Jump to content

Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013


FamousNYLover

Recommended Posts

There should be separate pay pads. SBS isn't the issue. It's the "okay if half done" nature of MTA projects. For all the thinking done behind the scenes they're still not customer centric.

 

Uh....no there shouldn't be. The S79 isn't as frequent as the other +SBS+ routes, so if you miss a bus because you were fumbling with the machine, there go all your time savings. The MTA specifically said that dwell times weren't an issue on the route, so there was no need for the separate payment machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Uh....no there shouldn't be. The S79 isn't as frequent as the other +SBS+ routes, so if you miss a bus because you were fumbling with the machine, there go all your time savings. The MTA specifically said that dwell times weren't an issue on the route, so there was no need for the separate payment machines.

Then it might as well be a LTD. Even before the Q44 became SBS its stop manifest only had three or four more stops.

 

Select Bus Service is distinguished by separate pay pads. Otherwise it's just a LTD route with special treatment.

 

 

[emoji362] We should eventually invest in contactless dongles would be something the MTA should work on as it reads a tag from a working MetroCard and deducts fare automatically when a button on the dongle is pushed. The door would have a wrap around light that mimics the fare box's light scheme.

 

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it might as well be a LTD. Even before the Q44 became SBS its stop manifest only had three or four more stops.

Select Bus Service is distinguished by separate pay pads. Otherwise it's just a LTD route with special treatment.

[emoji362] We should eventually invest in contactless dongles would be something the MTA should work on as it reads a tag from a working MetroCard and deducts fare automatically when a button on the dongle is pushed. The door would have a wrap around light that mimics the fare box's light scheme.

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

You realize that off-board payment isn't the only thing that differentiates a route between it being a limited route and a BRT route, right?

 

From Wiki, they're somewhat the same, but they differ in that the limited service doesn't share most of the common features of bus rapid transit such as unique route branding, off-vehicle fare collection, signal preemption, frequent all-day service, and dedicated right-of-way such as bus-only lanes.

 

Sure, the S79 doesn't have off-boarding payment, but that doesn't immediately mean it should have been called a LTD. There's various other factors that go into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realize that off-board payment isn't the only thing that differentiates a route between it being a limited route and a BRT route, right?

 

From Wiki, they're somewhat the same, but they differ in that the limited service doesn't share most of the common features of bus rapid transit such as unique route branding, off-vehicle fare collection, signal preemption, frequent all-day service, and dedicated right-of-way such as bus-only lanes.

 

Sure, the S79 doesn't have off-boarding payment, but that doesn't immediately mean it should have been called a LTD. There's various other factors that go into play.

Like dedicated lanes and additional waiting space?

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it might as well be a LTD. Even before the Q44 became SBS its stop manifest only had three or four more stops.

 

Yes, as far as I'm concerned, they should call it S79 LTD. But you know what? If calling it +SBS+ is what got them the federal money for the bus lanes and that separate entrance at the ETC (that's also used by S59 & S89 buses), then I really don't care what they call it, and I use it for actual travel.

 

The S79 was never a limited like the Q44. It went from pure local to +SBS+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be separate pay pads. SBS isn't the issue. It's the "okay if half done" nature of MTA projects. For all the thinking done behind the scenes they're still not customer centric......

* You said the route shouldn't even be SBS.... You also said SBS on the route is overkill....

* You're saying in this post that there should be separate "pay pads"....

(You later acknowledge that "Select Bus Service is distinguished by separate pay pads.")

 

I don't know if you don't realize it or what, but those two stances are conflicting....

 

You also said "The route is efficient and gets shoppers and commuters alike through Hylan at breakneck efficiency"....

Spectacular analysis there..... But if "breakneck" efficiency is the gold standard, then what would be the point of installing TVM's (or pay pads, as you call 'em) along the route?

 

Lastly, Yeah, the MTA half-asses things - But you have yet to explain where it applies as far as Richmond av specifically, is concerned on the S79 SBS.... When I initially brought that up, it wasn't addressed.... Instead, you diverted to talking about improper designation & fare-beating pax. crowding buses....

 

 

There should be separate pay pads. SBS isn't the issue.

Then it might as well be a LTD......

Try to follow along....

 

LTD service + "pay pads" = +SBS+

 

You say it might as well have been a LTD, you say there should be separate pay pads.... But SBS isn't the issue? :lol:

This has gotten comical at this point....

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what he's saying is that the fact that the MTA didn't put fare machines on the S79 is a typical example of the MTA half-assing something, and it's more about the general attitude than about the machines themselves.

 

It's the "okay if half done" nature of MTA projects. For all the thinking done behind the scenes they're still not customer centric.

 

The difference here is that the MTA actually did an analysis that determined that using fare machines would be detrimental overall. The only stop that I can think of where you see a whole line of like 30+ people boarding at once on a consistent basis is at 86th & 4th, and it's not as bad because it's the terminal and it's easier to accommodate it (the B/Os just have to start loading up a couple of minutes before their scheduled departure time, and that just has to be built into the layover time)

Edited by checkmatechamp13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, as far as I'm concerned, they should call it S79 LTD. But you know what? If calling it +SBS+ is what got them the federal money for the bus lanes and that separate entrance at the ETC (that's also used by S59 & S89 buses), then I really don't care what they call it, and I use it for actual travel.

 

The S79 was never a limited like the Q44. It went from pure local to +SBS+

And that's the third point I was missing. Editing my last comment now. Alright I can't.

 

So dedicated lanes, surface exposure and Federal funding. So the MTA essentially needs the S79 like a poster child for how cash strapped it is.

 

Now I understand but now it sounds even more pathetic for reasons we know too well.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

* You said the route shouldn't even be SBS.... You also said SBS on the route is overkill....

* You're saying in this post that there should be separate "pay pads"....

(You later acknowledge that "Select Bus Service is distinguished by separate pay pads.")

 

I don't know if you don't realize it or what, but those two stances are conflicting....

 

You also said "The route is efficient and gets shoppers and commuters alike through Hylan at breakneck efficiency"....

Spectacular analysis there..... But if "breakneck" efficiency is the gold standard, then what would be the point of installing TVM's (or pay pads, as you call 'em) along the route?

 

Lastly, Yeah, the MTA half-asses things - But you have yet to explain where it applies as far as Richmond av specifically, is concerned on the S79 SBS.... When I initially brought that up, it wasn't addressed.... Instead, you diverted to talking about improper designation & fare-beating pax. crowding buses....

 

 

Try to follow along....

 

LTD service + "pay pads" = +SBS+

 

You say it might as well have been a LTD, you say there should be separate pay pads.... But SBS isn't the issue? [emoji38]

This has gotten comical at this point....

I agree. I took two tangents and lauded on one.

 

Transit is confusing down here. No one makes it more incomprehensible than NYC transit.

 

While transit is viewed as a blessing in the suburbs, it's damnation down here.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

I think what he's saying is that the fact that the MTA didn't put fare machines on the S79 is a typical example of the MTA half-assing something, and it's more about the general attitude than about the machines themselves.

 

 

The difference here is that the MTA actually did an analysis that determined that using fare machines would be detrimental overall. The only stop that I can think of where you see a whole line of like 30+ people boarding at once on a consistent basis is at 86th & 4th, and it's not as bad because it's the terminal and it's easier to accommodate it (the B/Os just have to start loading up a couple of minutes before their scheduled departure time, and that just has to be built into the layover time)

That's surprising but good to know. I'm going to go to the fare card thread I created and talk about London's recent plan to open source Oyster.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Edited by MassTransitHonchkrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Service to the College of Staten Island:

 

I am experiencing this firsthand, returning to school to pursue a Med Tech license. In the late morning and early afternoon, S93 buses can get crush-loaded and leave passengers trying to make classes behind at the stop because the bus fills up completely at Bay Ridge. I would propose these changes:

 

1. Increasing off-peak frequency from 30 minutes to 20 minutes.

2. Operating the route as closed-door between Bay Ridge and Targee Street in Staten Island in both directions (local passengers can be accommodated by the S79 SBS).

 

Additionally, I would propose a new route, the S63, as a variant of the S62 service, to run from St. George Ferry to Eltingville Transit Center via Victory Boulevard, CSI, and New Springville. While run as one route, it would really provide better intra-island connections with the campus, especially from the south shore, as students could save money by parking their cars at ETC and then taking the bus to campus on the south shore, and it would also provide better access to the campus along Victory Boulevard (the school-contracted shuttle bus service is nonstop from the ferry to CSI). Additionally, there would be reduced deadhead distance, allowing for more revenue to be made per trip.

 

The route would run as follows (eastbound - return via same route)L

From ETC: north on Richmond Avenue

Right on Platinum Avenue

Left on Marsh Avenue

Right on Richmond Hill Road

Left on Kelly Boulevard

Right on Rockland Avenue

Left on Forest Hill Road

Left on Jasper Street (onto D Street)

Enter campus via Loop Road, with a stop on the south side (a return trip stop would be added at Executive Way)

Right into the administration center (S93 stop)

Follow S93 out of campus, and S62 to St. George

 

I would propose to have this service run weekdays from 6:30 AM to 10 PM, every 30 minutes (more frequently during the AM rush) and Saturdays from 7 AM to 5 PM (hourly until 9 AM and then every 30 minutes after that), with no Sunday service. Current S62 trips that terminate at the main gate to CSI would be converted to S63 trips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Service to the College of Staten Island:

 

I am experiencing this firsthand, returning to school to pursue a Med Tech license. In the late morning and early afternoon, S93 buses can get crush-loaded and leave passengers trying to make classes behind at the stop because the bus fills up completely at Bay Ridge. I would propose these changes:

 

1. Increasing off-peak frequency from 30 minutes to 20 minutes.

2. Operating the route as closed-door between Bay Ridge and Targee Street in Staten Island in both directions (local passengers can be accommodated by the S79 SBS).

 

Additionally, I would propose a new route, the S63, as a variant of the S62 service, to run from St. George Ferry to Eltingville Transit Center via Victory Boulevard, CSI, and New Springville. While run as one route, it would really provide better intra-island connections with the campus, especially from the south shore, as students could save money by parking their cars at ETC and then taking the bus to campus on the south shore, and it would also provide better access to the campus along Victory Boulevard (the school-contracted shuttle bus service is nonstop from the ferry to CSI). Additionally, there would be reduced deadhead distance, allowing for more revenue to be made per trip.

 

The route would run as follows (eastbound - return via same route)L

From ETC: north on Richmond Avenue

Right on Platinum Avenue

Left on Marsh Avenue

Right on Richmond Hill Road

Left on Kelly Boulevard

Right on Rockland Avenue

Left on Forest Hill Road

Left on Jasper Street (onto D Street)

Enter campus via Loop Road, with a stop on the south side (a return trip stop would be added at Executive Way)

Right into the administration center (S93 stop)

Follow S93 out of campus, and S62 to St. George

 

I would propose to have this service run weekdays from 6:30 AM to 10 PM, every 30 minutes (more frequently during the AM rush) and Saturdays from 7 AM to 5 PM (hourly until 9 AM and then every 30 minutes after that), with no Sunday service. Current S62 trips that terminate at the main gate to CSI would be converted to S63 trips.

 

Midday service used to be every 30 minutes uniformly, and people would often get flagged (often it was because the available space in the back wasn't used, but that's a different story). Back in April, they added some periods of 20 minute headways, but unfortunately, it wasn't throughout the entire midday period.

 

Passengers tend to choose the S79 over the S93 anyway because it makes fewer stops within Brooklyn. I think it would be rather confusing to implement a closed-door policy on the S93 (especially since Brooklyn-bound in the AM rush, there's basically no CSI students on board. SI-bound in the PM rush is primarily SI residents on the bus, and in the evening, it's all residents on those outbound buses)

 

As far as that S63 goes, it's really unnecessary for multiple reasons. The ferry shuttle already covers the students heading to the ferry itself, and the S93 covers Victory Blvd between Clove Road and CSI. There's not that many students heading to local stops along Victory, or points east of Clove where you have to make a direct service from the interior of the campus. 

 

Parking on CSI is hard to find, but it's still very cheap. I think it's like $100 for a parking placard for a semester, not enough to make students decide to park at the ETC and spend even more money for the local bus (also keep in mind that there isn't unlimited parking at the ETC either). However, you do have a point about access to the South Shore, which is why my earlier proposal entails extending the S56 to CSI via Richmond Hill Road, Forest Hill Road, and the loop road. You provide a direct connection to the SIR and the South Shore in general, which will boost ridership on the existing portions of the S56 (which as you know primarily depend on Tottenville HS students for ridership).

 

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but if I haven't, I'll do so: As the S93 and ferry shuttle have gained popularity, the S62 has lost it's luster as being the main form of transit to CSI. Back in the day, you used to need a nice, empty bus waiting for a crowd of CSI students to board heading towards the ferry, especially since traffic on Victory heading eastbound (between Richmond Avenue and CSI) could be quite bad. Nowadays, traffic has eased up a bit (thanks in part to that smart light by CSI) and the crowds waiting for the S62 at the CSI are no larger than the crowds at other stops such as Richmond Avenue, Jewett Avenue, Manor Road, etc.

 

I think at the very least, those short-turns should be extended to Richmond Avenue, since there's actually a decent amount of CSI students heading westbound to catch the buses along Richmond Avenue (especially northbound, but also southbound)

 

Honestly, those Saturday trips to CSI could be extended all the way to Travis, using the current resources. During weekday middays, you need 7 buses to maintain 15 minute headways to Travis in both directions. On Saturdays, they used to dedicate 4 buses to the Travis runs and 3 to the CSI runs, and the 15 minute headways only applied east of CSI. (Now it's 12 minutes east of CSI and 24 minutes west of there, but the same principle still applies)

 

One idea to consider is having a certain number of S93 trips (let's call them S93X for the purpose of this discussion) go straight onto the SIE to go to Bay Ridge. Those buses would stop at the interior of the campus (1P) and the main gate in both directions (they still haven't restored that westbound stop they took away when they extended the S93 inside the campus.  :angry: ). The stop by the main gate offers easier connections to the shuttle bus and is also closer to the northern part of the campus (and offers access to the local community, since the S93 is still a public service, not an official CSI shuttle)

 

The MTA could run them every 20-30 minutes (based on the peak direction of CSI students), and run the regular S93 every 30 minutes.

 

The S93 needs some sort of Saturday service

 

I'll put it to you this way: I don't disagree with that statement.

 

I will say that the S53 could use a limited 7 days a week heading up to Port Richmond. I think for now, that might be enough to handle CSI students with Saturday classes (having them transfer to the S62). Then again, the ferry shuttle has a very limited Saturday schedule now, which it used to not have, so it might be time to consider having some hourly S93 service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is, but I think the operation would be more efficient just having shuttle buses run by CSI.

Its debatable but with the additional service for the s93 everyone can benefit. but bus won't be exclusive to CSI students, and offers a faster ride to people heading west in SI. Also college kids pay for the bus so I really don't see the problem of adding more service if people are paying for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rode the First X22 from Manhattan today, first time I got on a bus that was SRO. There definitely needs to be more X22 service during that time of day.

 

 

I'd Introduce a 2:00PM or 2:10PM bus and shift the 2:20PM departure to 2:30PM

I would have the departure at 2:00 and the 2:20 PM moved to 2:30 PM. This is because I would also add midday service into the mix. The X17 to Tottenville is long and circuitous. The X22 should have its own service durimg midday hours. I would have buses running hourly. The span to Tottenville would be from 11 AM to 8:15 PM, while the span to Manhattan would be from 4:30 AM to 3:00 PM. I don't know about weekend service though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't CSI just run more shuttle service?  Using city resources for this college... Don't agree with it...

 

It is, but I think the operation would be more efficient just having shuttle buses run by CSI.

 

Shuttle buses to where? It seems like half my high school graduating class went to CSI, and they live all over the North Shore. A lot of CSI students take the S93 within Staten Island. The ferry and maybe Bay Ridge are the only places where you have concentrated demand for a shuttle service.

 

Hell, look at Kingsborough, with all those B1 & B49 shuttles. You can make much more of a case for having them pay for shuttle service than CSI.

 

Its debatable but with the additional service for the s93 everyone can benefit. but bus won't be exclusive to CSI students, and offers a faster ride to people heading west in SI. Also college kids pay for the bus so I really don't see the problem of adding more service if people are paying for it. 

 

Basically this. If CSI is a strong ridership generator for the bus network, that's something that should be encouraged. I mean think about it, AM rush hour sees demand from SI residents heading eastbound....and CSI students heading westbound (both those living on Staten Island and in Brooklyn). And vice versa in the PM rush. Middays, a good chunk of S93 ridership is CSI students (though of course, there's plenty of non-CSI students using it as well)

 

I would have the departure at 2:00 and the 2:20 PM moved to 2:30 PM. This is because I would also add midday service into the mix. The X17 to Tottenville is long and circuitous. The X22 should have its own service durimg midday hours. I would have buses running hourly. The span to Tottenville would be from 11 AM to 8:15 PM, while the span to Manhattan would be from 4:30 AM to 3:00 PM. I don't know about weekend service though.

 

I think the midday service should run via Lower Manhattan, and a rush hour variant should be implemented to serve Downtown only. I think the South Shore could use another Downtown service besides the X19. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shuttle buses to where? It seems like half my high school graduating class went to CSI, and they live all over the North Shore. A lot of CSI students take the S93 within Staten Island. The ferry and maybe Bay Ridge are the only places where you have concentrated demand for a shuttle service.

 

Hell, look at Kingsborough, with all those B1 & B49 shuttles. You can make much more of a case for having them pay for shuttle service than CSI.

 

 

Basically this. If CSI is a strong ridership generator for the bus network, that's something that should be encouraged. I mean think about it, AM rush hour sees demand from SI residents heading eastbound....and CSI students heading westbound (both those living on Staten Island and in Brooklyn). And vice versa in the PM rush. Middays, a good chunk of S93 ridership is CSI students (though of course, there's plenty of non-CSI students using it as well)

 

 

I think the midday service should run via Lower Manhattan, and a rush hour variant should be implemented to serve Downtown only. I think the South Shore could use another Downtown service besides the X19. 

 

 

Its debatable but with the additional service for the s93 everyone can benefit. but bus won't be exclusive to CSI students, and offers a faster ride to people heading west in SI. Also college kids pay for the bus so I really don't see the problem of adding more service if people are paying for it. 

 

 

I would run saturday service on the S93 regardless of anything regarding CSI.... For all I care, it can bypass the campus & run to Victory/Richmond minimum...

I like the idea of S93 service being added but only if there is S53 limited stop service added.  That S93 service is being run at the expense of the S53 getting limited stop service IMO, which is why I'm not all that for adding more S93 service (whether it's needed or not).  It's just another example of the (MTA) ignoring the needs of the riders north of Victory Blvd.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of S93 service being added but only if there is S53 limited stop service added. That S93 service is being run at the expense of the S53 getting limited stop service IMO, which is why I'm not all that for adding more S93 service (whether it's needed or not). It's just another example of the (MTA) ignoring the needs of the riders north of Victory Blvd.

I'd agree. Both the S93 and the S53 are being "held back" by this pairing the MTA has come up with.

 

The S53 should be paired with an S83 limited to Port Richmond via the Staten Island Expressway ( as opposed to the S53 routing via Arrochar) and the S93 should be its own route not tethered to any other. (One could argue the S59 and S89 pairing should also be split but that's another topic for another day)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree. Both the S93 and the S53 are being "held back" by this pairing the MTA has come up with.

 

The S53 should be paired with an S83 limited to Port Richmond via the Staten Island Expressway ( as opposed to the S53 routing via Arrochar) and the S93 should be its own route not tethered to any other. (One could argue the S59 and S89 pairing should also be split but that's another topic for another day)

When I spoke at an (MTA) board meeting some years ago, in addition to asking for expanded express bus service on Staten Island (which the (MTA) eventually provided (the idea had been floating around for some time but the recession put it on the back burner)) I also pitched the idea of an S83 route.  I cited how bogged down the route can be at times, and the need for a faster ride for those who live on the North Shore and head to Brooklyn.  I have used some of those S93 buses in the morning to reach express buses by Hylan Blvd when I didn't want to opt for car service and while they see usage, a S83 would be just as well utilized.  Aside from that they've already given the S79 SBS service and the S53 is one the busiest routes on the island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the s53 getting its own limited, however, I don't think it should overlap with the s93, ie is the s93 is stopping a at specific set of stops, then the s83(or whatever you want to call it) should turn into a super express and vise versa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree. Both the S93 and the S53 are being "held back" by this pairing the MTA has come up with.

 

The S53 should be paired with an S83 limited to Port Richmond via the Staten Island Expressway ( as opposed to the S53 routing via Arrochar) and the S93 should be its own route not tethered to any other. (One could argue the S59 and S89 pairing should also be split but that's another topic for another day)

 

The S93 runs along the service road (it actually used to run nonstop between Clove/Howard and 92nd/FHP until around 2007 I believe. It got on/off at the Targee Street entrance/exit). But that was back when the primary ridership base was geared towards CSI students.

 

On a side note, the old CSI campus used to be located where Petrides K-12 campus is currently located (if you look on BusTime, there's one S66 that diverts to Milford Drive because of that), so I guess when they created the S93, they basically intended for it to be a branch of the S53. Obviously, at this point, they have distinct ridership bases for the most part.

 

I agree with the s53 getting its own limited, however, I don't think it should overlap with the s93, ie is the s93 is stopping a at specific set of stops, then the s83(or whatever you want to call it) should turn into a super express and vise versa. 

 

The problem is that there's also a significant amount of intra-SI ridership. There's definitely a lot of people from Port Richmond/West Brighton heading to the Targee Street & Richmond Road stops. You need Hylan for connectivity purposes (to give people easy access to the S78 & S79, plus there's some apartment buildings and it's a busy area in general). Fingerboard, most of the ridership is Brooklyn-bound, so you might be able to justify one or both buses (the S83 and/or S93) skipping it, but it might not even be worth the hassle.

 

If they had traffic signal priority at that Fingerboard light, it might make it easier, but then again, with all the different local and express buses that run along Narrows Road, it might be difficult to even have time for the Fingerboard traffic to cross through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The S93 runs along the service road (it actually used to run nonstop between Clove/Howard and 92nd/FHP until around 2007 I believe. It got on/off at the Targee Street entrance/exit). But that was back when the primary ridership base was geared towards CSI students.

 

On a side note, the old CSI campus used to be located where Petrides K-12 campus is currently located (if you look on BusTime, there's one S66 that diverts to Milford Drive because of that), so I guess when they created the S93, they basically intended for it to be a branch of the S53. Obviously, at this point, they have distinct ridership bases for the most part.

 

 

The problem is that there's also a significant amount of intra-SI ridership. There's definitely a lot of people from Port Richmond/West Brighton heading to the Targee Street & Richmond Road stops. You need Hylan for connectivity purposes (to give people easy access to the S78 & S79, plus there's some apartment buildings and it's a busy area in general). Fingerboard, most of the ridership is Brooklyn-bound, so you might be able to justify one or both buses (the S83 and/or S93) skipping it, but it might not even be worth the hassle.

 

If they had traffic signal priority at that Fingerboard light, it might make it easier, but then again, with all the different local and express buses that run along Narrows Road, it might be difficult to even have time for the Fingerboard traffic to cross through.

So maybe the s83 as a normal limited ad the s93 as a super limited where it only stop at major intersections, a stop every few miles.  

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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