maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:10 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Bullet Train to Bankruptcy
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:48 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 35353
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
Nero, it said "...in scores of North American cities...".

Some things you may not be considering:
---- 'scores of cities' is not the entire US.
---- even in the mid-20th century, the U.S. was much more rural than it is today. The ratio of urban vs rural inhabitants in the US (as a whole) did not become majority urban until after the 1930s, and for some regions, the balance did not tip until after the 1950s. Even then, that urban growth was not necessarily in the cities themselves.
--- the housing booms that occurred since after WW2 were not (at the time) strictly a growth of cities. You had the creation and expansion of many suburban areas that did not necessarily tie into streetcar and mass transit systems. For a time, employment centers did remain in cities, but the residential expansion occurred predominantly in suburbs, so that people had to travel longer distances from their homes in the suburbs to their jobs in the cities.

Chicago has more than 1 million fewer residents today than it did in 1950. Cleveland and Detroit have less than half the population today that they did in 1950. Philadelphia has around 500,000 fewer residents today than in 1950. The people using those streetcars moved out of the cities and to the suburbs, but the streetcars did not extend out to where they lived.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bullet Train to Bankruptcy
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:08 am 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19715
Reputation points: 19776
nero wrote:
NefariousKoel wrote:
...
A hundred years ago, you'd get around by horse if you didn't have a car. Practically everyone had one or the other to get around.

Only an extremely small portion of the population live within walking distance of everything they need. It was the same a century ago. At the beginning of the 20th century, the massive build-up of horse shit in the streets was a regular problem. Now it's pseudo-religious zealots claiming horse farts are heating up the planet.

Hmm...

wiki wrote:

Streetcars in North America

Electric streetcars were once the chief mode of public transit in scores of North American cities. The term streetcar (or sometimes trolley) is the name used by the residents of North America to describe such systems, rather than the European term tram or tramway. Most of the original municipal streetcar systems were dismantled in the mid-20th century. Today, only Toronto and New Orleans still operate streetcar networks that are essentially unchanged in their layout and mode of operation.
...


Educate yourself.



LOL!

Steetcars were a rarity. Only used in a few parts of the largest cities. Nowhere near as widespread as you seem to think.

You're a moron.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bullet Train to Bankruptcy
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:17 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 12168
Reputation points: 16552
In 1900 my county, Wabaunsee, had a population of 12,800 ... one hundred years later, in 2000 the population was 6,800 ... since then we've bounced back a little and we're now sitting right at 7,000 on 811 square miles. The 1930 dust bowl/depression era dramatically reduced the population of Kansas and our county was no exception. And still this is not a "go to" place, no one really wants to live here. That is why we picked in. The rocky ground is hard to farm and not good for much other than pasture land. Just saying not everyone is rushing out of the cities to every part of the rural landscape. Without an economic base it would be like living on the moon.
Our goal is to establish an economic base and I'm giving us about 3 more years to get it done. Our hay business is part of that but food production with our new green house will be the long pole in our tent, we hope.

_________________
Ugum Bugum Uber Alles - Iddi Ut Amine Dada !!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bullet Train to Bankruptcy
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:10 pm 
Offline
Oppressive Tyrant and Enemy of Truth
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:06 pm
Posts: 15507
Location: under the porch
Reputation points: 16718
Living in cities like Ulm and Fulda you could get anywhere you wanted by walking. You could walk from one end of town to the other in less than an hour. Where the city limit ended, farmland and forest began. Nobody could build anything outside the city limits. A simple street car line was enough to get anyone around town or out to suburban villages in a reasonable time.

I liked this system. It was simple and quaint, and it didn't cost a hundred billion Marks. This worked for Yurope because land is at a premium there. You cant throw up
a trailer park in the middle of NaturPark Rhon. We got plenty of land in North America. even with suburban sprawl, most of New York and New Jersey is uninhabited wilderness.

And the poor and oppressed don't sprawl across the seats in Yuropean streetcars and assault any racists who climb on. Not wanting to be the next victim of a not hate crime is why Americans avoid public transit. Any white folk in urban America who ride public busses or light rail have a death wish.

_________________
First, we must kill moose and squirrel


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bullet Train to Bankruptcy
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 35353
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
An update to California's high speed rail program:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... story.html


Quote:
California's bullet train is hurtling toward a multibillion-dollar overrun, a confidential federal report warns


By Ralph Vartabedian

California’s bullet train could cost taxpayers 50% more than estimated — as much as $3.6 billion more. And that’s just for the first 118 miles through the Central Valley, which was supposed to be the easiest part of the route between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

A confidential Federal Railroad Administration risk analysis, obtained by The Times, projects that building bridges, viaducts, trenches and track from Merced to Shafter, just north of Bakersfield, could cost $9.5 billion to $10 billion, compared with the original budget of $6.4 billion.

The federal document outlines far-reaching management problems: significant delays in environmental planning, lags in processing invoices for federal grants and continuing failures to acquire needed property.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority originally anticipated completing the Central Valley track by this year, but the federal risk analysis estimates that that won’t happen until 2024, placing the project seven years behind schedule.

The report, the most critical official assessment of the project to surface so far, is labeled a “confidential-draft deliberative document for internal use only” and was presented by senior Federal Railroad Administration executives to California rail authority board Chairman Dan Richard and Chief Executive Jeff Morales on Dec. 1 in Washington.

This analysis puts the state on notice that it could face bigger cost overruns than anticipated and much longer delays than have been made public, a troubling critique by an agency that has been a stalwart supporter and longtime financier of the nation’s largest infrastructure project.

Morales cautioned in an interview that the numbers in the analysis are only projections and estimates that do not account for intervention by the rail authority, and he asserted that the construction in the Central Valley will cost less than the risk analysis indicates. The estimates, he said, are based on a lot of assumptions that the authority wants to ensure are correct.

“The point of doing this analysis is to identify the challenges and work through them,” he said. “They are not conclusions and not findings.”

The Federal Railroad Administration is tracking the project because it has extended $3.5 billion in two grants to help build the Central Valley segment. The administration has an obligation to ensure that the state complies with the terms, including a requirement that the state has the funding to match the federal grants.

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Turlock), chairman of the House rail subcommittee, said Friday he would conduct an oversight hearing in the near future and fight any further federal funding.

“Despite past issues with funding this boondoggle, we were repeatedly assured in an August field hearing that construction costs were under control,” he said in a statement. “They continue to reaffirm my belief that this is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.”

The railroad administration’s analysis shows that the state authority could lose $220 million in one of the federal grants this year if it cannot submit paperwork by June 30, to meet the Sept. 30 deadline of the Obama administration’s stimulus act.

To hit those milestones requires spending $3.2 million per day, a very high rate of construction spending. But Morales said the rail authority’s construction progress and spending rate ensure that all of the grant funds will be used. So far, the authority has spent $2.2 billion of the grant, leaving $300 million to spend.

Federal Railroad Administration spokesman Matthew Lehner did not answer specific questions about the risk analysis but said that it “is a standard oversight tool used on major capital projects — not just California.”

Lehner said that he’s confident the state can meet its deadline, “with continued focus and hard work.”

Other recent documents, however, paint a dark picture of California’s ambitious transportation project and help explain some of the performance problems.

Audit reports last year, for example, found that the rail authority lacks consistent management processes, takes on unnecessary contract risks, does not have orderly records and is short on clearly defined responsibility for its top officials.

And an internal report obtained by The Times notes a just-completed survey in which employees complain that morale is low and has declined in each of the last three years. Employees interviewed by The Times say turnover is consistently high, leaving staff overworked. The rail authority’s senior deputy, its chief administrative officer and its top information technology executive recently left.

Rail authority spokeswoman Lisa Marie Alley said that the authority takes the issue seriously and that it is “currently making changes that we expect will help in that regard.”

About 80% of all bullet train systems incur massive overruns in their construction, according to Bent Flyvbjerg, an infrastructure risk expert at the University of Oxford who has studied such rail projects all over the world. One of the biggest hazards of such mega-projects is a government agency that is attempting to do something highly complex for the first time.

The California system is being built by an independent authority that has never built anything and depends on a large network of consultants and contractors for advice. Engineering and construction experts have warned that early cost and schedule problems will be difficult to reverse and that early cost increases likely will drive up the final cost of the project.

Proponents of the project, including many veteran transportation experts, have said that California’s massive economy can handle higher costs for the project — even more than $100 billion — by increasing sales taxes or making firm commitments for additional future funding from the state’s general fund.

But the Legislature already has balked at giving the rail authority the ability to borrow against future state revenues, saying it would have to make do with existing allocations. And that was before Gov. Jerry Brown warned Tuesday that California’s projected 2017-18 budget shows a $1.6-billion deficit.

Proponents say short-term financial concerns are more than offset by the future value of a transportation system connecting the state.

Brown, meanwhile, has sought to shield the project from interference. He vetoed a bill with bipartisan support in September that would have increased oversight of the project and clarified estimates of how much the project will cost. And last January, a joint committee rejected a proposal to ask the California state auditor to examine the project for the first time in four years.

The federal risk analysis identifies several major problems that have dogged the project for years and proved difficult to remedy.

In January 2012, the rail authority said it would start construction in Fresno by June, but it had not purchased a single piece of land.

Farmers resisted from the start, saying the route would cut diagonally through some of the nation’s most fertile acreage, devastating their operations.

Actual construction did not start until 2014 — and even then at a slow pace — and the federal report shows that property acquisition delays are growing worse.

Last February, the rail authority had expected to hand over 100% of the parcels in the Fresno construction segment by June 2018. Now, that is not expected until June 2019, according to the federal report.

Even after five years of effort to buy property, the authority still lacks 25% of the parcels for the 29-mile section from Madera to Fresno, and just over half of the parcels needed for the 118 miles in the Central Valley.

The federal report also raises concerns with the rail authority’s billing system. It found that the state authority requires three months to process an invoice — too long, the report suggests.

State employees say they are stymied by high turnover, cumbersome computer systems and poor record-keeping.

The effort to get through environmental reviews also has taken much longer than expected and is getting worse, according to the federal review.

The rail authority has said for at least two years that it would have all of its environmental statements and decisions completed by this year. But the federal review projects that all of the environmental work will not be completed until 2020. Morales attributes some of the delays to other government agencies that must review the rail authority’s plans, but he expects the environmental statements will be completed earlier than the federal risk analysis shows.

Possible delays do not surprise community activists in the San Fernando Valley. David DePinto, an opposition leader in Shadow Hills, has noted that the rail authority is still conducting geological soil investigations in the San Gabriel Mountains to determine the routes for lengthy tunnels that will pass through the range.

The environmental reviews have grown ever more costly, based on an analysis of the rail authority’s documents. The original cost projection, made in a September 2010 grant agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration, put the cost at $388 million. By last August, the authority’s official “funding contribution plan” showed that cost had jumped to $1.03 billion.

The cost increase amounted to 171%.



I am so glad that Gov. Rick Scott killed the Florida high speed rail project in 2011.
The idea of high speed rail is not necessarily a bad one.
But the idea of the government being the one responsible for doing so is the issue.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bullet Train to Bankruptcy
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:12 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 35353
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/01/17/ ... -paradise/

Quote:
A(Nother) Funny Thing Happened On The Way To California’s Bullet Train Paradise


ED MORRISSEY
Posted at 8:41 pm on January 17, 2018

Stop us if you’ve heard this before. And you have, you have. The price for the first leg of the California high-speed rail system has gone up 35% over earlier projections, adding nearly $3 billion to the cost of connecting Bakersfield to Fresno — or more accurately, points just outside both towns, neither of which are exactly destination centers in the Golden State. The reasons offer a bleak look at the sustainability of cost projections for the entire LA-San Francisco route, too:

The estimated cost of building 119 miles of bullet train track in the Central Valley has jumped to $10.6 billion, an increase of $2.8 billion from the current budget and up from about $6 billion originally.

The new calculation takes into account a number of intractable problems encountered by the state rail agency. It raises profoundly difficult questions about how the state will complete what is considered the nation’s largest infrastructure project with the existing funding sources.

The new estimate was presented Tuesday by Roy Hill, who leads the main consulting firm on the project, WSP (formerly Parson Brinckerhoff). Hill said the cost increases were mainly driven by problems including higher costs for land acquisition, issues in relocating utility systems, the need for safety barriers where the bullet trains would operate near freight lines and demands by stakeholders for the mitigation of myriad issues.

“The worst-case scenario has happened,” Hill bluntly told the rail authority’s board at its regular monthly meeting.


Assemblyman Jim Patterson demanded an audit last year, a demand that the rail authority denied. Patterson renewed his call for an independent audit to find out what happened to the money, and insisted that the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown explain “what Plan B is”:

“This is a major public works project that shows all the signs of a project in trouble,” Patterson said Tuesday of the cost increases, delays and executive departures. “The more we learn, the more troublesome the project appears.”

He said the state is “way past the politics of high-speed rail, whether you think it’s a good idea, a bad idea or you’re undecided. Since Central California is at the center of this right now, we’re the canary in the coal mine, the experiment. And the difficulties we’re experiencing will be nothing compared to going into Southern California, getting through the San Gabriel Mountains and those kinds of things.”

Patterson said he will speak at a joint legislative committee hearing on Jan. 30 to ask for an audit of the rail authority and the project. “If this weren’t high-speed rail – if it were a water treatment plant or an airport or a highway project, and saw large cost overruns, time delays, executives departing and internal fund transfers – if you step back and look at it … these are symptoms of a project that is unwinding.”


This time the project’s board is dispensing with the euphemisms, at least. One board member called the report “horrifying” yesterday, although the board tried gamely to claim that they now have a better handle on how to project costs. Californians have heard that more than once too, only to discover that it will now cost almost $11 billion just to move people between two Central Valley towns that have little demand to move back and forth that can’t be handled by Highway 99.

By the way, the board could hardly claim surprise at this estimate. Almost exactly a year earlier, the Federal Railroad Administration warned that California’s rail authority would come up about $3.6 billion short on this first leg of the bullet train. The board raised its estimate at that time by a smaller amount, and it turns out the FRA was a lot closer to the mark — and still undershot it a bit with an estimate between $9.5-$10 billion.

The solution to this debacle is pretty simple: put an end to the project before the state adds another debt crisis to its burgeoning pension crisis. The federal government could assist in that decision by cutting off all further federal funding for this Big Dig West. People who need to travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco can continue using the dozen or so airports and half-dozen airliners who routinely service the route, and the few people who really want to travel between Fresno and Merced can either use their own cars or take the Greyhound buses that run every two hours. That might embarrass Jerry Brown, but better that than further bankrupting California taxpayers for this entirely unnecessary and unrealistic boondoggle.



$10.6 billion to connect two communities with a combined population of less than 900,000.

The state was planning to build an 800 mile high speed rail network....and the first leg of it has set them back $10.6 billion.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bullet Train to Bankruptcy
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:33 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 14914
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 18312
I hope they are sticking to low-capacity magazines on those bullet trains.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bullet Train to Bankruptcy
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:21 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 35353
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/10/ ... ll-finish/

Quote:
You’ll never guess what CA’s bullet train will cost — or when it will finish

Ed MorrisseyPosted at 11:31 am on March 10, 2018

That may sound like a clickbaity headline, but it’s proving to be literally true. Apparently, no one can guess it, least of all the California High-Speed Rail Authority that is running the bullet-train project.
Their latest projection shows total predicted cost has jumped 20% to $77 billion, with a completion date moved out four years to 2033.

For now, anyway. Be sure to check back next week in the Boondoggle Lotto!

The price of the California bullet train project jumped sharply Friday when the state rail authority announced that the cost of connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco would be $77.3 billion and could rise as high as $98.1 billion — an uptick of at least $13 billion from estimates two years ago.

The rail authority also said the earliest trains could operate on a partial system between San Francisco and Bakersfield would be 2029 — four years later than the previous projection. The full system would not begin operating until 2033.

The disclosures are contained in a 114-page business plan that was issued in draft form Friday by the rail authority before public hearings and formal submission to the Legislature in about 60 days.

The new estimates will force California’s leadership to double down on its political and financial commitments if it wants to see the system completed, against a backdrop of rising costs, years of delays, strident litigation and backlashes in communities where homes, businesses, farms and environmental preserves will have to give up land to the rail’s right-of-way.


Where did this project’s cost estimates start? In 2008, California voters approved $10 billion in bonds for the project after being told that it had “estimated costs over $33 billion.” The Mercury News pegged it at a more precise $33.6 billion. The CHRSA claim has turned out to be more accurate, in a sense; it’s how much over $33 billion it will take. Right now, CHSRA estimates that it will take $44 billion over $33 billion, which seems like something more than a rounding error. (The CHSRA website link no longer works for this document; I retrieved it from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and uploaded it to our own server.)

What about the schedule? According to their initial plan, the train would begin operating on its initial segment “eight to 11 years” after the project got funded. We are now coming up to year ten, and there isn’t a train schedule in sight even for the Bakersfield-Fresno segment that will respond to the overwhelming commute demands between those two cities. CHSRA now estimates that they won’t connect San Francisco to the Central Valley until 2029. And despite having run this project for a decade, they’re still not sure how to connect them, either:

The ultimate goal is to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles — and eventually Sacramento and San Diego — but the immediate focus is opening track between San Francisco and the Central Valley, an agriculturally dominant, less-populated portion of inland California.

Rail proponents say linking the two areas would be an economic boon, as housing costs are exploding in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley is in need of jobs.

That portion of track is now set to be finished by 2029, also marking a four-year delay, and significant challenges remain.

One is how to cross a section of mountains — a critical segment to link Silicon Valley to the Central Valley. Right now, the agency doesn’t have a detailed plan or enough money to do that. The state is looking to build from San Francisco to the west edge of the mountains and from Bakersfield to the east edge of the mountains by 2027 before connecting the two.


The Mercury News also noted something else in yesterday’s reports:

In a departure from previous reports, the authority gave a range of project costs, up to as high as $98 billion.

And, it acknowledged many unknowns about the most risky segments of the project, including the creation of some 45 to 50 miles of tunnels that are both complicated and costly to engineer, as well uncertainty over whether the authority will secure enough funding to extend the first Central Valley segment into Southern California.


In a departure from previous reports, the authority gave a range of project costs, up to as high as $98 billion.
And, it acknowledged many unknowns about the most risky segments of the project, including the creation of some 45 to 50 miles of tunnels that are both complicated and costly to engineer, as well uncertainty over whether the authority will secure enough funding to extend the first Central Valley segment into Southern California.

Critics of the program first raised the possibility of the $98 billion price tag years ago, which the state of California rejected as unrealistic. At the pace of a 20% jump in just two years, it will only take three years for the median cost estimate to land on the $98 billion mark. If you keep playing Boondoggle Lotto without a payoff, the prize just keeps growing larger.

Republicans in California have tried stopping this project for years, and they took the opportunity for a well-deserved I Told You So yesterday:

Several Republicans, long critical of the project and earlier reports showing the potential for skyrocketing costs, used the release of the authority’s updated business plan to blast the agency, calling the current proposal a “rump railroad.” Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, called the document a “going out of business plan.”

“The fundamental problem is they don’t have any money,” he said. “They cannot do what they are charged to do (under Prop 1A), and this document admits it.”


When the original project got approved with a $33.6 billion price tag, ticket prices were supposed to be pegged at 50% of airline prices, or about $55. The very next year, CHSRA raised its estimate to 83% of airline prices when cost estimates rose to $42 billion. Those have almost doubled since, so either CHRSA will have to double ticket prices — or more likely, the state will have to massively subsidize rail prices in order to compensate, even more than originally thought. High-speed rail will not just be a sinkhole of costs during its construction phase, but a continuing and massive drain on public funds for as long as it remains in operation.

It’s absolutely a going out of business plan … for the state of California and for its taxpayers. It’s long past time to shut this down and to stop trying to apply 19th-century fixed-track solutions to 21st-century transportation issues.

Update: Just to put a percentage on it, projected costs for this project have risen 129% from the original proposal in 2008, on which the bond referendum was based. That should be scandalous and disqualifying, but … not in California government, I’d bet.



So the state will end up paying (like 2 1/2 to 3 times the original estimate) for a system that will probably be several decades late, and then either have to charge passengers more than they would pay for an air ticket or have to forever subsidize those ticket costs to actually get people to use it.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bullet Train to Bankruptcy
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:40 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19715
Reputation points: 19776
If it's now estimated to take that long, there will inevitably be even more cost increases along the way. Guaranteed.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bullet Train to Bankruptcy
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:43 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 35353
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
NefariousKoel wrote:
If it's now estimated to take that long, there will inevitably be even more cost increases along the way. Guaranteed.


All those tunnels through the mountains.....cost and I doubt that the Sierra Club is going to be happy either. :lol:

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group