Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest jmecklenborg

Los Angeles: Transit News

Recommended Posts

^^Well, technically no.  Los Angeles was a classic streetcar city before the highway.  The highway certainly made Southern California boom but the streetcar went all the way down to Newport Beach before I-405 did.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree as LA was built as a highway city!  It was built out as a sprawling metropolis, with the highway connecting it all.

 

What about the Red Cars? They preceded the freeways.

 

The old parts of LA were and are very dense, denser on a much larger scale than are the remaining dense areas of the Great Lakes (excepting Chicago) cities, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St. Louis.  Wilshire, Sunset, Hollywood Blvd, these are all more densely built than High St. in Columbus between DT and OSU, and they go on for 10+ miles each at that density.  The spaces between them are very densely built and very active.  LA had a population of maybe 2 million when the car started taking over and it's all the areas built-out since -- Orange County, Inland Empire, San Fernando Valley, Compton, Inglewood, Long Beach, etc. that are lower density. 

 

So if the LA area is about 15 million, about 2-3 million of those people live in relatively dense and walkable areas, which is much more than any city in the Midwest sans Chicago.  That's why LA's subway is the only one in the US that stays completely below ground (and so will the Wilshire extension), because it's very dense. 

 

It's all the outlying areas I already mentioned that are the problem -- they are 15 miles from DTLA and are not themselves very walkable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Well, technically no.  Los Angeles was a classic streetcar city before the highway.  The highway certainly made Southern California boom but the streetcar went all the way down to Newport Beach before I-405 did.

Technically true, but I think you get the jist of what I am saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Well, technically no.  Los Angeles was a classic streetcar city before the highway.  The highway certainly made Southern California boom but the streetcar went all the way down to Newport Beach before I-405 did.

 

Do a Google Earth view of LA between downtown and Santa Monica and check out the housing density. BTW, when my dad went to UCLA in the late 40s, he walked all the way from downtown LA to Santa Monica and said it was a great walking experience with all of the stores, pedestrians, activity etc. He said the street energy was just great. After a long day, he rode the Pacific Electric back to his apartment near UCLA.

 

This was the Pacific Electric Railway system in 1925 (PE Rwy lines are red and motor coach [bus] lines are blue). The cost to restore much of this has been huge. That's why it's better to mothball rail infrastructure rather than dismantle it. But making it prohibitively expensive to restore the rail network is exactly what the buyers of the PE wanted....

 

2013-01-30-1925.jpg


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Well, technically no.  Los Angeles was a classic streetcar city before the highway.  The highway certainly made Southern California boom but the streetcar went all the way down to Newport Beach before I-405 did.

 

Do a Google Earth view of LA between downtown and Santa Monica and check out the housing density. BTW, when my dad went to UCLA in the late 40s, he walked all the way from downtown LA to Santa Monica and said it was a great walking experience with all of the stores, pedestrians, activity etc. He said the street energy was just great. After a long day, he rode the Pacific Electric back to his apartment near UCLA.

 

This was the Pacific Electric Railway system in 1925 (PE Rwy lines are red and motor coach [bus] lines are blue). The cost to restore much of this has been huge. That's why it's better to mothball rail infrastructure rather than dismantle it. But making it prohibitively expensive to restore the rail network is exactly what the buyers of the PE wanted....

 

2013-01-30-1925.jpg

 

HE WALKED FROM DT LA TO SANTA MONICA?  DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HE WALKED FROM DT LA TO SANTA MONICA?  DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS?!

 

Yes. It's about 15 miles. He said it took him all day.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HE WALKED FROM DT LA TO SANTA MONICA?  DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS?!

 

Yes. It's about 15 miles. He said it took him all day.

 

OMG.  I've tried to run from my house to Santa Monica (via Wilshire or Santa Monica) and thats a lil over 4 miles.  I can't imagine walking as LA is so brown and ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, Spanish Missions were the central part of early LA (i.e. Olvera Street)...then came the grid from that...then came what is now "downtown."


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HE WALKED FROM DT LA TO SANTA MONICA?  DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS?!

 

Yes. It's about 15 miles. He said it took him all day.

 

OMG.  I've tried to run from my house to Santa Monica (via Wilshire or Santa Monica) and thats a lil over 4 miles.  I can't imagine walking as LA is so brown and ugly.

 

Brown and ugly? You must live in a different neighborhood than me, cause my surroundings are beautiful.  I'm right by Hanock Park and it couldn't be more gorgeous.

 

To answer another question about the placing of downtown LA, it does seem strange (I always thought downtown LA should be where Long Beach is), however it's true that the downtown built up around the Spanish Missions that founded the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brown and ugly? You must live in a different neighborhood than me, cause my surroundings are beautiful.  I'm right by Hanock Park and it couldn't be more gorgeous.

 

When I was there I felt LA was gaudy and tacky (lots of neon, and often tasteless loud design though sometimes innovative - lots of Cheesecake Factory type design - no surprise given that its from S. California). Also many more than in other cities pre 1930s buildings had their detailing removed, so very little felt historic - there is a really great before and after photo thread on SSP's forums that shows a ton of examples where this happened.  LA's main basin is quite dense, but its been chopped up quite a bit by the mid-century (though its very easy to fix), it particularly surprised me how dense Beverly Hills commercial district was considering how much of a deterrent to subway development that town has been and the general selfish vain attitude that that place is just drenched in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HE WALKED FROM DT LA TO SANTA MONICA?  DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS?!

 

Yes. It's about 15 miles. He said it took him all day.

 

OMG.  I've tried to run from my house to Santa Monica (via Wilshire or Santa Monica) and thats a lil over 4 miles.  I can't imagine walking as LA is so brown and ugly.

 

Brown and ugly? You must live in a different neighborhood than me, cause my surroundings are beautiful.  I'm right by Hanock Park and it couldn't be more gorgeous.

 

To answer another question about the placing of downtown LA, it does seem strange (I always thought downtown LA should be where Long Beach is), however it's true that the downtown built up around the Spanish Missions that founded the city.

 

My home is in Westwood, however, many areas of Los Angeles is brown and flat.  Especially when you get toward mid city and Hancock Park its flat 3/4 story buildings and beige.  I don't know the borders of Hancock Park, which I like, but I pretty sure you're east of the La Brea, south of Melrose and north of 3rd? 

 

The area around MacAurthur Park, Drive down Pico, San Vicente.  Visit Compton, Waats, Hawthorne, South LA or whatever they call it now.  The East side is even worse. In my opinion LA is unattractive and beige

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the perfect weather and flatness you don't see many more people biking in LA than in the midwest.  I think the problem is that the distances people have to travel are simply ridiculous.  The key to having a pleasant life living in LA appears to prioritize living close to your workplace and hopefully where you live is somewhere "real" and not nebulous. 

 

Yes, you want to live by work. The exceptions would be if you live on the Red Line. That's an excellent heavy rail subway. And the expanded Purple Line under Wilshire will give a lot more options. You want to minimize your driving in LA.

 

If I lived in LA, I'd pay a lot more money to live by a Red Line station...and I think that is already the case. From places I've seen, rents are higher near Red Line stations.

 

When I moved in to a real neighborhood after college (away from the usc campus bubble), I chose to live in Los Feliz largely because there was a Red Line station at Vermont/Sunset.  I worked downtown, and it literally took 10 minutes from station to station.  On days when I had a meeting in the middle of the day I would have to drive and it would easily take 30 mins on the 101, or slightly less if I took surface streets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the perfect weather and flatness you don't see many more people biking in LA than in the midwest.  I think the problem is that the distances people have to travel are simply ridiculous.  The key to having a pleasant life living in LA appears to prioritize living close to your workplace and hopefully where you live is somewhere "real" and not nebulous. 

 

Yes, you want to live by work. The exceptions would be if you live on the Red Line. That's an excellent heavy rail subway. And the expanded Purple Line under Wilshire will give a lot more options. You want to minimize your driving in LA.

 

If I lived in LA, I'd pay a lot more money to live by a Red Line station...and I think that is already the case. From places I've seen, rents are higher near Red Line stations.

 

When I moved in to a real neighborhood after college (away from the usc campus bubble), I chose to live in Los Feliz largely because there was a Red Line station at Vermont/Sunset.  I worked downtown, and it literally took 10 minutes from station to station.  On days when I had a meeting in the middle of the day I would have to drive and it would easily take 30 mins on the 101, or slightly less if I took surface streets. 

 

I hate the Red Line.  It smells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why are all of the east/west avenues so capricious in their paths to Santa Monica, and why is there not even a single dominant north/south avenue?

 

There are some dominant north/south avenues, it's just LA has always been more oriented east/west, so those avenues are longer and more prominent. Figueroa, Vermont, Western, Robertson are all pretty prominent north/south streets. 

 

I tend to think of LA's version of Manhattan as being bounded like this: DTLA is the eastern terminus, Santa Monica/Venice is the western terminus, south of the mountains, north of the 10 freeway.  This is where the vast majority of the activity and traditionally urban neighborhoods are found.  If you think of LA this way, it's easier to see why the east/west streets are more dominant.  They cover more ground just like the Avenues in NY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown and ugly? You must live in a different neighborhood than me, cause my surroundings are beautiful.  I'm right by Hanock Park and it couldn't be more gorgeous.

 

When I was there I felt LA was gaudy and tacky (lots of neon, and often tasteless loud design though sometimes innovative - lots of Cheesecake Factory type design - no surprise given that its from S. California). Also many more than in other cities pre 1930s buildings had their detailing removed, so very little felt historic - there is a really great before and after photo thread on SSP's forums that shows a ton of examples where this happened.  LA's main basin is quite dense, but its been chopped up quite a bit by the mid-century (though its very easy to fix), it particularly surprised me how dense Beverly Hills commercial district was considering how much of a deterrent to subway development that town has been and the general selfish vain attitude that that place is just drenched in.

 

It's not just Beverly Hills. There are many people who live in Cheviot, the Palms, West LA & Century City that do not want it.  I wouldn't mind having the subway as taking the bus to Hollywood, is over an hour from my house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the perfect weather and flatness you don't see many more people biking in LA than in the midwest.  I think the problem is that the distances people have to travel are simply ridiculous.  The key to having a pleasant life living in LA appears to prioritize living close to your workplace and hopefully where you live is somewhere "real" and not nebulous. 

 

Yes, you want to live by work. The exceptions would be if you live on the Red Line. That's an excellent heavy rail subway. And the expanded Purple Line under Wilshire will give a lot more options. You want to minimize your driving in LA.

 

If I lived in LA, I'd pay a lot more money to live by a Red Line station...and I think that is already the case. From places I've seen, rents are higher near Red Line stations.

 

When I moved in to a real neighborhood after college (away from the usc campus bubble), I chose to live in Los Feliz largely because there was a Red Line station at Vermont/Sunset.  I worked downtown, and it literally took 10 minutes from station to station.  On days when I had a meeting in the middle of the day I would have to drive and it would easily take 30 mins on the 101, or slightly less if I took surface streets. 

 

I hate the Red Line.  It smells.

 

Because the Subways of NYC always smell like roses ...  :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hate the Red Line.  It smells.

 

Because the Subways of NYC always smell like roses ...  ::)

 

OH. NO. YOU. DIDNT!  The Red Line smells to me.  I'm in no way saying that other transit systems don't have issues.  I feel that the Red Line has a distinct odor that does not agree with me.  I've ridden many domestic systems.  I think the CTA, RTA, BART, MARTA, DC Metro, SEPTA Subway and Regional Rail all have odors.  SEPTA Broad St. being the worse, with LA, Miami People Mover and MARTA right behind!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA's Red Line smells like urine in sections, I agree, but it's no worse than the smells of, say, the G Line in New York or the Brown Line in Chicago.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA's Red Line is no worse than BART when it comes to smells, and it seems better than most Muni lines. The stations are very well-done too. I have really high hopes for the expanded Purple Line and have no doubts it will be a top-notch project that will redefine LA as we know it. You're probably going to see a lot of people along Wilshire give up their cars or drastically cut back on driving...I bet it beats ridership projections right off the bat. There seems to be way more pent-up demand for transit in LA than people realize. Most of my friends there want more of it and LA has some strong urban leadership that is beating out the well-heeled California NIMBY influences that are holding back a lot of places up here in the Bay Area. Hell, just look at how many transit agencies we have up here (LA at least is more streamlined). Or look at the fact we have no late-night trains and still don't have a BART pass. LA transit is somewhat underrated. It's not as far off San Francisco as most people assume...

 

It's important to remember that LA was already a very big city by the time of the Great Depression (1.2 million people). It overtook San Francisco in 1920 (though with a much larger land area and it never had the urban core of SF), and most of what existed then was dense and urban with a huge streetcar network. It was somewhat disconnected (lots of vacant land in the city limits, with geographic barriers between a few neighborhoods), but its downtown was big and beautiful while being much more well-connected to adjacent neighborhoods. Freeway construction killed the core of LA for a long time (transit is fixing it). The inner highway ring in LA reminds me a lot of what the inner highway ring did to the urban core of Columbus.

 

The real sprawl and urban planning disasters took place in the post-WW2 era, which is similar to how things played out in established Midwestern cities. And since LA had constantly growing population, it's expected it will have pound-for-pound more suburbia than some stagnant metro areas in the Rust Belt.

 

But things are changing. Most new development in the LA area is infill. It has one of the highest rates of it in America (LA, NY, SF, and San Jose are national leaders in infill). A similar thing is happening up in San Jose (San Jose is becoming more pro-urban and TOD), but LA always had denser, more urban neighborhoods than San Jose (SJ has nothing like DTLA, Hollywood, or Wilshire). LA to me is mostly a mix of San Jose and Oakland...with a few sections of other West Coast cities.

 

http://www.ecobuildingpulse.com/infill/epa-study-infill-represents-21-percent-of-new-home-construction.aspx

 

I think Downtown, Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire, Koreatown, and a few other areas are totally livable urban neighborhoods. Coming from San Francisco, some of these hoods feel safer and cleaner than their counterparts up north...though I admit we're talking worlds of cultural difference (NorCal versus SoCal is one of the biggest cultural divides you find in any state- maybe up to the level of divide seen in Ohio). There are things I like more about LA (art, music, girls, weather) and there are things I like more about San Francisco (urban core, parks, bridges, food). They're both standout cities in their own way.

 

*And I don't know, I met one of my dream girls on the Red Line. Girl sat right next to me and had amazing game. That has happened exactly zero times on BART (though I have picked up on Muni). I can never hate on that train!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brown Line, lol.

 

LACMTA is looking like a pleasant surprise. I never thought much of LA transit, but the 30/10 plan/Measure R gets me really excited and one of my friends from there (Van Nuys) says Metro is very convenient. The Regional Connector and Purple Line extension look like they could transform the central part of the region.

 

Oh well, Pittsburgh and Cleveland still beat LA in my mind when it comes to transit and urban fabric, regardless ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA's Red Line smells like urine in sections, I agree, but it's no worse than the smells of, say, the G Line in New York or the Brown Line in Chicago.

 

I thought the stations in LA were remarkable for their lack of smell, since there is no groundwater and therefore no mildewy/moldy smell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but some of those trains smell like somebody thought it was the bathroom in a Times Square cineplex.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted February 20, 2014 by Steve Hymon

Federal government approves $669-million grant and $160-million loan for Regional Connector

 

Officials from Metro and the Federal Transit Administration signed a pair of agreements Thursday that will provide a $669-million federal grant and a $160-million federally-backed loan for the Regional Connector light rail project. The total budget of the project is $1.36 billion.

 

A media event with public officials is being held at 10 a.m. next to the Gold Line’s Little Tokyo station. We’ll post photos and video later today.

 

In practical terms, the agreements clear the way for construction to begin later this year on the 1.9-mile underground light rail line in downtown L.A. that will tie together the existing Blue Line, Expo Line and Gold Line with tracks between 7th/Metro Center and Little Tokyo. When the project is complete — forecast for 2020 — passengers on those lines will be able to travel through downtown without having to transfer to another line.

 

READ MORE AND SEE MAP AT:

http://thesource.metro.net/2014/02/20/federal-government-approves-669-million-grant-and-160-million-loan-for-regional-connector/


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted February 20, 2014 by Steve Hymon

Federal government approves $669-million grant and $160-million loan for Regional Connector

 

Officials from Metro and the Federal Transit Administration signed a pair of agreements Thursday that will provide a $669-million federal grant and a $160-million federally-backed loan for the Regional Connector light rail project. The total budget of the project is $1.36 billion.

 

A media event with public officials is being held at 10 a.m. next to the Gold Lines Little Tokyo station. Well post photos and video later today.

 

In practical terms, the agreements clear the way for construction to begin later this year on the 1.9-mile underground light rail line in downtown L.A. that will tie together the existing Blue Line, Expo Line and Gold Line with tracks between 7th/Metro Center and Little Tokyo. When the project is complete forecast for 2020 passengers on those lines will be able to travel through downtown without having to transfer to another line.

 

READ MORE AND SEE MAP AT:

http://thesource.metro.net/2014/02/20/federal-government-approves-669-million-grant-and-160-million-loan-for-regional-connector/

 

Great to see a very long-term plan finally come together.  The Blue Line opened several years before the Red Line, meaning people had to hoof it or switch to buses to reach other parts of downtown. 

 

People are erroneously predicting one-seat rides across the metro.  There will be very few of those.  The significance of this is are the good station locations in the downtown area, and not having to switch trains to get into the downtown.  This will prevent train overcrowding on the Red/Purple Line after the Wilshire line is extended. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pre or post Disney?

 

Heh, both.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the map it appears that, once the regional connector is completed, the Blue Line will run from Long Beach to Pasadena, replacing the leg of the Gold Line that now goes to Pasadena, and the Gold Line will run from Santa Monica to East LA, incorporating a part of the current Gold Line and the entire Expo Line. Is that correct?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the map it appears that, once the regional corrector is completed, the Blue Line will run from Long Beach to Pasadena, replacing the leg of the Gold Line that now goes to Pasadena, and the Gold Line will run from Santa Monica to East LA, incorporating a part of the current Gold Line and the entire Expo Line. Is that correct?

 

 

Yes, correct.  This has been the plan for like 30 years, that's why it's amazing to see this link finally being made.  Again, as much as the blue line sucks now, it sucked completely when it first opened, and only sucked marginally less after the Red Line opened.  This will upgrade it to still sucks BUT you don't have to transfer when you get downtown to get to downtown or Union Station.

 

Still, the blue line totally sucks for its circuitous street-level operation just south of downtown, then its sucky stations in the middle of nowhere en route to Long Beach.  At least it travels into downtown Long Beach (unlike downtown LA, for a few more years), albeit on a slow surface-running loop. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, correct.  This has been the plan for like 30 years, that's why it's amazing to see this link finally being made.  Again, as much as the blue line sucks now, it sucked completely when it first opened, and only sucked marginally less after the Red Line opened.  This will upgrade it to still sucks BUT you don't have to transfer when you get downtown to get to downtown or Union Station.

 

Still, the blue line totally sucks for its circuitous street-level operation just south of downtown, then its sucky stations in the middle of nowhere en route to Long Beach.  At least it travels into downtown Long Beach (unlike downtown LA, for a few more years), albeit on a slow surface-running loop. 

 

 

Yep it sucks so much that it's the single most heavily used LRT line in the USA.... :-P


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the map it appears that, once the regional corrector is completed, the Blue Line will run from Long Beach to Pasadena, replacing the leg of the Gold Line that now goes to Pasadena, and the Gold Line will run from Santa Monica to East LA, incorporating a part of the current Gold Line and the entire Expo Line. Is that correct?

 

 

Yes, correct.  This has been the plan for like 30 years, that's why it's amazing to see this link finally being made.  Again, as much as the blue line sucks now, it sucked completely when it first opened, and only sucked marginally less after the Red Line opened.  This will upgrade it to still sucks BUT you don't have to transfer when you get downtown to get to downtown or Union Station.

 

Still, the blue line totally sucks for its circuitous street-level operation just south of downtown, then its sucky stations in the middle of nowhere en route to Long Beach.  At least it travels into downtown Long Beach (unlike downtown LA, for a few more years), albeit on a slow surface-running loop. 

 

 

 

 

The Blue Line currently ends at 7th St/Metro Center. Right in the heart of DTLA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laura J. Nelson ‏@laura_nelson  11m

FYI: Tomorrow at 10 am Eastern, LA and DC officials will announce $1.25B in federal funding for Phase 1 of @metrolosangeles @PurpleLineExt.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles officials laud $1.25 billion federal grant for Purple Line

By Rick Orlov, Los Angeles Daily News

 

 

 

A major federal grant of $1.25 billion to extend the “Subway to the Sea” was received by local officials Wednesday as part of an overall $2.1 billion package made possible by voter approval of the half-cent sales tax in Measure R.

 

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx made the presentation at a Washington, D.C., news conference with Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and the local congressional delegation.

 

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20140521/los-angeles-officials-laud-125-billion-federal-grant-for-purple-line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This morning, we boldly go where no transit agency has gone before," said @GeorgeTakei on LA's new vital subway: http://t.co/vEb6kxwflo


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This morning, we boldly go where no transit agency has gone before," said @GeorgeTakei on LA's new vital subway: http://t.co/vEb6kxwflo

 

This is a really exciting project, albeit 20+ years overdue.  This article (and others) fail to mention that sure -- it'll enable one-seat rides -- but it more importantly opens up a lot more of DT LA to high quality transit service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...