HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #301  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2011, 8:27 PM
tascalisa's Avatar
tascalisa tascalisa is offline
Discovered in 1593
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tuscaloosa
Posts: 2,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawfin View Post
Ahhh! The correlation between affection for Glen Beck's pathological incoherence and the inability to write an English sentence.
This is a forum what people chat and exchange ideas. It's not meant to be an English teaching institute. If you don't want to be around people who hold differing opinions from your own, or read sentences with grammatical errors, I suggest you go elsewhere.

EDIT: BTW, I didn't say that I agreed with everything the man says. There are times that I'd love to slap in the face.
__________________
SSP Alabama Metros: Birmingham (City Compilation) - Huntsville - Mobile - Montgomery - Tuscaloosa - Daphne-Fairhope - Decatur

SSP Alabama Universities: Alabama - UAB - Alabama State
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #302  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2011, 11:18 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 42nd Ward
Posts: 6,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtk1519 View Post
No flame intended, but is that supposed to be an impressive figure? 28.7 million riders on 21,000 miles worth of routes = just 1,367 annual riders per mile. That's 78,630 riders per day for the entire system.
In fairness, Amtrak really should be considered as 2 (or possibly even 3) distinct rail networks:

1. The long-distance routes
2. The regional routes (generally <500mi)
2a. The Northeast corridor

Any remotely plausible HSR investment program would only be targeting #2, which is a heck of a lot less than 21,000 route miles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #303  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2011, 11:39 PM
tascalisa's Avatar
tascalisa tascalisa is offline
Discovered in 1593
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tuscaloosa
Posts: 2,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
In fairness, Amtrak really should be considered as 2 (or possibly even 3) distinct rail networks:

1. The long-distance routes
2. The regional routes (generally <500mi)
2a. The Northeast corridor

Any remotely plausible HSR investment program would only be targeting #2, which is a heck of a lot less than 21,000 route miles.
When you think about it that would probably help out in a financial sense. Allowing each division to take care of the vastly different needs that each has.
__________________
SSP Alabama Metros: Birmingham (City Compilation) - Huntsville - Mobile - Montgomery - Tuscaloosa - Daphne-Fairhope - Decatur

SSP Alabama Universities: Alabama - UAB - Alabama State
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #304  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2011, 9:53 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,303
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
In fairness, Amtrak really should be considered as 2 (or possibly even 3) distinct rail networks:

1. The long-distance routes
2. The regional routes (generally <500mi)
2a. The Northeast corridor

Any remotely plausible HSR investment program would only be targeting #2, which is a heck of a lot less than 21,000 route miles.
Maybe you can separate the management of Amtrak's trains into three groups, but you can't do so operationally. All the long distance trains and most of the regional routes, through Amtrak's biggest station (New York), run at least partially on the Northeast Corridor. Most New York City trains never leave the Northeast Corridor.

Therefore, any improvements you make on the Northeast Corridor are going to improve certain long distance and regional trains too.

Additionally, I believe Congress has defined the difference between regional and long distance trains at 750 miles, not the 500 you suggested.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #305  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2011, 12:06 PM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the Pascack Valley
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Maybe you can separate the management of Amtrak's trains into three groups, but you can't do so operationally. All the long distance trains and most of the regional routes, through Amtrak's biggest station (New York), run at least partially on the Northeast Corridor. Most New York City trains never leave the Northeast Corridor.

Therefore, any improvements you make on the Northeast Corridor are going to improve certain long distance and regional trains too.

Additionally, I believe Congress has defined the difference between regional and long distance trains at 750 miles, not the 500 you suggested.
What in blue blazes are you talking about.....the Northeast Corridor has mutiple trunk lines feeding into it....but also bypassing it completely. Like the Morris & Essex / Erie Main line bypasses the NEC and serves NE PA , Western Jersey And Lower Hudson Valley. There are other lines through out New England and SE PA that bypass the NEC completely... Theres also something called the LIRR....MNRR which only have 2 lines that feed into the NEC.

Heres part of our NYC network....

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #306  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2011, 4:28 PM
afiggatt afiggatt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Maybe you can separate the management of Amtrak's trains into three groups, but you can't do so operationally. All the long distance trains and most of the regional routes, through Amtrak's biggest station (New York), run at least partially on the Northeast Corridor. Most New York City trains never leave the Northeast Corridor.

Therefore, any improvements you make on the Northeast Corridor are going to improve certain long distance and regional trains too.
As already pointed out, most NYC commuter trains don't operate on the NEC (Northeast Corridor). But improvements and expansion of the various corridor routes across the US would also greatly benefit the long distance (LD) trains. Improving 100s of miles of a freight line to fix the bottlenecks and major slow points and upgrading the max speeds to 79, 90, or even 110 mph, so the average speed of the passenger trains over the 300-400 mile corridor go from 45 mph to, say, 70 or 80 mph, will improve the ridership, ticket revenue, market share for the LD trains runing over that segment.

The Mid-West Regional Rail Plan with 90 and 110 mph corridors, if built as planned, even if it does have not have true HSR speeds, would make a big difference in travel options in the mid-West and might result in more LD trains. The Southeast Corridor plans for VA and NC would improve the trip times for the LD trains from NYC to Florida and Atlanta/New Orleans.

As for jtk1519's post "No flame intended, but is that supposed to be an impressive figure? 28.7 million riders on 21,000 miles worth of routes = just 1,367 annual riders per mile. That's 78,630 riders per day for the entire system.", well most of those miles are the LD routes over freight lines with 1 train a day. Or for 2 LD trains, the Sunset Limited and Cardinal, only 3 days a week - although Amtrak is working to change those two to daily service. The LD trains had 4.47 million passengers in FY2010, so people do ride them.

But if we are looking at ridership per mile, then we should look at the numbers for the electrified NEC and Keystone East Corridors, where Amtrak owns most of the tracks (Amtrak owns 363 of the 457 miles of the NEC and the 104 miles of the Keystone East corridor). In FY2010, there were a total of 10.375 million passengers on the Acelas and Northeast Regionals on the NEC spine plus 1.297 million on the Keystone service trains. The Keystone trains also run on the NEC from Philly to NYC, so they have to be included for total Amtrak NEC numbers. The Vermonter, the Carolinian, and the Pennsylvanian also run a part of the their route on the NEC with people able to take them between stations on the NEC, but their ridership numbers (598 thousand total) are not (publicly) broken down, so I will have to set them aside. There are also 5 LD trains that run on the NEC between NYC and WAS, but those are pick-up or discharge only on the NEC, so we'll set them aside as well.

So for the NEC corridor trains, knowing these numbers are low, that works out to 20,805 annual Amtrak riders per mile. Or around 32,000 passengers a day over the 561 miles of electrified tracks. The daily passenger numbers on the NEC are far greater for the MARC, SEPTA, NJ Transit, Metro-North, SLE, MBTA commuter trains that operate on some portion of the NEC, but far more people commute to work every day than travel between cities.

If the NEC improvement plans in the 80s and 90s had been able to maintain their funding and Amtrak had achieved the long standing goal of less than 2:30 trip time between DC and NYC and 3 hours between NYC and Boston for the Acelas, Amtrak would have larger NEC ridership numbers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #307  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2011, 6:21 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,303
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
What in blue blazes are you talking about.....the Northeast Corridor has multiple trunk lines feeding into it....but also bypassing it completely. Like the Morris & Essex / Erie Main line bypasses the NEC and serves NE PA , Western Jersey And Lower Hudson Valley. There are other lines through out New England and SE PA that bypass the NEC completely... There's also something called the LIRR....MNRR which only have 2 lines that feed into the NEC. Heres part of our NYC network....
I was talking about AMTRAK, not the MTA or NJT.

Some Aristotle logic:
Pennsylvania Station is located on the Northeast Corridor. Every Amtrak train to New York City goes to Pennsylvania Station. Therefore, every Amtrak train going to New York City uses the Northeast Corridor, at least partially.

As an American citizen living in Texas, I don't care about MTA or NJT, I care about Amtrak. Even so, many MTA trains and NJT trains use the Northeast Corridor as well. Therefore, improvements to the Northeast Corridor helps them too.

Additionally, look at this threads title:
"High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program "
I'm still trying to figure out how the MTA or NJT fall under it!

Like pulling eye teeth out of elephants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #308  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2011, 6:45 PM
BevoLJ's Avatar
BevoLJ BevoLJ is offline
~Hook'em~
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Austin, TX/London, UK
Posts: 1,762
Amtrak. =(

I can take a 8 hour train ride from my house in Austin to my sisters in Dallas and have no car when I get there, or drive for 3 hours and have my own car for the weekend. It's really a no-brainer.

Austin to Houston, again 9 hour train ride or 3 hour drive.

Dallas to Houston 15 hour train ride of 4 hour drive.

And in all cases it cost more for the longer rides than gas to drive.

Why would anyone in Texas have any faith in such a system? Not that it matters we all know it will know any investment of our taxes will be put in the North East like it always is.
__________________
Austin, Texas
London, United Kingdom

Last edited by BevoLJ; Jan 29, 2011 at 7:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #309  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2011, 9:25 PM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the Pascack Valley
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
I was talking about AMTRAK, not the MTA or NJT.

Some Aristotle logic:
Pennsylvania Station is located on the Northeast Corridor. Every Amtrak train to New York City goes to Pennsylvania Station. Therefore, every Amtrak train going to New York City uses the Northeast Corridor, at least partially.

As an American citizen living in Texas, I don't care about MTA or NJT, I care about Amtrak. Even so, many MTA trains and NJT trains use the Northeast Corridor as well. Therefore, improvements to the Northeast Corridor helps them too.

Additionally, look at this threads title:
"High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program "
I'm still trying to figure out how the MTA or NJT fall under it!

Like pulling eye teeth out of elephants.
There are current and future MTA and NJT lines that will act like intercity rail. The Port Jervis , Hudson , Montauk and New Haven lines act like Intercity Service....they also take 2+hrs to travel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #310  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2011, 10:14 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,303
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
There are current and future MTA and NJT lines that will act like intercity rail. The Port Jervis , Hudson , Montauk and New Haven lines act like Intercity Service....they also take 2+hrs to travel.
Intercity maybe, High speed never...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #311  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2011, 10:39 PM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the Pascack Valley
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Intercity maybe, High speed never...
The Hudson line will be High Speed Rail in the future.....theres also the Proposed Lehigh / Raritan Valley line High Speed line , I-90 HSR corridor , I-91 HSR corridor...so there are a few....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #312  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2011, 2:09 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,190
Squaw Valley's new CEO is talking about a snow train (Sacramento Bee)

This project isn't high speed rail but it would be great to be able to bike to the high speed rail station in LA, take high speed rail to Sacramento, and then take this ski train to the slopes.

Squaw Valley's new CEO is talking about a snow train

By Ed Fletcher
Sunday, Jan. 30, 2011

"Over its nearly 70-year run, the Denver Ski Train helped link hundreds of thousands of city dwellers with Colorado's rich winter sport assets.

Squaw Valley USA's new president and CEO, Andy Wirth, likes the idea of offering San Francisco and Sacramento area residents a mass transit option for travel to Lake Tahoe.

So he has begun talking to operators of Northstar and other North Lake Tahoe resorts about a ski train from the Bay Area to Truckee..."

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/30/336...s=Our%20Region
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #313  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2011, 9:08 PM
afiggatt afiggatt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by BevoLJ View Post
Amtrak. =(

I can take a 8 hour train ride from my house in Austin to my sisters in Dallas and have no car when I get there, or drive for 3 hours and have my own car for the weekend. It's really a no-brainer.

Austin to Houston, again 9 hour train ride or 3 hour drive.

Dallas to Houston 15 hour train ride of 4 hour drive.

And in all cases it cost more for the longer rides than gas to drive.

Why would anyone in Texas have any faith in such a system? Not that it matters we all know it will know any investment of our taxes will be put in the North East like it always is.
If Texas had followed the example of California, perhaps the plans for the Texas T-Bone HSR would be a lot further along. In the 90s, California put funding behind the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin corridor services. With incremental track improvements over the years in cooperation with the freight railroads and increases in frequency of service, the combined ridership for the 3 services in FY2010 was 5.17 million passengers. These are hardly high speed corridors, but they do get solid ridership numbers. If California did not have these train services, it is very unlikely that the planning and support for the CA HSR system would be where it is.

If Texas had or were to start a multiple daily frequency a day corridor service along the Texas Eagle route from San Antonio to Dallas as the starter line, that would be a first step. Texas did get funding from the Tiger and HSIPR grants for the Tower 55 project and to double track a portion of the Trinity Rail Express corridor, both of which will improve run times for the Amtrak Texas Eagle in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Follow it by starting corridor service between San Antonio to Houston and Dallas to Houston. Get state and federal funding for more incremental improvements for those corridors over time that both benefit passenger and freight rail.

If these corridor services can get up and running with decent run times that are better than the heavily padded long distance train schedules (padded to allow for freight delays) and achieve decent ridership numbers, that might tilt the political climate in Texas into getting serious about the Texas T-Bone HSR idea. On the other hand, if California and Florida can both get their HSR systems under advanced construction and the CA HSR system gets close to starting up on the first segment or 2 in the Valley, then Texas politicians might say, hey, what about us? We can't fall behind those damn left wing liberals in California!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #314  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2011, 9:51 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 12,906
Even without imminent HSR plans, incremental sub-HS improvements can pay off. Eugene-Portland-Seattle and to a lesser extent Seattle-Vancouver are good examples of this, supported by the state/provincial governments. At four per day, trains from Seattle-Portland can be 100% full. The stimulus will make more incremental improvements, and raise the frequency to six on that route. Will still be two per day to Vancouver unfortunately. Speeds are slighly slower than driving, and slighly slower than flying if you're traveling between the two downtowns. (Even at <70mph, being able to stroll to the dining car and grab a microbrew to take back on wide aisles to sit in a big seat with legroom...priceless.)

Texas looks like a good candidate for this type of service, even if it's culturally more of a stretch. You have good sized cities an appropriate distance apart.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #315  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2011, 1:22 AM
BevoLJ's Avatar
BevoLJ BevoLJ is offline
~Hook'em~
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Austin, TX/London, UK
Posts: 1,762
Ya, I would really love to see something that works in Texas because of just what you mentioned mhays, being able to just sit back and enjoy the ride. Over the holidays I thought it would be very cool to take the train from Austin to my sisters in Dallas and then to my other sisters in Houston. When I went online and looked into it, the full day required for each trip just makes it impossible.

Afiggott, you are spot on about how useful that line from SA > Austin > Waco > Dallas would be. Problem is Houston always gets left out as it is off on its own in the east. heh. Dallas and Houston need to be connected some way as those are two huge towns. That you have to go from Dallas way to the SW to SA, and then back up and east to Houston seems silly. Would be nice if our cities were all in a nice little line like in Cali or the NE, but that just is not the case and probably why there is no real passenger rail here.
__________________
Austin, Texas
London, United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #316  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2011, 4:08 AM
waltlantz waltlantz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Bevo highlights something for me.

The rest of the country outside of the Northeast regards rail as something almost foriegn.

It seems to me that trying to push high speed rail is kind of putting the cart before the horse.

Even if we weren't facing the financial crunch we are in, very few people at all actively utilize the nations rail network, I'd be surprised if many knew we HAD one. Therefore, it isn't surprising that some people have greeted the prospect of true High Speed Rail service with skepticism. Our traditional rail service is so lousy.

Wouldn't the president and whoever comes after him who actually favors non-road based infrastructure be better served by making a concerted "LETS DO RAIL" push? More specifically, there needs to be stronger lobbying for and care of Amtrak's existing service, investing in existing lines and getting them up to speed is the best way of demonstrating that rail is part of the future. To many it's still part of the past.

The rehabilitation and reinvestment in our rail network needs a large PR program like the Highways and car culture did back in the day. Otherwise, people just aren't going to buy into it outside of a few circles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #317  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2011, 7:49 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,303
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by afiggatt View Post
If Texas had followed the example of California, perhaps the plans for the Texas T-Bone HSR would be a lot further along. In the 90s, California put funding behind the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin corridor services. With incremental track improvements over the years in cooperation with the freight railroads and increases in frequency of service, the combined ridership for the 3 services in FY2010 was 5.17 million passengers. These are hardly high speed corridors, but they do get solid ridership numbers. If California did not have these train services, it is very unlikely that the planning and support for the CA HSR system would be where it is.
Your point is well taken. But, there is a major difference between the railroad corridors in California and Texas. In California, much of the rail corridors were already double track, so not that many improvements were needed to run multiple frequency Amtrak trains on them. In Texas, much of the rail corridors are single track, and they are also extremely busy with freight. It wasn't more than 10 years ago when UP freight traffic in Texas was backed up so severely that TXDOT threatened to take over their corridors. If freights corridors are so busy, you can guess how likely there will be more passenger trains - zero!

The most likely first Texas regional corridor is San Antonio to Dallas via Fort Worth, Temple, and Austin. Well, a commuter rail agency and TXDOT trying to start commuter rail trains between San Antonio and Austin have been told by the UP to ante up $2 Billion for a new freight bypass before they would allow any more passenger trains over their existing freight corridor.

Golly, the entire Texas T-Bone using brand new HSR corridors most of the way is projected at $14 Billion. Spending $2 Billion for a new freight bypass corridor so the commuter rail can take over the existing rail corridor, still requires another $Billion for upgrades, trains, stations, and park & ride lots.
That's $3 Billion for slightly over 100 miles of track just between San Antonio and Austin. Imagine what it'll cost to build the 90 mph rail the rest of the way between Austin and DFW, and eventually all the way to Houston.

I'm of the opinion it'll be cheaper to build dedicated HSR corridors in Texas than to expand the existing rail corridor's capacity. Especially if new freight bypass corridors must be built anyways so passenger trains can run on the existing corridors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #318  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2011, 9:27 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,190
Senators debate merits of high-speed rail (The Hill)

Senators debate merits of high-speed rail

By Bernie Becker
02/03/11
The Hill


"It’s perhaps not too surprising that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is not the biggest fan of President Obama’s push to expand high-speed rail. But that doesn’t mean he won’t get the hard sell from his Democratic colleague, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Thursday, Sessions, the panel’s ranking member, said the government didn’t have the money for rail projects. But Whitehouse pressed the Alabama senator to keep an open mind on the idea, likening high-speed rail to the development of highways.

“You'd find that it was actually worth spending that money because it carried follow-on economic effects that were worth far more than it,” Whitehouse said..."

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...igh-speed-rail
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #319  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2011, 5:33 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 33,823
Obama to call for $53B for high-speed rail


February 8th, 2011

By JEFF MASON



Read More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41474264...s-white_house/

Quote:
The U.S. government will dedicate $53 billion over six years to build new high-speed rail networks and make existing ones faste, Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday. The initiative will allow the Department of Transportation to choose corridors for the new projects and increase U.S. use of the passenger rails, the White House said in a statement. President Barack Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012, which is to be unveiled next week, includes $8 billion for the plan. The rest of the money will be allocated over the six-year time period.

Obama has said he wants to target investments in areas such as infrastructure while reducing spending to tackle the budget deficit. "As President Obama said in his State of the Union, there are key places where we cannot afford to sacrifice as a nation — one of which is infrastructure," Biden said in a statement. "As a long-time Amtrak rider and advocate, I understand the need to invest in a modern rail system that will help connect communities, reduce congestion and create quality, skilled manufacturing jobs that cannot be outsourced."

.....
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #320  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2011, 6:52 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 8,056
I was going to post that but thought way bother. It is DOA anyway once it comes before the house.
__________________
facebook
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:16 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.