seattle Neighborhood Coalition, for Board Position 4 – one individual from the Downtown Seattle Association, for Board Position 5 – one individual from the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, for Board Positions 6, 7, and 8 – one individual each from each of the following University of Washington departments, a tenured faculty member or professor emeritus from the University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Affairs, a tenured faculty member or professor emeritus from the University of Washington’s Economics Department, and a tenured faculty member or professor emeritus from the University of Washington’s College of Built Environments, for Board Positions 9 and 10 – two individuals who regularly participate in the affairs of or belong to any of the City of Seattle’s District Councils, and for Board Position 11 – one individual from the Manufacturing Industrial Council of Seattle.

These nominees would be confirmed by the City Council. The board would then pick its last two members, without Council approval, from a self-nominated pool of applicants. Public officials are explicitly prohibited from board membership.

By the standards of most Puget Sound rhetoric, the proposed entity is “unaccountable” because the members aren’t directly elected. But I’m on record that directly elected boards are terrible, in fact only accountable to single-issue hacks like us and people with a vested interest.

That said, the problem with this proposal is that the nominating entities are themselves unaccountable, although Council oversight partially mitigates that. Furthermore, several of the anointed organizations have a history of status quo bias and overwrought concern about “impacts” than bode ill for good transit planning.

The ideal form of accountability would be the Mayor appointing the Board with Council confirmation, and holding them accountable for the general conditions in Seattle of which transportation, including the monorail authority, is a part.

There are many good reasons to vote against the monorail petition, but the desire for a directly elected board is not one of them. What do you think of the proposed structure?

Revenue Projections Meet Reality

The shape of things to come at the north tunnel portal

Clark Williams-Derry, Sightline:

For far too long, “build now, pay later” has been the transportation budgeter’s mantra. In the 2000s, for example, Washington committed itself to massive road projects that it didn’t have the money to build. So the state floated bonds, assuming that revenue from gas taxes would show up to pay them off.

That hasn’t worked out so well. Traffic didn’t grow as expected, and gasoline and tolling revenue has gone AWOL as a result. Gradually, planners have come to realize that debt service will swallow up most of the state’s gas tax receipts, crowding out everything else. As the chart below shows, WSDOT predicts that within a few years three-quarters of the state’s gas tax receipts will pay for old projects.

There are plenty of sound reasons — from Marchetti’s Constant to congestion to gas price volatility to increasing environmental concerns — to assume that gas tax revenues might decline over time as people either drive less or more fuel efficiently.  Nonetheless, WSDOT has consistently projected gas tax revenue reaching for infinity.  For a few years now, Williams-Derry and Sightline have been hammering away at those overly-rosy WSDOT projections (and this one on USDOT projections is a classic).  Glad to see the agency take the note.

What’s interesting to me here is that it’s not the planners, but the bean counters who have finally seen the light.  The Office of Financial Management is stepping up and calling B.S.  It’s a refreshing acknowledgement that we simply won’t have the money to pay for all these road projects with current gas tax revenues.  In a sane world, that would mean fewer highway mega-projects.  After all, if people are driving less, you don’t need all those mega-projects anyway.  In an insane world, that might mean individual counties looking to get creative with new highway revenue sources while Olympia dithers.  I wouldn’t be surprised if, sadly, talk of a new RTID pops up sooner rather than later in an effort to squeeze more highway money out of a system that’s running out of it.

November 2014 Election Endorsements

Here are STB’s endorsements for the November election. We’ve already written about our support for Seattle Transportation Proposition 1 (more bus service) and rejection of Seattle Citizen Petition 1 (monorail planning).

As always, our endorsements are entirely the product of a candidate’s positions and record on transit and land use. We endorse only in races where one candidate has exceptional strengths or exceptional weaknesses relative to their opponent.

The editorial board currently consists of Martin H. Duke, Frank Chiachiere, Matthew Johnson, and Brent White.

State Senate

Marko Liias

Marko Liias

21st DistrictSen. Marko Liias has long been an ardent transit advocate, as Vice Chair of the House Transportation Committee, and now on the Senate Transportation Committee. He was the lone voice of firm opposition on the committee when Sen. Bob Hasegawa sponsored his ridiculous bill to force Sound Transit to subsidize car ownership around train stations. If retained, Liias would be in an excellent position to replace retiring Sen. Tracey Eide as the top Democrat on the Senate Transportation Committee.

Pramila Jayapal

37th District: In Seattle races, almost everyone is for transit funding and the real discriminator is land use. Pramila Jayapal, running for the seat of the retiring Adam Kline, had the right answer on the crucially important North Rainier rezone. Her opponent didn’t.

Matt Isenhower

Matt Isenhower

45th DistrictMatt Isenhower told us he supports expanded ST3 authority for Sound Transit.  He also wants to increase the share of the state transportation budget spent on public transit, since our state is  near worst in the nation on state transit funding. His opponent has ignored multiple opportunities to tell us his position on transportation issues. As one of the few possible Democratic pickups this year, this race could determine if ST3 is on the ballot in 2016.

Cyrus Habib

48th DistrictRep. Cyrus Habib was one of the rare state legislators who endorsed King County Proposition 1 last spring. In fact, he campaigned pretty hard for it. Now, he is running for the state senate seat being vacated by Sen. Rodney Tom. For Habib, transit isn’t just an issue. It’s an essential part of daily living. There is nothing like having a bus rider in the senate to put transit front and center, and Mr. Habib can make the case in business terms that many senators understand.

State House

Jake Fey

Jake Fey

27th, Pos. 2: Rep. Jake Fey was a positive voice on both the Pierce Transit and Sound Transit Boards while in other elected positions. He is too enthusiastic about extending Highway 167, but that is understandable for a Tacoma Representative. Most importantly, we expect him to be the most effective advocate for ST3 from Pierce County.

Joe Fitzgibbon

Joe Fitzgibbon

34th, Pos. 2: Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon wrote a piece on transit following the defeat of King County Proposition 1 this past spring. He led the fight on Governor Inslee’s climate change task force to include transportation in any carbon pricing scheme. He has worked hard to make sure Washington’s regional mobility grants go to the projects that rank highest according to objective criteria, rather than spread around to well-connected rural districts where neither need for transit nor acceptance of taxes is as great.

Jessyn Farrell

46th, Pos. 2Rep. Jessyn Farrell is a Transportation Choices Coalition veteran who remains engaged on local transportation issues, such as the selection of new SDOT director Scott Kubly. She is a reliable vote to support alternatives to the car. More importantly, she is one of three vice chairs of the House Transportation Committee.

Ross Hunter

48th, Pos. 1: Rep. Ross Hunter has a reputation as a numbers guy, and that aptitude leads him to understand the geometry that demands both more density and more transit investment. His opponent is running to “expose” the “debacle” of light rail.

Joan McBride

Joan McBride

48th, Pos. 2: Joan McBride mentions funding transit and fighting climate change as priorities in her voters’ guide statement. Her opponent mentions neither, but running as a libertarian is a poor indicator on both issues. She is well-connected to the Eastside leaders that will be telling her that ST3 is a high priority for Eastside communities.

Monday is the In-Person Voter Registration Deadline

If you aren’t registered to vote in the State of Washington, you can still register in person this Monday, October 27, at the King County Voter Registration Annex, Room 440 in the King County Administration Building (4th & James, downtown), 8:30 am – 1 pm, and 2 pm – 4:30 pm.

Want to do some campaigning to add more buses on our full bus routes? Check out the latest opportunities at the Yes for Seattle Transportation Propositon 1 website.

“The guy who was going to bring the SkyTrain to Spokane”

Karl Otterstrom at Spokane Transit HQ

Karl Otterstrom at Spokane Transit HQ

About two months ago, I visited Spokane, to research a post about the controversy then churning around Spokane’s central transit station, the STA Plaza, and while there, I met Karl Otterstrom, head planner of the Spokane Transit Authority. Subsequently, I have felt rather sad that the only piece on STB about transit in Spokane should be one focused on a negative, and arguably manufactured problem, when there is a remarkably positive and durable story to be told; and today, I’m going to fix that.

The story is about a transit agency, serving a mid-size city in a politically moderate region, which has remade itself along with the network it operates: from the caretaker of an expensive, atrophying, ex-streetcar system, to the operator of a relevant, growing, rider-oriented grid of bus routes, built around frequent service and timed connections. In thus reforming itself, the agency has won the trust of local voters, and positioned itself, and the region it serves, for a future of continued improvement and growth.

I sat down (electronically) with Karl, to have him first introduce himself, and then tell this story.

Bruce: First, can you tell me a little about your professional background?

Karl: I have a Masters in urban planning from the University of Washington, and a BA in urban and regional planning, from Eastern Washington University. I have been a land use planner, working on a variety of land use actions, from conditional use permits for rock pits in Idaho to comprehensive plan amendments in the Rainier Valley. In graduate school I emphasized in transportation planning and interned for the Federal Transit Administration, before landing a job with King County Metro in the service planning group. There, I primarily worked on longer-range service planning and policy issues, including RapidRide and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement planning. I left Metro in 2009 to become the Planning Director for Spokane Transit. I also interned at STA in 2002 and involved myself in transportation planning issues, as a citizen and professional, since about 2000.

How long have you been interested in transit, what got you started?

[Read more…]