Winnepeg transit potential. (RMTransit)

Updating rules could create better apartments. Praise for Seattle at 3:06 and 5:10. (About Here)

This is an open thread.

53 Replies to “Sunday Double Feature: Winnipeg & Apartments”

  1. Seattle renters find unbundled parking expensive. ($)

    “Leiya Lacey, 26, pays $285 a month for parking in her Capitol Hill apartment building, which she moved into in July. For her, having a car represents both a necessity and a major financial regret.

    Lacey’s family is spread out in the suburbs. Her mom is in Everett and her dad is in Kent. She has young siblings whose soccer games she attends on weekends. “It’s really hard to put a price on family,” she said. “If I didn’t have a car, I wouldn’t be able to do all of the things that I do with it on the weekends to stay in touch with my people.”

    But the costs are much higher than she anticipated. Her monthly car lease payment is $560; insurance adds another $270. With parking on top, she spends more than $1,000 a month on having a car — about 10% of her take-home income. For the most part, she uses the car solely on weekends to see family or buy groceries, as she can walk to work during the week.

    She’s working to organize her life in a way that makes more use of the car. She’ll buy groceries at Costco on weekend runs rather than at Whole Foods down the street. She tries to do road trips instead of flying to get away.

    “I’m trying to find other ways that I can save money by using the car so that I don’t feel so bad about it,” she said. “My relationship with my car has changed now in the sense of like, I want to maximize my use out of it.”

    For now, Lacey is content to see her car lease through, but she doesn’t see herself renewing it down the line.”

    1. The unstated assumption is that parking is cheap to build — it’s not. A parking space out in the suburbs might be cheap to build just 5/10k in a lot, but for a garage can be 20~30k or even up to 50k per spot for underground

    2. she spends more than $1,000 a month on having a car

      That will pay for a lot of cab rides, especially when it is complemented with transit. It will also pay for renting a lot of cars, especially if she only uses the car on weekends.

      It is bizarre that she is going out of her way to do things with the car now that she is paying so much for it. That would make sense if she rented a car, but doesn’t otherwise. I’m afraid she is just one of the many people who assume they need a car and haven’t actually consider alternatives. It isn’t just cars, either. There are people who eat lunch out every day and then complain about how expensive it has become. They haven’t seriously considered the obvious alternative (bringing food from home).

    3. If $1,000 is 10% of her take-home income, she makes twice as much as I do, and I’m near the median. So she’s pretty well-to-do.

      If I had relatives in Everett and Kent and last-mile bus routes were too infrequent or nonexistent, I’d take the 512 or 150 to Everett Station or Kent Station and have my relatives pick me up there. After all, they’re the ones living in inaccessible locations, and driving to everything is part of it.

      1. I used to have family in Kent and Auburn and did exactly that. It was a long ride, some 90 minutes. The Sounder train was better, but only during rush hour. I’m glad I don’t have to do it anymore.

      2. Do Lyft/Uber not serve those last miles around Everett and Kent?

        Everett Transit has just one ET-branded route that is better than half-hourly, so I expect “rideshare” business is booming.

      3. They do. But, because everything is so sprawly out there, the last “mile” might be a 5-10 mile trip that costs over $30. You might also have to wait quite awhile for the vehicle to even show up.

      4. If you are coming from Everett Station, the Uber will be there within a couple minutes. Going the other way is probably a longer wait, but greater odds that one of the people you are visiting will give you a ride.

      5. But, because everything is so sprawly out there, the last “mile” might be a 5-10 mile trip that costs over $30

        Yes, but that is still a tiny cost compared to what she is paying for the car. If she pays $150 bucks on cab fare every weekend she would still probably come out ahead.

    4. Seems like a self-storage unit large enough to stairs a car runs about $185 a month. I’d definitely be looking at alternatives.

      Considering the space constrains of Capitol Hill, it seems perfectly justified to charge people for the cost of building and maintaining the parking they consume.

      1. Where is that self-storage unit? Out in the suburbs where land is cheaper?

        At least, I’m sure it has less ventilation than a parking garage.

      2. Storage companies have proliferated in Seattle, often repurposing obsolete buildings. I think there’s one around 12th & Denny.

    5. “If I didn’t have a car, I wouldn’t be able to do all of the things that I do with it on the weekends to stay in touch with my people.” Then … “Lacey is content to see her car lease through, but she doesn’t see herself renewing it down the line.” Huh?

      1. If the penalty of getting out of the car lease early is high enough, sticking it out until the end of the lease, then switching to rental car services can make sense.

      2. Yeah, that makes sense. I missed the fact that she is leasing. That is the real story here. She is basically stuck with a lease for a car that isn’t currently worth it.

    6. It is completely optional to deal with the high cost of vehicle ownership in Capitol Hill. Almost every light rail station will have apartments within walking distance with an easier and cheaper parking situation. Car loan and insurance rates seem to suggest a relatively expensive car too. Lesson: Don’t insist on living IN Capitol Hill, with a higher end vehicle, and complain about the costs. Especially if it is a priority to frequently visit family on weekends out in the suburbs and they can’t/won’t pick you up at the nearest transit center.

    7. I think the article may have been edited to change her take-home income to $5000 from $10000. Otherwise it’s pretty hard to sympathize with someone in the top 1% at age 26.

      And yes, cars are expensive.

      And yes, people should pay for their parking. Parking is not a common good. It’s a common bad.

      2. I may have missed the “her $5,000 monthly take-home pay”. But I was reading, “she spends more than $1,000 a month on having a car — about 10% of her take-home income”. That adds up to $10,000. So are the two paragarphs contradicting each other? $5,000 a month certainly sounds typical. $10,000, who gets that? If her income really is $5,000, then the cost of the car is twice as burdensome.

        If she reads this, I hope she doesn’t think I think negatively of her. We’re just going by what the article says, and what a generic person’s options might be. Obviously there’s a lot more in her personal circumstances and values we don’t know about.

      3. I’ve never had a car, so that limits me to a subset of jobs and housing locations. It was harder to get my ideal job in the 80s and 90s because they were mostly in isolated suburban office parks, but in the 2000s they started increasing in Seattle proper. When my partner and I moved in together in 2010, he had on old Volkswagen van. He drove it everywhere, and paid $250/month in parking. He drove to Kent warehouses for night shift work, and to the Everett naval base for reserve duty, and we took it to Costco a few times a year. Then it started needing expensive repairs as old cars do, so he got rid of it.

        He found that the 150 and 181 (now 161) could get him to his Kent jobs. Even if the shift started at 3am, the last bus got him there at 2:15 so he just waited 45 minutes. And if he got off at 3am, he just waited an hour or so for the first bus to leave. Going to Everett he takes the 512, and I guess his buddies pick him up from Everett Station or he takes Uber. We used Zipcar for Costco runs. Then he didn’t want to pay for the Zipcar add-on insurance even in months he wasn’t using it, and then I think Zipcar stopped operating in Seattle. So I went to Costco on the bus like I’d always done, and brought back whatever I could carry home on the bus.

        Now he likes to rent small U-Haul vans when we have bulky stuff to move, and we combine that with taking stuff to Goodwill and Re-PC and a Costco run. We go to the U-Haul store on Rainier to pick up the truck (taking Link to Mt Baker station and walking a half mile north). He says U-Haul is the best bargain now compared to Zipcar or the other choices, at $19 for a weekend day I think.

      4. > $10,000, who gets that?
        assuming it’s 10k per month (pre tax) that’d be around 120k per year. It’s not that uncommon of a salary in the seattle area.

        I’m more surprised at how expensive their insurance is. $270 per month? Is their car on the more expensive end 70k/100k? I mean I know seattle is more expensive but I thought it’d be around $150

      5. It was 10K take-home. After tax, after insurance, after retirement. So probably pushing 180K/yr. Though, she clearly doesn’t get that, she get’s half that.

      6. @WL – they require you to get the fancy full-coverage insurance when you’re leasing a car, like they do when you buy a car with a loan. Last time I had to do that, my insurance cost $230/month – not much less than the loan payment! – and that was fifteen years ago.

      8. We’re taking about $240K if her take-home pay $10,000 a month. There’s a contradiction in the article on whether it’s $5,000 or $10,000. Most likely it’s really $5,000. Then having over $1,000 in car expenses would be 1/5 of her take-home pay, not 1/10.

    8. Sometimes when you think your parking is free, it is probably just subsidized.
      A few years ago when I lived in a infamously sprawling urban area, I barely saw apartment complex charge parking while providing nice gated parking. My understanding is that they probably just integrated the parking cost to rent because it was not crazy to assume every tenant need a parking spot in that kind of land use.
      It is nice that this cost is separated out here for the benefit of those who cannot afford or choose not having a car.

      Yet, you can certainly own a car, but how car owners are using them is what actually caused all the problem in urban area.

      If all car owners only commute by driving themselves one third of the times they need to go to office, that is still a big relieve in urban traffic congestion and reduction of emission.

      Most of the recurring traffic congestion events happened on weekdays. They are more fixable and they are more likely to be identified and mitigated.

      I don’t car ownership is necessarily on the opposite side of transit. The bar to own a car will never be high enough to justify quality transit project in this country. So, transit modes will only thrive if people having car also want to use them. If transit is only for those who don’t have car, the demand projection will remain low.

    1. I predicted DC’s initiative would face the steepest uphill battle, facing stiff opposition from the Democratic Party. Instead, it ends up being the one that passes. DC’s was the only initiative put on the ballot by a mostly volunteer grassroots effort.

      The Alaska repeal initiative is still too close to call. But I bet it comes back in two years if the repeal prevails. Sen. Murkowski’s political career likely depends on RCV.

      Colorado’s initiative was basically bought by one multimillionaire, who did not bother to reach out to any RCV supporters, some of whom voted No because of all the extra baggage in it.

      Nevada voted Yes on the same Constitutional Amendment initiative two years ago. The out-of-state funders did not bother to campaign for the requisite second Yes vote.

      It did not help having our Secretary of State campaigning against these ballot items. He is not the kind of just-do-your-job centrist that all his predecessors were.

      Back in 2020, it was wealthy funders who delivered the RCV victory in Alaska, while the grassroots initiative in Massachusetts lost, likely because COVID wiped out their ground game, and their initiative kept party primaries (just like the referendum put on the ballot by the Oregon Legislature).

      Lessons are not the plural of this small number of anecdotes.

    2. There are lots of different types of ranked-choice voting systems. Wikipedia has a pretty good run-down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting). Most systems in the US use instant-runoff. I would imagine that is what voters (in the different places) were considering.

      In a sense, having an open primary is a type of ranked-choice voting. Those who didn’t vote for the first or second option get another choice. From a practical standpoint the difference between an open primary and ranked-choice is minor. Very rarely would you get different results. There was one recent case where we almost did though. In the race for state lands commissioner there were essentially five Democrats and two Republicans running. The five Democrats almost split the vote in such a way to send the two Republicans to the general election. But again, this is rare (and didn’t even happen).

      In contrast if you have a closed primary system then it is common to have two different types of vote splitting. The first is when multiple parties split the vote. The classic one was in 2000, with Bush versus Gore. If Florida or New Hampshire had run-off voting (like Georgia) or instant-runoff then it wouldn’t be a problem. The same thing happens with in a closed primary vote. For example there might be three Democrats running for the Democratic nomination to be mayor. One is a moderate and the other two are far-left. The two left-wing candidates split the vote and the moderate advances. The vote splitting within the party is similar to the vote splitting that occurred in the general election in 2000.

      Which is why I think it is odd that DC adopted both. In a city like DC you accomplish practically the same thing with an open primary as you do with instant-runoff.

      In contrast, a system like approval voting can prevent “center squeeze” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_squeeze) which is a different type of problem.

      1. Any election system involving two rounds with different ballots invites disingenuous voting and campaigning.

        Our last election for city attorney was one such case, when the incumbent propped up the Republican, knocked himself out with his negative campaign, and the Republican won.

        Hobbs also got beat in a similar manner when he first ran for state senate, and his more-liberal D opponent propped up the poorly-funded R in the race, and Hobbs got squeezed.

        I firmly believe that the candidate list would be different, and larger, under RCV than under what we have right now.

        Until someone can explain to me, in simple English, how I would cast an effective ballot under approval voting, I just don’t see approval voting as a serious proposal for large public elections.

        I would gladly support a system like Condorcet, which the Center for Election Science think tank does support, but they are stuck on goofy (approval voting).

        I wish FairVote, CIS, and the wealthy open primary initiative funders would sit down together, and get on the same strategy page.

      2. I think that there is a significant difference between an open primary and ranked choice voting in some of our busier primaries, such as open seats for governor or Seattle council. There might be 5-10+ viable candidates running with several occupying each political “lane”. Those similar candidates will tend to split their own votes making it more likely they cancel each other out and none of them advance to the general election. With ranked choice voting, people could vote for all of those candidates, so that their vote isn’t lost because they didn’t happen to vote for the strongest of the candidates in their preferred lane.

        Basically that is what happened with land commissioner, the 3 Democrats cancelled each other out. Upthegrove made it through by 49 votes (0.003%) with the margin effectively decided by ballot curing efforts. And then he won handily in the general. While it matched the will of the people overall, I wouldn’t call it a triumph of the open primary system.

        Instant run off top 2 primary followed by simple plurality general seems the best approach to me.

      3. Any election system involving two rounds with different ballots invites disingenuous voting and campaigning.

        Same thing with instant-runoff. See Wikipedia. Few systems are immune to such tactics.

        Our last election for city attorney was one such case, when the incumbent propped up the Republican, knocked himself out with his negative campaign, and the Republican won.

        But the same thing would have happened with instant-runoff. That is my point. To quote Wikipedia:

        Compared to a plurality voting system that rewards only the top vote-getter, instant-runoff voting mitigates the problem of wasted votes.[15] However, it does not ensure the election of a Condorcet winner, which is the candidate who would win a direct election against any other candidate in the race.

        That is basically what happened. The third-place candidate would beat either two in a head to head race. But they still came in third. It is a classic case of the “center squeeze”.

        Until someone can explain to me, in simple English, how I would cast an effective ballot under approval voting,

        It is explained — in plain English — on Wikipedia:

        Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system in which voters mark all the candidates they support, instead of just choosing one. The candidate with the highest approval rating is elected.

        The advantages and disadvantages are right there as well. Of course it is complicated. If you think voting systems are simple you are wrong. There is no single, best solution. Philosophers argue about it. Philosophers! Obviously it is complicated. Each system has advantages and disadvantages, but here is the intro from the Wikipedia page:

        Research by social choice theorists Steven Brams and Dudley R. Herschbach found that approval voting would increase voter participation, prevent minor-party candidates from being spoilers, and reduce negative campaigning.[1] Brams’ research concluded that approval can be expected to elect majority-preferred candidates in practical election scenarios, avoiding the center squeeze common to ranked-choice voting and primary elections.[2][3]

        Thus basically it solves the same problem as instant-runoff, but also solves the “center squeeze” problem which is exactly the problem you mentioned. In other words, if we had approval voting then Holmes would be City Attorney. With instant-runoff it would have made no difference.

        I just don’t see approval voting as a serious proposal for large public elections.

        Approval voting is currently in use for government elections in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, Fargo, North Dakota, USA, and in the United Nations to elect the Secretary General. [Wikipedia]

        Personally I think approval voting is best done at the primary level, with an open primary (two-person race) for the general. But then I also think we should have proportional representation based on parties like they do in Scandinavia (which is a completely different system). If the Greens get 10% of the vote they get 10% of the seats. Chances are they will vote with the Social Democrats.

      4. All the Chamber has to do to win an election involving an approval voting primary is to pick two candidates, and tell its supporters to Approve those two candidates, and only those two candidates.

        RCV is simple to vote: you just rank the candidates in order of your real preference. Doing anything else is likely to backfire.

        Approval voting has no simple formula for how to cast an effective ballot, once more than two candidates are involved. Just try going back to the mayoral primary ballots for the last four elections, pretend you don’t already know the outcome, and try figuring out who all you would Approve. Good luck with that!

        I think Portland has the right idea for proportional representation, once they can remove the training wheels of multi-member districts. Electing council members by setting the threshold for election to a fraction over V / (S + 1), where S = seats and V = votes (ballots) cast is elegant, and ensures any majority on the council represents a majority of those who voted, no matter how you slice it. There is no need to be forced to pick just one party list.

        Single-winner RCV is the special case where S = 1. That’s why it is my favorite single-winner system. It helps voters be ready to intuitively grasp nonpartisan proportional representation.

      5. Approval voting has no simple formula for how to cast an effective ballot, once more than two candidates are involved.

        Sure it does. You vote for the people you approve of. Go back to the City Attorney race. Some people approve of Holmes and NTK. Others approve of Davison and Holmes. Only a handful approve of Davison and NTK. Holmes wins!

        Now do the same thing with instant-runoff. Some people have NTK as their first choice, followed by Holmes. Others have Davison as their first choice, followed by Holmes. Not enough people have Holmes as their first choice. Holmes loses. It comes down to Davison versus NTK and Davison wins. We get nothing from instant-runoff.

        Now consider races where instant-runoff would have helped. For example, the Land Commissioner race. We avoid any vote splitting. But the same thing is true with approval voting. Either way Upthegrove advances and wins the race.

        Basically instant-runoff is good, but approval voting is better. They both solve the “wasted vote” problem. But approval voting also solves the “center squeeze” problem.

        Both systems are not perfect. There will be times when instant-runoff is better. But those times are rare compared to when approval voting is better. Can you think of an example where instant-runoff would have been clearly better? I can’t. Yet we both can think of an example where approval voting would be better (the City Attorney race).

        By the way, that isn’t the only case. The same thing happened in the city council race for position 9. Nelson and Oliver squeezed out Thomas (the highly qualified moderate). Nelson won. This had major transit ramifications as well. It actually led to the push for approval voting (to prevent situations like this). But then the council decided to push for instant-runoff, which is largely meaningless in an open-primary state like ours. Nelson is crossing her fingers and hoping that another left-wing demagogue will run against her and advance to the general. She would get crushed with approval voting.

      6. Basically that is what happened with land commissioner, the 3 Democrats cancelled each other out.

        Yes, and I pointed that out. But it is worth mentioning that this is very rare. You have to have, well, basically what they had. There were two viable Republican candidates. There were several viable Democratic candidates. Races like this are very rare which is why it is the only case we can think of where that has happened. And it didn’t actually happen! In the vast majority of cases — as in this one — instant-runoff in an open primary makes no difference at all.

        In contrast we can think of two cases where approval voting would have improved things (City Attorney and City Council Position 9). A moderate — that would have beat either candidate in the general election — would have advanced. Furthermore, approval voting would have helped Upthegrove get nominated as well. He was the consensus candidate for the Democrats. It is highly likely he would have advanced, but with more votes to spare. There are only a tiny set of cases where instant-runoff is better than approval voting (and none that have occurred in this state that we can think of). In contrast there are a lot of cases (including two real-world cases) where approval voting is better than instant-runoff.

    3. I was happy with the ranked choice voting process and results in Portland in it’s first use in the general election. A statewide initiative to implement it statewide failed to my disappointment.

  3. Added “This is an open thread” to the article. All news roundup and Sunday movie articles are open threads even if the author forgets to mark it. So comments on topics that don’t belong in other articles can go in an open thread.

  4. Unless it is about a different city in NA rather than the largest in Manitoba, it’s spelled Winnipeg.

  5. According to the Urbanist, 3 council members voted to kill the SLU streetcar, but were outvoted by 5 who wanted to keep it. So, for now, the streetcar remains, but that’s still a pretty close vote. If ridership on the SLU streetcar does not pick up, I can see its days being numbered.

    1. Has there been any discussion about moving the downtown Seattle Streetcar segment back to 4th/5th avenue couplet? It was one of the alternatives in the original center city connector study.

      The 1st avenue alignment is really expensive because seattle has to basically rebuild the street there as it can’t handle the weight so if we build the streetcar on 4th/5th SDOT could avoid completely rebuilding the street.

      Of course one large downside is that a 4th/5th alignment duplicates link light rail even more than before.

      1. I doubt it. I think the case for 4th/5th is even weaker, given the existing routing. That would mean abandoning the station in Pioneer Square. It would meant that the route from First Hill involves an even sharper U-Turn. It would also mean starting over when it comes to planning (we would have to figure out how to get right-of-way on 4th and 5th). I just don’t see that happening at all.

        My guess is they never build the CCC. They are just delaying the inevitable. They are looking for political cover of some kind. They don’t want to build it now — it was specifically left out of the latest levy — I just don’t see why they would want to build it in the future. It is not like other transit needs will go away or suddenly become less important. It seems highly unlikely that in the near future buses like the 3, 4, 7 and 8 will all run really fast and often — to the point where putting more money into them would be a waste — and we can then throw hundreds of millions of dollars into a streetcar for First Avenue.

        The main thing they need to do is figure out the bus alternatives. There are plenty of options, and ultimately it would not only be a lot cheaper for the city (and Metro) but it would be a lot better for riders as well. If the CCC was completed it would still be a very bad route (short, squiggly and looping).

      2. They are looking at 3rd, apparently.

        ““We need a rethinking on the core design assumptions, we need a rethinking of the options — perhaps Third Avenue… as you know, Third Avenue has only one way to go, and that’s up,” Kettle said. “Bottom line is that this is a zombie project, and sadly, to quote the quotable quote on this, the First Avenue streetcar is really no way to run a railroad.”

        https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/11/18/council-affirms-support-for-slu-streetcar-opposes-extension/

      3. Wait a minute. Construction of the First Hill streetcar was so damaging to the CID that they won’t tolerate a second Link station, yet constructing a Third Avenue streetcar would somehow improve it?

      4. I think that is just Kettle throwing the idea out there. There are two different options for that. First is to kick the buses out and just run a streetcar along Third. That would basically be the “Shuttle and Hub” idea presented here: https://cdn.downtownseattle.org/files/advocacy/dsa-third-avenue-vision-booklet.pdf#page=31. Of course that would be much worse for riders and cost a bundle.

        For that to work well you would probably need much bigger streetcars. Even if they streetcars were the same it would be difficult to connect properly with the existing line. The other streetcars aren’t that frequent or reliable. It would ultimately lead to a very poor system. Only those riding on the streetcar would be able to ride through downtown, while those in the buses would be forced to transfer. That is backwards. If you board the streetcar at Pike & Broadway, chances are you have no interest in riding the streetcar all the way around until it starts going north on Third. If you board the 101 in Renton, it is quite likely you do want to keep riding the bus as it goes through downtown.

        Of course the other alternative would be to just mix the streetcar in with the buses. But that would be stupid. It would greatly complicate the already messy situation on Third while adding basically nothing. There is more than enough transit on Third.

        This is the fundamental issue with the streetcar. Everyone is fixated on the mode, but the problem is the routing. The geometry is all wrong. If the 7 ended at Pioneer Square then of course you would want to extend it farther north. But the First Hill Streetcar comes from the north! It is a circulator — the type of routing that transit experts point out doesn’t work. To be fair, you do add value by extending the tiny South Lake Union line — but that is redundant. The C already does that, and the H could easily do the same thing. We don’t need circulators! We have literally more than enough buses downtown.

        So if the routing doesn’t add anything, does the mode? No! The streetcar capacity is no bigger than our buses, and they don’t need the extra capacity anyway. For all the flaws with West Seattle Link — and there are many — it would at least free up Metro to provide extra service somewhere. But the streetcar will require more service. If it was a bus route it would have been eliminated years ago. But because of an irrational attachment to streetcars, it persists.

      5. The attachment is only “irrational” if one disregards ride quality, seeing transit planning as an abstract matter of schedules and lines on a map. Streetcars are *nicer*.

      6. > The attachment is only “irrational” if one disregards ride quality, seeing transit planning as an abstract matter of schedules and lines on a map. Streetcars are *nicer*.

        Are they actually nicer though? Most people in SLU just use the rapidride C or 40.

  6. Metro has data now for October on their dashboard. It is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison to see the impact of the two restructures, for a couple reasons. First there is the general volatility in the routes. Ridership is still generally increasing (since the big downturn with the pandemic) but month to month ridership changes for all sorts of reasons. So you can compare it to a year ago, or a couple months and ago and draw different conclusions.

    Second, many of the restructures were complicated. For example within Seattle the 347 was replaced with the 348 (running twice as often). But in Shoreline the 347 was replaced with parts of the 365 and 333. Thus it is hard to really assess how well things are going — at least not at the route level. It might we worth trying to assess things at an aggregate level, but it may take a while for things to settle in.

  8. Several Link disruptions this evening due to the big wind and power outages. +Lynnwood station was closed due to a power outage, then rains were suspended north of Shoreline North, then single-tracked, then suspended north of Northgate with shuttle bus replacements. Check ST’s alerts for current conditions. Metro’s next-arrival displays are out.

Comments are closed.