|
|
| M Line via 6th Av. (1424282) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (1424284) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 17 00:23:30 2017, in response to M Line via 6th Av., posted by transitbuff on Mon Jan 16 23:26:41 2017. Loss of connection to Sixth Ave. at Queens Plz, Court Sq, Lex/53, Fifth/53. |
|
|
| (1424286) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Snarf368 on Tue Jan 17 01:39:06 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 17 00:23:30 2017. Stand at 53/Lex or 53/5 at 8:45am on a weekday morning and see how many people get off the M and you will realize how stuoid your idea is. M takes a lot of stress of the E especially during rush hour. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1424287) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Snarf368 on Tue Jan 17 01:39:55 2017, in response to M Line via 6th Av., posted by transitbuff on Mon Jan 16 23:26:41 2017. Transitbuff, Stand at 53/Lex or 53/5 at 8:45am on a weekday morning and see how many people get off the M and you will realize how stuoid your idea is. M takes a lot of stress of the E especially during rush hour. |
|
|
| (1424293) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 17 06:23:43 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Snarf368 on Tue Jan 17 01:39:55 2017. IAWTP!! |
|
|
| (1424294) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 17 06:24:00 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Snarf368 on Tue Jan 17 01:39:06 2017. IAWTP! |
|
|
| (1424295) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 17 06:24:57 2017, in response to M Line via 6th Av., posted by transitbuff on Mon Jan 16 23:26:41 2017. Then where is the 53rd-Queens Plaza service? |
|
|
| (1424322) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jan 17 11:41:11 2017, in response to M Line via 6th Av., posted by transitbuff on Mon Jan 16 23:26:41 2017. yeah, the M is a mess.I remember when you could go to Met and there would often be two trains in the pockets. Now, the trains dump, charge and go, because they're often delayed. It's a very hectic pace now that the M goes to 6th Ave and the very crazy paced Queens Blvd corridor. |
|
|
| (1424323) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 17 11:46:07 2017, in response to M Line via 6th Av., posted by transitbuff on Mon Jan 16 23:26:41 2017. Here's your basic problem and it began in December 2000, when the F-train which had ran along 53rd Street for decades, would now begin running along the 63rd Street Tunnel to and from Queens.For decades, the major business district of Manhattan ended at about 60th Street with the largest concentrations of workers. (That is not to say that other large concentrations of workers do not exist elsewhere. Or that business districts do not get extended somehow.) The 53rd Street corridor of the IND subway had been in existence since the 1930's, and before that service was provided by the Sixth Avenue IRT elevated line. The other Queens Tunnels along 60th Street, and along 42nd Street also carry huge amounts of folks. Each of these lines benefit from their connections and transfers to other subway lines and their locations in midtown that serve various businesses and facilities. These subway lines are very, very useful. The 63rd Street Tunnel by comparison was dubbed "The Tunnel To Nowhere" because until December 2000 it had no through service to the more populated sections of Queens and few connections to the existing other subway lines. It's every day potential was limited because it was planned for a much larger transit network, but was cut short before its prime. With the F-train re-routed along the 63rd Street Tunnel, the transfer connections that the F-train HAD at Lexington Avenue to the #6 under the Citi-Corp Center were gone and plus the F-train would no longer stop at the Citi-Corp Center! Queens Blvd local station riders could no longer to transfer at Queens Plaza between F-trains headed to and from Sixth Avenue. Remember - the 63rd Street Tunnel was never designed for its current usage! It was adapted as a best close fit. The savior to these problems was the creation of the V-train! The route which was argued about, debated and basically hated by hundreds of transit fans. Lasting almost 10 years the V-train solved the access problems of the Queens Blvd local station riders, and the access issues of getting to and from Sixth Avenue and along 53rd Street for Queens riders. Fiscal crisis issues led to the substitution of the M-train for the V-train along Sixth Avenue and Queens Blvd - an action that many Queens and Brooklyn riders heavily supported with ridership increases. Hundreds of transit fans have expressed their approvals for the current M-train and wonder why it was not done earlier. Your basic problem is this. Like many transit fans - the idea of playing with new toys (new train tunnels, new stations, testing ideas of train routes, etc.) can not be resisted. Nor should it be. There are however times when to look up from your subway maps and track diagrams to actually look at the real people trying daily to get where they want to go, and the places that they travel to and from on a regular basis. The 63rd Street Tunnel existing just outside of the long-time Manhattan Business District boundary is a tough sell. Why did an "out of system" transfer to the heavily used Lexington Avenue station at 59th Street used by the #4, #5 #6, N, W and R trains have to be created? Answer: Because the movement to the 63rd Street Tunnel took away the direct transfer that F-train riders had to the Lexington Avenue subway at 53rd Street. On weekends when the M-train does not run - certain pathways of traveling and transfers do not exist except in a round about way. Regular every day riders do not like "round about" ways for their every day got to get to and from work travel paths. Mike |
|
|
| (1424324) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 17 11:54:22 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jan 17 11:41:11 2017. So in a sense the M-train gets increased service due to its Queens Blvd segment - meaning more frequent trains - and now the Metropolitan Avenue area Queen/Brooklyn riders are complaining because the frequent service?Wow. Mike |
|
|
| (1424326) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jan 17 12:18:27 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 17 11:54:22 2017. Trains per hour and running on time are different issues.I don't know if anyone is complaining. I'm just observing that the trains at Met don't dwell at the terminal like they did before the M started going to midtown and Queens Corridor. |
|
|
| (1424345) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Tue Jan 17 15:50:16 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Snarf368 on Tue Jan 17 01:39:06 2017. Stand at 53/Lex or 53/5 at 8:45am on a weekday morning and see how many people get off the M and you will realize how stuoid your idea is. M takes a lot of stress of the E especially during rush hour.His idea isn't stupid. He's a retired transit worker who has first hand knowledge about how the system works. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1424351) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 17 16:15:49 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Bill Newkirk on Tue Jan 17 15:50:16 2017. I think he is actually agreeing with Bill and accidentally replied to the wrong post. |
|
|
| (1424352) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 17 16:16:32 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Bill Newkirk on Tue Jan 17 15:50:16 2017. I know plenty of active and retired transit workers many of whom worked with me in Operations Planning whose first hand knowledge didn’t help them the make intelligent proposals. |
|
|
| (1424353) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 17 16:26:21 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 17 11:46:07 2017. The 63 St line was a mistake for at least two basic reasons. It IS just outside the Manhattan CBD and it bypasses Queens Plaza which is a major transportation hub. Back in the 1960s, there was a committee formed by residents of the 63 St area known as “the Emergency Committee to Stop the 63 St Subway” the name of which was changed to ”The Emergency Committee For Sound Transit Planning” which was intended to have the then in the planning stages tunnel to Queens moved to 61 St to keep its stations in Manhattan closer to the BMT’s 60 St tunnel and its principal Queens station in the area of Queens Plaza. The 61 St location would have actually mad more sense, but the pre MTA transit planners of the day rammed the 63 St location down the throats of the residents ad this is what we got. |
|
|
| (1424358) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 17 16:48:47 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by randyo on Tue Jan 17 16:26:21 2017. I've heard it had to do with the Rockefeller University seismograph, which would have been disturbed by a 61st St location. |
|
|
| (1424365) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 17 17:44:52 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 17 11:46:07 2017. This is Why the M should run as a 19/7 line at least.New York is a 24hr town,and service should be provided to match it along ALL trunk routes. 15 minutes tops should be the wait time for subway service during the late nights. |
|
|
| (1424368) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 17 17:48:23 2017, in response to M Line via 6th Av., posted by transitbuff on Mon Jan 16 23:26:41 2017. And send the F back to 53rd Street ?What do you do on overnight and weekends ? |
|
|
| (1424369) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 17 17:50:23 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 17 11:46:07 2017. The story I heard, which may or may not be true is the FTA told the MTA to run the full-time F through 63rd, and not the V, to force ridership through it, or forfeit the UMTA funding they blew away on it. |
|
|
| (1424370) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 17 17:50:57 2017, in response to M Line via 6th Av., posted by transitbuff on Mon Jan 16 23:26:41 2017. That would defeat the entire purpose of having the M on 6th avenue in the first place. |
|
|
| (1424379) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jan 17 18:48:01 2017, in response to M Line via 6th Av., posted by transitbuff on Mon Jan 16 23:26:41 2017. Poor Moe may end up taking it out Curly. |
|
|
| (1424380) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Jan 17 18:54:33 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by AlM on Tue Jan 17 16:48:47 2017. I've heard that too. Whatever, there is usefulness to the 63rd St. routing- the Roosevelt Is. stop is closer to the apartment houses there, ditto for the Queensbridge stop, and skipping QP, despite loss of transfer ability, gives F riders more of an express ride. Also, now with SAS, the 63rd St. station better serves the UES than a 61st St. stop would have. |
|
|
| (1424384) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Jan 17 19:00:30 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 17 17:44:52 2017. IAWTP |
|
|
| (1424385) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 17 19:01:09 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by AlM on Tue Jan 17 16:48:47 2017. When I interviewed Herbert Mendelson one of the founders of the Emergency Committee in 1965 for a term paper, he mentioned that the Rockefeller Institute was actually against the 63 St location due to its possible interference with certain delicate scientific instruments and preferred 61 St. |
|
|
| (1424390) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jan 17 19:06:58 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 17 17:44:52 2017. to many GO's.As it already is, the M service is cut weekday nights most of the year. Most of 2016 they posted signs on Queens Corridor telling people that the last train of the evening will be earlier than scheduled due to construction. |
|
|
| (1424391) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 17 19:07:02 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 17 17:44:52 2017. I actually have a 1946 timetable from the Pelham Line (#6) that shows a 12 min headway all night. |
|
|
| (1424394) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 17 19:16:41 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by randyo on Tue Jan 17 16:16:32 2017. True (unfortunately). |
|
|
| (1424397) | |
Re: 61st instead of 63rd Street tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 17 19:29:21 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by randyo on Tue Jan 17 19:01:09 2017. Interesting.61st would have been an interesting place to have built the tunnel, though I suspect there were concerns of how it would have affected the Queensboro (now Ed Koch) Bridge. Either way, in retrospect they should have also built a stop if possible at York-1st Avenues. Especially at 63rd, such a stop would have benefited The Rockefeller University as well as what was then-New York (now New York-Presbyterian) Hospital and would actually have been about the same distance as the new exit at 69th/2nd is from the Hospital. |
|
|
| (1424398) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 17 19:31:47 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 17 17:48:23 2017. You could make the (M) 24/7.Now of course, the (Q) stops there 24/7 so there always is service there. |
|
|
| (1424400) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by displaced angeleno on Tue Jan 17 19:44:56 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by randyo on Tue Jan 17 19:01:09 2017. Are you sure it wasn't the penultimate routing (of four) on 64th Street that he was talking about? |
|
|
| (1424405) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Jan 17 20:14:07 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 17 17:44:52 2017. IAWTP regarding the M. Even if they had to reduce it to 3TPH weekends for service disruptions, it would still be immensely helpful (just supplement the 3TPH full length ones with Myrtle ave or Essex st. shuttles). |
|
|
| (1424406) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 17 20:14:29 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by randyo on Tue Jan 17 19:07:02 2017. Proving such services can be operated.The problem here is the MTA is running our subways as if its 1974 fiscal crisis all over again. There are LESS lines operating,longer headways,crappier service. The younger passengers born during the 70,80 and beyond dont really understand HOW frequently the trains ran when the system was good. Hell,the Flushing line operated a phenomenal 90 seconds headway during peak hours,with all day express service.. What we have today is a bunch of desk jockeys making with the figuring how to squeeze an ocean into a 3 liter bottle...and seeing how its just Not Working,continue anyway because its fits their BUDGETED GUIDELINES. Even such route changes that make sense are impossible to implement due to either plain stubborness or total unwillingness see REASON. Its a shame,really. |
|
|
| (1424409) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Jan 17 20:38:29 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 17 20:14:29 2017. Once midday CBTC work is done, I do see the all day express 7 returning.They need to re-evaluate timer signals too. There's a bunch afflicting northbound Qs into 57th/7th, which are now completely unnecessary as it is an uphill grade on a straight route. |
|
|
| (1424418) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 17 22:11:23 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by randyo on Tue Jan 17 16:26:21 2017. "The 63 St line was a mistake for at least two basic reasons."My point was that the 63rd Street Tunnel was a part of the whole Second Avenue Subway - Queens Line Project of which only parts of which were realized. The connecting of the 63rd Street Tunnel was a case of muddling through the problem of what to do with the "Tunnel To Nowhere" since the prospect of building the Queens Super-Express was unlikely to ever happen. The history and issues surrounding the planning to use or not use 61st Street or a much earlier plan of building a new Queens Tunnel across 74th Street are not in dispute. Mike |
|
|
| (1424420) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 17 22:25:45 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 17 17:50:23 2017. I've heard something similar to that also.In fairness the 63rd Street Tunnel was meant for a Queens Super-Express - so using the "adapted tunnel" and the F-train as the full-time express was a compromise. There were several debates online by transit fans that the usage of the V-train as the 63rd Street Tunnel main route would have kept the designation "Tunnel To Nowhere" for a long time. In the addition the severe over-crowding of the 53rd Street Tunnel would most likely have continued - instead of an attempt to reduce the over-crowding. Plus the V-train did not get any love by plenty of Transit fans! Mike |
|
|
| (1424422) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Tue Jan 17 22:53:12 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by displaced angeleno on Tue Jan 17 19:44:56 2017. I agree with you on that. Rockefeller Institute objected to the 64th St route, so it was moved one block further away to 63rd St. |
|
|
| (1424428) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Tue Jan 17 23:51:31 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Jan 17 20:38:29 2017. The problem with removing a timer is that if an accident occurs afterward, the removal looks grossly incompetent. Installing timers is lots easier than removing them. |
|
|
| (1424435) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 18 00:19:07 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 17 22:11:23 2017. The Queens By Pass could have been built, and by all rights should be.The issue here is Where to built once the line has reached a certain point through Central Queens. One opinion was using the Rockaway branch as a connector to the Montauk ,then Jamaica Elevated to the Archer subway. Another option is staying away from the QB corridor period,and carving a new ROW using expressways and old abandoned rail lines. It takes Willpower muscle and Money to get transit development working...hopefully the MTA will one day learn from past mistakes. |
|
|
| (1424436) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 18 00:24:10 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 17 22:25:45 2017. The original plan for the V train was Not as the QB 6th ave Local. |
|
|
| (1424439) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 18 01:18:41 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 18 00:19:07 2017. "It takes Willpower muscle and Money to get transit development working...hopefully the MTA will one day learn from past mistakes."I basically agree. It also takes Queens NIMBY folk, and Queens politicians like Alphonse D'Amato and Geraldine Ferraro not standing in the way by cutting transportation funds via federal legislation in the late 1970's - early 1980's. They cut out the funding for the middle adjoining section along with Queens NIMBY protests which is why the "Tunnel to Nowhere" remained as such for a very long time. Transportation policy is often about the money provided - meaning who ever has the money controls the "debate" or whoever controls the money controls what gets done or not. That is why Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey was able to cancel the plans for a new railroad tunnel to New Jersey - even though it is much needed. There are other examples that can be used. Mike |
|
|
| (1424442) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 18 02:41:38 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Jan 17 20:38:29 2017. There's a bunch afflicting northbound Qs into 57th/7th, which are now completely unnecessary as it is an uphill grade on a straight route. Yeah, those are incredibly irritating now. |
|
|
| (1424444) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 18 03:14:57 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Andrew Saucci on Tue Jan 17 23:51:31 2017. Why should an accident occur in a place where no danger of one exists in the first place? |
|
|
| (1424445) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 18 03:20:14 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by displaced angeleno on Tue Jan 17 19:44:56 2017. I personally interviewed Herbert Mendelson, one of the founders of the committee and if you read my post it was originally the Emergency Committee to stop the 63 St Subway. I over heard of any plans to use 64 St. Actually, the original plan for the SAS to go to Queens was to go across 76 St (Manhattan, NOT Queens) and connect with the Qns Blvd lcl tks near Steinway St. |
|
|
| (1424446) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 18 03:27:00 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 17 17:50:23 2017. Actually, with the Qns super exp not being built, the MTA planned to leave the terminal of the 63 St Line at 21/Qnsbridge. The feds merely stepped in to insist that the tunnel be extended somewhere into Queens which is why the present plan was developed. Which service ran there would have been of no consequence as long as something went there. |
|
|
| (1424449) | |
Re: SAS to Queens |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 18 07:03:33 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by randyo on Wed Jan 18 03:20:14 2017. Which is interesting because I was looking at that originally myself for an SAS to Queens before moving that to 79th Street with the idea of also having an SAS stop on that branch at York-1st Avenues (that would be a three-track station that would double as a short-turn terminal for both branches of the SAS with that branch coming into 72nd on a lower level if possible). |
|
|
| (1424454) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Wed Jan 18 07:45:34 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by randyo on Wed Jan 18 03:14:57 2017. Murphy's Law... |
|
|
| (1424458) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Bzuck on Wed Jan 18 08:24:55 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 18 00:24:10 2017. What was the original plan for the V train? |
|
|
| (1424467) | |
Re: SAS to Queens |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 18 11:19:22 2017, in response to Re: SAS to Queens, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 18 07:03:33 2017. I was looking at that originally myselfLOL! |
|
|
| (1424468) | |
Re: SAS to Queens |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jan 18 11:26:53 2017, in response to Re: SAS to Queens, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 18 07:03:33 2017. Pigs will fly before any of that is built. |
|
|
| (1424469) | |
Re: M Line via 6th Av. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 18 11:59:13 2017, in response to Re: M Line via 6th Av., posted by Bzuck on Wed Jan 18 08:24:55 2017. It was basically a F modified.179th st Hillside express, QB express, 63rd st,6th ave express,Smith st express to Church ave. F trains would become what the V was introduced in 2001,but as the local service to Stillwell ave. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
