Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Matisse in the Car | Steinbrueck Editorial on Surfa... »

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Philadelphia Freedom

posted by on October 10 at 14:00 PM

So I walked out of my hotel in Philadelphia this morning—this afternoon, actually, but it was morning in Seattle—and was immediately struck by a malady that afflicts me frequently when I travel: mass-transit envy.

Subway.jpg

Here’s a map of Philadelphia’s entire subway system.

Sigh.

Last week we had the folks behind Prop 2, or Transit Now, a hike in the sales tax to fund a 15-20% increase in levels of Metro bus service. They want our endorsement and to that end they tried to convince us that the package they’re selling wasn’t merely more buses, 80% of which will be running in the `burbs. Heavens no! The plan includes five BRT routes—that’s Bus Rapid Transit for the acronym impaired. But when I asked if there were actually taking lanes away from cars to create dedicated bus lanes—dedicated lanes are the magic ingredient that transforms regular old bus routes into magical BRT routes (which will never be as rapid as a subway or elevated system, what with all those red lights, but whatever)—I was told, uh, no. No dedicated lanes.

So what makes those fives routes bus rapid transit?

Ryan Bayne, a Sims staffer, explained to us they’re going to put more buses on those routes! Right there in the gridlock with the other buses and cars and trucks and taxis and bikes! Won’t that be rapid! And they’re going to paint the buses nifty colors on those five BRT routes! And they’re going to build really spiffy bus shelters on those five BRT routes!

In other words, Transit Now will do everything and anything to bring BRT to Seattle—except the one thing that makes BRT, well, BRT: dedicated lanes. When I called bullshit on Bayne, he said…

“Bus rapid transit is in the eye of the beholder.”

Hm—that’s funny. Because I don’t behold BRT in Transit Now’s package, and I doubt that anyone who isn’t being paid to behold BRT in Prop 2 can see it either.

For the record, I’m not against more buses. Whatever, bring ‘em on. I’m annoyed, however, when flacks sit across the table from me and lie. Voting for Prop 2 will put more buses on the street—mostly suburban streets. Great, grand, goody. It will not, however, bring rapid transit, bus or otherwise, to Seattle.

RSS icon Comments

1

You're the only person in the world excited about SEPTA Dan. That says a lot about the state of mass transit in the NW.

Posted by PA Native | October 10, 2006 2:07 PM
2

I can attest that, when one of the bigshots at King County Metro was pressed about the fact that Transit Now does not have any of the hallmarks of true "bus rapid transit," he responded that they're not proposing "high-end bus rapid transit."

Unfortunately, King County Metro itself is not really in a position to deliver BRT because, even though they control the buses, they don't control the streets.

So there are two levels of BRT BS going on here:

  • "Bus rapid transit" is not true rapid transit.
  • Transit Now is not bus rapid transit.

Well, even acknowledging all that, I'm going to have a hard time voting no on this measure.

Posted by cressona | October 10, 2006 2:08 PM
3

They should cut it out with the BRT language, since it's clearly not BRT, and just called it "Many More Buses."

Posted by Gomez | October 10, 2006 2:16 PM
4

Just for the record, that map is both subway and commuter rail. The Philadelphia area has a lot more commuter rail than it does subway.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | October 10, 2006 2:25 PM
5

At Jaime Lerner's talk on BRT (referencing the system he helped create in Curitiba, Brazil), he stressed that dedicated bus lanes are the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT factor in BRT -- that's what prompts ridership, people can see it's better than sitting in traffic in their cars.

I tend to take the bus at off-hours, but even so the #10 to downtown was 15 minutes late last Saturday night. (On what's theoretically a 15-minute route.) Simply add more buses, and you end up with bus jams at the terminus.

It's weird to have this huge of a transit package and not use it as a pilot project to dedicate SOME lanes to buses, so that people can see transit actually working (or not).

Posted by MvB | October 10, 2006 2:39 PM
6

We're having a similar problem in San Francisco -- it takes an hour and a half to cross the city on gridlocked stop-and-go routes, and BRT would really help. But a merchants' association is opposed -- fewer cars equals fewer customers, they say, which is obviously ridiculous.

For what it's worth, we've observed that putting more busses on slow routes (like your Prop 2 will do) only results in bunching: wait extra-long, then three busses show up at once.

BRT isn't BRT without dedicated lanes, bus-timed traffic signals, fast-boarding busses, and pre-payment. Otherwise it's only rapid-ish. Seattle should hold out for better.

Posted by mattymatt | October 10, 2006 2:39 PM
7

Well, commuter rail is mass transit, too. You can compare it to the Sounder trains if you want, but they only run once or twice a day, with no reverse-commute possible (and reverse-commute is much more important in Seattle today). And there's only two lines. And the trains travel at approximately 0.1 miles per hour. So Philly's commuter rail network is ALSO vastly superior to Seattle's IMTS (Imaginary Mass Transit System).

Posted by Fnarf | October 10, 2006 2:40 PM
8

Subway isn't the big deal though -- trains, and to some extent, are.
Here in San Francisco, there are only about 10 or 12 or so underground stations in the City (through there are a couple more underground bart stations in Berkeley, one in Oakland, etc.)
Most muni stops are actually above ground, but who cares? I just want trains, and they need to be underground only in the really crowded places. In Seattle those are like Downtown, Belltown, U-District, Capitol Hill, First Hill, and Lower Queen Anne. Do you need a subway in Magnolia or Greenwood or Wedgewood or West Seattle? No. But it would be nice to have a train that wen't out there. It needn't be underground.

In SF, though, the buses just run all the time, and it makes it really convenient not to drive. That's the big deal with BRT, it's not rapid transit, its just more transit, which hopefully will persuade people to drive less. In order to do that you need more routes that cover mroe area (taking two buses just sucks so much most people will not bother). They need more routes with more buses. That's the solution.

Or build trains!

Posted by Andrew | October 10, 2006 2:42 PM
9

Buses are, and always will be machines rather than structures. No-one is going to plan development around a bus route. Machines are designed to wear out and be replaced, to be temporary.

The BRT proponents all miss this central point. Real transit systems are about more than moving people around. They are fixed and permanent structures defining the layout of cities. Development grows and expands around fixed rail routes, deterring sprawl and making places livable.

Seattle HAD a transit system that was ripped out, leaving us where we are now: two superhighways, horrible traffic, and an inability to get around most times of the day. It's about time we reverse this mistake.

Posted by golob | October 10, 2006 2:47 PM
10

I, however, am against buses. Most of the times I have found myself in my car stuck behind some stinky busm bringing a full lane of traffic to a halt just to find out that, actually, no one wanted to get on at that stop, I have noticed, upon finally managing to manouver past the slow-moving behemoth, that it was carrying only a handfull of people. Such routes do more to impede the flow of traffic than to improve it. Any route not filled to more than 50% of capacity should be cut.

Posted by David Wright | October 10, 2006 2:49 PM
11

Now, this is strange. When we had the guy from Bogata talk, he said the MAJOR thing wasn't BRT.

He said it was density.

Once you have density, you turn streets that are too narrow for monster SUVs into BRT.

Simple. Sweet. Costs NADA.

That said, a monorail would have been cheaper and taken way less time, and cost one-tenth what the underwater tunnel is going to cost.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 10, 2006 2:52 PM
12

HAHAH, you know just how sad Seattle's "mass transit" is? Read this wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_Light_Rail
It's a joke, there are sentance fragments, confusing unintelligible passages and the final irony, the only actual running train is the tacoma link.

Bravo, Seattle! You are a disappointment! Even Portland, Denver, San Diego and a host of other smaller, cites have much better transit than you do!

Posted by Andrew | October 10, 2006 2:56 PM
13

I've had the opportunity to hear Metro's spiel on BRT, and I don't think it's as far off as is being played here. There are going to be dedicated lanes on Aurora and the West Seattle bridge, so right there you've cut through some of the worst traffic in the region. Plus, if the mayor's Bridge the Gap passes, that's got some money for connecting the Spokane Street viaduct with the busway that comes out of the bus tunnel. And with signal prioritization, the buses won't get stuck in the long lights that hold up traffic.
One of the reasons people don't ride the bus is because they don't know when it's coming. But if it's every ten minutes, always, that eliminates a huge mental roadblock. Combine that with a guaranteed shorter wait time for transfers, and you've removed two of the excuses people always come up with when they don't ride the bus ("It never comes", "I'll be waiting an hour for my transfer").
The way I see it, we're coming out way ahead with this proposal. It's going to be 50,000 cars off the road, and it's going to beef up the buses all around the county. If you want better transit, then put your money where your mouth is and vote yes in november.

Posted by Beachhead | October 10, 2006 3:04 PM
14

By the way, FNARF, you're not quite correct about the Sounder trains. I take them fairly frequently. There are eight per day on the south end run to Tacoma, four in the morning, and four in the evening. They just added the fourth one. They're negotiating with Burlington Northern to be allowed to run one southbound in the morning (reverse commute) with an evening return, and for one midday southbound run for those who need to go home midday. Unfortunately, BN owns the tracks and dictates the terms.

And the trains most assuredly don't run at 0.1 mph. Once south of Boeing Field, they average 45-55 mph. The trip to Auburn from King Street Station is about 28 minutes on average, which is a lot faster than I can drive it in rush-hour traffic.

I love the Sounder train. I just wish there were a lot more of them. To me, it's ASININE to run more than a few buses from the 'burbs into the city; that traffic should all be on the trains. If we had decent commuter rail, we wouldn't even be talking about suburban buses. Who in Virginia takes a bus to downtown Washington DC? Everyone rides the Metro train.

Posted by Geni | October 10, 2006 3:11 PM
15

Hahaha I love how Philly counts Amtrak as part of its transit system, implying that the full system links up to Chicago and Montreal. I hear Amtrak is on time sometimes out east though...

Also whatever you say about busses, the bus route by my school in Montreal comes every 5 minutes or less for the entirity of rush hour in both directions (it's the 80). On weekdays it's supplemented by another commuter route (the 535 I think) which I think comes every 10 minutes. Bunching or no, you never ever need to wait for that bus, and it's pretty damn nice.

Of course, the fact that in Montreal there's also barely standing room on it, even coming that often, says something about the difference between montreal and seattle.

Posted by John in mtl | October 10, 2006 3:13 PM
16

I didn't mean to imply commuter rail isn't mass transit. In some towns (Chicago, for instance) the commuter trains run frequently, and practically 24/7.

If/when Sounder ever reaches the point that is runs at the frequency of, say, the Ferries to Bremerton and Bainbridge, it will then be "true" mass transit. As it stands now, it's closer to Altamont Commuter Express.

On a side note, I believe that Sound Transit was smart to spend the extra money securing passenger rail rights on the BNSF for the next 100 years so that this will not be an issue down the road when/if commuter rail is firmly established and frequent. Given the consolidation in the rail industry in the last 20 years, the commuter and passenger-friendly BNSF could easily morph into the cutthroat and weirdly inefficient Union Pacific.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | October 10, 2006 3:15 PM
17

I have to agree that more buses, baring huge traffic jams of buses, will make some difference. In my experience there are two types of city bus systems - those you need a schedule for, and those you just go out and wait for, knowing they will come pretty much right away. It just sucks in Seattle that, you have to either use a schedule or go to the bus stop, sometimes several blocks away, without knowing whether you just missed the bus and have to wait half an hour or if it will come right away. But will this draw people out of their cars? I really wonder - with more buses, who is going to ride the bus who does not already? Bus rides might ride more frequently, but... Unless it speeds up the commute, there is very little incentive if you have a car and are used to driving. Thats where separate lanes and of course trains, come in.

In Manhattan, I can take a bus across town - it comes every fifteen minutes, but it is basically worthless going North-South during commuting times.

By the way, I have been to Curitiba and the bus system is indeed quite nice.

P.S. someone else was posting under Jude so I am using my last name now.

Posted by Jude Fawley | October 10, 2006 3:20 PM
18

I'll vouch for post #6. Here in SF were there aren't bus schedules per se, rather how frequent the bus runs is listed - that usually results in buses clumping together. So generally, a bus that's listed as arriving every 15 minutes means there will be one extremely full bus tailgated by an empty bus will be arriving every half hour. Or maybe 3 every 45 minutes, and so on.

Partly because of this, I rarely venture to neighborhoods not accessible by walking or (one of) the underground(s).

Furthermore, the bus, is...well, THE BUS. It's been stigmatized since elementary school. I find no shame in taking the bus, I spent the last 8 years I lived in Seattle sans car, but let’s just be honest, it’s THE BUS. Most people will only use it if they have too, making car diehards glad they’re alone in there cars. A subway can be a normal, even preferable (to a car) part of everyday life, buses will always be “riding the bus”.

I currently live and work near BART stations, my commute is 15-20 minutes door to door (used to be less, but office moved a few blocks further from the station, I think I had it times at 11 minutes) and $45 a month - that’s an unlimited pass good everywhere in SF city limits on all agencies routes (BART, MUNI, and even the trolley).

Sorry.

Posted by Dougsf | October 10, 2006 3:36 PM
19

I think one of the differences in why people ride buses in New York and Montreal and other cities is that there is more of a transit riding culture. That is, when it's easier to use, more people do, and it become less stigmatized.
That's why I like the higher frequency of transit now. It's designed to make bus riding not be something just for the morning and evening commuters, but something people can actually use to get around. Once more people start riding for everyday errands and crosstown trips, the transit culture will develop, and I personally think that it will result in a higher number of riders.

Posted by Beachhead | October 10, 2006 3:37 PM
20

This is the same reason why I smile inside everytime I drive past the elevated tracks on 99 by the airport, or the stations next to the bus lane in SODO (despite my fear they will be trashed by the time they open). It's because a metro-area mass transit system is sorely overdue. (Now if only ST would put a priority on interconnecting the lines...)

Posted by K | October 10, 2006 3:40 PM
21

Beachhead: I've had the opportunity to hear Metro's spiel on BRT, and I don't think it's as far off as is being played here.

Hmm, I don't know, perhaps you've heard Metro's spiel because you happen to work for Metro and/or Ron Sims?

(This is the same person who, in an earlier thread here, displayed an encyclopedic knowledge of the bus systems of Curitiba and Bogotá. Yeah, you know Seattle's a world-class city when it can keep up with the Curitibas and Bogotás of the world.)

Posted by cressona | October 10, 2006 3:42 PM
22

I stand corrected on Sounder frequency to Tacoma. They've added trains, I see. That makes it more useful.

Posted by Fnarf | October 10, 2006 3:46 PM
23

As a matter of fact I don't work for Sims or Metro. However, I do have a good knowledge of BRT around the world. Could it be? Yes it could. Thanks for playing.

Posted by Beachhead | October 10, 2006 3:46 PM
24

Beachhead: As a matter of fact I don't work for Sims or Metro. However, I do have a good knowledge of BRT around the world. Could it be? Yes it could. Thanks for playing.

Well, the Transit Now campaign must be happy to have you on board.

Posted by cressona | October 10, 2006 3:49 PM
25

Can I help it if I support a good proposal?

Posted by Beachhead | October 10, 2006 3:51 PM
26

No, but then I posted the Bogota thing. BRT is mostly an attempt by the suburbs to steal Seattle's transit service it pays for. We run the profitable metro lines, we pay more in taxes than we get, and everyone knows the main reason most of Seattle will vote for Transit Now is it's a better deal than the current funding method.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 10, 2006 4:18 PM
27

"everyone knows the main reason most of Seattle will vote for Transit Now is it's a better deal than the current funding method"
please explain a bit.

Posted by Andrew | October 10, 2006 5:06 PM
28

My husband would love to take Sounder from Tacoma to Seattle for his commute. The fact is that it takes him 50 minutes to drive from Tacoma to the south end of Lake Union (He carpools and can use the HOV lane). When he's tried Sounder, it takes 50 minutes just to get to the south end of downtown, plus another 30 minutes to deal with transferring to a bus and getting through downtown. A commute of an hour and a half each way simply is not feasible. Sounder needs to be able to make it from Tacoma to Seattle in 30 minutes. And Seattle need rapid-fucking-transit.


We're travelling to Italy this winter and looking at how fast their trains can get from city to city and seeing how often they run makes me want to cry.

Posted by celyn | October 10, 2006 5:06 PM
29

"A commute of an hour and a half each way simply is not feasible."

I commute that long on foot, Caltrain, then the company shuttle from San Francisco to San Jose. I have wireless internet on the train and no children but it really isn't that big a deal.

Posted by Andrew | October 10, 2006 5:34 PM
30

The Sounder connection to metro will be much better once the bus tunnel reopens.

Posted by Noink | October 10, 2006 5:40 PM
31

I, however, am against buses. Most of the times I have found myself in my car stuck behind some stinky busm bringing a full lane of traffic to a halt just to find out that, actually, no one wanted to get on at that stop, I have noticed, upon finally managing to manouver past the slow-moving behemoth, that it was carrying only a handfull of people. Such routes do more to impede the flow of traffic than to improve it. Any route not filled to more than 50% of capacity should be cut.

Posted by David Wright - October 10, 2006 02:49 PM

I want to take this further. I propose that *any* vehicle must have at least 50% capacity to be given the honor of traversing Seattle area roads.

CARPOOL MARTIAL LAW BEGINS NOW, MOTHERFUCKERS!

I want to complete my fever dream for the Ultimate People Density Orgy.

Posted by Matthew Fisher Wilder | October 10, 2006 7:32 PM
32

I agree with the comment about transfering from Sounder to local buses. One of the things I would really like to see Sounder have (and this may be planned for the future) is a north downtown station - like by the new sculpture garden?

Ideally, trains could just run through from Tacoma to Everett, so you could reverse commute to the north end, while giving people who live/work in Belltown/Lake Union the option of bypassing downtown.

But the downtown train tunnel has limited capacity. And with the proposed conversion of the eastside rail line to a trail, any mishap in that tunnel (as happened in Baltimore in '01 or thereabouts) will paralyze both passenger and freight transporation throughout the northwest.

The county doesn't share my concern. When I wrote them about it, I got a form letter about some dinner train.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | October 10, 2006 8:07 PM
33

jonny

Posted by jonny | October 10, 2006 8:16 PM
34

jonny

Posted by jonny | October 10, 2006 8:16 PM
35

jonny

Posted by jonny | October 10, 2006 8:16 PM
36

"Seattle HAD a transit system that was ripped out, leaving us where we are now: two superhighways, horrible traffic, and an inability to get around most times of the day"

Honestly Golub, I do think you and many others have exaggerating all too much. Compared to many other cities in the world, Seattle's traffic issues, even those with an effective and efficient high speed mass transit transit system, are not particularly bad.

The debate continues where it is best to spend our limited transportation dollars. Steinbrueck and others expect the automobile will continue to exist in its current form and do not take into consideration that profound technical and monetary inventments are being made to ensure that automobiles will conform to environmental demands and the demands of the purchasing public. On the other hand, we are asking ourselves to consider living in denser communities that will, in some cases, prohibit the use of automobiles. Effective and efficient mass transit must be built and available to move people in dense urban settings.

At some point we have to consider both issues and reach a compromise that addresses these ideas. An honest and reasonable discussion of this has not taken place, and we have been left with what should be considered failures of regional and local transit planning: Sound Transit, The Seattle Monorail and the Allentown Trolley. These have been hardly the embryo of a well planned and integrated attempt to address the issues cited above, but more concerned with satisfying a personal political hubris and
wonkishness.

Isn't everyone looking forward to the day we all can once again ride the waterfront trolley? What an incredible asset it has been determined to be in our future mass transit infrastructure.



Posted by Princess Caroline | October 10, 2006 8:31 PM
37

This thread is one of the better examples of the "Wo, the city I live in is just so lame *whips self with studded fettucini* omg why am I still here?" mantra that permeates the Seattle area blogosphere.

It's ok to point out flaws, etc. but it's just too easy to fuel the grass-is-greener hivemind, because it seems just so fashionable to do so. It's easy. You just sit somewhere and post somewhere cozy with that six-dollar spice latte and talk about how awful life here is.

Mt. Rainier.. pfff, I want that excellent two line SEPTIC subway in Philly. Le Sigh.

Posted by Matthew Fisher Wilder | October 10, 2006 8:47 PM
38

Oh, that Seattle-is-lame mindset exists outside the Internet, Matthew; every time I've visited Seattle I have people tell me right to my face how horrible they think their town is.

Which is bullshit. Mostly.

Posted by W--ooster | October 10, 2006 9:00 PM
39

B.S. Matthew, as I pointed out above, in not so very good grammer, I think the road traffic issues in our area are fine compared to that found in many other cities in the world which also have mature, well developed mass transit systems. I really don't have have the same complaints about traffic and congestion that
you appear to have.

Actually Matthew, it seems you are the one doing the complaining.


Posted by Princess Caroline | October 10, 2006 9:05 PM
40

Posting without reading the whole thread, sorry guys :) To explain the map, the actual subways are blue and orange(the blue is part subway, part elevated), the trolleys are green, purple, and yellow, and the regional rail is grey. The red is the subway to South Jersey managed by Patco(that's also what the photo is of).

I have to say that the Regional Rail here is the ONLY thing that makes it possible for people who live in the suburbs to work downtown. Sure, plenty of people drive, but I really don't know why, parking is exhorbitant and the traffic is a nightmare. The trains run all the way from Trenton NJ down to Wilmington and Newark DE, and cover a huge area of the greater Philly area. There are some areas that aren't directly serviced by trains, but I can't even imagine what the traffic nightmare would be, if there were no trains and everyone who worked downtown HAD to drive. Terrifying. Of course, the system isn't perfect, and there are not-infrequent outages, delays, breakdowns, etc. But every time my train is 20 minutes late (which doesn't happen all that often really) I just think about how much more miserable I'd be sitting on the Schuykill in gridlock.

Posted by Em from Philly | October 10, 2006 9:41 PM
41

SEPTA? Ew. It was gross and only has two lines! I used to live out there, nobody I knew ever took it. We joked about how lame it was compared to the other cities. You cannot possibly be jealous of SEPTA!

Posted by cite | October 10, 2006 9:51 PM
42

Oh and Philly does not count Amtrack as part of its system, the map is just pointing out where you can pick up Amtrack trains to those locations. 30th Street Station is a major Amtrack station though, that shares space with the Septa trains, and Septa's trains share Amtrack's tracks in a lot of areas too. Which of course means that when repairs are needed, they argue about who pays for them....but that's another rant! HOWEVER, it did allow Philly's rail system to be built with not *as much* cost and labor as if they had to start from scratch.

Posted by Em from Philly | October 10, 2006 9:52 PM
43

Cite - People take Septa for two reasons. One, they live in the city or highly populated area (that's well served by buses or trolleys) and don't have a car. This is generally the lower income segment of riders. Two, they live in the suburbs and work (or go to school) in center city. I am in this category, and there is a wide variety of people on my trains, from Penn students to corporate grunts like me to high powered lawyers in suits. Why do people who have cars take the train? Because it makes sense, it's a million times more convenient then driving. And that is the ONLY way public transit works, because people like their cars, so it HAS to be vastly more attractive then driving, or no one will do it. For people who work downtown, the conditions favor the train. What do you mean, "only two lines"?

Posted by Em from Philly | October 10, 2006 9:59 PM
44

#37 and 38... wouldn't it be easier for you whiners to just, I dunno, MOVE AWAY?

It's a smokescreen: you talk shit to outsiders to try and subvertively convince them that the city sucks and they should leave, high-fiving your ids as the outsiders walk off befuddled at your smacktalk about your home.

Posted by Gomez | October 10, 2006 10:25 PM
45

*high-fives Matthew Fisher Wilder*

Posted by Gloria | October 11, 2006 4:02 AM
46

Gozmez, you're a stupid fucker--I live in New York, where there's a real commuter system and the density of people to actually support it.

Whenever I'm in Seattle (or when I run across people from Seattle here) they never fail to badmouth their own city. Thanks for aptly demonstrating why.

Posted by W--ooster | October 11, 2006 4:33 AM
47

Keep this going, my friends. Livejournals have far more sarcasm detection than this one, which is really saying a lot.

Posted by Matthew Fisher Wilder | October 11, 2006 5:45 AM
48

Is Mt. Rainier in Seattle? I had on idea.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 11, 2006 8:06 AM
49

Yup! It's just a giant hologram in the Othello neighborhood.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | October 11, 2006 9:53 AM
50

Is the sky still up around here?

Posted by Jean Energy | October 11, 2006 11:19 AM
51

"A commute of an hour and a half each way simply is not feasible."

I commute that long on foot, Caltrain, then the company shuttle from San Francisco to San Jose.

??? The Caltrain ride alone takes an hour and a half. Do you walk at supersonic speed, Andrew?

Posted by keshmeshi | October 11, 2006 1:55 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).