|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 12, 2010 20:44:01 GMT -8
405 LRT coming down south and following Sepulveda and then going east on Santa Monica Blvd all the way to San Vicente and then south on San Vicente to Crenshaw LRT would work. Most of it would be at-grade with a few LRT bridges. The line could also continue east of San Vicente in a tunnel under Santa Monica Blvd to Silverlake. Nice thing about LRT is that you are above ground and get a scenic view, as if you are driving on city streets, whereas a subway is more like freeway driving, with minimal view. PS: Santa Monica Blvd west of San Vicente Blvd and east of Sepulveda Blvd, San Vicente Blvd itself, and Burton Way are former PE rights-of-way. Gokhan...love your little "hints" about how awesome at-grade rail is. But, for every "awesomeness", there's always a downfall. People value speed a lot more than scenery. Otherwise, why wouldn't people drive the streets or take the buses? That's why the preferential mode of travel is the subway. I'd rather take the Red Line to Hollywood than take the 704 Rapid (or any light rail that would develop on the corridor). Actually I do prefer driving on surface streets if the travel time is comparable to freeway driving. It always takes me 25 minutes to drive by the Expo right-of-way to work and it takes me 15 minutes on the freeway if no traffic and up to 40 minutes if there is traffic. With Expo it would probably take about 20 minutes. But you've got a point that light-rail must be nearly as fast as rapid transit to be effective. And it could be.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 13, 2010 0:42:34 GMT -8
405 LRT coming down south and following Sepulveda and then going east on Santa Monica Blvd all the way to San Vicente and then south on San Vicente to Crenshaw LRT would work. Most of it would be at-grade with a few LRT bridges. . Why settle for one rail line when you could have two? Extend Crenshaw north to Wilshire, then along either Fairfax, La Brea, or La Cienega/San Vicente to Hollywood and Highland (My personal preference going towards San Vicente. There would be some quite nice opportunities for at-grade, yet speedy, rail) Meanwhile extend the 405 LRT south along Westwood (I'd imagine the demand is quite high for UCLA students to get to places along the Westwood corridor), then cut to Sepulveda south of Expo, and meet the Green Line at the LAX extension. From Aviation/Century, you would be able to take light-rail either to Hollywood and Highland or to the Orange Line at Van Nuys (and maybe further north). At-grade rail might be quite difficult along Westwood/Sepulveda, but would be very nice and scenic along San Vicente, with a few bridges or trenches.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 13, 2010 0:49:38 GMT -8
Also, with regard to the Santa Monica line, it could interline with Crenshaw along that Santa Monica stretch. What to do with it in the city of Santa Monica is a bit troubling though, since it would be in between the Subway to the Sea and the Expo line, which are already quite close. Maybe this could be tied in to the Lincoln corridor somehow?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 13, 2010 7:05:07 GMT -8
I hate to be a buzzkill, but for the next 30 years, we know which projects Metro will built and which it will not. These are dictated by Measure R: if 30/10 happens, Metro is still going to be paying the Feds back 30 years from now, and will therefore not have funds for additional lines.
I say this just to make the point: the Wilshire subway, Expo, the 405 Line to Westwood, the Regional Connector, and Crenshaw are all real projects, whereas the Santa Monica Blvd subway, the Sepulveda Line, and the Lincoln Line are not.
"Real" in the sense of being remotely possible in the next three decades.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 13, 2010 7:18:20 GMT -8
That is true, and we may need another sales tax increase or other source of funding just to operate these new lines let alone fund any new expansions, but still this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to remake Los Angeles beyond what was imaginable 20 years ago. I hate to be a buzzkill, but for the next 30 years, we know which projects Metro will built and which it will not. These are dictated by Measure R: if 30/10 happens, Metro is still going to be paying the Feds back 30 years from now, and will therefore not have funds for additional lines. I say this just to make the point: the Wilshire subway, Expo, the 405 Line to Westwood, the Regional Connector, and Crenshaw are all real projects, whereas the Santa Monica Blvd subway, the Sepulveda Line, and the Lincoln Line are not. "Real" in the sense of being remotely possible in the next three decades.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 13, 2010 7:19:55 GMT -8
There is definitely a time and place for grade separation. Take the Sepulveda Pass line. If that line would save several minutes by shooting through a tunnel, I would say skip the scenic route, I want the speed advantage.
It's unfortunate we don't still live in the era of steel. Chicago and Paris have some beautiful elevated lines and stations that are intricate and let the light pass through them, so that those structure actually add beauty to their surroundings. Unfortunately we are now in the era of reinforced concrete, which just doesn't have the same aesthetic appeal. Because of this, people in L.A. view elevated rail as a last resort, something they'd really prefer to stay away from.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 13, 2010 8:59:43 GMT -8
I hate to be a buzzkill, but for the next 30 years, we know which projects Metro will built and which it will not. These are dictated by Measure R: if 30/10 happens, Metro is still going to be paying the Feds back 30 years from now, and will therefore not have funds for additional lines. I say this just to make the point: the Wilshire subway, Expo, the 405 Line to Westwood, the Regional Connector, and Crenshaw are all real projects, whereas the Santa Monica Blvd subway, the Sepulveda Line, and the Lincoln Line are not. "Real" in the sense of being remotely possible in the next three decades. Don't be pessimistic. Who could know a few years ago that anything other than Expo Phase 2 would be built in any of our lifetimes? Who could know a few months ago that the Purple Line could reach Westwood anytime before 30 years? Times are changing and even an unnoticeable gasoline tax would be enough to build ten times more than in the Measure R plan.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 13, 2010 9:04:35 GMT -8
It's unfortunate we don't still live in the era of steel. Chicago and Paris have some beautiful elevated lines and stations that are intricate and let the light pass through them, so that those structure actually add beauty to their surroundings. Unfortunately we are now in the era of reinforced concrete, which just doesn't have the same aesthetic appeal. Because of this, people in L.A. view elevated rail as a last resort, something they'd really prefer to stay away from. I think concrete vs. steel is a personal preference. I find steel unattractive and concrete more attractive. Concrete is not that different than natural stone. Concrete elevated lines are OK if the street is wide and if there is enough money. Wilshire Boulevard is a little too narrow for an elevated line. For example for a rapid-transit line on Vermont, part of it could be elevated where there is a former railroad right-of-way in the wide median down south.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 13, 2010 16:38:28 GMT -8
I hate to be a buzzkill, but for the next 30 years, we know which projects Metro will built and which it will not. These are dictated by Measure R: if 30/10 happens, Metro is still going to be paying the Feds back 30 years from now, and will therefore not have funds for additional lines. I say this just to make the point: the Wilshire subway, Expo, the 405 Line to Westwood, the Regional Connector, and Crenshaw are all real projects, whereas the Santa Monica Blvd subway, the Sepulveda Line, and the Lincoln Line are not. "Real" in the sense of being remotely possible in the next three decades. You could be right, but predicting the future is never as easy as it seems. Completing the Measure R projects is dependent upon receiving federal money. Not just the 30/10 loan, but a significant federal contribution. Federal priorities and criteria could easily lead to projects not on the Measure R list being completed before Measure R, especially if other sources of local, state, or private revenue sources are found. As far as being pessimistic the elephant in the room that no one talks about is sales tax revenue being much too low to fund all of the planned Measure R projects much less pay back any federal loan. I doubt that anyone would call the LACMTA Measure R sales tax projections reasonable anymore.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 13, 2010 21:35:47 GMT -8
As far as being pessimistic the elephant in the room that no one talks about is sales tax revenue being much too low to fund all of the planned Measure R projects much less pay back any federal loan. I doubt that anyone would call the LACMTA Measure R sales tax projections reasonable anymore. It's a good thing to watch out for. However I have with a 65% certainty that the original funding projections were very conservative to begin with which actually helps us out in this case remember when Measure R was created it assumed that it would begin with a downturn economy. There is always the possiblity that the Greater LA economy could implode due to some outside conditions but those certainities require almost perfect alignment of things spiraling out of control.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 13, 2010 21:43:55 GMT -8
There is definitely a time and place for grade separation. Take the Sepulveda Pass line. If that line would save several minutes by shooting through a tunnel, I would say skip the scenic route, I want the speed advantage. True, however even if the scenic route is still faster than the car and doesn't get stuck in the auto congestion and can save a few dollars in construction costs therefore more of that corridor could be built theoretically to serve even more riders. There's always a careful balance between; speed, cost and the hidden elephant in the room, coverage when it is being paid for by a COUNTYwide funding mechanism. It goes back to those silly discussions too subjective discussions between "Good rail" that is shorter, though fully grade seperated and "Bad Rail" which is longer though with at-grade sections. For me, Good Rail is serving the greatest number of people cost-effectively. If I build 3 miles of fully grade separated rail and only move let's say 6,000 riders for a $1B yet I can build 10-12 miles of a mix of at-grade and grade separated and move 30,000 riders a day for the same cost, where should we invest our project funding?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 13, 2010 21:47:29 GMT -8
Gokhan...love your little "hints" about how awesome at-grade rail is. But, for every "awesomeness", there's always a downfall. People value speed a lot more than scenery. Otherwise, why wouldn't people drive the streets or take the buses? That's why the preferential mode of travel is the subway. I'd rather take the Red Line to Hollywood than take the 704 Rapid (or any light rail that would develop on the corridor). Actually I do prefer driving on surface streets if the travel time is comparable to freeway driving. It always takes me 25 minutes to drive by the Expo right-of-way to work and it takes me 15 minutes on the freeway if no traffic and up to 40 minutes if there is traffic. With Expo it would probably take about 20 minutes. But you've got a point that light-rail must be nearly as fast as rapid transit to be effective. And it could be. However it doesn't always have to be as fast, but it least need to serve a destination that will give people and incentive to use transit as an alternative to the car because Parking costs in the area are rediculous. My personal take that even if the Expo Line were a little slower that driving by car, it makes up for that fact by being more cost-effective for riders to not have to pay for expensive parking in the Santa Monica area.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 14, 2010 9:26:09 GMT -8
I hate to be a buzzkill, but for the next 30 years, we know which projects Metro will built and which it will not. These are dictated by Measure R: if 30/10 happens, Metro is still going to be paying the Feds back 30 years from now, and will therefore not have funds for additional lines. I say this just to make the point: the Wilshire subway, Expo, the 405 Line to Westwood, the Regional Connector, and Crenshaw are all real projects, whereas the Santa Monica Blvd subway, the Sepulveda Line, and the Lincoln Line are not. "Real" in the sense of being remotely possible in the next three decades. While you're quite right, some of the projects we like to talk about are a long way off, it really is important to talk about them, because many of them rely on building the projects that are "real" with foresight, so that we don't have to spend massive amounts of money re-doing them later. Consider the Little Tokyo Gold Line station, and the plans for the fully underground Regional Connector. Ripping the brand new station out to build it underground is something that we should have avoided by planning both lines at the same time. That's why we need to plan based on a regional system, not on a project-by-project basis, and even though some parts of those system may be a long way off, they could still have impacts on what we do now.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 14, 2010 9:56:12 GMT -8
However I have with a 65% certainty that the original funding projections were very conservative to begin with which actually helps us out in this case remember when Measure R was created it assumed that it would begin with a downturn economy. There is always the possiblity that the Greater LA economy could implode due to some outside conditions but those certainities require almost perfect alignment of things spiraling out of control. That's good to know. Do you have a link to the Measure R projections? All that I found were a few links showing that the revenue received in 2010 was well above projected which agrees with your recollection.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 17, 2010 16:47:15 GMT -8
I hate to be a buzzkill, but for the next 30 years, we know which projects Metro will built and which it will not. These are dictated by Measure R: if 30/10 happens, Metro is still going to be paying the Feds back 30 years from now, and will therefore not have funds for additional lines. I say this just to make the point: the Wilshire subway, Expo, the 405 Line to Westwood, the Regional Connector, and Crenshaw are all real projects, whereas the Santa Monica Blvd subway, the Sepulveda Line, and the Lincoln Line are not. "Real" in the sense of being remotely possible in the next three decades. Don't be pessimistic. Who could know a few years ago that anything other than Expo Phase 2 would be built in any of our lifetimes? Who could know a few months ago that the Purple Line could reach Westwood anytime before 30 years? Times are changing and even an unnoticeable gasoline tax would be enough to build ten times more than in the Measure R plan. Pessoismistic? I respectfully agree with bluelineshaw. It's not pessimistic, it's realistic. LRTP has all these projects being done over next 20-30 years. 30/10 is a proposal. It's an initiative. And, not all elements of it may be pursued. Regardless, the feds need to commit to the philosophy of advancing funding to MTA in a spending bill, or something, for advancing projects to become possible. The LRTP then should be updated. These things need to occur first before the next major expansion proposal gets aired. Though fun to entertain, for now, anything other than 30/10 is really fantasy ideas or in a spirit of "post-30/10." (Oh, 405 line is not in a financially constrained LRTP - only a mayor supported 30/10 proposal that may or may not be pursued by MTA at the end of the day)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 17, 2010 17:49:51 GMT -8
Pessoismistic? I respectfully agree with bluelineshaw. It's not pessimistic, it's realistic. I was replying to metrocenter, not bluelineshawn. Reality is something that dynamically changes over time.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 17, 2010 17:50:09 GMT -8
There's always a careful balance between; speed, cost and the hidden elephant in the room, coverage when it is being paid for by a COUNTYwide funding mechanism. Even better analysis than mine. My point was, statements like "grade-separated is always better" or "at-grade is always better" don't take into account how the advantages and disadvantages of each mode works in very different contexts. Ultimately, there is a lot of subjectivity in what works for people. Some people love seeing the outdoors fly by when at-grade, or seeing the landscape open up below them when taking an elevated line. For me, I often prefer subways because I find they abstract away the concept of distance between places, making the commute seem much shorter (even if it is only slightly shorter than the alternative).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 17, 2010 17:57:47 GMT -8
For me, I often prefer subways because I find they abstract away the concept of distance between places, making the commute seem much shorter (even if it is only slightly shorter than the alternative). Freeways are the sewers of automobile transit and subways are the sewers of public transit. The following is a close-up of the Farmdale sewer -- dedicated to Fix Expo. It flows from north to south:
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 17, 2010 18:11:50 GMT -8
I hate to be a buzzkill, but for the next 30 years, we know which projects Metro will built and which it will not. These are dictated by Measure R: if 30/10 happens, Metro is still going to be paying the Feds back 30 years from now, and will therefore not have funds for additional lines. I say this just to make the point: the Wilshire subway, Expo, the 405 Line to Westwood, the Regional Connector, and Crenshaw are all real projects, whereas the Santa Monica Blvd subway, the Sepulveda Line, and the Lincoln Line are not. "Real" in the sense of being remotely possible in the next three decades. Don't be pessimistic. Who could know a few years ago that anything other than Expo Phase 2 would be built in any of our lifetimes? Who could know a few months ago that the Purple Line could reach Westwood anytime before 30 years? Times are changing and even an unnoticeable gasoline tax would be enough to build ten times more than in the Measure R plan. The topic on this thread ("Westside Extension Meetings") had broadened to include many other interesting but still hypothetical lines. This what I was responding to. I'm not saying none of these lines will be built, or that priorities won't change. I'm saying, let's not act as if the Wilshire Subway and a Lincoln Boulevard Line are of equal likelihood. They're not. One is funded and in the environmental process: the other one is a great idea but not on Metro's radar. If they really want to design the subway for extensibility, they should consider adding 1-2 express tunnels, or maybe more knockout tunnels to allow new connections. That sort of thing would allow many more variations and connections in the future. Metro should always design their rail lines with an eye to the future. At the same time, they don't need to spend money now to allow for every possible interchange that might be conceived by any person in the future.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 17, 2010 18:14:36 GMT -8
Freeways are the sewers of automobile transit and subways are the sewers of public transit. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 17, 2010 21:44:45 GMT -8
Freeways are the sewers of automobile transit and subways are the sewers of public transit. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. ;D Why wrong? Sewers and subways are both engineering marvels, aren't they? Who can argue that we can do without either? ;D PS: But, yes, subways are much more attractive to look at than the sewer picture I posted above, especially when you are eating. I hope Fix Expo enjoys that picture though -- it asked for underground and this is the only thing underground it is getting at Farmdale. But, again, Fix Expo is only a very small fanatic faction and the real neighborhood is excited about the very pretty and convenient light-rail station!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 18, 2010 0:36:41 GMT -8
Both sewers and transit lines are taken for granted until they stop running. That photo reminded me of the time I visited York in England (traveling from London by high-speed electric train), and went into the undercroft (basement) of York Minster a monumental cathedral dating to Medieval times, considered one of the finest examples of Gothic architecture. Downstairs, there are massive modern structures, added to reinforce the centuries-old foundations. In one area, there's a row of square stones, about 12 x 12 inches. One of them has been set aside and one can look down and see water flowing. This is a water conduit built by Roman engineers over 1700 years ago, and it still carries water! Now that's building for the ages! (and the Romans were no slouches at building sewer systems either)
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 18, 2010 4:49:13 GMT -8
Pessoismistic? I respectfully agree with bluelineshaw. It's not pessimistic, it's realistic. I was replying to metrocenter, not bluelineshawn. Reality is something that dynamically changes over time. Correct, my mistake on the reference. Agreed on the 2nd point too.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 18, 2010 5:29:39 GMT -8
I hate to be a buzzkill, but for the next 30 years, we know which projects Metro will built and which it will not. These are dictated by Measure R: if 30/10 happens, Metro is still going to be paying the Feds back 30 years from now, and will therefore not have funds for additional lines. I say this just to make the point: the Wilshire subway, Expo, the 405 Line to Westwood, the Regional Connector, and Crenshaw are all real projects, whereas the Santa Monica Blvd subway, the Sepulveda Line, and the Lincoln Line are not. "Real" in the sense of being remotely possible in the next three decades. While you're quite right, some of the projects we like to talk about are a long way off, it really is important to talk about them, because many of them rely on building the projects that are "real" with foresight, so that we don't have to spend massive amounts of money re-doing them later. Consider the Little Tokyo Gold Line station, and the plans for the fully underground Regional Connector. Ripping the brand new station out to build it underground is something that we should have avoided by planning both lines at the same time. That's why we need to plan based on a regional system, not on a project-by-project basis, and even though some parts of those system may be a long way off, they could still have impacts on what we do now. Very good point! However, to contribute and be effective, a grand understanding of how trains operate and people move through a system would really be helpful. Are there sufficient posters here?
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 18, 2010 13:37:57 GMT -8
Regarding the "Subway vs. at grade" discussion: One place to look for an example is San Francisco, where we have the Muni Metro running underneath Market St. and the "F" line streetcars running at (surprise!) street level. I've seen reports that say many residents prefer the "F" line because they don't like "descending into the nether regions" and dealing with stair and escalators. I suspect that tourists prefer the "sightseeing" capability that streetcars afford (although when they're packed like the proverbial sardine cans, you can't see very much). Regarding "planning ahead": It's good if it helps to "do it right the first time", for example, if the Blue Line had been built for 3-car trains from day one. On the other hand, there's an abandoned Pacific Electric bridge west of Fontana on Historic Route 66/Foothill Blvd. A close examination will show that the abutments were built for two spans, in case PE wanted to double-track the line. But as things turned out, the bridge now has "zero" tracks, and supports a hiking trail.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 30, 2010 9:46:42 GMT -8
DEIRs for Westside Subway and Regional Connector will become available to the public this Friday, September 3!
From Metro CEO Art Leahy:
Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector Draft Environmental Documents
I am pleased to inform you that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has approved both the Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector draft environmental documents for public circulation. This is a major milestone for these Measure R 30/10 Transit projects which could not have been completed without the cooperative efforts of FTA and our staff. For both projects, the 45-day public comment period will start on September 3rd through October 18th. The Board will consider adopting a Locally Preferred Alternative for each project at the October 28, 2010 meeting.
Public hearings for the Westside Subway Extension will take place on September 20th at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, September 21st at the Westwood United Methodist Church, September 22nd at Plummer Park in West Hollywood, September 27th at Roxbury Park in Beverly Hills and on September 29th at the Santa Monica Library. All meetings will start at 6:00 p.m.
Public hearings for the Regional Connector Transit Corridor project will take place on September 28th, 6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. at the Japanese American National Museum, and on October 4th, 11:30 -1:00 at the new Los Angeles Police Department Deaton Auditorium.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 30, 2010 12:12:22 GMT -8
DEIRs for Westside Subway and Regional Connector will become available to the public this Friday, September 3! From Metro CEO Art Leahy: Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector Draft Environmental Documents I am pleased to inform you that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has approved both the Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector draft environmental documents for public circulation. This is a major milestone for these Measure R 30/10 Transit projects which could not have been completed without the cooperative efforts of FTA and our staff. For both projects, the 45-day public comment period will start on September 3rd through October 18th. The Board will consider adopting a Locally Preferred Alternative for each project at the October 28, 2010 meeting. Public hearings for the Westside Subway Extension will take place on September 20th at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, September 21st at the Westwood United Methodist Church, September 22nd at Plummer Park in West Hollywood, September 27th at Roxbury Park in Beverly Hills and on September 29th at the Santa Monica Library. All meetings will start at 6:00 p.m. Public hearings for the Regional Connector Transit Corridor project will take place on September 28th, 6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. at the Japanese American National Museum, and on October 4th, 11:30 -1:00 at the new Los Angeles Police Department Deaton Auditorium. It's great to see these two subways happening and also see Measure R's new name as being Measure R 30/10. The new name also sounds like from a sci-fi movie. The interesting decision now will be the choice for the LPA (locally preferred alternative) for the two subway projects (Westside rapid-transit subway and Downtown LRT subway).
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 31, 2010 5:34:40 GMT -8
I have read through DEIR's before, and commented a couple times. I look forward to looking through these too. But because I support these projects and have been following their development, I do not expect anything that is too bad.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 31, 2010 8:51:26 GMT -8
The big questions out there are: - Will there be a Crenshaw station?
- Where exactly will the La Cienega and Beverly Hills stations be located?
- What route will the subway take through Beverly Hills?
- Where will the Century Station be located?
- What route will the subway take between Century City and Westwood?
- Where will the Westwood/UCLA station be located?
- Will there be a Westswood/VA station?
- What of the so-called Pink Line?
Most of us have a pretty good idea of what the answers are going to be for these questions. But the DEIR will make official recommendations, and the LPA (to be selected and approved in October) will formalize these decisions, to provide a basis for the FEIR.
|
|
|
Post by azndevil97 on Aug 31, 2010 19:25:47 GMT -8
The big questions out there are: - Will there be a Crenshaw station?
- Where exactly will the La Cienega and Beverly Hills stations be located?
- What route will the subway take through Beverly Hills?
- Where will the Century Station be located?
- What route will the subway take between Century City and Westwood?
- Where will the Westwood/UCLA station be located?
- Will there be a Westswood/VA station?
- What of the so-called Pink Line?
Most of us have a pretty good idea of what the answers are going to be for these questions. But the DEIR will make official recommendations, and the LPA (to be selected and approved in October) will formalize these decisions, to provide a basis for the FEIR. I really hope the pink line will get the green light. I know it is a lot of money, but it would be such a great connector and convenience to everyone in the city. LAist calls it the "wet dream" (but that also includes a subway to Santa Monica, which I believe isn't on the table), but I hope it happens!
|
|