@18- "This country, large metropoliti in particular, is just too damn big and sprawling to allow it."

Our largest metropolises are generally our densest and best places to bike. The size of the country is completely irrelevant.

"Get a goddamn car, or start walking. "

Because these roads you can't ride a bike on are safe to walk on?

"Meanwhile there's a honking line behind it of 50 cars piloted by potentially unstable drivers, getting pissed off. "

This has never happened in my decade of bicycle commuting.

@85 and 72, see 99.

People the drive cars have to pass a test on the rules of the road. The "test" for riding a bike on the same road is the will to do so.

When people with conflicting expectations occupy the same space there are bound to be accidents, no matter how many rules, laws, street painting you do, as like as somebody thinks they get to blow through stops because they don't feel like stopping, or simply don't know what the fuck they are doing, then you will have your freedom without responsibility.

Enjoy.

@104- So drivers have to take tests and such, but they blow through stops all the time. I don't see your point.

Seattle cyclists, past and present: many of you have already heard that Val Kleitz, Instigator of the Bikesmith (formerly of Wallingford), passed away August 10th after losing his battle with cancer. There will be a memorial ride on Monday starting at noon and a wake Monday night at the Pike Place Brewery. Aaron has all the details at his site, rideyourbike.com.

Val took a piece of Seattle's soul with him when he left. And a sizeable chunk of mine, as well.

19 mph? Right, okay. That's never happening.

As a deaf pedestrian, I can't begin to express how much I FUCKING LOATHE it when we are supposed to share with bicyclists. I am convinced I will be killed by some fuckwit screaming ON YOUR LEFT ON YOUR LEFT ON YOUR LEFT at me... It is not a solution at all, unless the pavement is actually divided in half for each and it is actually enforced.

@108 I feel very sorry for you, I can hear and they scare the shit out of me a lot, most don't even say anything and just whiz by almost knocking everyone over. It's not just the motorists, it's the cyclists that are also the problem, ironically, I see more skateboarders with better manners here.

@103: Yup.

@101 Traffic Calming laws are feel good laws that will never prevent all random tragedies like what happened to Mr. Wang.

it will be interesting to see how the cycle track (segregated/protected bike lanes) on Broadway will turn out

@111: Traffic calming does not involve laws at all, you fucking halfwit!

Traffic calming = physical changes to the road. Thinner lanes and curb bulbs. Lights that aren't synced so you hit 15 greens in a row if you floor it. Median strips with gaps for turning small enough that it would be literally impossible to whip through them at sufficient speed to kill a cyclist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_cal…

You sub-literate hack.

Hmm, I read the same article, and I didn't get the impression the Economist was "condemning" the US at all. I thought it was merely pointing out it's more dangerous to ride bikes in the US.

As a pedestrian I am frightened of being hit by a bike, because I've had several near misses. A number of them seem to me to be very careless, suddenly coming on the sidewalk, swerving from a car lane to a crosswalk in order to not have to wait at a red light (the nerve of making me wait for a light!). They move so suddenly it's harder to predict where they're going to be. So they're harder to get out of the way of than a car, also quieter so you don't hear them as easily. Dusk is particularly dangerous as they don't put their lights on. Even after dark, half the cyclists I see don't use any light (which is a danger for them as well).

It's true cars might run a red light, but not nearly as much as a bike does; I see a bike run a light/stop sign every time I take a walk longer than 10 mins. I haven't seen a car blatantly go thru a red light (meaning the red light's been on more than 30 seconds) in some years now. I most recently saw bikes breeze thru the intersection at 12th & Pike by the police station. I doubt most drivers would be so blatant right in front of the cops.

Bikers should definitely be ticketed for all these, and many more, infractions. Aren't we in a budget crunch? Shouldn't we be looking to take in more money however we can? To keep them from feeling picked on, I'm fine w/more strict enforcement of car violations too. And why not pedestrians? Jaywalking laws are on the books; enforce them and bring more money to the city's coffers. None of this requires any new laws to be passed.

I do think bikers should have to take a test to get a license, like cars do. And no biking on the sidewalks once you're no longer a child.

It was interesting to read in the article about the real bike lanes in other countries, w/barriers, that would seem to make it safer for everyone. I don't quite see how that can happen on existing streets in the US though. And I do believe we have too much of a "car culture." Like we have a gun culture. So I don't think this will ever, on the whole, be a friendly country for bikers any more than we will ever have more stringent gun control measures no matter how high the death by handgun rate rises. Aside from in pockets like Portland or other lefty communities. Although as we sink into 3rd World status, there may well be fewer people capable of owning cars.

The Economist is "conservative" in the old sense of the world. I think by the current standards of the right in this country, they would consider it centrist, or maybe even liberal, because it's not "hard right" enough.

@113 Yes. A speed limit and enforcement of such isn't a law. And, the main thrust of the quoted section wasn't about that. Jesus fucking Christ, get a clue. Construction of islands and shit are only one part of the traffic calming ideaology, and also the first part of which that people will fight for in main corridors. Or, were you not reading the same post and wiki entry I was?

God damn I hate Idiotic people who can't understand things like systems, but pretend they do.

"It's called the will of the people, but that only matters to you when you're stealing one persons income to pay for the 6 week vacation, or health care or child care expenses or housing or food of another too lazy or thriftless to do so himself.
Posted by Seattleblues on September 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM "

Don't fret too much 'cause It works the other way too, conservatives support many kinds of massive government spending that liberals dislike.

@115 "Yes. A speed limit and enforcement of such isn't a law."

I think it is. You're kind of nasty for someone whose posts are almost incomprehensible.

America sucks.

For real.

Man, all these threads feature the same dumbasses making the same lame arguments over and over AND OVER!

Meanwhile, I will continue to ride my bike to work everyday, obey most traffic laws (like, you know, everyone everywhere), have a great time. I will also ride my bike along roads int he King County hinterlands and to sweet campgrounds and over mountain passes and along dirt roads in the National Forests and generally live the sweet, sweet life of bicycling that I love.

@44
HOWEVER!

Rotten666 describes the viaduct bike path as "a perfectly nice, wide path." That's flat out wrong. The viaduct path is miserably narrow path built before there were any rules informing MUP design. Not only is it narrow, it's crowded with clueless tourists wandering in packs, cars pulling through intersections with nary a look either way, and pedestrians crossing from the parking lots directly under the viaduct to the sidewalk. In other words, that path is a nightmare, one of the worst paths in the whole city. That's why you see folks riding on Alaskan. I don't understand why Rotten hates the bikes on that road so much, as the traffic is generally pretty light and it's easy to pass in the left lane. Whatever.

@115: Construction of islands and shit are only one part of the traffic calming ideaology...

Wrong-diddly-fucking-indisputably-wrong, you dumb fuck of the century. "Traffic calming" refers to the physical modifications to the street. That's all. It refers to nothing else.

And traffic-calming street modifications are precisely what the article applauds when explaining how Portland reduces vehicle speeds to "19mph, a speed that, in case of collision, kills less than 5%."

You don't get to just decide that terms mean whatever best suits your backwards world view. Terms mean what they mean.

"Speed limits" are laws. "Traffic calming" is physical. Buy a dictionary and shut the fuck up.

@114, you're a piece of work too:

Hmm, I read the same article, and I didn't get the impression the Economist was "condemning" the US at all. I thought it was merely pointing out it's more dangerous to ride bikes in the US.

Yup. More dangerous, throughout the US. Just the way it is. Never gonna change. Get used to it, and get back behind the wheel.

Oh, wait...

Nearly 6% of commuters bike to work in Portland, the highest proportion in America. But in five out of the past ten years there have been no cycling deaths there. In the nearby Seattle area, where cycling is popular but traffic calming is not, three cyclists have been killed in the past few weeks.

But, you see, Seattle is a unique snowflake. Nothing that works anywhere else could ever possibly be effective here, and so forth. A unique, permanently blood-stained snowflake...

(As usual, Seattle confuses "can't work" with "prevented on account of stupid intransigent dickishness and a political process that rewards stupid intransigent dickishness.")

The answer to Seattle's traffic woes is to make car ownership and use increasingly expensive and inconvenient. That's how it works everywhere else.

Cycling in the Netherlands took off in the past century because car ownership was initially beyond the means of most people [too expensive]. The society — represented by the government — saw that it was good, practical, and economically sustainable and supported a policy that supplemented bike use with a public transportation system. As people became more economically prosperous in the post-war years, the public wisely continued the policy. They considered private car ownership an unnecessary luxury, and so discouraged it by making it inconvenient (to park in the city) and expensive (highly taxed).

If the individual finds it so important to have a car to feed his own ego (it certainly isn't necessary for practical reasons), then he ought to pay for the privilege. Especially since his pleasure comes at the ultimate expense of society as a whole.

Last year I visited my old home of Seattle from Amsterdam (where I now live, and of course cycle everywhere, like everyone else).

This time I decided not to rent a car, since I hate paying for parking, and the traffic that I remembered from back in the '90s was already intolerable.

My friends thought I was crazy; especially since I was staying with relatives in Renton, of all places. But through a little online research I was able to find busses that delivered me to downtown Seattle in about 40 minutes. Pretty much the same as driving. The final legs, from downtown to Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, The U District or Ballard, were all easily made once I decoded the transit maps. To top it off, many of my rides were free, as the driver preferred to wave the fare than change a 10-dollar bill! The whole experience was made more relaxing and enjoyable as I got to walk the short distance between transfer points, breath some fresh air and experience my surroundings directly.

Anyway, I'm happy to report that forgoing a car in the Seattle area is indeed possible, and frankly preferred. All you citizens need is the sense to propose that the taxes on car ownership be doubled or tripled, and that parking be made more scarce and more expensive. You'll soon be able to improve and expand the public transportation system, and create a decent environment for cycling.

Now if you an just do something about those hills.

@122 We should do the same for computers so people will stop bullying online, sounds like a plan. Then only the super wealthy will be posting on these places to, or driving their cars, hell, let's see how far this can go and raise the prices of clothes, the rest of us will just all run around naked.

@122 "oops I don't have change for the bus! sorry, really I am. oh now I get to ride for free? awesome!" is NOT a sustainable way of riding public transportation. way to be That Asshole. you're the kind of fucker I hate seeing get on the bus while the rest of us have to take our hard-earned cash and actually pay to keep the damn things running. and you were on vacation too, with disposable income to spend where ever you please, but don't want to pay for the public utilities you use in my city? FUCK YOU.

@98: Wikipedia?

Oh dear.

@108- Sorry about that. See the thing is audible warnings work on 99.7% of the population. And really we're only warning people so they don't make a sudden jump to the left, the cyclists aren't aiming at you. So just don't walk on the left side of a shared trail and look over your shoulder before moving left (which hearing people should do too since not all cyclists cue people when they should) and you are incredibly unlikely to be injured by a cyclist no matter how zippy they are. And if you don't want to be startled by objects approaching from behind, get one of those mirrors that clips onto your glasses. Cyclists use them, you can use them against cyclists!

@126 we're also talking city sidewalks here ... and it would be nice if they actually followed rules like that in say, downtown Seattle, but the fact is most do not, the ones that do are probably all the bikes chained up most of the day anyway.

@117 Irony. look into it. (I hope that was comprehensible)

@120 "To start with, motor vehicles allowed near cyclists are subject to “traffic calming.” They must slow down to about 19mph, a speed that, in case of collision, kills less than 5%. Police strictly enforce these speed limits with hefty fines. Repeat offenders lose their licences."

Yup. All physical modifications. No laws at all. Fucktard.

@120 From the wiki YOU posted earlier: "There are 3 "E"s that traffic engineers refer to when discussing traffic calming: engineering, (community) education, and (police) enforcement."

Police enforcement. Yup. No laws at all. Fucktard.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

As you yourself have repeatedly said, changing laws would do little good in the absence of "engineering, education, and enforcement."

And as any website on the subject you could attempt to cite makes perfectly clear, laws are ineffective in the absence of education (in residential areas), enforcement (on arterials prone to high speeds), and engineering projects in all cases.

There is no circumstance under which "laws" alone, as for some reason you insist on claiming, constitute a traffic calming effort. You are simply wrong!

http://www.sg.hu/forumkepek/2007_04/misc…

@131 Actually, no. Now, you're being a revisionist prick. What I said was the laws (which are going to be the next part of the traffic calming ideology to occur in Seattle, as our little experiment with the rotational islands are looked on with mixed reviews from what I've gathered), are going to be rather ineffectual in preventing accidental tragedies like what happened to Mr. Wang. I never said that the laws were the only part of traffic calming. But, I have said that the laws are part of the traffic calming ideology...which, up until the last part, you kept claiming that they aren't.

You yourself claimed "Traffic calming does not involve laws at all, you fucking halfwit!" Go ahead, search...that was copy/pasted. Which was a fucking idiotic statement, as you came to realize by you comment at 131. Traffic calming involves both laws and new construction, you fucking halfwit.

Try biking in Detroit. I ride on the street in neighborhoods to avoid the main streets when I can, and then on the sidewalk (where there are never pedestrians - why walk when you can drive your giant fucking SUV everywhere) and only as a last resort on the busy roads. People drive 10 over the speed limit (and that's being conservative), are pissed off all the time (you'd be too if you lived here) and aren't watching for other cars, let alone bikes. And infrastructure improvements will never happen, because there's no money. So stop your fucking whining and enjoy the bike paths that you have.

Probably a dead thread, but just wish to chip in.

This sort of thing is bad for middle-ground people. To pick just one example, bicycling advocates will often deny that there is a "war on cars" but turn a blind eye to those whose only suggestions for improving things for bicyclists is to make things miserable for car drivers, which is a limited and counterproductive attitude. [eg: GasparFagel: "The answer to Seattle's traffic woes is to make car ownership and use increasingly expensive and inconvenient."] Sorry, I generally use a car because I have a limited amount of time on this planet and I don't want my commute to be three to four times longer than it need be.

Likewise, people who wish to defend driving (and driving is still the best way to get anywhere outside a dense urban metropolis with good public transportation because, duh, the whole damn transport system is rigged in favour of the car) often are bitterly hostile to any form of effective public transit, or, if in government, permit development without such transit. (You wouldn't build a new development without sewers; transit should be similarly integrated into the mix.)

A big problem with using rules and regs to improve things for cyclists is that you just hand another tool to lazy cops with which they can become total dicks. The number of laws which can authorize an officer to haul you over is already huge, and in looking at the trees of making things better for bicyclists we shouldn't miss the forest of civil liberties. None of us, cyclists or cars, will get anywhere if we spend half our time pulled over while officers rack up their quotas. (An excellent example? The one-way street in Washington DC noted by Yglesias, iirc, which is never used by cars during rush hour, but is perfect, but the wrong way, for bicyclists avoiding a very dangerous intersection. The DCPD have sent out half a dozen officers to just pull over cyclists and write tickets.)

Just a word, too, on words. I think that more people would be amenable to "traffic calming" if it so often wasn't a code word for "slowing traffic flow down to infuriating levels simply because we have to Do Something and we haven't got any better ideas or money".

Oh, one other thing: listen to the people.

We had a hell of a time in Toronto because the public were all for new subways over light rail and dedicated streetcar lanes (etc.). The assorted pointy-heads pooh-poohed their preferences and concerns and committed Toronto a large expansion of LRT which the public disliked. The bureaucracy's rationales were, basically, (a) LRT is cheaper, and (b) we know way better than you what you want. What came out of that? (a) An independent review by one of N.Am's top transit experts calls the plan "crazy" and notes that it will cost MORE than subways, in the end. (b) The pro-transit types were thrown out of office and replaced by a car-loving right-wing populist who hates public transit.

To mass-transportation-positive politicians and bureaucrats: The public generally would prefer to spend $50 on something it wants than $30 on something that it doesn't. When they're willing to pay for public transit give them the one that they want and will vote for and pay for and please don't assume that they're children who need to be told what to do simply because they made a good choice that wasn't the good choice that YOU would have made!

PS: Why is it that so many pro-public transit types are so fixated -- often to the point of religious certainty -- on light rail?

Rotten666:

You are a fucking imbecile. That bike path under the viaduct is about the most dangerous place to ride a bike in the city. Clueless tourists drive across that thing frantically looking for parking spots with little regard for human life. I will always ride in the road there yes, in my dumb tour de france outfit (because I want to be just like Lance!!! I love him so much!!!! OMGOMG!!!) in the right lane and you can use the left lane to go right around me. You just may have to use that thing called a steering wheel and have the decency to no be an asshole when you do. If you have a problem with it, have the balls to get out of your car and discuss it rather than post dumb comments on the internet and honk at cyclists passive aggressively. Get fucked.

As a driver who loathes and despises bikers (bikes. are. not. cars. please go find some woods.), I would be more than thrilled if bikes and cars were largely separated and there was a legit system in place for the interaction between bikes and cars. My instinctual loathing aside, I recognize that while sometimes bikers are assholes, sometimes cars are assholes too. (However, just because my car is more likely to kill you doesn't make you any less of an asshole, it just makes me more dangerous.) What we need is a legitimate, consistent set of rules, lanes AWAY FROM THE CARS and some kind of infrastructure governing it, like they have in Europe. The painted-on bike lanes are a joke, and they don't do anything to actually protect anyone. I would like bikers a whole lot more if they weren't swerving into my lane, running red lights causing me to screech on my brakes, meandering directly in front of me in my lane during rush hour....

Yes, "speedily" and "sped" probably equate to making a turn around 20mph. Have you made a turn in an SUV at speeds of more than that? It doesn't feel safe.

What makes you think SUV drivers behave according to what *feels* safe? 99% of those assholes are driving SUVs so they can drive as stupidly and recklessly as possible with (supposedly) no risk to their own safety.

I'll bet good money that that SUV was going as fast as was physically possible when making a left turn, which can be pretty fucking fast, definitely fast enough to kill a bicyclist.

Misanthrope @133:

I'm caught up on sleep now, so this reply will contain no name-calling or recriminations. Sorry about all that.

But to be absolutely clear, there is no such thing as a "traffic calming law" or a slate of "traffic calming laws," as your language continues to suggest you believe.

Even if "enforcement" were ratcheted up independently of any other changes -- something that would never be described as a "traffic calming plan" by those who use the term in professional life or in common parlance -- no new laws would need to be implemented. The city currently has all the authority it needs to alter speed limits, to assign cops to enforcement priorities, or to make any conceivable physical modification to the road. So traffic calming programs really are not about "laws" in any substantial way.

The real problem with your continued insistence that "traffic calming = laws = ineffective" is that you seem to ignore the proven effects of physical modifications on driver behavior. Everyone drives faster on a wide-open lane than on a skinnier lane. You do it. I do it. Even the SUV hit-and-run asshole does it.

If you design turn lanes and install median humps so that one literally cannot turn left without slowing to 10 mph, then no one will turn left at a higher speed than that. Even that asshole who didn't care about taking the life of another.

You mention the side-street rotaries. Traffic-calming techniques on residential side streets differ drastically from ones you would implement on arterials, of course. But the occasional fender-bender on the rotaries -- mostly caused by blocked sightlines from too-big cars parked to close to the intersection as we -- happens at 5-7 mph. Injury of any sort is rare.

A serious question: had you ever heard or researched the term "traffic calming" before it appeared in this thread?

@140 Savage wrote "Dedicated bike lanes, traffic lights that allow cyclists to go first, traffic calmed to under 20 MPH near bike lanes, drivers that endanger cyclists being slapped with fines, drivers who routinely endanger cyclists losing their licenses" which includes physical mods (which I agree with when used well...fuck what they did to E Aloha, but Broadway's lane is nice), and laws (new fines, speed limit adjustments, etc).

The laws, like the 20MPH near bike lanes, are indeed feel good laws on major arteries. Yes, the city already has the authority to change speed limits, but an actual traffic calming pattern would include the use of that authority to modify the speed limits in a concerted plan for "safety" to cyclists.

It is my firm belief that the laws will be the next phase of any cycle safety plan in Seattle, without the physical mods. Whether you disagree with whether that or the physical mods will come next is a valid point, but one whose answer will only come with time. Given that Seattle only half-assedly does anything at one time, continues to lead to this belief.

Also, I think that having bike lanes on major arteries is a seriously flawed plan. I think main bike routes should be on not-highly traveled streets, but on lesser used side streets when available. Make Republican a bike route instead of John or Aloha. Make 11th instead of 12th. Traffic is slowed on these routes, and allows for both bike safety and faster traffic on arteries.

@136: To your PS: As opposed to what? Have you been on a bus? I will never get on one ever again if I can possibly help it.

@142: He's not comparing rail to bus.

He's comparing "light rail" -- a strange euphemism cooked up a generation ago to convince West Coast suburbanites that it will be less "intrusive" than the big, bad East Coast subways carrying all their scary minorities -- to real subways, which offer exponentially better transit for only slightly higher costs.

Cities with "light rail" systems have spent billions putting together networks that either get stuck running on streets or, in pursuit of faster long-distance trips, run next to highways where they fail to serve any useful walkable destinations.

The result has been marginal increases in transit usage, not even in the same ballpark as the daily-life ubiquity that can be achieved when transit is built in its best possible form rather than its "least worst" form.

@141:

traffic calmed to under 20 MPH near bike lanes...

I still read that as proposing physically engineered calming methods, as we both agree that just sticking up a sign with a lower number on it will do nothing to slow drivers in wide open lanes.

drivers that endanger cyclists being slapped with fines, drivers who routinely endanger cyclists losing their licenses...

Even this doesn't really strike me as a change in the law. Is not reckless driving already a crime that carries those very penalties? This is about "educating" the cops themselves that bicyclists are legitimate road users and that threats against them need to be taken seriously as "enforcement" priorities. And again, if traffic has been calmed through engineering strategies, it takes a lot of effort to drive in a manner so reckless as to need enforcement attention. There's nothing feel-good (or honor system) about this.

Given that Seattle only half-assedly does anything at one time, continues to lead to this belief.

Well, we agree on this sad point. We also agree that bike routes that double as high-volume auto routes and triple as high-volume bus routes are totally unwise. (Scroll all the way back to @19 and @76 and you'll see me arguing that the onus is upon bicyclists to adapt their behavior rather than selfishly insist busloads of passengers should be stuck behind them.)

Frankly, though, a lot of the hassle and delay of getting around Seattle -- in a car, on a bus, on a bike, or on foot -- can be blamed on our ridiculously mis-weighted light cycles. SDOT planners seem to like to pick a "favored" street at any intersection and give it a 2-minute green at the expense of everyone else. Never in my life, before moving here, had I encountered a place that made you wait more than 45 seconds to go. Combined with Seattle's jaywalking-phobia, the 2-minute waits are a huge deterrent to pedestrianism. And it's no wonder driver's want to go fast when finally given the chance.

Fixing the long light cycle problem would more than compensate for the time lost from halving a road's speed.

@143: Thanks for explaining. I had thought that digging subways was very expensive and time-consuming, because you have to dig underground beneath structures that then need to be supported and reinforced, and there are seismic issues as well whenever you dig underneath a structure. Is that not the case?

@145: The short answer is "yes, but not by as much as you'd expect."

Of course it is more expensive to build real transit (subways in the densest areas, otherwise grade separated outside of the densest areas) than to build on-the-cheap light rail. And increases in the cost of labor, materials, planning and legal hurdles, ventilation requirements, layers of utility reloactions, etc. make it exponentially more expensive than back when Boston, Budapest, London, New York, and Paris did it.

But many of those costs actually affect light rail construction as well, pushing its costs higher than they probably should be for the benefit it offers. And your presumption that subways must be deep-boring under existing structures for most of their routes is a modern-day folly that contradicts the experiences of the worlds best transit systems, old and new.

Our neighbors to the north just built a full-fledged, automated, comes-every-4-minutes subway line -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line -- for less than we spent on our first light-rail segment. They threw out a number of the tropes of "modern" subways (deep bores, expensive ventilation, gigantic civic-showpiece stations) and instead built tunnels cut-and-cover immediately below the street for the vast majority of the route (using the rational argument that the benefit outweighed the disruption to overcome NIMBY objections), built the stations compact and minimalist, and proceeded with work 24/7 so as not to drag out the costs of maintaining a construction site. You'd be amazed by the results!

While I don't know the details of the Toronto fiasco @136 mentioned, I too have read that the pro-transit mayor pushed for light rail expansion out of the expectation of frugality, but wound up with a plan that would have been just as expensive as a few well-chosen subway extensions and much less quick or useful.

All of that aside, a light-rail vs. subway project in a U.S. city, dealing with U.S. political forces and U.S. construction costs, is likely to have a difference in price tag of 30%-50%. So you could build a flawed, substandard network for $7 billion or a truly life-changing transit system for just a couple billion more. To me, that's like asking if I want to see a Radiohead cover band for $40 or see Radiohead for $60. It's a no-brainer.

Light rail "fans" must really like cover bands.

[Was writing quickly; didn't bother to edit; typos galore; hope anyone who's still interested in this thread after 146 comments is okay with that.]

@146: Thanks! That makes a lot of sense, except for the part about paying to see Radiohead...