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.
Sign in to follow this  
Q43LTD

Queens Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

On ‎8‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 1:50 PM, Axis said:

I do wonder how well the n26 would be able to compete with the n25 & Q46 if it were [hypothetically] buffed to full-time service...

It doesn't (and wouldn't) compete with the n25 at all, regardless of a span expansion....

If you increased the span of the n26 to that of having full time service, it would have to significantly run more frequent than the Q46 at minimum.... NICE has a difficult time even providing adequate service on it's more heavily utilized routes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2019 at 7:32 AM, NY1635 said:

The n26 is mainly used by city residents working at the LIJ, North Shore, and The children's hospital at the Quadrangle. It doesn't have the ridership for full time because it runs closed door in Queens. City Line Residents will often take the n22 over the n26 if the Q43 laying over at 268th Street hasn't gone to into service yet. 

 

This is a nitpick, but I don't think anyone calls any of that area "City Line". I've only ever seen that name in use for the neighborhood in Brooklyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is a nitpick, but I don't think anyone calls any of that area "City Line". I've only ever seen that name in use for the neighborhood in Brooklyn.

 

And even that became outdated in 1898 after the Unification of Greater New York (since Brooklyn was no longer its own city).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restructuring routes in the Bayside area:

Q34 extended to Fort Totten via Willets Point Blvd. Weekend service added between Flushing & Fort Totten.

Q31 rerouted to travel via Utopia Parkway-32nd Avenue to terminate at Bayside High School

Q28 rerouted to travel down Crocheron Avenue-35th Avenue-Corporal Kennedy Street (that stretch of 35th Avenue has a lot of garden apartments that could use the service).

Q16 rerouted via Utopia Parkway-CIP service road-166th Street to terminate at the LeHavre Apartments (I'm debating between that, and just ending it at Willets Point Blvd)

Q65 rerouted via Parsons & 46th (instead of via Bowne & 45th) as recommended in the initial NE Queens bus study.

I'm trying to debate as to whether it is worth splitting the Q27 (e.g. Springfield/HHE - Flushing, and Bayside High School-Cambria Heights via Corporal Kennedy Street-35th Avenue-Bell Blvd-48th Avenue, and then the Q27 route to Cambria Heights. Part of me thinks that the current connection to SE Queens is useful (since the Q27 seems to be more frequent/reliable than a lot of the other north-south routes).

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Restructuring routes in the Bayside area:

Q34 extended to Fort Totten via Willets Point Blvd. Weekend service added between Flushing & Fort Totten.

Q31 rerouted to travel via Utopia Parkway-32nd Avenue to terminate at Bayside High School

Q28 rerouted to travel down Crocheron Avenue-35th Avenue-Corporal Kennedy Street (that stretch of 35th Avenue has a lot of garden apartments that could use the service).

Q16 rerouted via Utopia Parkway-CIP service road-166th Street to terminate at the LeHavre Apartments (I'm debating between that, and just ending it at Willets Point Blvd)

Q65 rerouted via Parsons & 46th (instead of via Bowne & 45th) as recommended in the initial NE Queens bus study.

I'm trying to debate as to whether it is worth splitting the Q27 (e.g. Springfield/HHE - Flushing, and Bayside High School-Cambria Heights via Corporal Kennedy Street-35th Avenue-Bell Blvd-48th Avenue, and then the Q27 route to Cambria Heights. Part of me thinks that the current connection to SE Queens is useful (since the Q27 seems to be more frequent/reliable than a lot of the other north-south routes).

Some comments:

Q34: I've been in limbo with leaving it as is & phasing it out.... Over the years, the proverbial needle has been tilting more & more towards phasing it out & having those resources utilized b/w the Q25 & the Q65.... The (Q34) routing between Northern & Parsons would be replaced with Q20B service (which would no longer serve 14th av & would run along 20th av w/ the Q20a instead)....  Opting to run the Q34 along Willets Point to Fort Totten [to fill a (local) service gap] is an immense waste of mileage, for not much of a benefit for too many riders IMO.... What I would like to see along Willets Point is more Qm20 service though.....

Q28/Q31: I get taking the Q31 off 48th, but I can't agree with having it continue along Utopia to 32nd to have it end at Bayside HS - to then have (or for the sake of having) the Q28 shifted to be straightened to run along to 35th to serve those apt's in question.... I'm not too convinced that those patrons of said apt's even want buses running along 35th (which could explain Q28's running on 32nd instead.... well that, and/or 32nd being less traffic bogged than 35th)..... IDK, to me, it's like you're making both of these routes less useful than what they currently are, to fill service gaps....  As for the Q31, the thing undoubtedly has several problems - but the serving of the commercial area around Northern/Bell though, is not one of them.... Your suggestion here would make the Q31 more of a school bus than what it is now.... Lol....

Q16: You face a dilemma either way - Run to it the LeHavre apt's & have them bitch about too many BPH, or truncate it to Willets Point/Utopia Pkwy & have those few that use the Q16 out of the BayBridge condos bitch about the revocation of service....

Q65: I favor the current routing in that immediate area (over having it go 46th av > Parsons > Sanford > Kissena) simply because it uses less of Sanford.....

@NewFlyer 230 a couple of pages back in this thread, made a good suggestion IMO.... It entailed having Q65's go 45th > Parsons > Roosevelt > College Pt. (blvd).... No Bowne, no Sanford, no Kissena, no Main.... I'd easily sacrifice that for a stint along Roosevelt.... I'd take my chances with [Roosevelt from Parsons to College Pt (blvd)] over [what the Q65 currently does], or [having the Q65 (use Parsons over Bowne) & (46th over 45th)] any day of the week....

 

Q27 (indecision): I generally don't have that much of an issue with the Q27 (especially enough to want to split it), but I'll say this.... It doesn't do enough for SE Queens patrons in-particular, but overall (as in, from Flushing to Cambria Heights) it does a little too much.... Another way of putting that is, from Flushing, it serves too much of SE Queens....

Remember, the Q27 was extended to (the stub terminal it has in) Cambria Heights, in part, to address the inadequacy of the Q83's serving of Springfield Blvd..... Problem is, ending buses at 119th/120th still isn't enough (those riders will tell you this)... Problem with that is, running the Q27 where it'd loom more useful for Springfield riders would be straight up overkill.... Where am I going with this? We know of the latent demand there is for having a bus serve more of Springfield, south of LIRR QV... Whereas, there isn't much to suggest that Bayside even wants service along Springfield..... To sum it up, I would rather have a "via Springfield" route serving more of Springfield that the Q27 reasonably can't (due to unreliability & logistical issues), over keeping it at 119th/120th on the south end & running it up to (wherever & however in) Bayside.

Just food for thought.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 12:15 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Restructuring routes in the Bayside area:

Q34 extended to Fort Totten via Willets Point Blvd. Weekend service added between Flushing & Fort Totten.

Q31 rerouted to travel via Utopia Parkway-32nd Avenue to terminate at Bayside High School

Q28 rerouted to travel down Crocheron Avenue-35th Avenue-Corporal Kennedy Street (that stretch of 35th Avenue has a lot of garden apartments that could use the service).

Q16 rerouted via Utopia Parkway-CIP service road-166th Street to terminate at the LeHavre Apartments (I'm debating between that, and just ending it at Willets Point Blvd)

Q65 rerouted via Parsons & 46th (instead of via Bowne & 45th) as recommended in the initial NE Queens bus study.

I'm trying to debate as to whether it is worth splitting the Q27 (e.g. Springfield/HHE - Flushing, and Bayside High School-Cambria Heights via Corporal Kennedy Street-35th Avenue-Bell Blvd-48th Avenue, and then the Q27 route to Cambria Heights. Part of me thinks that the current connection to SE Queens is useful (since the Q27 seems to be more frequent/reliable than a lot of the other north-south routes).

 

Q65-Keep it as is. I get to Jamaica from Flushing via 164th faster than the Q25. That long line at Roosvelt Ave is mostly for people wanting bubble Tea.

Q27-Ridership usually tanks at Hempstead Ave for a connection to the n6. East of NY-24 is just people wanting to get into cambria heights because the 77 sucks and ends too early. Gotta separate the parents from the IS231 kids.

  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NY1635 said:

Q65-Keep it as is. I get to Jamaica from Flushing via 164th faster than the Q25. That long line at Roosvelt Ave is mostly for people wanting bubble Tea.

Q27-Ridership usually tanks at Hempstead Ave for a connection to the n6. East of NY-24 is just people wanting to get into cambria heights because the 77 sucks and ends too early. Gotta separate the parents from the IS231 kids.

Taking the Q65 off of Kissena Blvd and Main Street would be of benefit to the route because it will no longer have to sit through the endless amounts of traffic. It will face some traffic on Roosevelt Ave by Main Street but I think it will speed things up especially going northbound.

 

The Q77 is a glorified school route and always has been. In fact I believe it was created to help serve the few schools along Francis Lewis Blvd. The Q77 did not even have Sunday service until a few years ago. Best believe that if it was fully possible the Q27 would have replaced the Q77 along Springfield Blvd years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NY1635 said:

Q65-Keep it as is. I get to Jamaica from Flushing via 164th faster than the Q25. That long line at Roosvelt Ave is mostly for people wanting bubble Tea.

Q27-Ridership usually tanks at Hempstead Ave for a connection to the n6. East of NY-24 is just people wanting to get into cambria heights because the 77 sucks and ends too early. Gotta separate the parents from the IS231 kids.

I thought a while ago the Q27 was supposed to extended to Merrick Boulevard for the Q5 connection. I guess that proposal died down. However, to your point the 77 definitely sucks and carries too much air and valid for the Q27 east of Hempstead Avenue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 3:37 PM, B35 via Church said:

Some comments:

Q27 (indecision): I generally don't have that much of an issue with the Q27 (especially enough to want to split it), but I'll say this.... It doesn't do enough for SE Queens patrons in-particular, but overall (as in, from Flushing to Cambria Heights) it does a little too much.... Another way of putting that is, from Flushing, it serves too much of SE Queens....

Remember, the Q27 was extended to (the stub terminal it has in) Cambria Heights, in part, to address the inadequacy of the Q83's serving of Springfield Blvd..... Problem is, ending buses at 119th/120th still isn't enough (those riders will tell you this)... Problem with that is, running the Q27 where it'd loom more useful for Springfield riders would be straight up overkill.... Where am I going with this? We know of the latent demand there is for having a bus serve more of Springfield, south of LIRR QV... Whereas, there isn't much to suggest that Bayside even wants service along Springfield..... To sum it up, I would rather have a "via Springfield" route serving more of Springfield that the Q27 reasonably can't (due to unreliability & logistical issues), over keeping it at 119th/120th on the south end & running it up to (wherever & however in) Bayside.

Just food for thought.

Here’s my gripe with the current Q27.  The current terminal doesn’t provide any options ala Q84 which doesn’t do anything but connect you to suburbia- Laurelton and I would think the initial goal is to connect SE Queens patrons to Jamaica (E)(J)(Z) -LIRR. via the Q5 thus an extension to Merrick is needed.  SE Queens is practically one of the hardest transit deserts that we have and everything converges into Jamaica with no real connections via a crosstown type of bus.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

Here’s my gripe with the current Q27.  The current terminal doesn’t provide any options ala Q84 which doesn’t do anything but connect you to suburbia- Laurelton and I would think the initial goal is to connect SE Queens patrons to Jamaica (E)(J)(Z) -LIRR. via the Q5 thus an extension to Merrick is needed.  SE Queens is practically one of the hardest transit deserts that we have and everything converges into Jamaica with no real connections via a crosstown type of bus.  

The good thing with the Q27 serving Springfield like it does is that people along Springfield get to benefit from frequent service. I honestly doubt that a stand-alone Springfield route will have as frequent service as the Q27 does south past Jamaica Ave. 

However I think extending the Q27 down to Merrick makes the route too long but riders will benefit from frequent service.

 

I think the Q76 and Q77 should either terminate at 169 and or 179th Street stations. Why continue to waste that extra mileage where most post are using other routes to transfer to the Q76 and Q77 anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Q34 kind of like a school route?  I thought it routes kids from the Mitchell-Linden complex to the schools next to Memorial Field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. The Q34 is more like a supplement to the Q25. I'm on the fence about splitting the Q27, since the southern half may not connect to a subway. I hope the Queens redesign comes out descent. So for the longest time, the (MTA) finally realized that a bus route can't have both coverage and frequency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

The good thing with the Q27 serving Springfield like it does is that people along Springfield get to benefit from frequent service. I honestly doubt that a stand-alone Springfield route will have as frequent service as the Q27 does south past Jamaica Ave. 

However I think extending the Q27 down to Merrick makes the route too long but riders will benefit from frequent service.

 

I think the Q76 and Q77 should either terminate at 169 and or 179th Street stations. Why continue to waste that extra mileage where most post are using other routes to transfer to the Q76 and Q77 anyways.

While the Q27 is long, once it gets out of downtown Flushing, there is no real area where the route gets bogged down. It's actually a smooth-sailing route, unusual for most long routes to the point where I'll call the Q27 an outlier in this regard. I would propose having Springfield and Merrick as the full-time terminal with limited weekday and Saturday service to 145 Road. I know what one is saying---this route is already long, but again, it's an anomaly among longer routes. To reduce the time, I would propose full-time Limited service on the Q27, with local trips terminating at the Queens Village railroad station.

Now, as for Southeast Queens being a transit desert, that is magnified by the fact that there's a large part of Laurelton without any transit service except for the Q5 along Merrick Boulevard...I would ask if it's warranted to reroute the Q77 away from Springfield. I would propose continuing down Francis Lewis to Merrick Boulevard (as it snakes through Laurelton), Merrick Boulevard to 225 Street, and then down 225 Street to 147 Avenue (the new terminus). That would provide network coverage through Laurelton and also to the Laurelton railroad station. I would consider truncating the Q77 to the 179 Street subway on its Jamaica end...maybe the Q76 as well, agreeing with you there. (Springfield Boulevard is served south of Merrick by limited Q27 service---the Q27 is the best option for a crosstown route.) 

If the Q27 becomes too long, I'd route it down Parsons (to serve Flushing Hospital), Sanford, Bowne, and Roosevelt.

As for 225 Street, there are concrete placements likely indicating that a bus route once did run down 225 Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 7-express said:

Isn't the Q34 kind of like a school route?  I thought it routes kids from the Mitchell-Linden complex to the schools next to Memorial Field.

Nope like Q43LTD said it’s a supplement to the Q25 even though I wonder how much it is need nowadays. Ridership above Roosevelt Ave and Main is not too strong and most people end up taking the Q25/Q50, Q20/Q44 and just walking. South of Roosevelt Ave it does what the local Q25 does just far less frequent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, aemoreira81 said:

As for 225 Street, there are concrete placements likely indicating that a bus route once did run down 225 Street.

 

That was the old Q5AS Laurelton Shuttle. It ran from 229/Merrick and 147th Avenue/Huxley. They killed it in December 1988 when Archer Avenue opened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 2:15 AM, NewFlyer 230 said:

Taking the Q65 off of Kissena Blvd and Main Street would be of benefit to the route because it will no longer have to sit through the endless amounts of traffic. It will face some traffic on Roosevelt Ave by Main Street but I think it will speed things up especially going northbound.

 

The Q77 is a glorified school route and always has been. In fact I believe it was created to help serve the few schools along Francis Lewis Blvd. The Q77 did not even have Sunday service until a few years ago. Best believe that if it was fully possible the Q27 would have replaced the Q77 along Springfield Blvd years ago. 

The only people who would use the Q27 going down to Laurelton are those who want access to the NICE buses at Merrick, Hempstead Avenue, Jamaica, and Hillside.  The ones that are trying to head to Jamaica will just use the Q85 to Parsons-Archer for their one seat ride

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

Not really. The Q34 is more like a supplement to the Q25. I'm on the fence about splitting the Q27, since the southern half may not connect to a subway. I hope the Queens redesign comes out descent. So for the longest time, the (MTA) finally realized that a bus route can't have both coverage and frequency. 

A bus route can have coverage and frequency (e.g. S79, B46, etc). It's on a network level and neighborhood by neighborhood where the choice has to be made between the two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 10:27 AM, Future ENY OP said:

...SE Queens is practically one of the hardest transit deserts that we have and everything converges into Jamaica with no real connections via a crosstown type of bus.  

I wouldn't really call it a transit desert, but it's definitely, specifically, a subway desert....

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 1:09 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

I think the Q76 and Q77 should either terminate at 169 and or 179th Street stations. Why continue to waste that extra mileage where most post are using other routes to transfer to the Q76 and Q77 anyways.

In other words, the location of 165th st. terminal sucks.....

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 8:32 PM, Q43LTD said:

...So for the longest time, the (MTA) finally realized that a bus route can't have both coverage and frequency. 

Not sure if this was your intent, but you're saying this like you believe that buses shouldn't have both coverage & frequency.....

What the MTA realizes with these upcoming bus network redesigns, if for anything else, is that it can get the oblivious riding public to make a choice between the two, to justify their (the MTA's) actions/changes for their (the riding public's) own detriment..... Coverage & frequency aren't attributes that are mutually exclusive,

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 10:19 PM, aemoreira81 said:

While the Q27 is long, once it gets out of downtown Flushing, there is no real area where the route gets bogged down. It's actually a smooth-sailing route, unusual for most long routes to the point where I'll call the Q27 an outlier in this regard. I would propose having Springfield and Merrick as the full-time terminal with limited weekday and Saturday service to 145 Road. I know what one is saying---this route is already long, but again, it's an anomaly among longer routes. To reduce the time, I would propose full-time Limited service on the Q27, with local trips terminating at the Queens Village railroad station.

You mean, once it gets out of EAST Flushing.... But yeah, that's the main reason why I generally don't have a problem with the thing.....

However, it being an anomalous outlier, is no reason whatsoever to justify pushing the envelope here.... Making the Q27 more useful for more of SE Queens patrons will only mean increasing dwell times at stops, which means increased runtime, which means decreased efficiency.... I'm all for a "via Springfield" route running down to Merrick & what not, but it should not be a route emanating from Flushing, LTD or not.... This is where HHE/Springfield or QCC makes sense for a northern terminal for a route of sorts.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 7:19 PM, aemoreira81 said:

While the Q27 is long, once it gets out of downtown Flushing, there is no real area where the route gets bogged down. It's actually a smooth-sailing route, unusual for most long routes to the point where I'll call the Q27 an outlier in this regard. I would propose having Springfield and Merrick as the full-time terminal with limited weekday and Saturday service to 145 Road. I know what one is saying---this route is already long, but again, it's an anomaly among longer routes. To reduce the time, I would propose full-time Limited service on the Q27, with local trips terminating at the Queens Village railroad station.

If the Q27 becomes too long, I'd route it down Parsons (to serve Flushing Hospital), Sanford, Bowne, and Roosevelt.

 

On 9/12/2019 at 4:51 AM, B35 via Church said:

You mean, once it gets out of EAST Flushing.... But yeah, that's the main reason why I generally don't have a problem with the thing.....

You can wrest the Q27 Kissena routing out of the cold, dead hands of all those Asian grandmas on the route.

I don't think I agree with this. From the perspective of the bus speed, yes it's not so bad past Holly, but I've been on buses that were absolutely slammed all the way from QCC.

There should really be two routes; one just doing Main-QCC-Horace Harding, and the rest of it be a whole separate route, possibly even express all the way from QCC.

I think that if you want a "via Springfield" route you want something going to probably Bayside LIRR (maybe even up Bell) to revive an old chestnut. Connections to the Northern Blvd area from SE Queens is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2019 at 5:30 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

A bus route can have coverage and frequency (e.g. S79, B46, etc). It's on a network level and neighborhood by neighborhood where the choice has to be made between the two

There's no difference between the Q25/34/65. You can use one or the other between Jamaica-Flushing and not notice anything unusual. 

Q65 is used more by people who live by the Flushing Hospital

Q25/34 is used more by people who live off Kissena and using it if they're not cramming themselves on the Q17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 5:50 PM, bobtehpanda said:

You can wrest the Q27 Kissena routing out of the cold, dead hands of all those Asian grandmas on the route.

I don't think I agree with this. From the perspective of the bus speed, yes it's not so bad past Holly, but I've been on buses that were absolutely slammed all the way from QCC

Once you get out of East Flushing, buses do not snail along the route like it does between Downtown Flushing & East Flushing..... That's the only point I was getting across with that.... I most certainly wasn't implicating that the Q27 carries light east & south of East Flushing..... Come on.

On 9/13/2019 at 5:50 PM, bobtehpanda said:

....Connections to the Northern Blvd area from SE Queens is bad.

Is it warranted, however.....

On 9/13/2019 at 7:08 PM, NY1635 said:

There's no difference between the Q25/34/65. You can use one or the other between Jamaica-Flushing and not notice anything unusual. 

Q65 is used more by people who live by the Flushing Hospital

Q25/34 is used more by people who live off Kissena and using it if they're not cramming themselves on the Q17.

You just nullified your own argument.... Good job.

Edited by B35 via Church
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Is it warranted, however.....

Current scheduled AM rush hour service puts Cambria Heights - QCC at 30-33 minutes and onwards to 47 Av/Springfield in an additional 8 minutes. 47 Av/Springfield and Bayside LIRR are roughly the same distance from QCC.

I don't really see the harm in it going to Bayside LIRR other than "we don't do it right now", since it's not like the added increase in runtime is going to result in more buses being used on the route.

Anecdotally speaking, I got asked somewhat frequently how to get to Bayside while riding Flushing-bound Q27s. 

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Current scheduled AM rush hour service puts Cambria Heights - QCC at 30-33 minutes and onwards to 47 Av/Springfield in an additional 8 minutes. 47 Av/Springfield and Bayside LIRR are roughly the same distance from QCC.

I don't really see the harm in it going to Bayside LIRR other than "we don't do it right now", since it's not like the added increase in runtime is going to result in more buses being used on the route.

Anecdotally speaking, I got asked somewhat frequently how to get to Bayside while riding Flushing-bound Q27s. 

It isn't about a "we don't do it right now", it's about a "what community is pushing for it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

It isn't about a "we don't do it right now", it's about a "what community is pushing for it".

You have to have a community that knows something is an option to push for it, don't you?

There was never a big crowd pushing for 6th Av service from Ridgewood because no one ever really thought too hard about it, and looked how beneficial that ended up being.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

You have to have a community that knows something is an option to push for it, don't you?

There was never a big crowd pushing for 6th Av service from Ridgewood because no one ever really thought too hard about it, and looked how beneficial that ended up being.

Lol... I'm quite sure the good people of Bayside knows what a public bus is & whether or not they want service a] along Springfield Blvd & b] to SE Queens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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