Update Fri Dec 6, 10am: The UW station repair work is rescheduled to February 1-2, reports Mike Lindblom of the Seattle Times ($). The reason for the delay is the six new breakages since Tuesday — ST doesn’t want to risk them reappearing while trains are reduced to 22 minute frequency. Ross Arnold, ST’s chief delivery officer, mentions three possible causes for this week’s disruptions they’re investigating: (A) higher loads (higher ridership since Lynnwood Link’s opening making trains heavy), (B) overload on the electronic network after connecting the upcoming Redmond and Federal Way extensions, or (C) both the Siemens and Kinkysharo train series being out for ongoing maintenance more than expected. The original article is below.
The Link reduction planned this weekend has been postponed. Here’s Sound Transit’s announcement:
Due to a technical systems issue on the 1 Line, the upcoming disruption scheduled on December 7 and 8 has been postponed. The work scheduled for December 7 and 8 to repair the overhead power issue at the University of Washington Station has been postponed. Online trip planners will be inaccurate between December 7 and 8 due to the postponement of this work. Information concerning the rescheduling of the overhead power work will be provided as soon as it becomes available.
Link is still having intermittent problems between SeaTac and Angle Lake like it had Tuesday, which was also covered in the Seattle Times ($). The postponement may be related to these although we don’t know.
This article will be updated if more information comes in.
News roundup links on other topics:
- Tammy Morales resigns from Seattle City Council (The Urbanist). Also in Publicola.
- T&T Asian supermaket ($) from Canada has opened in Bellevue. (Seattle Times)
- Bellevue launched an airport shuttle to Bellevue hotels. (KIRO)
This is an open thread.
Of course, the Bellevue airport shuttle page makes no mention of the 560 as an alternative, which runs twice as often (at least daytime) and charges 1/10th the fare.
This is basically “transit” for people with transit stigma who don’t want to be seen on real transit, even if it means having to wait much longer at the airport to be picked up.
“makes no mention of the 560 as an alternative, which runs twice as often (at least daytime) and charges 1/10th the fare.”
And doesnt pick you up or drop you off at your hotel, and makes other stops along the way, and doesn’t start running until 5am (545am on weekends).
Multiple things can exist to serve different markets on the same itinerary. It’s not binary.
Taking bets on whether the Council seriously considers appointing Tanya Woo to D2 after Morales leaves office.
Just think if Tanya Woo gets onto the ST board. Then there would be a boardmember advocating for 4th Avenue Shallow(er) and absolutely opposed to 5th Avenue Diagonal.
Nathan Dickey,
Not a chance. Council will try to find a candidate who’s a likable centrist who hasn’t lost an election. Heck, let the mayor’s office make the pick. Everybody loves Mayor Bruce!
If you’re a Lefty, Morales just stabbed you in back by quitting. Now the Centrist council will get to appoint another Centrist candidate without an election. I know it’s tough to be in the minority, but you just can’t abandon an elected office.
One thing Morales quitting proves is there is no such thing as an “earmark” in public spending. The last City Council passed the Jumpstart tax and believed that somehow a future Council wasn’t going to spend that money anyway they like. Politics just don’t work that way.
Now the Centrist council will get to appoint another Centrist candidate without an election.
Just like Woo, who soon lost her seat in the following election. Except I wouldn’t call the council centrist. They are as far right as they’ve been in a while. Partly this was timing — the post-pandemic reaction against incumbents. But The Stranger also endorsed especially weak candidates (who managed to get through the primary but then were crushed in the general). Now it is the Seattle Times that is endorsing losers (like Woo).
In other words, it is quite likely that a candidate similar to Rinck (who was just elected) ultimately holds the seat.
Council will try to find a candidate who’s a likable centrist who hasn’t lost an election.
Except they did exactly that. Before Woo was appointed, she lost to Morales. They she lost again.
I’m not saying they will appoint Woo again. It would be weird to appoint someone who just lost twice. But appointing someone who lost once would be exactly what they did before.
The last City Council passed the Jumpstart tax and believed that somehow a future Council wasn’t going to spend that money anyway they like. Politics just don’t work that way.
… You do know that last City Council did the same thing to cover general fund shortfalls, digging a hole for future councils to climb out of and setting the precedent… Right? It’s been done by every single council since the tax collection started.
This isn’t a political ideology issue, it’s as bipartisan as Seattle politics get.
I don’t fault Morales for bailing on a toxic work environment. I assume she was waiting for Rinck to come in so there’d be at least one person on the council with government experience other than Dan Strauss.
>The last City Council passed the Jumpstart tax and believed that somehow a future Council wasn’t going to spend that money anyway they like. Politics just don’t work that way.
This re-write of recent history verges on gaslighting. The proponent of the JumpStart tax were forced by tax opponents to state exactly what the tax would be use for in order for it to pass. It was entirely predictable that it would turn into a general fund revenue source, but I think folks assumed a “tax-and-spend” progressive council would be the ones to do it, not a bunch of “moderates” who ran on cutting spending. If they were true to their platform, they would have cut the tax entirely. Imagine how happy the Chamber would have been! The richest stakeholders are the most important stakeholders, after all.
“…but I think folks assumed a “tax-and-spend” progressive council would be the ones to do it, not a bunch of “moderates” who ran on cutting spending.”
That’s a really bad assumption to make.
The political leanings of the council will always change over time – that is a 100% certainty. One should never assume that a tax or program passed today won’t be changed or altered in the future. Taxes and laws will always change – past councils don’t get to pass laws into eternity with no fear of change. And they don’t get to dictate to future councils what those councils can and can’t do.
Elections have consequences.
“I don’t fault Morales for bailing on a toxic work environment.”
Morales leaving because she was tired of dealing with Nelson, Kettle, and Saka wouldn’t surprise me.
Does this mean another vote on the council for shutting down the SLU streetcar?
@Nathan Dickey,
“ I don’t fault Morales for bailing on a toxic work environment. ”
I do, I fault her 100%.
Retiring public servants are fond of saying something along the lines of, “serving my constituents was the greatest honor.” I have no doubt that this is true, but it is also true that serving their constituents was their greatest responsibility.
Morales was elected by her constituents to represent them, and to provide a left of center view on the council. She has now bailed on both of those responsibilities.
Walking away from her responsibility was bad enough, but her seat is now certain to go to a new member who will provide a more centrist view. That is a particularly egregious stab in the back to her constituents who elected her specifically because of her far left views.
And all this for no other reason than she doesn’t like the politics of her fellow council members? That is a cop-out.
Don’t get me wrong, I welcome a more centrist and less radical city council, but this is not the way it should be achieved.
That’s a good point Matt.
Imagine Bob Kettle introducing a new tax to fund public safety…. giving money to the Seattle Police Department forever by “earmarking” it for public safety.
Would that mean when the Seattle City Council swings to thew Left, and it will at some point in the future, the new Lefty Council won’t use that “earmarked” police money for something else?
This basic understanding of our political system is why Sound Transit was, and still is, a terrible idea. It’s a fake taxing district with unelected leadership and a foggy mission…. the longer Sound Transit limps along with zero oversight the worse the outcome. Six billon dollars for a subway to West Seattle? Nobody voted for that.
The rest of the council shut down specifically shut down all of her legislative priorities, literally berated her on the dais, and actively prevented her from doing her job as a representative of D2. They even put her losing opponent in the city-wide seat! D2, which I’ll be voting in next year, will get to choose another representative. Election have consequences, sure – when the rest of the city elects a cadre of bullies, they’re going to actively bully their opposition out of office instead of working with them. I blame everyone except Morales, whose job was made impossible by her fellow council members who sought to silence her literally every day.
It’s just painfully clear that this freshman “good governance” council is anything but.
Nathan Dickey,
Dude, Morales is just a quitter, pure and simple. She bailed on you because her feelings got hurt. Now for the next year, all the council members you hate get to pick somebody to represent you ( and everybody else in D2).
I can’t see Sara Nelson or Bob Kettle quitting even if they were the last centrist council member surrounded by Lefties. At some point the Seattle Left needs to stop whining and suck it up. Morales obviously doesn’t have the backbone for that. Not only does she quit, she cries in media about how the bullies pick on her? You just don’t get elected to quit, because it’s not about you, it’s about the people who voted for you. You can defend Morales all you want, but the fact is she didn’t defend you.
@Nathan Dickey,
“The rest of the council shut down specifically shut down all of her legislative priorities,”
No they didn’t. They just out voted her. That is how the system works. Just because you are elected doesn’t mean your voice is the only one that gets heard. There are 8 other representatives on the council. Their voices, and the concerns of their constituents, also get heard.
A skillful politician knows how to get things done when they are in the minority. Morales wasn’t a skillful politician. She didn’t get things done. That is on her, and her alone.
I look forward to the future.
Lazarus, you clearly haven’t been following the council, and yet feel knowledgeable enough to comment on council activities.
Nathan Dickey,
This is politics. Elected officials just can’t quit because it’s hard.
The worst part is The Urbanist and Publicola not holding Morales accountable for quitting. It’s like The Seattle Times and Sara Nelson are the adults here and the Morales and Lefty rags are still sitting at the kids table. Poor little Morales? How about all the voters she let down because couldn’t take the heat? Expect more from your leadership.
The Seattle Left can’t stand up to Sara Nelson? God help us if they had to stand up to Trump and the rest of MAGA America. I hate that bunch, but they’re tough at least.
She got tired of a toxic work environment that clearly wasn’t good for her mental health, this likely wasn’t an ill rash decision from the sound of it and more of one that she thought of carefully before resignation.
I respect someone taking care of themselves than dealing with people who clearly have fostered an unhealthy work environment.
From my view, something happened or multiple things happened behind closed doors over the course of the last couple of years for her to leave her position considering she was running for election a month ago. Someone doesn’t do this because “their feelings got hurt”.
Morales isnt the only person to have called out the council and councilmembers for their toxic behavior either. Local Reporter Erica Barnett has repeatedly called out the current council for their own toxic behavior towards journalists for doing their job as reporters. She has mentioned multiple times on Twitter of how difficult the council has been to work with as a reporter compared to previous councils. And this isn’t “Oh the council was a bunch of progressives before.”. Barnett has said they have been quite obstinate to letting her do her job as a reporter when reporting on council affairs and has had to use Freedom of Information Act requests multiple times when they didn’t want to cooperate on basic things that aren’t even of top secret. And all FOIA requests have been approved mind you after enough fandangling with city breauacrats.
It’s clear that Nelson and to a degree Kettle have fostered an environment that isn’t a healthy one and that is why Morales left. Telling a someome to just “suck it up” because its politics speaks to your own genuine lack of empathy to be quite frank.
@Nathan Dickey,
I have been following the Seattle City Council for a lot longer than you have lived in this state. A lot longer.
Morales just quit. She quit on her constituents in District 2. She quit on the left wing of the council. And apparently you feel she quit on you too. But don’t blame me for that. Blame her. She is the one that quit.
And the really bad thing is that she just ran for re-election — just last year! If she was tired of the supposed toxic environment, then she shouldn’t have run. She should have stepped down after one term and let somebody else run. Somebody who can handle the politics of the council.
“And the really bad thing is that she just ran for re-election — just last year! If she was tired of the supposed toxic environment, then she shouldn’t have run. She should have stepped down after one term and let somebody else run. Somebody who can handle the politics of the council.”
It’s probably unlikely she left because of the politics of the council If she did, she would’ve bowed out much earlier. What probably caused her to leave is probably something we’ll never likely know or have privy to. As to probably not wanting to drag private interpersonal issues between her and other councilmembers out into the open for the public to see. Council is like an office environment and office interpersonal politics can rear their ugly head as a councilmember unfortunately. As councilmembers are like coworkers and sometimes coworkers don’t get along. And sometimes they REALLY don’t get along, which can create animosity behind the scenes.
Mind you this just speculation on my part, but the whole situation surrounding Morales feels very much like you need to read between the lines to understand what’s going on.
Lazarus, you’re ignoring what I’m saying, and I can’t figure why you’re so offended by Morales leaving except because you apparently think an elected official should be chained to their desk, even when their coworkers make it impossible to do the job.
Zach B gets it.
“[Erica C Barnett] has mentioned multiple times on Twitter of how difficult the council has been to work with as a reporter compared to previous councils”
How many years has Barnett been reporting on the city council? Oh yes, decades.
Mike Orr,
What you’re forgetting is Morales, and Ms. Barrett, live in this tiny Leftwing ecosystem where if things get tough, you just bail. That’s not real life, or political reality. How many people reading this have been stuck a toxic work environment for years because they needed the money? Real life has people committed to staying married, raising kids, paying a mortgage, so you put up with shit at work for the greater good.
It’s completely clear that Morales has no problem putting her self interest before the people who voted for her. Where’s the commitment? It’s a real bad look to voters….
As a guy who’s pretty much politically dead center, I see the Rightwing wing in America becoming the ruling party. Not because they have better ideas, but they’re a whole lot tougher than the Left. Sara Nelson is maybe the best and toughest politician in Seattle….. she was elected in 2021 and worked tirelessly to make the Council more centrist. As long as the Center holds a majority in City Council, she’s got a really good shot at being the next mayor.
Morales is a nobody now. A quitter. You and Dickey and try to spin this anyway you want to, but America generally looks down on quitters.
I’d say D2 slants to the Left, generally, but City Council will install a more centrist Council person for the next year. After that the Left has to spend a whole lot of energy and money on a “safe” seat. If Morales would have any political spine, she would have stayed and fought the good fight, working on getting a slate of more Leftist candidates for 2027 to flip City Council.
Nelson and Kettle are in political power now….. Morales and Kshama Sawant are in the weeds. What’s even worse is Sawart is trolling for finical support for some batshit crazy Communist party that doesn’t even participate in elections. The political reality is Morales and Sawant are really helping Sara Nelson become the next mayor….
A “tiny left-wing ecosystem” that produced 215k votes for Alexis Mercedes Rinck, who is just as “extreme” as Morales.
Frankly, conflating Morales and Sawant is ridiculous, and indicative of a deep ignorance of current Seattle politics.
“Morales is a nobody now. A quitter. You and Dickey and try to spin this anyway you want to”
Don’t get too excited; I didn’t spin anything. The only thing I said was Barnett’s length of reporting experience, implying she has covered all kinds of city councils. I didn’t opine about Morales’s positions or actions on the council; I don’t even know what they are because I haven’t been keeping track of them. So I don’t know whether Morales has a reasonable case for toxic work environment no reasonable person could function in or not.
“The political reality is Morales and Sawant are really helping Sara Nelson become the next mayor”
Sawant isn’t even involved in Seattle now. She was my councilmember. I wanted anybody else, but my favorite candidates could never get past the primary. (But I will say, she’s more intelligent and pragmatic in one-on-one interviews than her rhetoric suggests.) Sawant was last seen urging people to vote against Kamala Harris because Gaza or something. As if Trump would be better for the Palestinians, and as if Hamas isn’t terrorizing its own people and using them as human shields.
Frankly, conflating Morales and Sawant is ridiculous, and indicative of a deep ignorance of current Seattle politics.
And yet it is remarkably common. If you read comments in the Seattle Times they will mention Sawant quite a bit — even though she isn’t on the council anymore. These folks are typically not even from Seattle. They have never voted in a Seattle race, but feel confident in their knowledge of the area because they listen to Jason Rantz. My guess they aren’t even familiar with the Seattle council districts or who is elected at-large.
Folks focus way too much about a shift to the left or right, when that is not what drives most voters. We don’t vote by party. We generally support people who appear to be the best choice, regardless of ideology. There are exceptions and the 2023 election was one. It was an anti-establishment election and for the most part, those in power lost (which is how Kettle was able to beat Lewis). But the district itself likely had something to do with it as well.
But consider the two at-large seats. One is held by Rinck. The other is held by Nelson. They are at either end of Seattle’s political spectrum. Yet they both were elected city-wide. The reason is simple: they ran against weak candidates. Woo was closely aligned with Nelson, but she just wasn’t very good at her job. Rinck clearly knows she is doing. Meanwhile, the main reason Nelson has her seat is because she ran against Nikkita Oliver, a terrible candidate.
If you are focused on ideology than clearly the pendulum has swung and Nelson will be destroyed in the election by someone to her left. But if you actually follow politics you realize the most important thing is who actually runs against her. From an ideological standpoint there really isn’t that much difference between Oliver and Rinck — but from a political standpoint (i. e. the ability to get elected) there is all the difference in the world.
Sawant supported Pramila Jayapa’s initial run for Congress, so I was against Jayapal because I didn’t want another fire-breathing communist destroyer. But Jayapal has impressed me in office with being pragmatic, so now I vote for her. So it wouldn’t surprise me if Sawant and Morales have such wide differences too.
And tacomee, that’s one reason I’m a centrist, not a leftist, no matter what you believe. I look for people who look for the legitimate parts of both sides and try to put together something that works for everyone (except the extremists, who will never be satisfied). Jayapal seems like that, even if her own views are maybe more left or identity-politics than I’d like.
Although it could be that I’m just more exposed to Sawant: I’ve heard her rhetoric and interviews and council speeches while she was on the council, whereas with Jayapal I only see her legislation. Still, Jayapal has good legislation, while Sawant can’t help throwing Amazon under the bus because it’s a large corporation or voting against a budget because it doesn’t “soak the rich” even when she’s the only one on the council doing so.
Nelson comes off as someone who can’t take criticism lodged against her and the council.
She has multiple times ofuscated civic engagement at council meetings because her and the city council’s proposals were deeply unpopular (SOAP and SODA zones, the proposed change to minimum wage laws for restaurant workers, etc) with the public and didn’t want to be held accountable for their actions by either taking a recess mid meeting or cutting public comment short.
There is also the fact that she ofuscated citizen led social housing iniative that the council was supposed to either approve or send to the ballot and they kept pushing it back till the deadline for this year’s election passed and now is going to special election sometime next year.
Her and the council also got in hot water recently for ethics violations in regards to a private event they went to recently where city matters were discussed after hours between councilmembers and people present at the event.
Nelson isn’t some beacon for centrist “tough on crime” politics in Seattle. She is for all intents and purposes a politician who cant take criticism and would rather throw her constituents under the bus for holding her accountable than do her job as a councilmember thar she was voted in to do.
It really stuns me why we can’t have accurate real time arrival on Link as this work postponement alludes to and as is very common lately. There was some delay last night on the 1 line, there was an announcement that trains were running every 10 minutes but waited 15 mins for a train at UW and gave up and caught a bus.
I was surprised they could even get the weekend reduction into the apps. Usually the apps are wrong on holidays or special scheduling.
I’ve been using rapidride g recently, it’s been showing up on time and with ~6 min frequency. Not sure if I’ve been getting lucky or if metros fixed the issues
The bad luck just got passed along I guess. Wait until it gets icy and we get to slip and slide down the hill on Madison downtown
I’m waiting to hear back from Metro about RapidRide G’s snow route, which currently doesn’t exist.
I’m waiting to hear back from Metro about RapidRide G’s snow route, which currently doesn’t exist.
My guess is it just gets canceled. If you look at the 1 and 2 on Queen Anne it is interesting. So the 1 during snow conditions gets extended, while the 2 basically becomes the 1. I think the same sort of thing would happen for the G. It gets cancelled, but people take the 2, 3 or 4, which go around. Like the 2, maybe they label the bus with G (as well as the numbers) or maybe folks are told to take the other bus. It doesn’t mean they will take that bus (necessarily) — there are other options. But my guess is it just gets cancelled.
The map at launch had a wide snow reroute on Jackson Street between downtown and somewhere around 15th or 23rd: in other words it wouldn’t have served much of Madison at all. That variation has disappeared from the current route map.
What we do know is that First Hill has always lost east-west bus service during snow, because buses can’t go up and down the steep hills, especially with ice on the road as is common here. Even when they do go some of the hills, they don’t stop in the middle, only at the top and bottom. So don’t try to catch a bus at Queen Anne Drive & Highand Drive near Kerry Park; go to the top of the hill at Galer Street. For First Hill instead of the 2, 3, 4, and former 12 (now G), a route 90 shuttle replaces them, running in a loop on 3rd Ave, Jackson Street, Broadway, and Pine Street. So it’s unlikely the G will run on Madison during snow times.
Yeah, I’m thinking it will be similar to the snow route for the east part of the 2. Either that, or they simply cancel it and tell people to take the 2 (or other buses).
The Seattle Times article on the postponement quotes ST service deliver an officer Arnold as saying that the opening to LLE added 20,000 riders to the system.
Is that new data? The last data I saw indicated that LLE had added 15,000 riders to the system, but that was only for the first full month in the current operating configuration. If it is now up to 20,000 riders being added, then that is even better.
But the theory about the tying in of DRLE and FWLE data systems causing a data system overload is interesting. Are we back to a “type 1201” style situation? Oh, if the solution was just that easy.
I’ve been looking at the ST ridership dashboard – and it’s really not clear to me that the 20,000 number can be attributed to LLE (especially since nobody has to tap off anymore so it’s harder to track trips).
September 2023 1 Line avg weekday ridership vs 2024 was 80,000 vs 92,000
October 2023 1 Line avg weekday ridership vs 2024 was 80,000 vs 100,000
I took a look at Sep and Oct avg weekday ridership from Roosevelt northward (so in 2023, just Roosevelt and Northgate, and in 2024, Roosevelt all the way to Lynwood) and the section’s ridership went up about 1,300 in Sep but DOWN by 200 in Oct. If anything, the LLE numbers are looking kinda disappointing, even while the whole 1 Line is doing well.
Once school goes back in session, ridership on weekdays usually increases, so I’m assuming the Y/Y analysis for Sep/Oct is at least somewhat representative, but we’ll have to see how ridership patterns develop.
@Dylan,
Aug 2024 Link ridership was 90,057. Oct 2024 Link ridership was 105,765. That is an increase of 15,708. That is a little over a 17% bump in ridership, which is huge.
If you look at the same two months in 2023 to gauge seasonal variation, the increase was only 850 boardings. That represents about a 1% increase over the Aug 2023 reference. Which is minuscule.
In my book 17% is greater than 1%. But I went to the public school system, so what do I know…..
But that isn’t the point.
The point is that ST’s Arnold was quoted as saying the increase was actually 20,000 boardings, which would be approximately a 22% increase in ridership since August 2024.
So the question remains, is Arnold’s 20,000 figure newer data? Did he misspeak? Or did the Seattle Times misquote him?
And if you still don’t beleive that LLE has pumped a lot of new riders into the system, then just go ride Link. It is absolutely packed during peak times.
And it is full steam ahead to the DRLE, Full ELE, and FWLE extension openings. It’s a busy time, and regional transit is finally improving. It’s been a long time coming.
So the question remains, is Arnold’s 20,000 figure newer data? Did he misspeak? Or did the Seattle Times misquote him?
Dylan already explained this. In all likelihood he got the 20,000 number from comparing October 2023 to October 2024.
As to whether this was due largely to Lynnwood Link, we will never know unless ST decides to release more detailed ridership information (like BART). We can look at some of the numbers (the additional rides to Lynnwood, the decrease in ridership at Northgate) and speculate, but it is very difficult to make any sort of assessment. Even directional information (like ST used to release and currently releases for Sounder) would be helpful, but we would still end up making some assumptions.
@Lazarus,
There were two reasons for opening LLE:
1. To add transit options and attract new riders between Northgate and Lynnwood
2. To Increase speed and improve reliability for existing riders transferring at Northgate or taking other express buses prior to LLE
I think it’s obviously true that Link is performing very well, but you cannot just attribute 100% of that to LLE without more detailed data.
If you take a look at the ridership of just the LLE stations, you get about 8,000 people per day using LLE, while a similar number have stopped using Roosevelt and Northgate. So we can see it’s achieving #2, but is it adding new riders to the system (i.e. achieving goal #1)? To my eye – not yet, but of course it has only been 2 months.
Here’s the raw data I was using:
Northgate Sep-23 10430
Roosevelt Sep-23 4340
Total 14770
Northgate Oct-23 9835
Roosevelt Oct-23 4358
Total 14193
Lynnwood Sep-24 5085
Mountlake Terrace Sep-24 1352
Shorline North Sep-24 946
Shoreline South Sep-24 1001
LLE subtotal 8384
Northgate Sep-24 4092
Roosevelt Sep-24 3593
Total 16069
Lynnwood Oct-24 3889
Mountlake Terrace Oct-24 1187
Shorline North Oct-24 873
Shoreline South Oct-24 1066
LLE Subtotal 7015
Northgate Oct-24 3506
Roosevelt Oct-24 3427
Total 13948
From LLE october 2024 the 4 stations had 8.9+2.8+2+2.3 or 16k rider
Since July, August, September, Northgate station dropped from around 21~24k down to 8k though.
It’s only an actual increase in ridership of around 4k if we set northgate at around 20k.
> Is that new data? The last data I saw indicated that LLE had added 15,000 riders to the system, but that was only for the first full month in the current operating configuration. If it is now up to 20,000 riders being added, then that is even better.
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/north_hct/lynnwoodeis/ch5.pdf
By 2035 sound transit estimated the net boarding increase would be around 10k (including subtracting the decrease at northgate).
@WL, which numbers are you using? They seem pretty different from the “average weekday boardings” metric I pulled from the ST ridership dashboard – maybe your source is better? But northgate at 20k pre LLE seems high to me
“I’m assuming the Y/Y analysis for Sep/Oct is at least somewhat representative, but we’ll have to see how ridership patterns develop.”
Yes this is the most important observation. We should be patient! It’s interesting to identity early trends but any rail system takes several months to a few years for demand to stabilize at a level consistent enough to draw conclusions from.
I see two further ridership shift factors that still need to occur.
1. With Lynnwood parking shortages I expect park and use Link riders will switch stations until all four LLE garages reach about the same percent of occupancy. I think Lynnwood will be at a higher occupancy but riders will gradually figure out if they want parking at 9:30 that they will start to automatically head for another Link garage.
2. When Line 2 goes from Lynnwood to the Eastside, more riders will come to Lynnwood Link stations. There will be trains more frequently (halving platform waiting times). The hassle of transferring to a connecting bus to many of the Eastside office jobs will be gone — for not only Downtown Bellevue but also Microsoft and the Spring District. ST will quit running STX 515.
I could add a third factor called TOD evolution. There are some big apartment buildings about ready. However it will take years for those stations areas to mature as villages.
And all of these things are in the shadow of where employers put jobs. The newest extensions aren’t generally for areas with daylong activity. Many new stations outside of East Link are geared to serve residential areas via walking or parking. Amazon in particular is taking so much Downtown Seattle space that what they do can make or break ST ridership on top of the office real estate market.
Why would Roosevelt go down?
Why would Roosevelt go down?
Roosevelt ridership could go down the same reason that Northgate ridership went down. There are other options. For example if you are at Lake City Way and 145th, then the best option for transit to downtown used to be the 522 (to Roosevelt Station). Now it may be to take the 65 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/d6PEUmmB76mQx36r7) to 148th Station. For people along the corridor being dropped off at a Link station it is the same thing. Maybe in the past you drove down Lake City Way and got dropped off at Roosevelt. Now you get dropped off in Shoreline.
But again, I don’t think the decrease at Roosevelt Station is large enough to worry about. Northgate is a different matter. It has been dramatic.
Yes, I agree that we should be cautious in trying to spot early trends. Link ridership has been quite volatile since the pandemic. There used to a fairly reliable seasonal trend, along with a general long-term increase. Now there is a lot more noise.
“When Line 2 goes from Lynnwood to the Eastside, more riders will come to Lynnwood Link stations.”
The 2 Line will have a first-mover advantage until Stride 2 starts. When both are running it will be interesting to see which one people choose or if they’re even. The 2 Line Lynnwood-Bellevue Downtown will be around 55 minutes. The 535 takes 58 minutes southbound at 8am, 53 minutes northbound at noon, 64 minutes at 5pm. If Stride 3 gets a 30% speed improvement like it has targeted (although that may have gotten watered down), that would be 40 minutes. Although the 535 is hourly Saturdays and doesn’t run Sundays, so then you’d have to take Link.
“Roosevelt ridership could go down the same reason that Northgate ridership went down.”
I doubt it. Northgate had the mass of people transferring to a bus to Snohomish County. Roosevelt has nothing comparable.
“For example if you are at Lake City Way and 145th, then the best option for transit to downtown used to be the 522 (to Roosevelt Station). Now it may be to take the 65”
I tried taking the 65 from Lake City to Shoreline South station to see how well it works. It felt like a long bus ride. I don’t think it’s any better than the 61 or 75 to Northgate, and it may be worse. People took the 522 because it was faster, but the tradeoff was it was more expensive and less frequent than the 61 or 75. That dynamic still holds. Some people might find the 65 pleasanter because it’s in a less congested, more residential area.
Northgate had the mass of people transferring to a bus to Snohomish County. Roosevelt has nothing comparable.
I never said the reduction was the same in number. I made that clear from the beginning. That is why I didn’t dwell on those numbers. But the numbers did go down* so it is hard to pretend nothing happened.
Yet you seemed to be confused as to why Roosevelt ridership would go down at all. It is the same situation as Northgate: People who used to use the station at Roosevelt now use a station to the north. Some of it is the buses, some of it is people being dropped off or taking cabs to a different station. But again, not to the same degree. We are talking hundreds, not thousands. That is why I didn’t worry about it.
It will likely go further down when the 522 is rerouted to Shoreline. Ridership on the 522 is a little bit lower than the old 511/512/513. Not only that, but a lot of the 522 riders board in Seattle. So it won’t have as big of an impact. But since ridership isn’t that high at the 148th Station, it should be noticeable.
Overall though, it isn’t clear the ST Express buses (and CT buses) to Northgate made as much of a difference with Northgate ridership as the park and ride lots. About 3,000 riders a day rode the ST Express buses that terminated at Northgate. But remember, that is round trip. So even if everyone rode to Northgate, that is only 1,500 riders who would board at the station. Yet Northgate ridership is down 4,500 at Northgate. It is highly unlikely the CT buses accounted for that many riders. I think it was mostly the park and ride users. Since Roosevelt had a small lot, it likely lost very few riders to the Lynnwood Link Stations.
*Roosevelt is one of only two stations in Seattle that saw ridership go down from August to October. The other is Stadium. The obvious reason for that is the end of baseball season. Oh, and the numbers at Roosevelt usually go up in the fall (as school starts).
I tried taking the 65 from Lake City to Shoreline South station to see how well it works. It felt like a long bus ride.
It wouldn’t make sense to take it from the heart of Lake City (Lake City Way & 125th) but it is clearly faster if you are up at 145th. Overall the options along 145th for connecting to Link are much better. Consider a trip to someplace south of the UW (e. g. Capitol Hill). Prior to Lynnwood Link you had:
522 — Great option if you were close to Lake City Way.
372 — Not as good. Either a slow walk to the UW station or a long ride to U-District Station.
65 — Similar to the 372, but much slower.
73 — Infrequent, but reasonably fast option for getting to Link at Roosevelt.
347/348 — More frequent option for getting to Link at Northgate.
If you are west of Lake City Way (and don’t want to walk a long way) then nothing has changed. But if you are midway between Lake City Way and 30th (where the 65 runs) you are better off taking the 65. Same goes for everyone along 145th (between there and the freeway). It is a much faster option. It is worth noting that the 65 had 340 riders along that stretch (right before the restructure). Almost everyone was heading south. Some are probably still heading south. But my guess is plenty are heading west, to catch Link at Shoreline.
Oh, and the lack of the 73 has probably sent some riders to Northgate. But with so many people switching from Northgate it is hardly noticeable at that station. Ridership was also fairly low prior to being eliminated.
@ Mike:
The Stride Vs. Link choice will be interesting. I will note that at either end the transfers between the two do require level changes, especially when going from Bellevue to Lynnwood both involve going down lots of steps at both points on Link.
That said, it’s the other pairs that tip towards Link. The transfer difficulty and backtracking means that I don’t see many want to board in Shoreline to get to Stride at Lynnwood. I also see Link being favored if the destination is in the Spring District or Overlake areas because a transfer in Bellevue won’t be required, and if you are returning from those areas the thought of getting off the train is unappealing once you have boarded.
I can’t help but feel that Stride missed the boat when not planning a Factoria stop as well as not devising a continuous routing through Downtown Bellevue.
That said, it’s the other pairs that tip towards Link.
Agreed. It is basically everyone between the U-District and Lynnwood as well as Capitol Hill. This will avoid a transfer and in general have a faster, more frequent trip to the East Side. It will be significantly better for plenty of people heading downtown or from the UW to the East Side, but depending on where you are going, not a huge improvement. For example Downtown Seattle to Downtown Bellevue will be better, but not like Capitol Hill to Wilburton.
The target for Stride S2 is significantly faster: 33-38 minutes. It will skip some major stops in Bothell, but there’s an additional stop at 85th, and it will obviously run much faster than the existing 535. Off-peak I would expect travel time to be something like 25-30 minutes.
I am looking forward to seeing how the S2 line performs. I expect it to do quite well.
“The target for Stride S2 is significantly faster: 33-38 minutes.”
The target for the bus may be 33-38 — but what about the rider? Getting to stops takes time. None of the Stride 2/ Link transfers are quick — like Bellevue requires waiting to cross 110th after a level change, and there are 65 steps between the Lynnwood Link platform and the bus stops. Many of the interim stops require lots of walking to get to the Stride 2 stop too.
And unlike sitting on a bus or even waiting for a bus, the walking also requires physical effort. Maybe it’s easy for a young, able-bodied male but there are plenty of riders who aren’t in that category.
What good is a bus travel time savings if the path to walk there takes more time? ST loves to tout making Stride faster, yet doesn’t ever talk about the stop design that may eat up the time savings.
@Ross/Mike – in testing out commutes (and other trips where I would prefer to use transit than drive – i.e. as many as possible) from south/east of Lake City (Meadowbrook/110th), I have taken both the 75 and 65 to Link. The 75 accesses Link at Northgate, which as we’ve discussed here for many years is located at a terrible place for bus transfers to rail if you are coming from any direction other than the south. The scheduled bus time from where I started is 22 minutes; it’s generally 25 or so in reality and this will likely increase as the former mall property continues to be developed. It’s 10 or so minutes to drive the same distance; the bus is not competitive if you have the choice to park there.
The 65 from the same area north to Shoreline South/148th is scheduled at 12 minutes, and has taken about that time each time I’ve ridden it. Even assuming a 10 minute train headway (so average 5 minute platform wait), you will be on a train before the 75 even gets you to Northgate station. At peak hours and especially once the 2 line starts running across the lake, it’ll be considerably faster to take that (non-intuitive) routing from Meadowbrook/southeast Lake City to Link even for southbound trips.
If, when the 130th station opens the 75 was to be re-routed up Roosevelt to serve it directly, that would clearly be a better option, but it is not planned to serve the station at all and Metro will still force 75 riders to wait until arriving at Northgate to transfer. So – if you’re in Lake City itself, you have decent options to get to Link; if you’re just a bit outside of it those options are severely limited.
In general if one is at lynnwood and trying to reach downtown bellevue from 55 minutes down to ~35 minutes is enough transit time savings to choose stride 2 brt. Of course if one is at shoreline south or northgate station they’ll probably just use link. I also wonder about using 271 for u district or uw to bellevue. It’ll probably remain attractive for those heading to say bellevue square.
Anyways, it’ll also be exciting for stride 2 to connect up woodinville/totem lake/kirkland better. regarding extending stride 2 further south and the missed connections in factoria, it’s definitely a large missed opportunity. I’ve talked about it before but yeah stride 1 (burien via renton to bellevue) just really isn’t as well built.
> The 2 Line will have a first-mover advantage until Stride 2 starts. When both are running it will be interesting to see which one people choose or if they’re even.
I’d say most will choose stride 2 to reach downtown bellevue from lynnwood. Going from 55 minutes down to ~35 minutes is quite enough of transit time savings.
It probably doesn’t make sense if one starting from say shoreline south/northgate though using link would be down to 45 minutes to reach bellevue.
Also it’d be useful for reaching totem lake/canyon park/woodinville etc…
@WL — Agreed. The interesting combinations are something like Lynnwood to Microsoft. Do you transfer to Link at Downtown Bellevue or do you just ride the train all the way around. This is what Al is getting it. If the transfer is bad, then maybe you just ride it all the way around.
But this is also an example of why it would make sense to extend the bus route further into Downtown Bellevue. Not east (where Link goes) but west. I’m not sure the layover situations, but something like this would add more value: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VQ9fjUUtwKYaaWYa8. It is essential that the bus connect to Link, but the more destinations you add that are not served by Link the more convenient the bus is.
@Scott — Interesting. I can see how backtracking (heading north) from Meadowbrook might be best. Just to explore this some more:
From an abstract perspective, the 522 is best if you are close to Lake City Way. But the 522 doesn’t stop between 125th and 85th — a very long distance. If you are north of where Northgate Way intersects Lake City Way (113th) then at least you can take the 61, but that is probably a bit slower than going towards Roosevelt. I assume that once the 77 is added it will stop where the 372 stops. That will make a huge difference for people along there.
Along 35th the 65 is your bus. But if you are headed to Link you actually have several choices, three of which are frequently recommended by Google. Another is to head north (as you recommended). One is to take the 65 south and then transfer to the 62 to get to Roosevelt Station. A third is even more radical: go north to Lake City Way then transfer to the 522 and take that to Roosevelt. You have to be pretty far south on 35th (around 85th) before Google recommends you take the bus to the UW.
Sand Point Way and the 75 is similar, although the tipping point is farther north (probably because going south on the 75 is faster than the 65). In any event is shows the value of connecting these routes to Link in the north end. You will get more riders heading north to connect to a station than you might assume.
The exception is a bus along Lake City Way. This is another reason why combining the 77 with the 125th/130th bus is a bad idea. Someone at 115th & Sand Point Way will gladly take the bus north and ride it west to the nearest station. But someone at 115th & Lake City Way won’t. Not if there is a bus that stops there and connects them to Roosevelt Station. You add a lot more value by sending the 65 or 75 to 130th Station than you do the 77.
I think you could make a good case case for sending the 65 to the 130th Station but at this point the obvious choice is the 75. This also has the advantage of avoiding turns (San Point Way becomes 125th). I would do the following:
1) Send the 75 to Shoreline Community College (via 125th/130th then Greenwood).
2) Send the 5 over to Lake City, laying over with the 61 (at the Fred Meyer).
3) Backfill service on 5th NE with a new route.
This way you cover Lake City quite well (east/west as well as to the north a bit). You double the frequency along the main corridor connecting Bitter Lake and Lake City. This means everywhere along the corridor you have 7.5 minute frequency (if both buses are running every fifteen minutes). You also improve the connections at the north end of Greenwood Avenue. Not only would more people be connected to Link, but they would also be connected to Aurora (for the frequent RapidRide E) and Lake City.
The big question would be how to backfill service on 5th NE. One simple way is with a small route from Northgate that does a live loop in the area (https://maps.app.goo.gl/H27ZyuwCddTN5SZD7). This is short though, which is less than ideal. It would probably make more sense to head across the freeway and then take over for some of the Shoreline buses. Doing that would require a much bigger set of changes (as they cascade through the system).
Hi @Ross, and thanks for your considered response. I tend to agree with the bulk of it, particularly with the 75 serving the 130th Street station, as discussed in an earlier thread. Turning it into another crosstown route serving Bitter Lake/Shoreline CC as you note is probably the best idea there, as both Lake City and Bitter Lake will continue to grow as some of the more “affordable” developable land in the city. Although this would eliminate service on 5th between Northgate Way (110th) and 130th, this stretch is extremely low density north of 112th (i.e. a block’s walk from any transit on Northgate Way; service on 5th isn’t necessary for that). There are only 2 stops northbound on that stretch; other than a small medical center at 115th there is nothing but single-family homes north of 112th, and north of 123rd even that’s only on the west side of 5th.
What 5th really needs is to be part of a Link “shadow” bus including Owl service which could run Roosevelt Station – Shoreline North (even MLT if you cut over on 185th to 15th). This bus could run every 30 min during the day, hourly overnight, and could be beefed up during Link closures. Failing that, I’d suggest a DART-sort of service for coverage in that area; daily use of the bus stops on 5th between 115th and 130th is probably in the single digits.
As an aside I did the drive to Northgate Station, train to UW, 271 to Bellevue this morning and it was no faster than 75 – walk to UW Hospital – 271 would be from north of Matthews Beach. When the 2 line runs through the estimated travel time from Northgate to Bellevue will be 41 minutes which would be a savings of about 10 min from that area in NE Seattle *if you drive to Northgate* (about 5 min if the 75 runs to 130th Street), and about 10 min *longer* if you have to go to Northgate on the current 75 routing. The only real benefit is not needing to transfer once you get on the train, but in effect you’ve just moved your transfer from UW to Northgate or 130th. I hope to be back in a more transit-friendly part of town by then, but it’s a shame it takes a convoluted routing and an hour to get from any part of Seattle to DT Bellevue. As it stands now, and as a “choice rider”, I’ll likely grit my teeth and drive to N’gate unless the 75 serves the 130th Street station directly. That would be a game-changer and an easy choice.
daily use of the bus stops on 5th between 115th and 130th is probably in the single digits.
There are three stops along 5th north of 112th (112th is just north of Northgate Way). They are used by about 70 people but I get your point. There is higher ridership on the rest of the route.
It is tempting to abandon 5th NE between Northgate Way and 130th just as it has been abandoned between 65th and 100th. I’m not ready to do that. One reason is that I believe it makes sense to have a spine along the corridor between Northgate Way and the station.
Part of the reason I want that route as part of a spine is that I would like to see the 348 replace the 67 (and just go straight to the U-District). This would save service hours. But this would also reduce the number of buses along that spine — making the case for continuing service along 5th even stronger. The savings from combining the 348 and 67 would be more than enough to pay for service along 5th up to 130th.
The three stops on 5th north of 112th don’t account for a ton of riders, but they also are cheap to serve. You can think of it as cheap extension of that spine. This is also an area that is likely to grow when they approve the upzoning close to the station. Without a bus on 5th NE up to 130th those riders are stuck taking Link and then heading north (on a bus) to get to the areas only a few blocks away. I’m not thrilled with the idea of a bus route that short, but without a major restructure (mostly in Shoreline) it will do.
You could run the bus every half hour, but I think the bus loses its value at that point. There are other options. One that I haven’t mentioned (but should have) is this:
1) Send the 75 to Bitter Lake.
2) Backfill service on 5th with a bus that runs every 15 minutes.
This would actually save money over the current plans for the 77, while still retaining all existing service. The only loss is extra service along 125th and the one-seat connection from 125th to Northgate, neither of which are necessary. Riders can always transfer and many riders would be close to the 348 (which currently runs to Northgate) and this new bus along 5th NE.
To a large extent I’ve put all my thoughts of the restructure on the back-burner. There is no hurry. 130th Station won’t be done for a while. In the meantime, a lot will happen. The 77 will likely run from the Lake City Fred Meyer to Roosevelt. The driver shortage may be less of a problem. The city (or county) may provide more money for transit. By then I’ll be able to ask Metro for stop data (thanks to the help of Micheal Smith) so we can get an updated look at where people are using the buses since the restructure. Sometime after all that I’ll probably propose sending the 75 to Bitter Lake.
@Ross – you’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this, and I agree, with service hours being available, 5th should be part of a “spine” or Link shadow. I’m a believer in an alternate to the train with local service wherever possible so that one can live/shop/work along the line even if not within the walk radius of a station and still leverage the system. Capitol Hill – MLT lends itself well to this (including the 49 in the discussion), with or without an inline bus transfer at Roosevelt or the U District to a new spine route north. My low frequency idea was more as a replacement for the 75 being routed away from 5th without additional changes to the network or service hours. I’d much prefer this to be another higher frequency route parallel to Link than a coverage route, if possible.
You’re correct – as long as you’re running the route up 5th from Roosevelt, it makes complete sense to continue it to 130th or, better yet, 148th where other bus connections can be made. I’d still consider terminating the 365 at Shoreline S/148th and the western portion of 333 at Shoreline N/185th and adding that service to the new “spine” route up 5th – i.e. all the way from 130th to 148th to 185th stations. Since 185th doesn’t go through to the west – 175th would have been a much better station location for an actual network – the new route would either need to terminate there or head up 10th to Perkins, thence to 15th, thence to MLT station if it were to act as a shadow. Routes that have crosstown components would connect to this spine route at the various Link stations and give more of the grid effect we’d hope to see (with the additional benefit of more bus service in all directions to the new communities being built around the stations). Your 348+67 would be a great route that would be complemented by this new one.
Failing that and failing any possibility of routing the 75 crosstown to Bitter Lake/Shoreline CC, I would still alter the route to travel up Roosevelt to 130th before making a left turn onto 5th there, with a stop for the station just after the left turn south onto 5th (which turn could/should be transit only). Right now SDOT is showing no southbound lanes at all on 5th between 125th and 130th, but rather one NB lane and two left turn lanes onto WB 130th. This is overkill for the amount of traffic NB on 5th and the westernmost turn lane should be a SB lane, transit only if SDOT does not want car traffic there. This would enable the 75 to actually serve the 130th station in both directions. Eliminating the route from NE 125th has no effect – there’s no stop at all on 125th eastbound between 5th and 10th Avenue/Roosevelt, and the one westbound is close enough to the intersection with Roosevelt that moving it to the north side of Roosevelt just north of 10th would have minimal effect on anyone.
More thoughts later on a newer thread as we get closer to 130th opening, I’m sure – but I’d love for the 75 to be able to access it directly from day 1!
@Scott — Yes, I agree. If we can’t send the 75 to Bitter Lake then at a minimum it should be close to the 130th station. Right now it isn’t. I think I mentioned that in the comments somewhere (but it could be a different thread). There are issues. You can’t turn left from eastbound 130th to 5th. This keeps the signal phases simpler (traffic is lighter as a result). I expect this to continue. This means a bus headed towards Northgate would have to turn right (not left) into the station area, make a loop and head back south.
No one is quite sure whether 5th will be one way (northbound) between 125th and 130th. If it is, then the route is even more convoluted. The bus would take a right into the station, loop around heading south, then take a left on Roosevelt and head southeast until 125th where it would then head west to 5th and then south again (like so: https://maps.app.goo.gl/LQrLbaoybzYP7ojh9). Quite messy.
This is another reason why the live loop idea isn’t that bad. If that section of 5th is one-way, then you are looping anyway. Might as well make it a live loop and keep it simple. The route is definitely short enough to turn into a live loop. Making it longer would be better, but then things get complicated almost immediately. You essentially have too many buses north of Haller Lake. It can work — I’ve proposed several options — but it isn’t trivial and there are significant trade-offs.
In contrast if you just send the 75 to Bitter Lake and add a looping bus from Northgate to 130th (via 5th NE) it is pretty simple. Nothing in Shoreline has to change and you save money. Very few people would be hurt by this — lots of people would come out ahead.
More things happened to add Link 1 Line ridership than just Lynnwood Link opening. Namely, more employees were required to show up at their office in person. That trend is also observable for 1 Line ridership in May 2023 vs May 2024 as 7K more weekday riders for example.
The best way to determine how many riders Lynnwood Link added to the system is to add the four new station boardings plus Northgate since many bus riders riding Link were previously boarding Link there. Then double it to account for those getting off. Just looking at those 5 stations doesn’t show a big jump at all. I don’t have a calculator but my eyeball math for October boardings between 2023 and 2024 seems to be 11K in 2024 (with five stations) and 9K in 2023 (one station) — or just 2K more boardings (or 4 K more riders). One has to be careful to distinguish between the actual number of riders on Lynnwood Link versus the number of additional system riders because of the Lynnwood Extension stations opening.
The other thing is that ST has had a string of system single tracking and unplanned delays over these past few years. This affects monthly totals. There have been so many that we can’t remember how those affect ridership.
The best way to determine how many riders Lynnwood Link added to the system is to add the four new station boardings plus Northgate since many bus riders riding Link were previously boarding Link there. Then double it to account for those getting off.
Yeah, I think that is a pretty good approximation. Ridership at Roosevelt Station is also down, but by a much smaller amount (not enough to worry about).
Overall Link ridership continues to fluctuate quite a bit month to month. It also fluctuates quite a bit compared to the same month as the year before. It is generally positive, but but it was way down in February 2024 over February 2023 (go figure). Over the last six months (starting in Spring of this year) there has been a definite positive trend in Link ridership. We only saw one month (June) with ridership below pre-pandemic levels. We’ll see if this continues through the winter.
Oh, and I get the same thing. For the stations north of Roosevelt there was an increase of roughly 2,000 (one way) or an overall increase of 4,000. This seems about right and in line with what I would have guessed. Before the pandemic it would have been a lot higher, but a lot of the Community Transit express buses were eliminated (and a lot of the remaining buses were obviously not carrying that many people).
The Community Transit Board voted on Thursday to drop its reduced fares to $1, and join the Subsidized Annual Pass program, both effective March 1, 2025.
As part of the motion, CT will also honor the SAP on paratransit, making it the second paratransit-operating agency to do so, joining King County Metro. Everett Transit honors the SAP only on regular routes.
The monorail will be the only land-based service in the ORCA pod charging more than $1 for reduced fares. Its reduced fares go up from $1.75 to $2 on January 1.
The ORCA pod is expected to act in March to make the regular-fare Regional Day Pass $6 permanently, but covering only the first $3 in fare for each ride, down from the $3.50 in the current “pilot project”. I have not found any mention of whether the Pod wants to drop the reduced-fare RDP down to $2 from the current $4, likely covering just the first $1 in fare on each ride.
Tammy Morales decided that having to actually work at her job was no fun. So, she ups and quits.
Funny how all the incredible disrespect is coming from folks who don’t live in Seattle.