HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2009, 7:19 PM
Wright Concept's Avatar
Wright Concept Wright Concept is offline
I just ran out of B***sht
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 2,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
^ Of course the leftover funds must stay within their respective regions. But the Measure R plan was drafted strictly with the intent of pursuing federal dollars, so there are bound to be leftovers. Do you think that's one way we could fund the subway extensions to West Hollywood and Santa Monica, the second leg to Claremont, etc.?
Possibly, however but I doubt it would be enough to fully fund them. It maybe enough to begin pursuing other matches.

Also keep in mind that when pursuing Federal New Starts funding the FTA looks at the Finances of the agencies to see if they have the ability to fund the entire project and then be repaid back by the FTA in case there is an issue with FTA paying the grants.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully
The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 8:54 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
A thorough summation of the federal funding process...

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/200...sed.pdf#page=9


Wright, since FFGAs are issued every 6 years, does that mean we'll have to wait until 2017 before we can pursue funds for the other three projects?
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 4:01 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,945
MTA to seek federal funding for rail projects (LA Times)

MTA to seek federal funding for rail projects


The move brings the Westside L.A. subway expansion and a plan to build a light-rail link through downtown L.A. a step closer to reality.

By Ari B. Bloomekatz
Los Angeles Times
September 26, 2009

The Westside L.A. subway expansion and a plan to build a light-rail link through downtown L.A. took a small step closer to reality this week when the MTA board agreed to submit the projects for federal funding.

Officials for years have been planning a subway that would run from Koreatown to Santa Monica, probably along Wilshire Boulevard. The project, with an estimated price tag of $5 billion or more, is considered a top priority of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The "regional connector" in downtown L.A. would link the Blue and Gold rail lines and offer rail service through the city center.

Experts say the projects will be difficult to complete without federal funding. MTA staff said the vote was critical because there were no Los Angeles projects vying for new money from the U.S. Department of Transportation's "New Starts" funding program.

"In federal fiscal year 2011 our agency could, for the first time in six years, not be a recipient of federal New Starts funding for a major rail capital project," MTA staff wrote in its recommendation to the board. "Over the past six years we have received, on average, $80 million per year in federal rail funding through the New Starts program."

MTA board members and staff said they hoped to receive more money in coming years, and released data on other cities with smaller populations than L.A. that will reportedly receive larger amounts of funding in the 2010 fiscal year.

Depending on whether the projects are approved and how much federal funding is provided, the move could help Villaraigosa achieve his goal of speeding up the timeline of building the multibillion-dollar Westside subway extension.

It is slated to be built by 2036, but the mayor has said he wants it completed in 10 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 5:54 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
^ The Santa Monica extension weighs down the cost-effectiveness rating, so it's very unlikely that Villaraigosa will get his way. And it will come after the West Hollywood spur, making it even more unlikely.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 5:21 PM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
Perris Metrolink extension?

Does anyone know what the current status is of the Perris Metrolink extension? The last I heard it was to open in late 2010. Is it still on schedule?

Also, any news about Temecula? I heard there was an effort to get a station built there...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 7:27 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
Metro to Hold Public Hearings on Crenshaw Transit Corridor Project

...

The complete listing of public hearings is as follows:

  • Wilshire United Methodist Church Hall of Fellowship: Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2009, 6-8 p.m.; 4350 Wilshire Blvd., LA, CA 90010; served by Metro Bus lines 38, 210, 710.
  • West Angeles Church Crystal Room: Thursday, Oct. 1, 2009, 6-8 p.m.; 3045 Crenshaw Blvd., LA, CA 90016; served by Metro Bus lines 38, 210, 710.
  • Inglewood High School Cafeteria: Saturday, Oct. 3, 2009, 10 a.m.-Noon; 231 S. Grevillea Ave., Inglewood, CA 90301; served by Metro Bus lines 40, 111, 115, 212, 740;
  • Transfiguration Church Hall: Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2009, 6-8 p.m.; 2515 W. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., LA, CA 90008; served by Metro Bus lines 40, 42.

...
Just a reminder, the next round of Crenshaw meetings begins tomorrow.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 7:40 PM
Wright Concept's Avatar
Wright Concept Wright Concept is offline
I just ran out of B***sht
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 2,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
A thorough summation of the federal funding process...

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/200...sed.pdf#page=9


Wright, since FFGAs are issued every 6 years, does that mean we'll have to wait until 2017 before we can pursue funds for the other three projects?
Yep, that is exactly what it means.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully
The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 7:54 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
^ Well, it doesn't sound like the MTA wants to delay either Crenshaw or Foothill for so long. What about including the La Brea extension into the Crenshaw route?

BTW, do you plan on going to any one of those Crenshaw meetings?
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 10:02 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Yeah, extending it to the Hollywood Bowl would be nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill View Post
Also, any news about Temecula? I heard there was an effort to get a station built there...
I heard about this once. It was planned to go through Lake Elsinore area along the way, I think.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 10:21 PM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Yeah, extending it to the Hollywood Bowl would be nice.



I heard about this once. It was planned to go through Lake Elsinore area along the way, I think.
The Temecula Business Journal had an article a couple years ago claiming the line would be built in 2010. I've been looking for details ever since then, but found none.

I found a phone number for the city of Perris. It looks like the line won't open until at least 2012. Temecula is probably many years in the future...


So, in the meantime, how do we get Metrolink to run a simulator bus until the new line opens?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2009, 2:01 AM
Wright Concept's Avatar
Wright Concept Wright Concept is offline
I just ran out of B***sht
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 2,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
^ Well, it doesn't sound like the MTA wants to delay either Crenshaw or Foothill for so long. What about including the La Brea extension into the Crenshaw route?
They don't however.

With Crenshaw Corridor they'll need to finish the EIR for this round and conclude the EIR for the Wilshire Subway, then pursue the Northern route option past Expo/Crenshaw, to get more detailed analysis and ridership/funding projections. Depending on how soon and how much of the Wilshire Subway they get done (because it affects ridership), it may be enough to pursue Federally funding that piece because it maybe more cost -effective. Also the Crenshaw Corridor is funded to Expo as LRT, however the cost-effectiveness would not bode well for FTA money.

The Foothil extension they are looking to pay for the line to Azusa/Citrus College with only Measure R money because my hunch is - I'll confirm this Friday afternoon- that they are looking to leverage the local and state funding that paid and will pay for the Expo Line Phases 1 and 2 (approx $2.1 B) and the Pasadena/Foothill Gold Line to Azusa(approx $1.4 B) as to get an acheivable Federal Match for the connector which is currently looking to cost $1.0B so a 25-35% funding match could pay for the entire Regional Connector underground project. This has precedent with other regions including our own, a precedent that received the funding for the Red Line subway because they leveraged the local Prop A funded Blue and Green Lines as a match to recieve the New Starts grant. A more recent example is in Salt Lake City, Utah with their LRT lines.

Quote:
BTW, do you plan on going to any one of those Crenshaw meetings?
Right now the only one I can attend is the Wednesday one.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully
The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2009, 1:55 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
Agency Seeks Deep-Pockets Contractor Willing to Fast-Track Gold Line Extension Project

By Dan Abendschein and Ryan Carter, Staff Writer
September 29, 2009

MONROVIA - Wanted: Private contractor willing to put up $100 million to $150 million to expedite construction of the first segment of the 24-mile Gold Line extension to Claremont.

Nearly 200 people, many of them representing engineering firms, turned out Tuesday at a Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority event where officials explained how companies can bid for work related to the extension project.

Authority officials had previously set a completion date of 2013 for the first phase of the rail line, but the agency lacks funding to ensure completion by that date. It is seeking to hire a contractor that can afford to finance the project up front, then receive reimbursement over time, officials announced.

The downside would be that interest on the financing could ultimately cost the agency $30 million, Extension Authority CEO Habib Balian said.

"But we think it's worth it, considering the price of labor and steel and other materials in this economy," said Balian. "We can save a lot of money and get the project going sooner."

The authority has a commitment to receive up to $875 million from Measure R funds, but the money will likely trickle in as annual allotments through 2019.

Thomas M. Wilson, a vice president at Pasadena-based Parsons Engineering, who attended the meeting, said it was ironic that the extension project is ready to go but does not have sufficient funding. Usually, he said, it's the other way around.

Still, said Wilson, Parsons is interested in bidding on Gold Line projects.

"We've been watching the project for years," he said. "They are really ready to go....We'd be interested in doing the engineering for the project."

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board has not yet reached an agreement about when each Measure R project will receive funding - that issue will be discussed at its October board meeting.

An initial staff recommendation calls for the first phase of the Gold Line to be funded on a schedule that would push the completion date back to 2017.

Ara Najarian,cq head of the MTA board, said he doesn't expect the Gold Line to be a top priority for the board for the next few years.

"There are still officials at the MTA who want to kill the Gold Line project," said Najarian. "I've been working hard to quell that uprising."

The largest single contract related to the extension project is pegged at $320 million and will involve most of the work on the rail line. Authority officials are hoping to find a contractor willing to commit $100 million to $150 million in financing toward that contract.

The authority is also set to award a $30-million contract for bridge work. The agency is asking for an up-front commitment of $5 million from the contractor eventually selected to do that project.

Officials hope to break ground on the first phase of the extension by June 2010. The first phase would extend the Gold Line from Pasadena to the Azusa/Glendora border.

Gold Line officials also said Tuesday they anticipate receiving federal funding for the second phase of the line, which would take it to Claremont. Officials hope to complete that phase by 2017.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2009, 3:29 PM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
Night Owl service on Metro Rail?

The Blue Line has been open for nearly 20 years and it still doesn't have night owl service. Is there any chance that it and the rest of the Metro Rail system will get night owl service in the foreseeable future?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2009, 4:17 PM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
Angels Flight - reopening date?

Does anyone know when (if?) Angels Flight is scheduled to reopen?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2009, 6:26 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Bootstrap:

First Question: Don't know. Haven't been on Blue Line in years.

Second Question:...at this point it almost doesn't matter to me....JUST FINISH IT ALREADY!!!
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2009, 1:13 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,945
California Supreme Court ruling could mean billions going back to transit (SJ Mercury

California Supreme Court ruling could mean billions going back to transit

By Gary Richards
San Jose Mercury
Posted: 10/01/2009

http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...104?source=rss

Beleaguered transit agencies across the state have received a dose of good news, as the California Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling that raids on funding for bus and train service are illegal.

The court late Wednesday turned away an appeal by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration, which was seeking the right to divert $3.4 billion in transit funds to the general fund to ease the state budget deficit. That left intact the ruling of the 3rd District Court of Appeal this summer that recent funding diversions violated a series of voter measures supporting transit taxes.

"By denying the state's appeal, the Supreme Court has affirmed once and for all what we always maintained was true: that it's illegal to shift dedicated state transit funds away from transit agencies and their riders," said Joshua Shaw, executive director of the California Transit Association, in a news release.

The lawsuit was filed two years ago after $1.2 billion was diverted from the state transit account into the general fund. Other take-aways raised the total to $3.4 billion.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Finance Department, said the court ruling was "disappointing." The issue will now go back to a lower court to determine how the money should be paid back.

If that ruling comes soon, the impact could be reflected in state budget revisions made in January. Unless revenues come in higher than anticipated or other cuts are made, it could punch a $1 billion-plus hole in a budget that took months to hammer out.

The Finance Department issued a statement late Thursday that $876 million targeted for debt service to repay bonds and $138 million to transport the developmentally disabled could be at risk.

While cheered by the legal victory, Shaw said his group understands "the horrible position the Legislature and governor are in."

"There are no easy solutions," he said. "We are willing to work with them to figure out the next steps."

That could mean spreading out repayment over several years, rather than collecting it all in January.

Transit agencies throughout California have seen steep declines in ridership and revenue as a result of the recession. This has led to cuts in service and fare hikes.

Ticket prices were raised Thursday by the Valley Transportation Authority, and bus and light rail service will be cut in January in Santa Clara County.

Caltrain reduced the number of midday trains last month and raised parking fees. BART has experienced the worst decline in sales tax revenue in its 37-year history. AC Transit trimmed bus service by 15 percent. And the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has lost $179.1 million in funding in the past three fiscal years.

VTA General Manager Michael Burns called the latest turn "a clear victory" for transit users, saying, "Public transit has certainly borne more than its fair share of the budget burden in recent years."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 6:51 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
Upcoming Harbor Subdivision, Westside Subway Extension, Regional Connector Meetings

Harbor Subdivision

October 19, 2009, 11am-1pm
Metropolitan Water District, Room 2-145
700 N Alameda St
Los Angeles, CA

October 19, 2009, 6-8pm
Lawndale Community Center Annex
14616 ½ Grevillea Av
Lawndale, CA

October 20, 2009, 6-8pm
Carson Community Center
801 E Carson St
Carson, CA

October 21, 2009, 6-8pm
Jackie Robinson Academy Auditorium
2750 Pine Av
Long Beach, CA

October 22 2009, 6-8pm
Hyde Park-Miriam Matthews Library
2205 Florence Av
Los Angeles, CA


Westside Subway Extension

Tuesday, October 22, 2009, 6– 8pm
Stations to be discussed: Wilshire at Bundy, 26th, 16th & 4th Street
Santa Monica Public Library – Multi-Purpose Room
601 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Served by Metro Lines 4, 20, 33, 333, and 720 and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Validated vehicle and free bike parking is available.

Monday, October 26, 2009, 6– 8pm
Stations to be discussed: Wilshire at Crenshaw, La Brea & Fairfax
Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) – Terrace Room, 5th Floor
5905 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90036
Served by Metro lines 20, 720, 920, 217 & 780. Validated vehicle parking is available in the Museum’s 6th Street underground garage. Enter from 6th and Ogden.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 6– 8pm
Stations to be discussed: Hollywood/Highland, Santa Monica Boulevard at La Brea, Fairfax & San Vicente & Beverly Center
Pacific Design Center
8687 Melrose Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90069
Served by Metro Lines 4, 10, 105, 305 & 704. $10 self-parking is available in the Pacific Design Center Parking Lot off Melrose. Metered street parking is available on San Vicente Blvd.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 6– 8pm
Stations to be discussed: Wilshire at La Cienega & Beverly
Beverly Hills City Hall – Municipal Gallery
455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Served by Metro Line 4, 14, 16 & 704. Free 2-hour parking is available in the adjacent structure.

Thursday, November 5, 2009, 6– 8pm
Stations to be discussed: Century City, Westwood/UCLA & VA Hospital
Veterans Administration – Wadsworth Theatre
11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90073
Served by Metro Lines 20 & 720 and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines 2, 3 & 4. Free parking is available in the lot adjacent to the theatre.


Regional Connector

Thursday, November 5, 2009; 6:30-8 pm
Lake Avenue Church
393 N Lake Ave, Pasadena

Saturday, November 7, 2009; 10 am - noon
Wurlitzer Building
818 S Broadway, Los Angeles

Tuesday, November 10, 2009; noon to 1:30 pm
Board Room, Los Angeles Central Library
630 W 5th St, Los Angeles

Thursday November 12, 2009; 2 pm to 3:30 pm & 6:30 pm-8 pm
Japanese American National Museum (JANM)
369 E 1st St, Los Angeles
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner

Last edited by Quixote; Oct 6, 2009 at 7:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 7:05 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
OCTOBER 4, 2009 | Gold Line Eastside Extension

Gold Line Eastside Extension

Turnstiles being installed at the two subway stations...


From Flickr, by bigbend700


From Flickr, by bigbend700
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2009, 2:04 AM
Wright Concept's Avatar
Wright Concept Wright Concept is offline
I just ran out of B***sht
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 2,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wright Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
That prompts me to ask you a question you've left unanswered twice. In what fashion do we plan on distributing the Measure R funds? As you know, Measure R only reserves 35% ($14 billion) for rail expansion. Are we simply going to take 35% of the revenue generated each fiscal year, or are we going to prioritize and just deduct from that $14 billion pot? For instance, in the interest of jump-starting both the Westside Subway and Regional Connector, we could take the approximately $3 billion generated in the first three years and dedicate it solely to those two projects, but that would mean delaying other improvements (such as highways).
I didn't leave it answered, my response was that I wasn't 100% sure. It does me no good to give mis-information. As of now some of the answer is still a tad murky.

Part of how they will allocate the money is based on priority(if projects completed the EIR and the potential to leverage Federal Funds), the other piece is that within Measure R there is a dedicated amount of projected funds for the projects that are guaranteed. The monies are also based upon regional area. Such as the Foothill Gold Line has $735M that is spent for that project any cost savings for the project can not get thrown in the general pot, it stays in the regional area which would be the San Gabriel Valley.

For the Regional Connector, under Measure R they only allocated $160 M for that project, if they want to accelerate it they will need to come with another source of funding to do it (Federal New Starts and bonding against future Measure R transit revenues) the Highway money can't get touched here, unless there is a change in the language acted upon by the State Assembly, which is one of the provisions written in Measure R.

Part of what they are working out within the discussion of the Long Range Transit plan are what is the procedure for doing that within Measure R, that needs to be finalized.
As a follow-up to this conversation; There's a lot of assumptions in this one, but to answer the question they are looking to bond against future Measure R revenues , however there maybe a chance to get an overall savings by taking advantage of this now when interest rates are somewhat low and the recession is kicking in.

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/200...4P&PItem10.pdf
http://www.metro.net/board/Items/200...m10Handout.pdf
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully
The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2009, 2:27 AM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,054
What federal transportation funds, if any, is LA getting at this time for expanding mass transit?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:25 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.