Jump to content

Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts

Actually if the "old" locomotive is leading on the Pere Marquette, it is backing up. The "old" engine only has controls which operate the "new" engine on the other end. The Pere Marquette travels 79 mph down by Chicago. At least the engineer has more protection in a crash than the Metra guy operating the "wrong" end.

They are touting this as transit center but the average walk from the bus station infrastucture to the boarding point on the train is over 1300 feet. That's quite a hike with luggage for someone dropped off at the front door of "Rapid Central" or the persons that try to use the bus to get there.

The reason given by the "experts" for not putting the depot north of Wealty Street (I still do not understand why the Rapid Central buiding can't house the Amtrak stuff) was clearance issues under the Wealthy Street overpass. I'm old enough to remember the freight tracks under that very bridge so I'm not buying that reason. Even it they needed a foot or 2 (which I really doubt), that's what they make excavators for, dig out the dirt and lower the tracks.

IMHO, the design and location leaves a lot to be desired fior current and future rail. I'd like to see a low cost commuter rail operation tried here (GRD3, we never finished my report:( ). Use the Marquette line to Sparta, if that works, go south on Grand Elk to 84th Steet or 100th Street. It will never happen at this location. Even their talk of a send trail to Kalamazoo will not work well from here. It can be done on the existing tracks, but it will require a double back up move.

Edited by Raildudes dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The reason given by the "experts" for not putting the depot north of Wealty Street (I still do not understand why the Rapid Central buiding can't house the Amtrak stuff) was clearance issues under the Wealthy Street overpass. I'm old enough to remember the freight tracks under that very bridge so I'm not buying that reason. Even it they needed a foot or 2 (which I really doubt), that's what they make excavators for, dig out the dirt and lower the tracks.

My recollection of the reason given that the depot could not go north of Wealthy is because the city owns the right of way for Wealthy and there are plans for the city and MDOT to rebuild/widen the Wealthy bridge sometime in the future (I would guess 5-10 years??) that could cause major problems to the depot if it were built in the right of way.

I'm pretty sure they did not site the height clearance under the bridge as the issue. I think the area between the support structures may have been mentioned as being narrow and making things more difficult.

Also, it seems for a bus riding passenger trying to get to the train station that a 1300 ft walk, hopefully under a sheltered canopy, is more convenient than hauling your luggage onto a different bus to take you from Central Station to wherever the station might otherwise be located.

Edited by fotoman311
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine there could be plans to use at least a portion of that extended walk as an extension of the current bus platform. They're already doubling up buses and as they add more routes over the years, the buses could slowly find themselves closer and closer to the train. Of course, the station itself would still be the same distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had forgotten the comment about not using the Wealthy Street ROW. They did mention the clearance for that location because I made a comment to the person next to me that there shouldn't be any issues because trains ran under there years ago and he was very positive that trains had never traveled that area. I wasn't going to get in an argument with him, but I have copies of the plans for the original freeway construction that show tracks in that very location. It turned out that the person was a Rapid Board member :(

If this going to be the depot location, the track needs to go north of Wealthy so the train stops alongside the "tent". The "tent" and the bus lanes should have been shifted west enough to allow for the track immediately west of the freeway. The Amtrak waiting area and ticket machines belong in the Rapid Central building, not a a quarter mile away. IMHO, poor planning all the way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, now I think it's time for me to chime in on this. A train can not interact with buses. It is just not feasible for people to board a train and buses at the same location. Their is no way that a train and buses could use the same platform. The current plan is what was originally planned when deciding on that location for the new Rapid Central Station.

It is true that there are very few people that would use the Rapid in conjunction with Amtrak. All the times riding the Rapid and I have only seen about two people using it in conjunction with Greyhound. The Rapid would actually like to stop the service to the Air Port as it is rarely used but they have been pressured to keep it running.

The idea isn't to use the train in conjunction with the Rapid but to have a centrally located complete transportation area. Having it next to a freeway makes it look good and the location is close to the garage.

Oh and their plans are to expand the Rapids platform to the North. I'm sure they will move forward with those plans as soon as things settle down from the millage increase as they need room for more buses as it is.

I'm not saying that I agree with all this. This is just my understanding of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, now I think it's time for me to chime in on this. A train can not interact with buses. It is just not feasible for people to board a train and buses at the same location. Their is no way that a train and buses could use the same platform. The current plan is what was originally planned when deciding on that location for the new Rapid Central Station.

It is true that there are very few people that would use the Rapid in conjunction with Amtrak. All the times riding the Rapid and I have only seen about two people using it in conjunction with Greyhound. The Rapid would actually like to stop the service to the Air Port as it is rarely used but they have been pressured to keep it running.

The idea isn't to use the train in conjunction with the Rapid but to have a centrally located complete transportation area. Having it next to a freeway makes it look good and the location is close to the garage.

Oh and their plans are to expand the Rapids platform to the North. I'm sure they will move forward with those plans as soon as things settle down from the millage increase as they need room for more buses as it is.

I'm not saying that I agree with all this. This is just my understanding of the situation.

Okay, now I think it's time for me to chime in on this. A train can not interact with buses. It is just not feasible for people to board a train and buses at the same location. Their is no way that a train and buses could use the same platform. The current plan is what was originally planned when deciding on that location for the new Rapid Central Station.

It is true that there are very few people that would use the Rapid in conjunction with Amtrak. All the times riding the Rapid and I have only seen about two people using it in conjunction with Greyhound. The Rapid would actually like to stop the service to the Air Port as it is rarely used but they have been pressured to keep it running.

The idea isn't to use the train in conjunction with the Rapid but to have a centrally located complete transportation area. Having it next to a freeway makes it look good and the location is close to the garage.

Oh and their plans are to expand the Rapids platform to the North. I'm sure they will move forward with those plans as soon as things settle down from the millage increase as they need room for more buses as it is.

I'm not saying that I agree with all this. This is just my understanding of the situation.

Now with my urban planning background from Morgan State University in Baltimore, my four years of life in the DC/Baltimore Metroplex and the stellar example of seamless and fixed guideway mass transit it provided me, I cannot prevent myself from not chiming in as well.

To start on our transit situation being discussed here, we need to be discussing first how local transit planners and transit stewards like myself, Mayor Logie <former>, ITP/The Rapid CEO Peter Varga, Mayor Heartwell, Kentwood Mayor Root, Wyoming Mayor Carol Sheets <former> and a great many other metro GR community advocates have over many years bent over backwards to make themselves and the region they serve better by doing the following:

1] They have willingly and collectively admitted to themselves that though the GR region is nice, being "just nice" will not overcome the deficiency of being small, out-of-the-way and not willing to evolve into something grander (especially since everything here is connected to a "Grand" moniker).

2] They have - after much painful introspection about GR's limitations and less-than-aggressive push for touting and capitalizing on its full and diverse opportunities - realized that by not pushing forward as a metro community for the physical infrastucture that increased regional competition, our location between Chicago and Detroit and the growth of other similar areas throughout the nation have demanded for us to survive and prosper as a region that we would unavoidably go the way of Flint and Detroit.

3] They have spent over 20 years opening their Grand Rapids eyes to the superior quality-of-life that comes from the knitting together of people and places with seamless multi-modal transit systems

4] They have studied and have applied these universal concepts that have been proven throughout the world in GR's older "Big Brother" templates and have scaled them for MGR's 1.3 million heading toward 2 million population.

5] They all joined the international school of thought wherein it is known that superior, real, relevent and economy-stimulating mass transit - for any scaled urban complex - is engaged by bringing people together while making it so that they have maximum opportunities and independence to reach a majority of the metroscape for a reasonable rate on THEIR time or within 15 minutes of that for the maximum hours the region's riders will utilize.

6] They willingly bore (and continue to bear) the many derisive comments that have resulted as commentary on their collective decisions to leave an atrium hole in the middle of the new Ford Airport ramp for future metrorail connection, to create a Division Avenue BRT to set the stage for more robust transit upgrades in the future, to engage a GVSU Route 50 BRT to set the stage for the downtown to GVSU-Allendale leg of a future GVSU/Ford Airport East West metrorail corridor, to select sites for central Metro's NW, NE. SW. SE suburban transit hubs in Walker, Knapp's Corner and two others at two respective interchanges along the SW and SE portions of the Paul Henry X-Way corridor, to look over the horizon at commuter rail along I-196, I-96 and the Lakeshore's US-31 for regional commuter rail (inspired from Chicago's suburban Metra commuter trains), etc.

7] They have dared to see a metro triangle between GR, Muskegon and Holland that is efficient, world-class, safe and interconnected by commuter transit every hour 24 times per day.

With that said, it is in fact the best case transit scenario for trains, buses and all other modes of transit to bring their respective user groups together in the most convenient, multi-use and rider-friendly fashion possible for a given location <the essence of intermodal>. The fact that Central Station's new Amtrak Phase Two will make it so that resident's of the central metro area (mainly the southern 2/3's of Kent County) will soon be able to take linehaul bus, BRT and Streetrail transit to a hub that also has direct connection to an Amtrak platform is a sign of planning far improved from the limited and disconnected transit perspective once prevelant in GR's transit planning leadership (and still with many of its citizens).

The added presence of Amtrak's rail option at Central Station is part of the greater plan for strengthing and making an attractive downtown periphery hub out of the entire SouthGate area's US-131/Wealthy Street Interchange (NOTE: SouthGate will eventually be the combined home to the Grand Vision Urban Market/Division-Wealthy-Cathedral Square area that will anchor development of the SE quadrant of SouthGate interchange, Central Station's North Bus Platform-South Amtrak Platform/Grandville Avenue corridor that will anchor the SW and NW quadrants of Southgate while Dash Lots 4 & 5/VanAndel Arena/Ionia-Commerce District will anchor the NE quadrant). It is EXACTLY the point of Central Station's addition of the Amtrak platform to incite more opportunities for people to transition more seamlessly and conveniently between bus and rail - all outcomes that will magnify the attractiveness and stature of SouthGate and all of Greater Downtown GR as a destination of choice for retail, housing, entertainment and higher education.

These are exciting times for downtown's south end and the strengthening of both rail and bus connections there. Truly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metrogrkid,

Wow, thank you for that detailed explanation of the plans for public transportation in Metro Grand Rapids and West Michigan.

~John

Not a problem, man, but no need to thank me. I am but a part of a continuum of local minds who care deeply for Metro GR to have a best case scenario future for itself and its citizens. Any real Grand Rapidian would do the same.

Here's a link from another post to see an example of BRT done on a world-class level and how our Silverline needs to follow:

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) at its most robust and useful: BRT - Bogotá, Colombia

http://www.streetfil...transit-bogota/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm not an expert on trains or the Pere Marquette Amtrak line, and I apologize if this has already been covered. Someone mentioned the train(s) are stored near Ann Street; where exactly is the storage facility? Is it enclosed, or just an open bit of track? When the new station is completed, will the trains continue to be stored at the current storage facility? If GR is the terminus of the Pere Marquette line, doesn't it make sense to store the trains at the station? Or do they require more space for maintenance, etc.? I'm guessing the trains are enclosed overnight in order to prevent tampering and / or graffiti.

And while I'm getting schooled on train operations, obviously turning a train around is not ideal, but I can't imagine it adds to travel time in this situation. GR is the line terminus, so wouldn't Amtrak turn the train around before morning departure and after evening arrival? And as others have mentioned, the real time-killer is dealing with freight traffic and train yards along the way. Entering or leaving GR (approximately five miles) takes about 30 minutes because of the 10mph speed limit near Ivanrest.

Thoughts on the station renderings: I noticed there is a gap between the train and the station canopy. Maybe it's just a poor rendering, but the canopy should extend at least partially over the train(s) to ensure a dry transition between the train and platform, especially in the winter months. And it looks like a white roofing material will be used in order to match The Rapid's station; hopefully the chosen material will hold up to diesel fumes.

I like the landmark tower concept. I think a tower would assist people in navigating between transportation modes while also advertising to the many automobile drivers who pass the location each day. I would like to see smaller-scale signage around the station as well. Digital displays regarding train location and estimated time of arrival are a must. Although the bus and train stations will be in close proximity, simple signage / guides for navigating to Central Station would be nice for visitors.

I too would like to see the platform located farther north, but it sounds like the Wealthy Street ROW is the limiting factor. I also wonder if Amtrak is required to provide x-number of parking spaces. If so, it makes sense to locate them north of the platform where they will not interfere with train traffic (or be blocked by parked trains). With that in mind, however, it's critical that passengers are able to safely navigate between Central Station and the train platform. I like the concept of providing a covered walkway between the two stations instead of requiring passengers to walk through a parking lot. When the Wealthy Street bridge is replaced, I'd like to see a stairwell built between the bridge and the area around the train platform (Broadway bridge and the Ann Arbor train station is a good example) as well as more attractive bridge supports or something to improve the aesthetics under the bridge.

A few days ago I walked around the proposed site. The distance to Central Station really isn't bad. People may even enjoy walking around a bit before or after riding the train (even though one of the advantages of train travel is the ability to stretch out during the trip) and the connection between the two stations will be strong if the covered walkway concept is used. I also found myself wondering how the new station may impact surrounding land uses, specifically the monster warehouse on Century Ave. Currently the building has a few shops and businesses on the ground floor and the rest of the structure is used for storage. Any predictions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert on trains or the Pere Marquette Amtrak line, and I apologize if this has already been covered. Someone mentioned the train(s) are stored near Ann Street; where exactly is the storage facility? Is it enclosed, or just an open bit of track? When the new station is completed, will the trains continue to be stored at the current storage facility? If GR is the terminus of the Pere Marquette line, doesn't it make sense to store the trains at the station? Or do they require more space for maintenance, etc.? I'm guessing the trains are enclosed overnight in order to prevent tampering and / or graffiti.

And while I'm getting schooled on train operations, obviously turning a train around is not ideal, but I can't imagine it adds to travel time in this situation. GR is the line terminus, so wouldn't Amtrak turn the train around before morning departure and after evening arrival? And as others have mentioned, the real time-killer is dealing with freight traffic and train yards along the way. Entering or leaving GR (approximately five miles) takes about 30 minutes because of the 10mph speed limit near Ivanrest.

Thoughts on the station renderings: I noticed there is a gap between the train and the station canopy. Maybe it's just a poor rendering, but the canopy should extend at least partially over the train(s) to ensure a dry transition between the train and platform, especially in the winter months. And it looks like a white roofing material will be used in order to match The Rapid's station; hopefully the chosen material will hold up to diesel fumes.

I like the landmark tower concept. I think a tower would assist people in navigating between transportation modes while also advertising to the many automobile drivers who pass the location each day. I would like to see smaller-scale signage around the station as well. Digital displays regarding train location and estimated time of arrival are a must. Although the bus and train stations will be in close proximity, simple signage / guides for navigating to Central Station would be nice for visitors.

I too would like to see the platform located farther north, but it sounds like the Wealthy Street ROW is the limiting factor. I also wonder if Amtrak is required to provide x-number of parking spaces. If so, it makes sense to locate them north of the platform where they will not interfere with train traffic (or be blocked by parked trains). With that in mind, however, it's critical that passengers are able to safely navigate between Central Station and the train platform. I like the concept of providing a covered walkway between the two stations instead of requiring passengers to walk through a parking lot. When the Wealthy Street bridge is replaced, I'd like to see a stairwell built between the bridge and the area around the train platform (Broadway bridge and the Ann Arbor train station is a good example) as well as more attractive bridge supports or something to improve the aesthetics under the bridge.

A few days ago I walked around the proposed site. The distance to Central Station really isn't bad. People may even enjoy walking around a bit before or after riding the train (even though one of the advantages of train travel is the ability to stretch out during the trip) and the connection between the two stations will be strong if the covered walkway concept is used. I also found myself wondering how the new station may impact surrounding land uses, specifically the monster warehouse on Century Ave. Currently the building has a few shops and businesses on the ground floor and the rest of the structure is used for storage. Any predictions?

A local developer proposed turning the whole thing into condos and apartments a couple of years ago, but it hinged on extending the Ren Zone down to that area (IIRC), which didn't pass. I don't think there's any incentive for people to want to live in a building close to an Amtrak station, but having views of the station might be cool (Station View Apartments et al).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert on trains or the Pere Marquette Amtrak line, and I apologize if this has already been covered. Someone mentioned the train(s) are stored near Ann Street; where exactly is the storage facility? Is it enclosed, or just an open bit of track? When the new station is completed, will the trains continue to be stored at the current storage facility? If GR is the terminus of the Pere Marquette line, doesn't it make sense to store the trains at the station? Or do they require more space for maintenance, etc.? I'm guessing the trains are enclosed overnight in order to prevent tampering and / or graffiti.

And while I'm getting schooled on train operations, obviously turning a train around is not ideal, but I can't imagine it adds to travel time in this situation. GR is the line terminus, so wouldn't Amtrak turn the train around before morning departure and after evening arrival? And as others have mentioned, the real time-killer is dealing with freight traffic and train yards along the way. Entering or leaving GR (approximately five miles) takes about 30 minutes because of the 10mph speed limit near Ivanrest.

Thoughts on the station renderings: I noticed there is a gap between the train and the station canopy. Maybe it's just a poor rendering, but the canopy should extend at least partially over the train(s) to ensure a dry transition between the train and platform, especially in the winter months. And it looks like a white roofing material will be used in order to match The Rapid's station; hopefully the chosen material will hold up to diesel fumes.

I like the landmark tower concept. I think a tower would assist people in navigating between transportation modes while also advertising to the many automobile drivers who pass the location each day. I would like to see smaller-scale signage around the station as well. Digital displays regarding train location and estimated time of arrival are a must. Although the bus and train stations will be in close proximity, simple signage / guides for navigating to Central Station would be nice for visitors.

I too would like to see the platform located farther north, but it sounds like the Wealthy Street ROW is the limiting factor. I also wonder if Amtrak is required to provide x-number of parking spaces. If so, it makes sense to locate them north of the platform where they will not interfere with train traffic (or be blocked by parked trains). With that in mind, however, it's critical that passengers are able to safely navigate between Central Station and the train platform. I like the concept of providing a covered walkway between the two stations instead of requiring passengers to walk through a parking lot. When the Wealthy Street bridge is replaced, I'd like to see a stairwell built between the bridge and the area around the train platform (Broadway bridge and the Ann Arbor train station is a good example) as well as more attractive bridge supports or something to improve the aesthetics under the bridge.

A few days ago I walked around the proposed site. The distance to Central Station really isn't bad. People may even enjoy walking around a bit before or after riding the train (even though one of the advantages of train travel is the ability to stretch out during the trip) and the connection between the two stations will be strong if the covered walkway concept is used. I also found myself wondering how the new station may impact surrounding land uses, specifically the monster warehouse on Century Ave. Currently the building has a few shops and businesses on the ground floor and the rest of the structure is used for storage. Any predictions?

The train is currently overnight-ed at the GRE at Ann St. It sits outside, there haven't been any problems in all the years it has parked there that I;'m aware of.

It will stay over night at the new station, no reason to take it up the west side.

Amtrak has been running with an engine on one end and a control unit (old locomotive w/o an engine) on the other end. The train usually doesn't need to be turned, it just reverses direction the next morning. The problem with the proposed configuration is the train will have to back in in the evening and then back out in the morning. The problem with a backup move is the conductor has to protect the rear of the train when it is backing. He really needs to be tending to passenger issues, not standing on the rear unit. It also takes time to make backup moves.

I went an looked at the site also. If they had the switch facing west instead of east, the train could pull in in the evening and pull out in the morning. I drew it up on a REGIS map and sent my suggestion to the forum moderator, time will tell.

Edited by Raildudes dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In taking the Pere Marquette the other day it struck me the metro area could use a second station ... Wilson and Chicago Ave. Plenty of parking. Close to the freeway. Bus routes 8, 24, and 28 all stop nearby. A half dozen other routes feed into them servicing virtually the whole southern metro area. Residents in the south and notably west might be more inclined seeing, as it stands now, that they need to go downtown to hop the train which takes them back to where they started.

Edited by arcturus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Residents in the south and notably west might be more inclined seeing, as it stands now, that they need to go downtown to hop the train which takes them back to where they started.

.... over the course of 30 agonizing minutes at 10mph.

I agree with the need for the station to be downtown, but it eliminates much of the benefit of rail travel when the first hour occurs at such slow speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A stop in Grandville or Jenison is an excellent idea. Let the train overnight downtown and those that want to get on or off there can. The rest of us can get on in the "burbs" and save the slow transit time through the yard. I could get off in Jenison and be home before the train gets to the downtown station

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A stop in Grandville or Jenison is an excellent idea. Let the train overnight downtown and those that want to get on or off there can. The rest of us can get on in the "burbs" and save the slow transit time through the yard. I could get off in Jenison and be home before the train gets to the downtown station

if you are going to drive to the train station, you might as well skip it and drive all the way to chicago. you'd be there in half the time and you'd spend less (assuming you had a cheap place to park in chicago). if you are going to use the RAPID then I suspect that the slow speed though the city would still be faster than taking the bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you are going to drive to the train station, you might as well skip it and drive all the way to chicago. you'd be there in half the time and you'd spend less (assuming you had a cheap place to park in chicago). if you are going to use the RAPID then I suspect that the slow speed though the city would still be faster than taking the bus.

We have enjoyed several trips to Chicago both as a couple w/o kids and as a family w/ 2 kids. They have been weekend trips and day trips. We took the train both as a novelty and so we didn't have to drive and park in Chicago. We did drive from our house to the GR station every time. Why would we walk to a bus stop to take a bus downtown and then have to walk to the train station?

My point still is, I could park my car in Grandville at a train station, get off the train at night and be in my driveway before the train would get to the downtown station. (Be home about a 1/2 hour to 45 minutes earlier.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point still is, I could park my car in Grandville at a train station, get off the train at night and be in my driveway before the train would get to the downtown station. (Be home about a 1/2 hour to 45 minutes earlier.)

Yep. If the train is on time you're passing Grandville around 10 pm with downtown arrival at 10:20. I faced 2 options the last time: (a) walk, with luggage, a couple blocks to Founders and kill time until the 11:15 bus leaves (which isn't a bad idea :), or (b) get a cab. Option (a) gets me home no earlier than 11:35, option (b) around 10:40 or so. Had parking a car at Grandville been an option I'd be home at 10:15 and $14 richer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Ran into the rail map in the link below on another forum that was discussing proposed updates to Chicago Union Station and it made me think of these posts:

In taking the Pere Marquette the other day it struck me the metro area could use a second station ... Wilson and Chicago Ave. Plenty of parking. Close to the freeway. . . Residents in the south and notably west might be more inclined seeing, as it stands now, that they need to go downtown to hop the train which takes them back to where they started.

.... over the course of 30 agonizing minutes at 10mph.

I agree with the need for the station to be downtown, but it eliminates much of the benefit of rail travel when the first hour occurs at such slow speeds.

If for some strange reason Amtrak decided to start the Pere Marquette at Holland then head for Grand Rapids then head for Kalamazoo and only then turn west toward Chicago would you still want to get on the train in Grandville? The“30 agonizing minutes at 10mph” would be in the other direction then.

I don’t know how serious it is but this is a proposal that has been floating around for some time. I’m guessing the idea is that when the upgrade of Amtrak owned rails running west from Kalamazoo for high-speed is completed, the trip from Grand Rapids to Chicago via Kalamazoo would take about the same time as it does now and the cost to Amtrak would be less because about half the trip would be on their rails.

I can’t imagine that anyone in Holland other than an occasional rail nut would ever buy a ticket to Chicago on this route.

Here’s a link to the map:

http://farm4.static....512d87f2c_o.jpg

Edited by walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'd lose a lot of ridership that currently originates in GR as they'd drive to Kalamazoo and catch the train there. Certainly Hollanders might do that (or just skip the train altogether). For me, the greatest strength of the Pere Marquette is its simplicity... I park, I climb on the train and when I get off the train I'm already in Chicago.

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.