Tag: Sound Transit

Mayor Wilson

No More Laissez-Fare: Pilot Program Will Install Fare Gates at Up to 14 Stations
From Sound Transit presentation

By Erica C. Barnett

Sound Transit is recommending a “pilot” project that would add fare gates to as many as 14 light rail stations, citing high rates of fare “evasion” by riders who board trains without paying at ORCA card readers. The proposal would cost between etween $79 million and $88 million, according to staff, and bring in an additional $30 million a year by increasing fare compliance rates from a current estimate of 63 percent to 95 percent or higher.

In addition, Sound Transit’s executive director of security and fare evasion Brian de Place said, “There’s been a significant amount of attention, in transit circles at least, around other benefits from fare gates, including increased perceptions of safety [and] lower maintenance costs. And importantly, fare gates also allow the opportunity to de-conflict compliance-related actions that sometimes result in escalations and can put our workers at safety risk.”

In other words: Putting gates between riders and train make it less likely that people will board for free and argue with fare enforcement officers when they get caught.

According to a staff presentation, the pilot stations will likely include every Seattle station between Northgate and the International District, plus Redmond, Bellevue, Lynnwood, and SeaTac Airport. The pilot will exclude stations that are at-grade, largely for technical and safety reasons, Sound Transit principal architect Gavin Schaefer said.

In a “typical passenger journey,” Schaefer said, the “addition of the gates improves our passenger experience by making the transition [into the]” fare paid zone more legible. Currently, Sound Transit uses signs and yellow paint to designate the parts of stations where only paid riders are supposed to go.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

Although “fare evasion” is typically coded as a kind of illicit turnstile-jumping, a large percentage of people leaving stadium events, like Mariners games, routinely board crowded trains without paying. Both Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson and Pierce County Executive Ryan Mello asked why Sound Transit isn’t proposing fare gates for the stadium station; Wilson also wanted to know how much this middle-class fare evasion contributed to the overall percentage of non-paying riders and whether Sound Transit had considered the impact of long lines for fare gates after sports events.

De Place said Sound Transit hadn’t calculated how many people fail to pay for light rail after stadium events, adding that “we do see people not paying at those times. Adding fare gates at Husky Stadium, where riders descend to the platform, “could actually help with that queuing and crowd control,” de Place added.

Wilson also wanted to know what the break-even ridership level would be if Sound Transit decided not to install fare gates and simply waited for fare payment to rise back toward pre-pandemic levels. “You would probably need to get back to” the pre-pandemic high of around 85 percent, de Place said, an outcome Sound Transit considers unlikely.

Wilson (who once made the case in PubliCola for a business tax to fund free transit) also wanted to know whether Sound Transit would make a more concerted effort to enroll people in its low-income fare discount program, which is open to people making up to twice the $16,000 federal poverty level.  A staffer said fare ambassadors already tell people about the program when they check for payment on the trains, suggesting that the burden for signing people up for reduced fare passes will continue to fall on social service providers.

King County Executive Girmay Zahilay also asked about “unintended consequences” of fare gates in other cities. But unlike Wilson, he praised some of the outcomes the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has reported since it installed “hardened” fare gates that can trap riders who fail to pay. “They saw, I think it was $10 million in increased revenue, a 41 percent reduction in crime, [and] hundreds if not thousands of hours saved on cleanup time,” The new 7-foot-tall gates were controversial when they were introduced, with some riders calling them “prison-like” and complaining about long backups at the slow-moving new fare checkpoints.

Transit

Sound Transit Sacrifices Light Rail to Ballard, Moves Long-Deferred Graham Station Forward, in Latest “Realignment” Plan

By Erica C. Barnett

The Sound Transit board voted to approve a new “affordable” light rail plan on Thursday afternoon that indefinitely defers construction of light rail to Ballard, builds rail to West Seattle without a planned station on SW Avalon Way, and adds the long-deferred Graham Street Station back to the list of “fully funded” projects.

The cuts, or “realignment,” are Sound Transit’s response to a projected $34.5 billion budget shortfall over the next two decades. In order to restore Ballard and other projects that voters approved in the 2016 Sound Transit 3 plan, the agency will have to come up with between $9 billion and $11 billion in new revenues or cost savings.

The Ballard extension, which would include stops at Seattle Center and NW Market St. would have had the highest ridership in the entire system, with around 150,000 daily boardings—a point City Councilmember Dan Strauss, who represents the neighborhood, has made repeatedly in his effort to get Ballard back on the map. Under the new plan, the “Ballard extension” will terminate at Seattle Center, miles from Ballard, prompting Strauss to urge the board to “, change the name of the alignment—not the Ballard Link Extension, but the Downtown Tunnel.”

Since voters approved the Sound Transit 3 plan in 2016, Ballard has been upzoned by the city three times and grown in population, making it perhaps the most obvious contender in the region for a light rail stop. ”

The board rejected an amendment from Strauss that would have prioritized building the extension to Ballard over building a second light rail tunnel through downtown Seattle. Instead, they adopted two amendments that essentially direct Sound Transit to look for cost savings and new revenue and ask staff to come back with a date for opening the Ballard line.

Those amendments—from King County Executive Girmay Zahilay and Strauss, respectively—are essentially nonbinding and, unlike Strauss’ amendment to add Ballard to Sound Transit’s “funded projects” list, do not commit Sound Transit to actually build light rail to Ballard.

In rejecting Strauss’ amendment, board members said they were actually saving the rest of the light rail system, including the “spine” between Everett and Tacoma and light rail to Issaquah and Kirkland. Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin, who proposed an unsuccessful amendment to table Strauss’ proposal instead of voting on it, said the Ballard proposal “puts the entire system at risk, and for me that is an absolute deal breaker. We cannot risk the entirety of the system for this exploration, and we have to protect the delivery of light rail to all communities.”

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson, who appeared to be leaning toward a “no” vote on Strauss’ proposal on Wednesday, cast one of just four votes in its favor on Thursday (the others were Strauss, Renton Councilmember Ed Prince, and King County Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda).

There was positive news for Seattle light rail supporters on the other end of the line, as the board approved a change that moved the long-deferred Graham Street infill station to the “funded” project list. Advocates have been pushing the board to restore the station, which will fill a two-mile gap between the Columbia City and Othello stations, for decades, ever since Sound Transit “deferred” the voter-approved station for cost savings in the early 2000s.

The Graham amendment, sponsored by Wilson and Zahilay, commits the city to spend up to $30 million on the street-level station; combined with $25 million from an existing federal grant, that would leave a gap of about $130 million, ST’s deputy executive director for enterprise planning, said. The county has not formally committed any funds to the station.

At a rally at the Filipino Community Center Wednesday afternoon, Wilson, Zahilay, and City Councilmembers Dionne Foster and Alexis Mercedes Rinck supported a vote in favor of the station, which was originally proposed as part of the voter-approve Sound Move plan that first funded light and commuter rail in 1996. Without the amendment, the Graham Street Station would have remained among the projects Sound Transit plans to advance to 100 percent design.

“Just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of being here with so many community members, some of whom I’m looking at right now, at a fantastic rally,” Foster said Wednesday. “And at that rally I looked around and I said, ‘Did we organize for 100% design, or did we organize for trains we can ride?’ And today we have our answer: We organized for trains that we can ride!”

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

 

The Graham Street saga may be coming to a close, 30 years after voters approved the station in the 1996 Sound Move measure. (The station still has a $130 million budget gap, so construction is still far from a done deal). But the length of time it took just to get Graham—a street-level infill station that won’t require new track, much less a water crossing—back on the “funded” list is warning sign for anyone who believed that when they voted to fund light rail to Ballard, they were actually funding light rail to Ballard.

As Councilmember Rinck put it during public comment before the vote, light rail to Ballard “is not a ‘nice to have.’ This is essential infrastructure for the largest city in Washington state.”

The cuts the board made yesterday are the fourth, and by far the largest, “realignment” in Sound Transit’s history, and their magnitude appeared to surprise many board members when the agency announced the $34.5 billion shortfall last year.

The repeated realignments have led some advocates to urge changes to the way the agency is governed. Currently, the board that oversees and makes policy decisions for Sound Transit is made up of an ever-changing roster of elected officials from around the region. This setup was designed to ensure accountability—elected officials, unlike staff, can theoretically be booted for decisions voters don’t like—but it also means the board has no technical experts and little institutional knowledge, since most elected positions turn over frequently.

One of the longest-serving Sound Transit board members, King County Councilmember Claudia Balducci, told PubliCola after Wednesday’s meeting that she thinks it’s time to reconsider how Sound Transit is governed. (As Balducci noted during the meeting, “I have gone gray in the service of expanding transit in this region.” More than 15 years ago, I covered her battle against fellow Bellevue City Councilmember Kevin Wallace to build light rail on the Eastside.)

“I really do think it’s time to start talking about governance,” Balducci said. “If we’re in this constant cycle of crisis, recovery, crisis, recovery, crisis, recovery, maybe a board full of people who are expert at transit running a transit agency and delivering transit projects would be more attuned.”

“I’m an experienced amateur, but an amateur,” Balducci continued. “None of us are experts. How did we not see $35 billion creeping up on us? A hole that big opened up before we took this on. …  Maybe it’s time to evolve.”

Balducci cast one of just two votes, along with Strauss, against the final “realignment” package. (She was one of just three votes, along with Walker and Wilson, against an amendment that moved $100 million away from the Issaquah light rail extension to fund a parking garage in Renton). “I hope to vote yes in the fall,” when staff have a more detailed financial plan, Balducci said before her vote. “But to get from here to there, I want to see more progress on transparency, around the dates that we are delivering projects,” and a “path for Ballard better than we have today.”

Editor’s note: This post originally said the Ballard station would have seen nearly 150,000 daily boardings; in fact, that projection is for the entire Ballard extension. We have corrected the error.

labor, Transit

Staffers Say Sound Transit Refused to Bargain on Return-to-Office Policy, Use of Consultants

 

Photo of Union Station by Steve Morgan, CC BY-SA 4.0 license, via Wikimedia Commons

But Sound Transit says they’re bargaining “in good faith,” and that staffers should have known they couldn’t work from home indefinitely.

By Erica C. Barnett

For months, Sound Transit staffers have been trying to negotiate with their bosses over what they describe as return-to-office mandate and an increasing reliance on consultants rather than staff. But, they say, the regional bus and light-rail agency has refused to bargain, ignoring or rebuffing their primary demands over months of negotiations that reached an impasse

Earlier this month, Sound Transit staff who recently joined the PROTEC17 union, including internal specialists who help oversee projects and keep track of costs, packed a Sound Transit board meeting to express their disappointment in the lack of progress. One staffer who testified accused Sound Transit of “stonewalling at the negotiating table”; another said the agency was pushing an “agenda of overspending, risky contract procurement and major sweeping changes without our input.”

This past March, after more than a year of interim leadership, the Sound Transit board appointed former King County Executive Dow Constantine as its CEO.

A Sound Transit spokeswoman, Rachelle Cunningham, said the agency “is committed to respecting employees’ rights to organize and to maintaining strong, collaborative relationships with our labor partners, grounded in inclusion, respect, and shared purpose.”

One major point of contention is Sound Transit’s return-to-office policy, which requires most staffers to come in to the agency’s office in the Chinatown-International District three days a week. (Staffers say they got just 30 days’ notice of the change). Because Sound Transit told employees they could work from anywhere in Washington state during the pandemic, some moved out of the Seattle area and are now expected to commute hours to the office after working remotely for the past five years.

Staffers told PubliCola Sound Transit never gave a clear reason for the policy change. “There really isn’t a good argument, as far as our work is concerned, to force everybody into one location,” one staffer, who requested anonymity to protect their job, said. “The only argument that’s been giving is the ‘revitalization of Seattle.'” Another staffer added that Sound Transit opened two new light rail extensions successfully during the pandemic, suggesting that employees could work effectively without coming in to a physical office.

For staffers who relocated outside Seattle on the belief that Sound Transit’s remote work policy would be ongoing, the sudden return-to-office mandate could mean factoring an hours-long unpaid commute into every workday spent at Sound Transit headquarters. “For me, it means being less productive—actually getting less work done, because so much of my time is going to be spent commuting,” the first staffer said.

Cunningham said the agency started implementing it return-to-office policy at the beginning of 2025, and that “there was never a policy that stated employees could live anywhere in Washington and work remotely on a permanent basis.” The union disagrees, arguing that return-to-office is a work condition that Sound Transit needs to negotiate with represented employees.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

The second Sound Transit staffer said parts of their job are now being done by contractors who were supposed to augment, but not replace, Sound Transit staff. “I had to kick, scream and claw myself into meetings” where they were previously part of decision-making, the staffer said. “These consultants don’t know what they don’t know in terms of Sound Transit processes.”

In addition to hiring more contractors to do agency work, Sound Transit is moving toward a new contract procurement method in which multiple contractors are awarded a single contract to compete for individual jobs. They fear that this, too, could be a way of boxing out Sound Transit staff in favor of  private contractors. “Leadership is hollowing out [and moving] our public agency towards a privatization framework, replacing us with consultants,” the first staffer said.

“There weren’t a lot of answers about the need for this big change,” the second staffer added. “It’s all up in the air, it’s all new, and there has been very little communication about our place in all this. …  There’s a lack of trust in internal staff and a feeling that we’re not important to the vision for the agency.”

Cunningham said there’s been “no change” in how Sound Transit uses contractors. “The need for consultant services changes to reflect the needs of project delivery and operations, but nothing is being done differently than in the past,” she said.

After the action at the board meeting November 6, PROTEC17 director Karen Estevenin said, “we have received proposals on some of our top issues, and had a decent negotiation session. We plan to keep up the solidarity and actions until we have an agreement we can all be proud of.”

Guest Contributor, Transit

Three Key Questions to Save Our Light Rail Future
Photo by Sound Transit Special Selection via Wikimedia Commons; CC-by-2.0 license.

By Claudia Balducci

It’s no secret that our region needed high-capacity transit yesterday — or better yet, four decades ago. As a lifelong transit rider and a regional transportation leader, I’ve spent much of my career fighting for East Link, passing ST3, improving transit service, and delivering the kind of system our communities deserve. This work is essential: transit connects people to opportunity, makes our region greener, and—more personally—helps my teenager find their independence.

The West Seattle and Ballard light rail extensions alone are historic in scale—the largest public works undertakings in Seattle’s history. These extensions will connect two culturally and economically prominent Seattle neighborhoods that can be hard to access. That’s why traffic-free rail to these destinations has been part of our civic vision for decades.

But Sound Transit’s recently reported rising costs threaten our ability to deliver on ST3—the bold plan voters approved in 2016 to expand rail and bus rapid transit throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The reasons for these rising costs include increasing construction costs, high interest rates, and an uncertain federal transit funding picture. So, here’s the fundamental question: How do we meet the promise of light rail without breaking the bank?

I’m asking Sound Transit to consider three key questions this fall:

  1. Can we reimagine the second downtown tunnel?

ST3 originally proposed a second tunnel between the Chinatown–International District and Westlake Center to support a growing regional transit network. But before building new infrastructure, let’s explore whether technology and reliability upgrades could allow us to interline—running all three lines through the existing Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel.

Consider this: London plans to run more than 30 trains per hour in a tunnel that first opened during Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, simply by upgrading to modern signaling systems. Surely, with similar technology, we can optimize Seattle’s existing tunnel—built during Ronald Reagan’s presidency—to meet our service needs. If feasible (and this will require detailed analysis from outside experts), using a single downtown tunnel could save billions—funds we could reinvest to bring light rail to Ballard and West Seattle. A central question is whether this can be achieved while maintaining reliable service. It’s a critical issue that deserves resolution.

  1. What strategies can we find to deliver projects faster and cheaper?

We must build on the work of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), which I proposed during the last Sound Transit realignment process during COVID to identify cost-saving strategies. Can we break up transit megaprojects—an approach used by other mass transit systems across the globe—into smaller contracts to attract more bidders to a heated construction market, lowering costs and improving accountability? Can we streamline permitting at the local and state levels? And can we proactively acquire key parcels of land early to lock in real estate prices before they rise?

  1. Can we adopt service-led planning that puts riders first?

Service-led planning is the standard globally for delivering the best rider experience. Investments are prioritized based on how they support speed, reliability, and service integration. Voters endorsed ST3 for the freedom its services entailed, not the scale of what would be built. Therefore, the service enabled by any piece of infrastructure must be the highest priority.

Using these principles, if the existing Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel can support the operations of three light rail lines by using modern signaling technology and design standards, the second tunnel becomes a nice-to-have, not a must-have. Even better, interlining will improve the rider experience by supporting easier transfers across platforms, rather than forcing long walks to adjacent stations, or cumbersome transfers across whole neighborhoods. It could also solve the longstanding challenge of how to serve the Chinatown-International District without digging up that neighborhood yet again.

It’s easy to list reasons why something won’t work. The real test is imagining how it can. For every “that’s impossible,” we must ask “how can we?” In this moment of scarcity, our creativity is our greatest resource. At Sound Transit, we’ve shown we can innovate before. Now it’s time to do it again.

We owe it to our region to solve the real problem—connecting people region-wide—and leave no good idea unexplored.

Claudia Balducci is a King County Councilmember and Sound Transit Board Vice Chair

Elections, podcasts

Seattle Nice: Sound Transit’s New Leader, Katie Wilson’s Run for Mayor, and Ann Davison’s Challengers

By Erica C. Barnett

On our latest episode of Seattle Nice, we discuss King County Executive Dow Constantine’s likely appointment to a $675,000-a-year job as head of Sound Transit; mayor Bruce Harrell’s first potentially viable challenger, Katie Wilson; and a new candidate, Erika Evans, who’s joining the race against Republican City Attorney Ann Davison. We also poured one out for the short-lived candidacy of Tanya Woo, who briefly filed to run for City Council District 2 (the seat she lost to Tammy Morales before getting appointed to the council and losing to Alexis Mercedes Rinck last year).

It’s somewhat unusual for an incumbent city attorney to have so many challengers this early in the race (in addition to Evans, Rory O’Sullivan and Nathan Rouse are running). But in the case of Davison, it’s hardly surprising.

In her first unsuccessful campaign, in 2019, Davison ran against Debora Juarez from the right. As part of her appeal to voters, Davison proposed warehousing unsheltered people in former big-box stores, called climate change a pointless “luxury” issue compared to removing encampments and making Seattle “clean”; and claimed the city’s streets were covered in human feces.

In her second campaign, for lieutenant governor in 2020, Davison ran as a Republican, announcing that she had left the Democratic Party as part of the Walk Away movement headed up by (later-convicted) January 6 rioter Bradon Straka. (State elections are partisan, but Washington state does not require voters to register as a party member, so there’s no way to confirm Davison’s previous Democratic affiliation).

After losing that race in the primary, Davison defeated police abolitionist Nicole Thomas Kennedy in 2021, running on a law and order platform. She has spent her term advocating for the right to prosecute people who use drugs in public, crack down on sex workers, and banish people who commit drug and sex work misdemeanors from parts of the city.

Under Davison, the city shut down community court, which provided an alternative to jail for people accused of certain misdemeanors; created a new “high utilizers” program in which people arrested over and over are subject to a higher level of punishment; and began pursuing charges aggressively under a new drug law that makes simple drug possession or using drugs in public a misdemeanor. She also supports limiting the number of times people are allowed to overdose before they’re thrown in jail.

We debated whether Davison is really a Republican (she is, ) or if she’s maybe some kind of moderate Democrat (as Sandeep seems to believe).

Last month, Davison belatedly joined a lawsuit filed by other cities against a Trump executive order threatening to withhold federal funds from cities that won’t help the federal government conduct immigration raids—a Seattle policy for many years. Unlike other city attorneys, however, Davison’s justification for joining was that the order violates “local control,” a tepid reason at best.

Notably, Davison has declined to denounce Trump generally or say whether she voted for Trump or Harris in the last election (we asked), and the policies she supports are, very generously, on the far right end of Seattle’s political spectrum. (Although, again, she denounced the Democrats and joined a national Republican movement in 2020, as Trump was running for reelection, and ran on a Republican ticket that was headed by a far-right MAGA extremist who went on to deny the election results.)

Check out our discussion on this week’s episode:

 

Guest Contributor, Opinion, Transportation

Sound Transit’s CEO Search Should Be About Leadership, Not Political Deals
Image via Soundtransit.org

By Francois Kaeppelin and Trevor Reed

Imagine applying for a high-powered job where you get to pick half of the hiring committee. That’s exactly what’s happening at Sound Transit, where King County Executive Dow Constantine is asking his own appointees to give him the top job.

As King County Executive, Constantine holds a built-in advantage on Sound Transit’s board: He personally nominated half of its 18 members and sits on it himself. With the rest of the board filled by top leaders from Pierce and Snohomish counties, their appointees, and the state Secretary of Transportation, Constantine still wields disproportionate influence over who gets the job. No credible hiring process would ever allow an applicant this level of influence over their own selection.

Think about that for a minute: the person who appointed half of the board members is now asking them for the agency’s top job. While Constantine has stepped aside from voting on his own candidacy, the people he chose are still there, making the decision.

This isn’t just a technical oversight—it’s a blatant conflict of interest. When those in power have a direct hand in choosing their own decision-makers, it becomes nearly impossible to say that the selection process is truly fair.

A second issue with this appointment is that Sound Transit has chosen to keep much of this process behind closed doors. The agency has publicly stated that state law allows them to hold secret hiring meetings. But the law they cite doesn’t require this secrecy—in fact, it explicitly encourages transparency, urging public agencies to seek community input even when not legally required to do so.

While other agencies openly disclose CEO candidates, Sound Transit has chosen, once again, to shield the process from public scrutiny.

The lack of transparency is compounded by hiring criteria that favor insiders over expertise. The job posting includes a requirement for an “understanding of the local cultural and political landscape.” At first glance, this requirement sounds reasonable—but in practice, it creates an artificial barrier to outside talent and reinforces the same system that has failed to deliver on-time and on-budget transit projects. Instead of recruiting the best leader for the job, Sound Transit is making it easier for a political insider to take control.

The new CEO will be responsible for making decisions that impact your daily commute, whether you’re heading to work or getting around the city. If political favors influence the selection process, there’s a real risk that the agency will prioritize insider interests over public benefit. This could lead to delays, rising costs, and a transit system that fails the millions of people who rely on it.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

For Sound Transit to deliver on its promises, the public must have confidence in its leadership selection process. While Dow Constantine brings decades of experience in public service, the next CEO should be chosen based on their qualifications and vision—not because they have been around the longest or have the right political connections. A truly accountable process requires public disclosure of finalists, clear evaluation criteria, and meaningful public input.

Other cities have recognized that effective transit leadership requires fresh perspectives, not just political familiarity. Canada’s VIA Rail, for example, brought in international talent to modernize its intercity network. Seattle needs a CEO who can bring innovative solutions to the agency’s long-standing challenges.

Sound Transit is responsible for billions of taxpayer dollars and the future of mobility in our region. This decision must be made with full public trust. To make this possible, the Board must:

• Fully disclose the criteria they’re using to judge candidates;

• Publicly disclose the list of finalists before making a hiring decision;

• Host a public hearing on the finalists; and

• Establish a structured public feedback process to inform the CEO selection.

If Sound Transit is confident they have the best leader, why keep it a secret? Riders deserve transparency—before it’s too late.

Francois Kaeppelin is a transportation policy researcher focused on transit governance, infrastructure development, and equity. He currently serves as Legislative Advocacy Director for Seattle Subway, working to advance transit governance reform in the Seattle metro area. Previously, he conducted research at the National Center for Sustainable Transportation and the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, focusing on the impacts of freeway construction on communities of color, barriers to transit-oriented development, and regional transit coordination in California.

Trevor Reed represents the East-King sub area on Sound Transit’s Community Oversight Panel and is founder of Transportation Reform. He completed his Master’s degree at University College London where he worked as a researcher at the Omega Center for Mega Infrastructure and Development focusing on how governance structures impact the efficient delivery of transit projects internationally. His work concerning traffic’s economic impacts has appeared nationally in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and PBS’s Nightly Business Report.