Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Good summary, O. The only scenario that could put the Cabarrus Amtrak station back in play would be the potential NCRR commuter rail study/project. It may be years off into the future (who knows?) but that would reactivate the NCRR line SE of Raleigh to Garner, Clayton, Selma, and Goldsboro for passenger travel. The line is mostly straight and in good shape, so long term it could be a viable corridor for commuter rail travel of some sort.

I don't know how they are going to handle all these scenarios with the MTC, but one would hope that the options discussed here would not be precluded by the building.

There is one additional scenario that keeps the current platform area in play. I have heard NCDOT staff state that the interest in keeping the Carolinian running on its current route, even post the opening of SEHSR, is very strong. You can imagine that the local politicians in Wilson, Rocky Mount, and Selma are certainly going to be vocal on this point.

Here is what I think will happen, assuming a commitment to the current Carolinian routing is made. With 4 or 5 SEHSR trains in each direction, though, that move much faster than the Carolinian, very few people from the Raleigh-Charlotte portions of the Carolinian route will choose that train to DC and NYC anymore. Once the demand for travel north of the NC state line (Richmond,DC, points north) shifts to the SEHSR trains, I think it is likely that the Carolinian becomes a Wilson-Raleigh train.

Or- if the infrastructure improvements are being worked on by then, a Wilson-Raleigh-Greensboro-Salisbury-Asheville train.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 548
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

35 stories, 414 feet.  Construction planned to start at the end of next April. https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR15/ASR-0072-2021.pdf

First renderings of the RUSBUS revealed! I'm impressed! 

Link to two proposals for the Bus Station mixed-use development:  https://dhic.org/rus-bus-rfq-submissions/ (note this is from the initial request from March 22 2019 - before the rezoning up to 40 flo

Posted Images

There is one additional scenario that keeps the current platform area in play. I have heard NCDOT staff state that the interest in keeping the Carolinian running on its current route, even post the opening of SEHSR, is very strong. You can imagine that the local politicians in Wilson, Rocky Mount, and Selma are certainly going to be vocal on this point.

Here is what I think will happen, assuming a commitment to the current Carolinian routing is made. With 4 or 5 SEHSR trains in each direction, though, that move much faster than the Carolinian, very few people from the Raleigh-Charlotte portions of the Carolinian route will choose that train to DC and NYC anymore. Once the demand for travel north of the NC state line (Richmond,DC, points north) shifts to the SEHSR trains, I think it is likely that the Carolinian becomes a Wilson-Raleigh train.

Or- if the infrastructure improvements are being worked on by then, a Wilson-Raleigh-Greensboro-Salisbury-Asheville train.

Good points, and I had heard that as well.

After thinking about it more, there's also the prospects of passenger rail service to/from Wilmington, via either Castle Hayne-Wallace-Goldsboro or Pembroke-Fayetteville-Selma. Both would enter Raleigh from the SE on the NCRR, so it seems that long term, the Cabarrus station, or some station on the south of the wye will probably need to be in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why couldn't a Raleigh-Goldsboro-Wilmington or a Raleigh-Selma-Rocky Mount train be served at the MMTC site at Hargett and West?

The only difficulty comes when you try to turn any such train into a through train, be it to Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Asheville, or wherever. But even then, this could be accomplished with a simple backing move: the train continues on the NCRR past the wye, and backs into the station. This would add perhaps 5 minutes to the schedule of any such train. Not a huge issue, especially given the synergy of having all Raleigh trains serve the same station and gaining the connections to other modes of transit.

What I could see is a second downtown station on the NCRR, probably somewhere around Kindly street, to serve the convention center / memorial auditorium / Shaw University neck of the woods. Of course this would only be used for commuter trains approaching Raleigh from the southeast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why couldn't a Raleigh-Goldsboro-Wilmington or a Raleigh-Selma-Rocky Mount train be served at the MMTC site at Hargett and West?

The only difficulty comes when you try to turn any such train into a through train, be it to Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Asheville, or wherever. But even then, this could be accomplished with a simple backing move: the train continues on the NCRR past the wye, and backs into the station. This would add perhaps 5 minutes to the schedule of any such train. Not a huge issue, especially given the synergy of having all Raleigh trains serve the same station and gaining the connections to other modes of transit.

What I could see is a second downtown station on the NCRR, probably somewhere around Kindly street, to serve the convention center / memorial auditorium / Shaw University neck of the woods. Of course this would only be used for commuter trains approaching Raleigh from the southeast.

There's nothing preventing a Raleigh-terminating train from pulling into the MMTC site's main platform area. In fact, if the DMU line was built, extending to the originally planned Govt Ctr station, you might terminate the train there for supercommuters from Rocky Mount, etc to State Govt jobs.

A backing move is certainly possible, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be a lot of trouble with the limited number of platforms the MMTC site can accommodate. In 15-20 years, a backing move might be very disruptive to through services.

Edited by transitman
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing preventing a Raleigh-terminating train from pulling into the MMTC site's main platform area. In fact, if the DMU line was built, extending to the originally planned Govt Ctr station, you might terminate the train there for supercommuters from Rocky Mount, etc to State Govt jobs.

A backing move is certainly possible, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be a lot of trouble with the limited number of platforms the MMTC site can accommodate. In 15-20 years, a backing move might be very disruptive to through services.

I don't think the MMTC is limited at all in terms of fitting platforms. I bet we could fit at least 4 or 5 platforms with 2 tracks each in there. Of course this would require acquiring several privately owned parcels, but that will be necessary anyway. Besides, a platform is long, but it really isn't that wide. I'd love to draw a diagram to prove what I'm saying, but I don't really have the time. But just to give you an idea, the distance between the historic Norfolk Southern line and the Seaboard Air Line is about 350 feet. For comparison, Chicago's Ogilvie station has 8 platforms serving 16 tracks, and is only about 310 feet wide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about branching off two tracks from the NCRR and having them go below grade underneath the MMTC? The tracks could merge back with the existing tracks right outside the immediate area. This would create a single focal point of transit. At the very least it would allow commuters to have the convenience of simply travel up or down an escalator when switching trains. I could see another NY-FLA train routed through Raleigh as well with the arrival of the new station and rejuventaion of the S Line.

EDIT: I didn't intend on ending conversation on this issue with my post. Please disregard it and continue with discussion.

Edited by Creasy336
Link to post
Share on other sites

The city and the NCDOT are now hashing out what should be done about all the grade crossings downtown. NCDOT and SEHSR want to either close or separate all of them. The city thinks that is unnecessary since the trains will be moving rather slowly through downtown, and the impact on the street grid would be pretty significant.

SEHSR wants to close the grade crossings at Jones, West, Harrington, and Hargett. Several options exist for treatments. All of these would have pretty significant impacts on downtown. The city seems to be opposed to all of them except perhaps Hargett, and proposes two different options: 1. leave the crossings open, or 2. use the Norfolk Southern corridor instead.

See this PDF for more detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The city and the NCDOT are now hashing out what should be done about all the grade crossings downtown. NCDOT and SEHSR want to either close or separate all of them. The city thinks that is unnecessary since the trains will be moving rather slowly through downtown, and the impact on the street grid would be pretty significant.

SEHSR wants to close the grade crossings at Jones, West, Harrington, and Hargett. Several options exist for treatments. All of these would have pretty significant impacts on downtown. The city seems to be opposed to all of them except perhaps Hargett, and proposes two different options: 1. leave the crossings open, or 2. use the Norfolk Southern corridor instead.

See this PDF for more detail.

Orulz,

When I try the url, I get a page saying, "Page can not be found". Is it me or maybe a problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it would probably be really expensive, but they might have to resort to burying the entire line in the downtown area if they really want to prevent closing streets. Phase 1 of the Raleigh Subway system perhaps?

One can dream.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it would probably be really expensive, but they might have to resort to burying the entire line in the downtown area if they really want to prevent closing streets. Phase 1 of the Raleigh Subway system perhaps?

One can dream.

And what an awesome dream! I would shout from all of Raleigh's mountain tops! (yeah, I know, we got no mtn tops!) :)

Fixed the link.

Many thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it would probably be really expensive, but they might have to resort to burying the entire line in the downtown area if they really want to prevent closing streets. Phase 1 of the Raleigh Subway system perhaps?

One can dream.

Indeed that does get extremely expensive. Unfortunately we don't have the money to do things "right" the first time. Reno did something similar with their ReTrac and that cost about $250 million, but that was a very straight track in an area much flatter than downtown Raleigh and with plenty of room to accommodate a temporary relocation on a public right-of-way. They still needed a big bond issue and a separate property tax assessment on all the casinos in order to get it done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Short summary from the meeting:

Amtrak and NCDOT want to seal the corridor, such that there are no grade crossings. The city clearly doesn't want to close any of the streets mentioned (Lane, Harrington, West, Jones, Hargett), so the options are roadway bridges and/or ped bridges, moving the SEHSR route from the CSX line (E of Capital Blvd) to the NS line (parallel to Glenwood and W of Capital), or arguing that the corridor NOT be sealed in downtown since the rail speeds will be much lower (<35 mph?).

Let me tell you, the bridges proposed so far along the streets I mentioned are crazy and would totally disrupt the connectivity and viability of a huge amount of properties in the city (see the letter in orulz's second link above--but hard to see). For instance, one of the Jones St bridge alternates would begin the bridge west of Glenwood (at the purple house) and bridge over Glenwood & CSXRR all the way past 42nd St and Prime Only to east of West St. Nuts.

I think keeping the corridor unsealed only near downtown and choosing the NS west side rail alignment is the best option. The west side is almost all grade separated now and the areas where it's not in downtown (Jones, Hargett & maybe Fairview), I would keep open (unsealed). This would likely save a ton of money by avoiding many of the impacts to the community and cost for multiple pricey bridges & acquiring expensive urban land (although some new rail bridges would have to be built). The projection is that for any existing roads that remain unsealed crossing the CSX line (serving TTA, Amtrak, CSX freight and SEHSR), the gates could be down to traffic 60-70% of the time (by some future date--2030?).

Everyone wants HSR, but the execution is going to be tricky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The city and the NCDOT are now hashing out what should be done about all the grade crossings downtown. NCDOT and SEHSR want to either close or separate all of them. The city thinks that is unnecessary since the trains will be moving rather slowly through downtown, and the impact on the street grid would be pretty significant.

SEHSR wants to close the grade crossings at Jones, West, Harrington, and Hargett. Several options exist for treatments. All of these would have pretty significant impacts on downtown. The city seems to be opposed to all of them except perhaps Hargett, and proposes two different options: 1. leave the crossings open, or 2. use the Norfolk Southern corridor instead.

See this PDF for more detail.

I am glad the City is strongly opposing the closings. What good is rail if you are screwing the community you are serving? As the City's responses indicate, these closing would further separate Glenwood from the rest of downtown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Orulz earlier point about speed is right on. It is unlikely that there will be any train moving through the downtown streets above 15-25 mph because the train will either be on the final approach or departure from the Multimodal Station.

The bigger challenge is figuring out whether or not any passenger trains' heads or tails would wind up parked across at-grade street crossings to board/release passengers. If this is not the case, then the city and rail providers need to figure out an acceptable number of minutes that the tracks are closed to vehicle traffic per day. This would guide how many true closings make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think keeping the corridor unsealed only near downtown and choosing the NS west side rail alignment is the best option. The west side is almost all grade separated now and the areas where it's not in downtown (Jones, Hargett & maybe Fairview), I would keep open (unsealed). This would likely save a ton of money by avoiding many of the impacts to the community and cost for multiple pricey bridges & acquiring expensive urban land (although some new rail bridges would have to be built). The projection is that for any existing roads that remain unsealed crossing the CSX line (serving TTA, Amtrak, CSX freight and SEHSR), the gates could be down to traffic 60-70% of the time (by some future date--2030?).

60-70% closed, hmm? That sounds like we might well experience the well-known Japanese phenomenon of "Akazu no Fumikiri" here in our own home town. But hey, 30% open is better than 0%!

From that hard-to-read report, it seems like what they've done is to take the exact design for a railroad overpass that would be built out in the middle of suburbia or a rural area, and plunk it down in the middle of downtown.

Chief, do you have any idea what the maximum grade that they allowed for in their designs of the approaches to the bridges / underpasses? Couldn't those standards be changed a little bit (say, 10% grade on approach instead of 7%) in the name of fewer impacts? There are cities all over the world with streets that have grades of greater than 7%, and they don't cause widespread death of babies and puppy dogs. There are literally hundreds of streets in downtown San Francisco or Seattle with sustained grades well over 10%. Couldn't they also do something like the Hillsborough Street bridge where the trusses are unusually thin to allow for full clearance without raising the roadway deck too much? What about building the bridges with retaining walls, or doing something like what Chicago, Atlanta, New York, and probably many other cities around the country did, and elevate the entire street grid rather than just raising one street and closing off the others?

At any rate, I hope that regardless of anything else, they can put Hargett over the tracks, and that they also continue to look into bridging Lane Street as well, without also closing West and Harrington.

Link to post
Share on other sites

60-70% closed, hmm? That sounds like we might well experience the well-known Japanese phenomenon of "Akazu no Fumikiri" here in our own home town. But hey, 30% open is better than 0%!

From that hard-to-read report, it seems like what they've done is to take the exact design for a railroad overpass that would be built out in the middle of suburbia or a rural area, and plunk it down in the middle of downtown.

Chief, do you have any idea what the maximum grade that they allowed for in their designs of the approaches to the bridges / underpasses? Couldn't those standards be changed a little bit (say, 10% grade on approach instead of 7%) in the name of fewer impacts? There are cities all over the world with streets that have grades of greater than 7%, and they don't cause widespread death of babies and puppy dogs. There are literally hundreds of streets in downtown San Francisco or Seattle with sustained grades well over 10%. Couldn't they also do something like the Hillsborough Street bridge where the trusses are unusually thin to allow for full clearance without raising the roadway deck too much? What about building the bridges with retaining walls, or doing something like what Chicago, Atlanta, New York, and probably many other cities around the country did, and elevate the entire street grid rather than just raising one street and closing off the others?

At any rate, I hope that regardless of anything else, they can put Hargett over the tracks, and that they also continue to look into bridging Lane Street as well, without also closing West and Harrington.

About the % time closed... that comment was made from memory by Mitch Silver so not sure it's 100% accurate, but considering that the various tracks will share active DMU trains at least every 10 min (peak), HSR trains (8x/day+), and freight rail... it's completely realistic to me. As the letter indicated, we have a nearby example of a highly traveled rail corridor passing through a pedestrian area... Charlotte's Lynx LRT operates with as little as 7.5 minute headways in Uptown and South End (AM/PM rush), and that includes a number of at-grade crossings on streets that probably carry more traffic than DTR, and I'd guess the train speeds would be similar (20 mph?). It seems to me that's a good precident for allowing an "unsealed" rail line in an urban environment.

I have no idea what grades they used, but they did have some "short bridge options" which I would guess had steeper grades. City staff mentioned that NCDOT is looking at retaining walls with the bridges... I can't imagine any way they could avoid vertical walls with a bridge anywhere in downtown... the land is just too valuable and in many cases there are historic properties literally right next to the road. Again, I'd like to see:

  • Utilize NSRR ROW for HSR... avoids disrupting grid at Harrington, West, Lane
  • I just can't see them being able to bridge Jones St with the historic properties/businesses there (518 & Prime Only)... a huge bridge would ruin everything... realistically, either it's gotta be closed (bad idea) or unsealed there... I say, keep it open
  • Hargett bridge over the wye makes the most sense... retain connectivity, air rights for MTC development, clear tracks, TTA already owns adjacent Dillon warehouses so they're gonna be redeveloped anyway

I can't figure how/why you'd bridge W Lane over the tracks (Christmas Plan) to Glenwood without ruining 222 condos access (Jones too)? I don't even see the need for it since Lane isn't connected now. Man, 222 could get completely boxed in by some of this--there' entrances are at Lane & Jones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the "short bridge" options just have shorter spans, not shorter approaches.

I do see the merits of using the NSRR alignment for the High Speed rail, but I was hoping to save the NSRR line for eventual conversion to Light Rail, instead moving all high speed/intercity/commuter/freight traffic (everything FRA compliant, that is) to the SAL. Unfortunately things like using the NSRR for light rail aren't even remotely on the local planning radar.

If all the train lines were put on the SAL, resulting in the gates at Jones, West, and Harrington being closed 70% of the time at rush hour, bridging Lane over the tracks would be especially important. If the grade crossings are to be closed so much, then there would be no reliable connection between Glenwood South and the rest of downtown between Hillsborough and Peace.

That covers the why... now for the how.

Let's break the bridge down. There are 4 important points on this bridge.

Point A (western terminus): The intersection of Lane & Glenwood. Elevation = 322ft

Point B: The point where Lane would cross the NSRR. Elevation = 322ft.

Point C: The point where Lane would cross the SAL/West Street. Elevation = 322ft

Point D (eastern terminus): The intersection of Lane & Harrington. Elevation = 330ft

That makes 3 segments.

Segment AB: The western approach, from Glenwood to the NSRR. 250ft long.

Segment BC: The span, from the NSRR to SAL/West Street. 225ft long.

Segment CD: The eastern approach, from SAL/West Street to Harrington. 275ft long.

Standard vertical clearance for a bridge over a railroad is 23 feet. Give an additional 4 feet for bridge substructure and the thickness of the roadway itself, for a result of 27 feet from top of rail to roadway surface. This means at points B and C, we must have a roadway elevation of (322ft + 27ft) = 349ft.

So, moving west->east:

for segment AB we have a vertical rise from 322ft to 349ft over a horizontal distance of 250ft. 10.8% grade.

for segment BC we have no vertical rise, so therefore a grade of 0%.

for segment CD we have a vertical drop from 349ft to 330ft over a horizontal distance of 275ft. -6.9% grade.

To improve on this even more, if we could say that the NSRR will either be converted to light rail, or be restricted to never carry double stacked intermodal freight containers (which it never has and probably never will), a clearance of 18ft would be sufficient at point B, yielding a roadway elevation there of 344ft.

So under that scenario, moving west->east:

for segment AB we have a vertical rise from 322ft to 344ft over a horizontal distance of 250ft. 8.8% grade.

for segment BC we have a vertical rise from 344ft to 349ft over a horizontal distance of 225ft. 2.2% grade.

for segment CD we have a vertical drop from 349ft to 330ft over a horizontal distance of 275ft. -6.9% grade.

I think this should be technically doable. A 9% or 10% grade may seem like a lot, but then think about this: Filbert Street in San Francisco has a grade of 31.5%. Notice that Google Maps shows a 26 foot Penske truck climbing the absolute steepest part of the street. Closer to home, in my hometown Asheville, there are several downtown streets with a grade of 15% or more. (Woodfin, Hiawassee, Walnut, and Eagle come to mind.) This makes you realize that setting an absolute limit at 7% (which is what I believe Raleigh does) is pretty stupid. Perhaps in topography like ours, the 7% rule is absolutely OK for 99% of all situations, but for one downtown street that doesn't carry a whole lot of traffic and where the urban fabric must be taken into account, I think an exception of a couple percent is in order.

There are some other points which I have ignored, such as the curvature necessary to gradually introduce the grade, so my numbers are probably off by a half percent or so. And sure, we would have what amounts to a flyover of Lane Street over West Street, but anyone who's ever visited the Magnificent Mile in Chicago will tell you that flyovers of urban streets actually don't have to be disruptive at all- it all has to do with how they are treated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just a question of cost. There's also the question of impacts. This would have a huge impact on Peace Street, the Seaboard area, the Cotton Mill, Glenwood South, and even Hillsborough Street.

The existing grade separations at Capital and Peace would have to be inverted.

  • The one at Capital could be done without too many impacts beyond traffic impacts.
  • Peace Street would be hard. You'd probably have to invert the Capital/Peace grade separation as well, and basically wind up with either a viaduct or a huge dirt fill clear across the valley from Salisbury to West, cutting off access to dozens of properties and businesses.

Most of the CSX and NCDOT yards would have to be rebuilt and lowered, or relocated

  • This would have a huge impact on the (historic) Seaboard / Logan's area, and the (historic) Cotton Mill, possibly requiring demolition.

The connection to the NSRR along Glenwood Avenue would be severed, and the NSRR itself deactivated

  • The SAL would be 27 feet lower than the NSRR at the point where they come together today near Jones street, far too great of a difference to allow the connection to remain without also trenching the NSRR as well
  • A new yard would have to be constructed to replace Glenwood Yard
  • Freight and commuter traffic bound for Knigthdale, etc. would have to be diverted to the new trenched SAL alignment
  • This would have the side benefit of letting the line be converted to light rail, as long as us transit folks could get to it before the rail-trail folks

There would be impacts to Glenwood South as well

  • 42nd Street Oyster Bar, the Powerhouse Square parking deck, and perhaps even the (very historic) Prime Only building would be lost
  • The Hillsborough Street and Morgan Street bridges may have to be rebuilt AGAIN, just 6 years after they were rebuilt in the first place.

Construction would be terrible

  • This is such a complicated project that it would probably take 3 years to build
  • There would be many road closings downtown for the entire duration of the project
  • Restaurants, shops, etc would see less traffic and some would fail
  • Development would be held in check for the entire 3 years by the endless construction

If you can find the money (it would probably have a direct cost of at least $500 million, perhaps more in the $billion range) and find a way to mitigate the numerous historic impacts then I'm all for it. But I'm worried that including such an extravagant infrastructure project for such a small portion of the SEHSR route would decrease the line's cost effectiveness to the point where it could derail the whole project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about it follows the NSRR line (if thats the right name). The line on the west side of Capital.

Hell, since none of us make a difference, how about we go underground right after the Peace St bridge diving underground and follow right under McDowell St. Take a turn under Nash Square (Which is would provide for a station closer to actual DownTown) and follow W. Martin St. towards the Boylan Wye. Returning to the surface somewhere around Central Prison.

I believe subways cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $400Million a mile (who knows, this is probably way off). but we would then have ~1.25 miles of underground track. make this wide enough for Light rail to North Raleigh-Cary and I think it makes sense. Not only do we keep connectivity, we get people where they actually want to go.

Is $500Million too much, yea. but what is the impact of dropping people 1/2 mile from DT? What is the cost of closing 6 or more intersections/cross streets?

Could we get the price down by using traditional methods? Cut and cover? I bet we could. Economy is in the crapper, nows the time to build!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Pretty big article in today's N&O about Amtrak in North Carolina, with a small section about the inadequate facilities in Raleigh and the plans to replace them with a multimodal station at the Wye.

They mention that many places have seen station upgrades over the past 8-10 years, including Salisbury, Greensboro, Rocky Mount and High Point; Cary has upgrades coming as DOT has already moved out and the conversion to a staffed station with platform canopies is underway, as does Durham, with the new station that is more than 10 times larger than the current one under construction in the Walker Warehouse. That leaves Charlotte and Raleigh. Charlotte at least has some concrete plans for a multimodal hub near Gateway Village on West Trade; elements of that station might start to take shape between 2009 and 2012.

Raleigh, however, is comparatively behind the curve. They've done some conceptual planning groundwork for the station, and they know what elements they'd like to include (high speed rail, light rail, commuter rail, streetcars, intercity buses, city buses, and commuter buses - whew that's a mouthful) and they know that they want it to be located near Hargett Street at the railroad tracks, but they have no idea how they're going to do that, or what it's even going to look like. They hope to have a better idea by early 2009, when the multimodal station study is complete, but I'll believe that when I see it. I think that study was originally supposed to be done sometime in 2007.

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.   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.