Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/17/2019 in Posts

  1. 10 points
    The whole practice of skip-stop isn't even all that efficient since the same trackage is still shared. Those tight ass turns aren't helping matters either...
  2. 8 points
    I'm not sure why you are praising this plan, when it calls for considerable service cuts. There is no way that people should be forced to wait ONE HOUR during RUSH HOUR for a bus, when they may wait every 20 - 30 minutes currently. That is not an improvement. You are looking at just the routes. I am looking at the cuts to the service spans AND the frequencies and the fact that there are NO alternatives in some cases. Cutting bus service at 9:30pm back to Queens is absurd, when buses currently run until 12:30am at night. That's a three hour cut to the span of service. You also talked the need for more direct trips. Well riders will be forced to make more transfers under this plan, thus elongating their trips, so I'm not sure how this plan makes service more direct. The routes will be more direct, but service won't be more direct for the actual passengers.
  3. 7 points
    Ridiculous how the dispatchers keep holding express trains station after station. held at Manhattan Bridge junction to let a go first. Connected with an at Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center and then waited for a second ! At 36 Street, it held again to connect with that first . Meanwhile, the second that was a healthy distance away caught up to the and was right behind in the tunnel. If the trains are quick, the MTA holds them back. If the trains are slow, they lean back in their seats and congratulate themselves for a job well done.
  4. 6 points
    Since 2016 the has gone downhill similar to how 2001-2004 was with the route swaps 2016 - Sea Beach Reconstruction begins 2016 - train returns but means fewer trains outside rush hours in Astoria and car shortage is noticed. 2017 - Astoria Stations begin Construction 2018 - 4 Av Express tunnel begins repairs 2019 - Astoria Blvd closes & train is cut from Stillwell Av 2019-2020 - loses almost all R160s for the worst performing subway car (outside the R32) if they still did the state of the subway report card, you’d see the at the bottom of the list again like it was in the 90s and early 2000s
  5. 6 points
    Just because someone is planning bus routes with the idea of what is best for the passenger, does not automatically mean they are not considering what it would cost to operate these proposals. I have always kept cost in mind when formulating proposals. The difference between my philosophy and the MTA’s is I believe to attract more passengers, you have to increase your investment in the system. That’s how most business that want to grow operate. I believe there is a direct relationship between ridership and revenue. The MTA is taking the opposite approach. They don’t want to grow the bus system. They want it to contract to force more people into the already crowded subways. They have traditionally believed there is no relationship between ridership and revenue. That the market is fixed, so the way to maximize profits or reduce losses is to provide less service so that’s what they are doing here, by eliminating bus stops and cutting routes willy nilly, it by using the data. No plan will please everybody, but the objective is to help more people than you hurt. Where is the analysis that shows with these new routes, more riders will require fewer transfers? How do we know that more will require increased numbers of transfers? We don’t because the MTA is ignoring the most important variable which is passenger trip time and have not set up any criteria in advance to measure the success or failure of these proposals. No matter how many riders are lost or how much longer it will take for most to make trips, the MTA will still declare success by finding a few favorable statistics like buses are now traveling an average of 1.3 mph faster, which isn’t hard to accomplish if you eliminate 30 to 50 percent of the stops. They say they have t eliminate stops because buses are too slow. I don’t see how an average of 8.3 mph when you have stops, traffic lights, and a speed limit of 25 mph is “too slow” I only average between 9 and 11 mph in my car if I don’t use the highway without making any stops. The planners also never ride the bus, so they have no idea why riders choose to take a bus instead of a train when there is a choice. They don’t realize how many use a different route in one direction versus the other because they consider factors like being able to get a seat, something the MTA ignores in its planning. And why do you feel just because someone is passionate about something, they can’t also be objective?
  6. 6 points
    Well there's a stunner!! Thank You. The inside source says that those last 10 MK R-42s have not been officially retired, yet no one seems to know yet whether "it" will actually be used again. As far as the trip last Friday afternoon I was apprised of many of the attendees (more like party-goers) were told in stripes that was going to be the "Final" trip: 5:15 from Broad Street to Jamaica Center then layup to ENY. Even the operating crew was serious assuming that was the last revenue trip. It could be the train did get a reprieve for some reason, if only temporarily. (I am only the messenger. "We" try the arrow setting straight). Now as to the R-32s as well, there are other at least two "quite credible" sources who now are claiming that fleet-based part retirement of the Phase I R-32s is also belayed, with just the known four cars permanently retired but maybe no others, for another temporary period. Too many conflicting is making your guess at this point as well as I. Best thing is just to keep a collective eye as time proceeds. And (as always) time will tell!
  7. 6 points
    GT35s (installed for capacity’s sake given the downhill) will do that to speeds. Fun fact, though: the original IND signaling was timed even slower — 30mph.
  8. 5 points
    If you want a good laugh, today is ten years to the day since that legendary SubChat thread about the MTA considering the M/V combo. Lots of bad takes galore: http://www.subchat.com/readflat.asp?Id=882716
  9. 5 points
    Alrighty Folks I got some Flatbush Depot news: This morning I was one of the first Articulated buses to operate on the SBS46 from Kings Plaza to DeKalb Ave. It was a full passenger service test and expect buses to be out on the road during AM rush hour and PM rush hour only for the time being. Management wanted more buses out on the road but the union wanted only 3 buses out for the time being.
  10. 4 points
    I'm glad I'm not the only one that gets the thing. I also have a couple questions. I keep hearing complaints about the redesign, but aren't those who complain the main ones you hear from in any situation? Those who are happy aren't really gonna care enough to speak. Therefore, is this redesign REALLY as much of a problem as people think? Is it possible we've actually struck silver? I mean, it would be gold if the absolute max headway was 20 minutes (average wait of 10 minutes) on all routes. Lastly, I wonder how many peoples criticisms come from current patterns, and not patterns based on the new system. Because I see waaaayyy too much of the former. And that's a very flawed way to look at total change. (In some ways, you can say that mindset has stalled our country as a whole)
  11. 4 points
    When is the Q70 actually ever fare free, when 99.9% of customers are transferring from the subway...
  12. 4 points
    It's called actually using the bus routes in question consistently and observing (your and others') ridership habits. It's not rocket science. That is the most effective way by far to understand ridership levels and where people are going. The traffic counters they have on the bus don't even do that, all they do is jot down how many get on/off at the stops.
  13. 4 points
    I actually agree with taking the Q44 away from Union Street and Parsons Blvd. The route goes all the way from Merrick Blvd, Archer Ave to the Bronx Zoo or Fordham under the proposal, let it bypass Whitestone and have other bus routes serve it. Most of the people who get on along that stretch (14th street to Roosevelt Ave) mostly are heading to and from Flushing anyways. This would decrease the run time for those heading to the Bronx and believe me there are tons of people who ride the Q44 from Jamaica all the way to the Bronx. The MTA just needs to bump up service on whatever local routes serve Union Street and Parsons Blvd and not be so quick to eliminate stops. I’m still pissed off that the MTA had the nerve to propose that the new rendition of the Q64 go non stop from Main Street to Queens Blvd, ignoring the fact that the stops in between get heavily used. So they are already inconveniencing many and deterring ridership.
  14. 4 points
    The . 3045-3049 cannot run on the as that unit is part of a ten-car train.
  15. 4 points
    I'm trying to suppress my wrath hold my opinions off until the plans actually get released (as this map isn't 100% clear), but to be perfectly honest, I'm not surprised by either.... (What looks to be a) Q44 truncation is clearly an attempt to speed the thing up - but if they're going to end up going through with that, it's going to be at the detriment of a shit ton of riders... Jamaica bound Q44's are still crushloaded past Main/QB..... It would loom far more grave than stymieing B46 SBS' at DeKalb.... You aren't going to get people to want to get off at Briarwood to take the train (or Q60) to get to Jamaica.... Worse than that, it's looking like they're suggesting getting rid of the Q20 (A and B) to have that funky aforementioned Q74/Q25 combo as the Main st local instead, on top of it... In other words, Main st riders won't have a direct ride to Jamaica.... As for the cutbacks inside JFK, that's all about eradicating dead mileage (and quite frankly, trying to force more people into using the AIRTrain)....
  16. 3 points
    I think some of the R143s have these motors and will be expanded to the entire fleet. R142s, 160s: don't know.
  17. 3 points
  18. 3 points
    This is more of a reason to have 14th St style busways in Flushing and Jamaica rather than to de-clutter, whatever that means. This will mostly add travel times for people trying to connect from buses from one end of Jamaica (north and east) and the other (south and west), and also remove countless passengers' connections to the and and AirTrain (coming from the north and east) and the (coming from the west).
  19. 3 points
  20. 3 points
    I'm so confused with this scheme. MTA makes shit so damnn complicated for no reason.
  21. 3 points
    To confirm sir 3976-3980 has left Flatbush Avenue and back at the Pond. Only 3973, 3974 remain at Flatbush. Uncertain about 4065 at this time.
  22. 3 points
    The most interesting thing about the garbage train 32s returning to service is it might have 10+ year old ads in it. One of the best things about riding the museum trains is seeing the ads from the time period they ran, always was cool seeing early 2000s ads on the museum redbirds. I would imagine the ones in the museum R1-9's are replica ads..?
  23. 3 points
    back Out to the line I go
  24. 3 points
    Multiple swaps between CI, 207th, ENY and pitkin are happening right now The canceled a go on 8th ave because of this mess. Shit just got real
  25. 3 points
    And what makes you think the MTA will be objective and listen to them? The only purpose of these sessions is to select comments they can use to support the changes they want to make like: we need faster buses, or buses make too many stops, buses aren’t reliable, we need better routes or I like proposal such and such, and things like that. Negative comments like a route proposal doesn’t help them will be ignored. You are far too trusting of the MTA.
  26. 3 points
    Queens' bus network didn't have to be blown up & redrawn, that's the thing.... No matter what you do to the bus system, the fact still remains that too significant a portion of the entire borough lacks rail coverage.... And on top of it, you're suggesting inadequate (IMO) service levels for a lot of these routes that you are proposing.... You're practically nerfing express bus service.... The whole thing's a f***in slap in the face.... My thing is, individual routes should haven been addressed & not the entire network..... Instead, it's easier to start a new network from scratch than it is to try to hone the current network by fixing whatever service gaps there are, integrating whatever new concepts you want to implement (like this rapid service bit) within it, addressing latent demand to/from new points of interest, things like that.... There's long been a failure by the MTA to get that grasp & that attempt to adequately meet the transit needs of people within each community (generally speaking of course).... This new network to me is indicative of one big "f*** it - let's throw shit & snack packs on the wall & see how much of it sticks".
  27. 3 points
  28. 3 points
  29. 3 points
    Rumor has it that the last R42s have been pulled from passenger service tonight roughly an hour or so ago and are pending transfer to somewhere (that I don't know off). I don't have access to MTA fleet information so I'll leave up to those who do to confirm it.
  30. 3 points
    That was a pilot service and it failed. The only way this would make sense is if you deinterlined 149th, sending the up Dyre and the up Jerome. If that is the case, I would rebuild Bedford Park Boulevard as an express station.
  31. 3 points
    OK we have some news here! These 24 MK R-42s have been RETIRED as of today (December 21): 4792/3, 4800-3, 4808/9, 4812-5, 4820-3, 4826-9, 4836-9 (all laid up at Pitkin indefinitely). One 8-car train 4824/25-4831/30-4816/17-4799/98 was the only train in passenger service on Friday AM (December 20). No trains ran on Friday PM. (That's 32). One more 8-car consist is still available (not in order 4796/7, 4804-7, 4832/3), plus six more for revenue spares. (That's 46). 4 were held for repair on December 20, (That's 50). There may be R-42 trains again this coming week but maybe not. Lets see. This could be IT!! Like I said last week, "Sing for Alud Lang Syne."
  32. 3 points
    It made sense to combine the two routes because of those reasons.... I'm not seeing how combining the two routes made it a hindrance to terminate it somewhere other than Atlas on the southern end of the thing... There's nothing saying that you have to keep both routes exactly the way they are in order to combine them..... Look, I didn't care for the creation of Atlas from the beginning (as a Mall or as a terminal for a bus) & the only reason I believe it terminates there (instead of running down to Myrtle) is due to lack of layover space for two full time routes..... Regardless of where it terminated on that end though, phasing out the southern part of the Q47 is passively dictating what subway corridor those people have access to.... That isn't something that should be overlooked or minimized.... These questions are rhetorical, but why shouldn't those folks have direct access to the ? Why shouldn't those folks have basic coverage? The narrative is quite clear & I hope CB5 fights tooth & nail to get that rectified (if such a revocation is being proposed in this redesign).... It doesn't have to be exactly how the Q47 on that end of the route is routed, but a void is most certainly not the answer..... Speaking of CB5, that's something else I'm going to pay more of an attention to - how these different community boards will (or if) they respond to what's being proposed in these redesigns.... Too many of 'em are pretty lax when it comes to issues regarding public transportation... It needs to be more than just the usual suspects showing some sort of concern....
  33. 3 points
    I'll put it like this.... There's nothing necessarily wrong with a route having two (or more) distinct segments along its course, that benefits multiple ethnicities of people within each segment... I'm not saying that as some sort of corny PC answer, as to not ruffle feathers or something either.... Hell, the B35 itself has Church av as an unofficial demarcation point, where you'll see very little Hispanics & Middle Easterners riding past it due east (although it's not AS apparent than it used to be, but generally speaking, it's still the case).... You just won't see too many Black people taking B6's west of CI av..... I can go on & on with the examples, but in any case, it is what it is..... That's not to undermine the point though, as demographics absolutely play a significant enough role in a route's effectiveness.... The issue with the proposed Francis Lewis route & the proposed Springfield route should be quite obvious, regardless of demographics.... Those two routes FWIW are connecting residential areas to other residential areas, instead of connecting residential areas on either end of the route to some common major mutual ridership generator or point of interest (like, a subway station or a mall).... Both of those routes, if implemented, will end up failing miserably, especially that Francis Lewis one.... The main draw for the Q27 is Flushing, with QCC being a distant secondary draw.... The main draw for the Q76 due south & the Q77 due north, is Jamaica proper...... Forcing xfers all over the place is the absolute opposite of what an adequately useful & beneficial bus system is supposed to be..... You have every right to doubt the effectiveness of these drawn out NE Queens to SE Queens routes....
  34. 3 points
    Because we're in the business of safety, not yee-hawing up and down the street.
  35. 3 points
    Got sworn in today! Thank you all for the information and help throughout this process.
  36. 3 points
    Im thinking the A-A sets, If the 100% R46's then I wouldn't be surprised if they make it 6 car trains like pre December 2001. it would make alot of sense. there's 26 A-A cars you add that to the already 52 cars required to run on the (G). that would be 78 cars, exactly 13 trainsets. only issue is spares, I wouldn't be surprised if they add some 8 car R32's ( only gonna need 50 cars, 6 8 car trains as spares). it would be idiotic for them not to do this since there's extra cars and they can easily move 6 trains of R179's to the to bump those 6 trains of R32's to CI for the . the needs more cars, there's no excuses. adding 2 cars wouldn't cost that much money.
  37. 2 points
    Do I get any credit for getting the design on the nose months ago? LMAO
  38. 2 points
    To be quite honest, it carries air, and the Q79 before it carried air. The majority of LNP is a wide broad street with little traffic and only very-low density housing. It probably needs a bike lane rather than a bus for the purposes of local transportation.
  39. 2 points
    It was an R179 Quote from Greg mocker It’s the latest and biggest problem for the newest subway cars. NYC Transit has removed the R179 cars from service. In separate statements, both the MTA and Bombardier said 2 doors on cars in the R179 fleet recently failed to function as intended. NYCT Transit President Andy Byford says the manufacturer, Bombardier Transportation, notified the agency Tuesday night about its analysis of a recent issue Transit says all passengers were safe but the incident raises questions about the reliability of a door mechanism. “Out of an abundance of caution, NYCT removed all R179 train cars from service overnight for thorough inspection and re-deployed other spare cars to continue service for this morning’s rush and ensure minimal impacts to customers. I commend the hardworking men and women of New York City Transit for their efforts last evening,” Byford said. All lines were to be operating at normal service levels with the exception of the J/Z line, where headways have been increased by two minutes in between trains for the AM peak period, and skip-stop service suspended. NYCT has brought on LTK Engineering Services for an independent third-party review of inspections of the cars. “As documented, the MTA has identified repeated issues with Bombardier’s performance and finds this latest development unacceptable. We intend to hold the company fully accountable,” Byford added. A spokesperson for Bombardier says the investigation shows that the doors were not properly calibrated by Kangni, the door operator supplier. “We are now inspecting all of the R179 cars and, where necessary, making adjustments to ensure the safe and reliable performance of the doors for the entire fleet,” said Bombardier spokesperson Maryanne Roberts. The company says it has brought in additional technicians who are working around the clock to inspect, calibrate and test the door systems. “We value our partnership with New York City Transit and are fully committed to providing high quality, reliable, safe rail cars for the millions of people who ride New York’s subway system every day. We will continue to work closely with our customer to make sure that the R179 cars are the best performing cars in New York’s fleet,” Roberts said. The delivery and roll out of the cars has faced problems and delays. “Bombardier sold us lemons. Straphangers need the MTA to manage these contracts from the beginning — before the trains go off the rails,” said NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer. The comptroller issued an audit of the $600-million contract last month criticizing the production and project management. The MTA has worked to monitor the contract and hold Bombardier accountable. The agency and company are still determining the timeline for complete repairs.
  40. 2 points
    Totally, that’s what I thought. Don’t know why that kiddo makes a list of cars and then says “to be transferred” if it’s a matter of approval. Thanks for the clarification BTW. You’re insights are always very helpful.
  41. 2 points
    January 19 “supposedly”
  42. 2 points
    My hot takes on this are pretty similar to Alon Levy's so i'll post the blog post from Pedestrian Observations at the end here. There's one thing about these NYC borough redesigns that makes this a lot different then other redesign projects that are seen as recent planning successes (ala Houston). Hardly anyone took the bus in those places. You get a lot more freedom to implement changes when the group of people it's geared to aren't touching the current setup with a 10 foot pole. With, NYC you have to deal with a legacy system that is tremendously well utilized (even if at a declining rate). That means that changes now have to pass muster with the commuters who are using the current system and those people are going to compare all the changes to what is currently running. And this is where the MTA is stuck between a rock and a hard place. With usage of the current system (in all boroughs, not just queens) being as high as it is, there has to be the recognition that most of what's here is either a) uniquely benefitting many commuters and/or b) the best possible service that can be provided for some commuters under any network design. If you make wholesale changes to the degree that was done here in Queens you come off as ignoring the above and already pissing off the largest stakeholders in the project. Many of these same people though are the main ones who will complain about slow speeds, overcrowding an other nuisances with the bus that are leading to the decline in ridership that the MTA is aiming to resolve. You have to come into a network redesign project with the idea then that a) most routes in the current setup have some sort of operational problem that needs to be improved and/or b) there is money being left on the table in terms of potential trips the current system doesn't serve. It is nearly impossible to pull off a successful redesign with all four of those bolded assumptions in place. This is why I thought if any significant changes were made in the Queens project, it was going to be bashed on here. Most regular commuters and especially transitfans have adapted to the current system enough to where any major change is going to be seen as worse by default. Not making matters any better is the well earned reputation of the agency being an incompetent operator of buses in general. Who is to say that any potential opportunities introduced by new routes, or non-stop feeders would be met with the right frequencies and bus priority treatments to make them viable in real life. To end this with where I actually stand, I have two points to make. I do think the draft redesign looks better than the current system for reasons many in the "always follow best practices" school of transit planning would agree with. I will be posting a blog at the bottom of this which is a critique I agree with. I see stop consolidation on the major corridors, faster feeder service with the non-stop segments introduced on some routes and quite a few corridors where the MTA would continue it's SBS push which is the current day LTD so I'll live with it. Do I think this draft redesign should be implemented though? No, not in the slightest. It is way too much of a departure from the current model that does work for enough people to make significant changes a non-starter. There are too many people's lives that will be affected by this to afford getting anything wrong and for what I know international best practices could be "wrong" so I say scrap the whole thing. Since it won't be scrapped, I say godspeed to all those who will be voicing their complaints and speaking for the public on this. https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/12/31/queens-bus-redesign/
  43. 2 points
    I've noticed criticisms of the plan based on current travel patterns, but aren't some aspect of current travel patterns the result of the existing network? For example, The N45 had ok ridership, the LIB created the N43 and ridership on Uniondale Ave increased. train had poor ridership, everyone bailed for the when possible, the implemented a "Service cut" merge with the and now and ridership increased (even before the building boom). The went Jamaica to Manhattan solo, once the was connected to it along Archer Ave, riders started backtracking to the to take the express train to Manhattan and other destinations. On a different but similar note, there was a member that would base bus/express bus routing plans along highways based on highway congestion. But, missed the point that motorists use available highways and their routings to get to where they going. The reason say, the Meadowbrook Parkway is congested going north in the morning, is because the motorists are actually trying to go WEST along the Northern State and LIE toward Manhattan and/or the Bronx/Westchester. And so, the Meadowbrook Parkway doesn't necessarily need a bus route if there is a quicker way west which is the direction where people want to go. (ie, Maybe a route along Hempstead Turnpike, Clearview Expressway to Pelham Parkway/Fordham would work better, connection provides cheaper MNRR tickets to White Plains, maybe trips to New Rochelle MNRR for cheaper tickets to Stamford), etc Same with Van Wyck Expressway, if the Bushwick Expressway existed, a lot of motorists wouldn't even bother with the VWE.
  44. 2 points
    9:08 R42 final trip RFW from Jam-Broad. Sadly not enough battery to record Broad back to Jam.
  45. 2 points
    Amazing how they get away with having the express cross from express to local and back to express after 161. You’d never be able to get away with that on the express at 74th. But it is completely ridiculous that they do this instead of just running the later in The Bronx. And that’s exactly it. If they want the Concourse line to offer some kind of relief to the , then they’ve got to run more local service on it. It’s completely ridiculous that they still don’t after all this time.
  46. 2 points
    Incorrect about Dyckman Street on the .
  47. 2 points
    Just saw two R179 cars right before the tolls on the GWB. The number plates weren’t installed on them. I guess Bombardier was rushing to deliver them lol. Seems this set might be 3045-3049, which will wrap up this order once and for all!
  48. 2 points
    So there is no evidence yet that any of the 222 R-32's have been taken out of service. Secondly, there are only 18 R-42's that have been living at ENY since the summer. 2 8-car trains (when needed) and one spare pair. The 18 is frequently (weekly) changed around. There are still 18 at ENY as of December 20, 2019 but whether there will be change-out from ENY to Pitkin (as usual) there is no way to know yet. You'd have to check each consists every day to see if it keeps getting swapped around. If they keep just using the same 18 and the other 32 are left (permanently?) at Pitkin may paint a different picture. Good luck finding them regularly anyhow, usually two trains AM rush and one if that PM every weekday. They MIGHT also still show up in weekends too (there was one on the road last Sunday, December 15).
  49. 2 points
    I will look into the manner, but understand that the R-32's tend to be in and frequently pulled out of service, depending on the severity of how each car is misbehaving. Its not unusual to find a particular car or pair set aside until repairs are effected, even across the longer term (months?). When this happens, the cars which are long term held will often be cannibalized for necessary spare parts that might not otherwise now be available for an active R-32. Windows, curtain signs, lights, even door operational hardware are some items which can go missing from a set of R-32's for a while, but they are restored as part of the longer term fixes. I personally once a pair that started to be made ready for reefeing in 2008 but was saved back and is now back in service. 3586/3587 was sitting dark and seemed to be almost skeletal inside the (former) paint booth in the corner of 207 Street. The point is, assume nothing by missing roll curtains, window glass or light bulbs. As for the R-32 fleet being cut, DCE and the bean counters would love it but the lash spare factor of just above fleet half provides to cushion the continuously revolve door for their "reliability." When the fleet is cut to whatever number is cut critically (peg a given number?) 110, 120, 140? There seem to be around 120 R-32 cars still needed on both routes for consistent use each weekdays. It isn't unusual for about 40 R-42's to be sidelined for some issue or other at the same time. The spares keep getting burned quickly for unexpected issues that sometimes seem to happen by the hour. Please understand that much of the electrical and mechanical nerve systems of the Phase I's are now over 30 years old and the redone framing was not intended to last that long as redone at M-K.
  50. 2 points
    When the route was in Gleason it was managed pretty well. I mean now for logistical reasons the 48 is heading back to GA and that doesn’t make sense to me where as it’s a easier deadhead from Gleason.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.