Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You'd have to ask an expert, but I think it could easily be in the range of eight digits per mile.
$10 million plus per mile? seems high but you never know. perhaps some financing arrangement with a utility would work (they build, maintain, and provide power to the system in exchange for a contract to purchase $x at $y price per KWh). how long is the route again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
The Penn Station connection really has to be retunneled to make it useful. That's another very big expense, and I also think it likely isn't the best way to go: you could continue on with a surface route using dedicated lanes through Downtown, which buses could share as a sort of extension of the East Busway.
you could, but given there's already a functional tunnel...but yes, you'd want a new tunnel, along the lines of the wone proposed (called convention spur...but rather than a spur, it'd be a full blown line). too bad they couldn't sneak it in the last project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
I really don't see it extending into places already served by the East Busway and (planned) AVR, so I guess I don't know what you have in mind.
if this gets built and the aVR doesn't move along...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Using low platforms is a big deal, particularly if this service is going to share ROW with buses. And I think it should be able to use at-grade intersections for a possible surface extension through Downtown. Finally, can you do shallow excavations (I believe you can do like 1 foot for modern streetcars) and then use T-style vehicles? I thought not.
not sure I follow you here, though we see it differently. you see it as an expensive bus, I see it as a potential LRT extension. in your scenario, unless there's more people than a bus can handle, there's no reason whatsoever it even needs to be a rail based vehicle. a trolley bus would more than suffice and probably be a lot mroe cost effective. HLP's often have faster boarding times no matter the vehicle (something you've probably realized while waiting for a buses hydraulics or a wheelchair bound person board a bus).
$10 million plus per mile? seems high but you never know.
That's my understanding of the ballpark difference.
Quote:
how long is the route again?
The Convention Center to 40th and Butler is going to be about 2.4 miles, give or take.
Quote:
you could, but given there's already a functional tunnel...
I'd like to see a rapid transit route on a different alignment than the T tunnel. I've proposed Liberty and Stanwix before as ideal streets for new trolley/bus-lanes: those streets have enough lanes to sacrifice a couple, and you would then have a route going along the length of the Cultural District, then more or less between Market Square and Point Park to the new Mon Wharf.
Quote:
if this gets built and the aVR doesn't move along...
From the reports we are getting it looks like the AVR is in fact moving along, and it makes ample sense to use the existing heavy rail line for that purpose (commuting).
Quote:
in your scenario, unless there's more people than a bus can handle, there's no reason whatsoever it even needs to be a rail based vehicle. a trolley bus would more than suffice and probably be a lot mroe cost effective.
Once the rails are in place, trolleys have operating efficiencies over trolleybuses. But to be honest I'd admit having a preference for trolleys over trolleybuses would be more a matter of marketing the development and pleasing tourists than anything else. Which I am fine with, provided it isn't public money being spent on the capital investment in the rails.
Quote:
HLP's often have faster boarding times no matter the vehicle (something you've probably realized while waiting for a buses hydraulics or a wheelchair bound person board a bus).
With a route this short, and assuming it has a dedicated ROW, speed really shouldn't be of the essence.
The whole idea of interoperability of lines wouldnt be so much of a problem if there was a centralized transit facility downtown, like some other cities have done with intermodal hubs at old train stations etc. That would be fantastic to have commuter rail, the T, whatever trolley this is, and some major bus lines converge in one place to make for a really quick transfer. Unfortunately, that seems like a pipe dream given the geographical limitations downtown.
The whole idea of interoperability of lines wouldnt be so much of a problem if there was a centralized transit facility downtown, like some other cities have done with intermodal hubs at old train stations etc. That would be fantastic to have commuter rail, the T, whatever trolley this is, and some major bus lines converge in one place to make for a really quick transfer. Unfortunately, that seems like a pipe dream given the geographical limitations downtown.
One of the reasons I like the alignment I was mentioning above for a combined trolley/bus-lane system is that Gateway would then become the location of an intermodal hub where you could move easily between the T, buses that would eventually be running on both the East and West Busway, and this trolley system.
Missing from that list would be heavy rail, both commuter rail and intercity rail, and also intercity buses. The bus/trolley part would meet up with all that at Penn Station, but the T currently would not. Unfortunately, that problem was created by the way they decided to do the North Shore Connector, and probably isn't going to be solved any time soon. On the other hand, that may not be a huge problem because for getting around the city, the T may end of being the least important of these services. It will kinda suck for people who live along the T in the South Hills and who are looking to transition smoothly to intercity rail and buses, but that isn't the biggest priority.
The relevant part is the description of how getting together some local funding is crucial to getting access to various federal programs (which may be scaled up in a future transportation bill).
That's my understanding of the ballpark difference.
The Convention Center to 40th and Butler is going to be about 2.4 miles, give or take.
that would put electrification alone at $240 million which seems high. I'd be suprised if that figure is anywhere near accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
From the reports we are getting it looks like the AVR is in fact moving along, and it makes ample sense to use the existing heavy rail line for that purpose (commuting).
bear in mind that commuter rail and a subway surface trolley are not exclusive. In Philadelphia, for example, west Philadelphia is served by trolleys that run on the streets in the neighborhood but go below ground in the denser parts of the city (university city and downtown)....this is all in addition to commuter rail which is best suited for places a lot further than 2.4 miles. I've read that there are some significant roadblocks but you never know. I also don't really see the benefit of the street running line over the below grade option which does provide a reasonably close stop to market sq in addition to the north shore. Seattle just spent a ton of money putting in a tunnel in their downtown...any AVR would likely provide riders for a connection to the subway from Penn Station (via the convention spur)
as for a central location, well, in a lot of cities that's the train station (penn station) but since few trains serve it, there isn't a particular need (at the time). everyplace is different though, and usually a couple of major facilities are necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Once the rails are in place, trolleys have operating efficiencies over trolleybuses. But to be honest I'd admit having a preference for trolleys over trolleybuses would be more a matter of marketing the development and pleasing tourists than anything else. Which I am fine with, provided it isn't public money being spent on the capital investment in the rails.
and they also have inefficiencies. many of the efficiencies are actually related to how many people they carry. I prefer a trolley to a bus but the importance is frequency, trip time, and cleanliness. trolleybuses are nice since they are extremely quiet.
Quote:
While light railway operations using diesel multiple units (DMUs) or similar rail vehicles self-propelled by fuel engines can be a practical means of providing rail transit at lower initial capital cost (albeit with generally less capacity, lower performance, and the need for special fueling facilities and, often, more rolling stock), there is a point at which electrification becomes more cost-effective (and probably, even before that, a point at which it is more attractive to the public)...Electric vehicles perform significantly faster at closer station spacings; they don't have to have refueling facilities or run deadheads to be refueled; and they weigh less and cost less than diesel-driven railcars....As I've noted, it cost $2.5 million. Today, it would be approximately six times that - perhaps $15 million for ten miles of catenary, new rail, and signals...Ridership and revenue increased 1,300 percent - that's one thousand three hundred percent. it is all in the records of the court and the railroad..Even today, rail transit operators experience substantial operating cost savings with electric power. For example, both the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and the Northern indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) operate regional passenger rail (RPR) electrically for $300 per car-hour, not counting layover time. (Rapid transit counts layover time, so they cannot be compared.) in contrast, Dallas-Ft. Worth's TRE with RDCs (see photo, above) and diesel locomotives runs up operating costs of around $400 per car-hour, as do most RPR systems with diesel.
The 15 line returned to trolley service in September 2005 after having been served by buses for thirteen years. To prepare for the resumption of trolley service, SEPTA spent a total of $100 million, including rehabilitating the tracks and repairs to the overhead wires. The rolling stock for Route 15 consists of PCC II cars, which are 1947PCC streetcars that had been completely rebuilt by the Brookville Equipment Company as a cost of $1.3 million per trolley. The rebuilt trolley includes the addition of air conditioning and regenerative braking.[7]
The restoration of trolley service was delayed because of a long fight with local residents on 59th Street, which the trolleys needed travel down in order to access the Callowhill Depot, over parking on the street.[8] During the reconstruction of the line the surrounding neighborhoods, through grassroots coalitions, worked to improve the Girard Avenue streetscape through beautification and marketing projects. Since service returned in 2005, the 15 line has spurred various development projects as well as renewed investment along the corridor.[9]
Although SEPTA has committed itself to restoring its suspended trolley lines, suburban communities have argued that available funds be used instead for the expansion of interurban rail lines over urban trolley lines, citing the imperfect implementation of the 15 line and the cost of maintaining the trolley infrastructure. Shuttle busses have at times replaced trolley service on sections of the line due to track, roadwork, and other maintenance work.[10][11] In addition, the trolley has not generated new ridership since its reopening, a point of contention for supporters of a resumed R3 Elwyn-Wawa and R8 Fox Chase-Newtown regional rail service to serve suburban areas lacking alternate public transport. The question of proper usage of public funds ($100 million = no new ridership) has been brought to SEPTA's attention during the summer of 2009
that would put electrification alone at $240 million which seems high. I'd be suprised if that figure is anywhere near accurate.
I'm not sure I followed your math. My understanding is that the typical difference in cost per mile between T-style light rail and modern trolleys is often around $10 million or more (not including tunneling, which of course adds a LOT of costs). This is a 2.4 mile route, so if you were using $10 million per mile, you'd be talking a difference of around $24 million, not $240 million. I'm actually not including electrification, which I would plan on happening in either case.
Quote:
bear in mind that commuter rail and a subway surface trolley are not exclusive. In Philadelphia, for example, west Philadelphia is served by trolleys that run on the streets in the neighborhood but go below ground in the denser parts of the city (university city and downtown)....this is all in addition to commuter rail which is best suited for places a lot further than 2.4 miles.
This is basically making my point. The T is really a commuter service. This would be a local service. Hence, I have no particular problem with them being distinct. My point is just that a good case for extending a commuter service like the T into this particular area is highly unlikely, because it already has the East Busway and (it seems) the AVR may be coming too.
Quote:
I've read that there are some significant roadblocks but you never know.
If you are referring to the AVR, that idea had long been dormant, but it seems recently they are claiming to have serious financial backing. I don't know the details yet, though.
Quote:
I also don't really see the benefit of the street running line over the below grade option which does provide a reasonably close stop to market sq in addition to the north shore. Seattle just spent a ton of money putting in a tunnel in their downtown...
You answered your own question: it would be horrifically expensive to dig a new tunnel through Downtown. And there is no particular need: Liberty and Stanwix have the space for dedicated lanes (with nearby alternatives for cars), and it is a pretty short run through Downtown so going at a top speed isn't essential.
Edit: Oh, and a rapid transit stop or two between Penn Station and Wood (the first common T location) along Liberty would be a useful addition, as would a rapid transit stop or two between Gateway (the last common T location) and the Mon. So this would definitely be increasing the total number of useful points of access to rapid transit Downtown. Then you could either loop up further into Downtown, or make a crossing over the Mon for a run down to the South Side. The latter would be my preference, because then you could also connect up to the West and South Busways.
Quote:
any AVR would likely provide riders for a connection to the subway from Penn Station (via the convention spur)
That is a single-track connection from Penn Station to Steel Plaza, which makes it almost as fast just to walk over. They'd need a whole new tunnel.
Quote:
as for a central location, well, in a lot of cities that's the train station (penn station) but since few trains serve it, there isn't a particular need (at the time). everyplace is different though, and usually a couple of major facilities are necessary.
It is just a shame because if they had done the NSC the way it should have been done, then everything would be converging at Penn Station--not just intercity trains, but everything else we are discussing too. But we'll manage.
Quote:
and they also have inefficiencies.
What do you have in mind? My understanding is that modern trolleys have higher energy efficiencies and lower maintenance costs than trolleybuses (assuming the trolleys are electric too). Trolleybuses are still a nice technology if you don't want to pay for tracks or want to do multimode, but if you are just going up and down a line with enough projected ridership to justify investing in the tracks, I'm not aware of any significant operating advantages to them.
I actually see trolleybuses in Pittsburgh's future, but on electrified busways. That way you could run multimode versions that go through the neighborhoods and then hop on the busways, maybe extending the wires on some local roads but not all of them.
Quote:
trolleybuses are nice since they are extremely quiet.
The quietest major form of public transit I believe. That's not really going to be much of a plus for this particular route, but if what I was sketching before happened then that could be a real plus for some of the residential neighborhoods.
This is a 2.4 mile route, so if you were using $10 million per mile, you'd be talking a difference of around $24 million, not $240 million. I'm actually not including electrification, which I would plan on happening in either case.
I could buy an extra $24 million for electrification. there's really no reason why the costs would be different otherwise except stations, which aren't on a per mile basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
This is basically making my point. The T is really a commuter service. This would be a local service. Hence, I have no particular problem with them being distinct. My point is just that a good case for extending a commuter service like the T into this particular area is highly unlikely, because it already has the East Busway and (it seems) the AVR may be coming too.
the T is not commuter rail in the sense that ACR is. the rolling stock is entirely different. the T is really a hybrid, and I don't see anything wrong with it serving the waterfront, seems like a useful extension to me, rather than maintaining expensive and duplicative service...if private funding should fall through, you'd be a lot better off if you'd required electrification (or funded it). I think given what's happened in the past, it seems somewhat naive not to plan this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
You answered your own question: it would be horrifically expensive to dig a new tunnel through Downtown. And there is no particular need: Liberty and Stanwix have the space for dedicated lanes (with nearby alternatives for cars), and it is a pretty short run through Downtown so going at a top speed isn't essential.
I think you missed the point, Seattle has found it worthwhile to invest in infrastructure rather than reducing surface capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
That is a single-track connection from Penn Station to Steel Plaza, which makes it almost as fast just to walk over. They'd need a whole new tunnel.
yes, that's what was planned. it didn't get built because of escalating costs of the north shore connector and the limited use they had planned for it but it would have allowed for penn station/convention center trains to run to the north shore via downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
It is just a shame because if they had done the NSC the way it should have been done, then everything would be converging at Penn Station--not just intercity trains, but everything else we are discussing too. But we'll manage.
Intercity trains will happen. PA got caught with its pants down this time around with basically no plans whatsoever. the funding for the Harrisburg west study is an important step in the process. unfortuantely, round 2 grants require state matches and PA hasn't even funded it's current transportation plan so, for the time being, PA is getting screwed. meanwhile, OH got money for a complete joke, the 3C corridor will average just 38 mph. Of course, the idea that one could create high speed rail as part of a stimulus package where money was to be spent quickly was also misguided but I digress. I think we'll see movement towards better pittsburgh service once there's a western pennsylvanian in the governor's mansion, be it R or D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
What do you have in mind? My understanding is that modern trolleys have higher energy efficiencies and lower maintenance costs than trolleybuses (assuming the trolleys are electric too). Trolleybuses are still a nice technology if you don't want to pay for tracks or want to do multimode, but if you are just going up and down a line with enough projected ridership to justify investing in the tracks, I'm not aware of any significant operating advantages to them.
modern trolleybuses have the ability to operate off line to get around obstacles. that in itself is a significant operating advantage, another being that they used paved roads that may be paid for with another source. I've also noted that deisel LRT has higher maintenance costs than electric which undermines some of the energy efficiency and operating savings. additionally, the inefficiencies of a captive fleet for one service can't be overstated. you always have to protect your service, with a shared fleet, you can have say, one vehicle for three lines but with one line, you still need that one vehicle just in case. then there's maintenance facilities, parts, labor, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
I actually see trolleybuses in Pittsburgh's future, but on electrified busways. That way you could run multimode versions that go through the neighborhoods and then hop on the busways, maybe extending the wires on some local roads but not all of them.
is there any reason a trolleybus couldn't share space with the T?
Quote:
But now Ottawa is planning to give up its primary transitway. Houston eventually got its act together on the federal level and has turned back to light rail, forgetting the bus plans entirely. Is the Ottawa model — raise ridership with buses, and then think about more expensive rail options — falling flat? What went wrong?
The quick answer is that Ottawa was too successful, encouraging the city’s citizens to take an average of 125 trips by public transportation a year, more than any equivalently-sized North American city. The transitway has so many riders that it puts 2,600 daily buses onto two downtown streets, and by 2018, the system will have literally no more capacity. By 2030, Ottawa would have to get a bus downtown every eighteen seconds to accommodate all of its riders — an impossible feat.
Thus for several years, the city has been considering light rail as a replacement; a 2006 plan fell apart because it would have done nothing to increase capacity and decrease commute times as it would have relied on street-running downtown. So Mayor Larry O’Brien and his staff have concocted what is now a C$2.1 billion project to run light rail in a three-kilometer tunnel under downtown. The remainder of the 12.5-kilometer corridor would run from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Station along the existing transitway, completely displacing the bus service that’s currently there. The 13-station system will be designed for very high capacity, up to 25,000 riders per direction during the peak hour (up from 10,000 today), thanks to platforms long enough to handle six-car trains and even platform screen doors in the underground stations.
The general plan for a downtown tunnel was approved last May by the city’s council, and light rail was signed off as the technology in November. It has received a C$600 million promise from Ontario province and is likely to receive a similar guarantee from the federal government later this year. The project could begin construction in 2013 and open by 2018 — as long as opponents of the rail line don’t take the mayoral seat in this fall’s election.
Though the existing bus transitway is already in place, light rail construction will be expensive, notably because of the tunnel, which will cost C$735 million by itself. Even if bus service had been chosen as the preferred technology, this expense would have been required. But the C$540 million cost to convert the remaining ten kilometers of right-of-way is more surprising; much of that will go towards the big new stations along the line, with the rest to pay for tracks and electrification. Vehicles and a new maintenance facility will cost C$515 million.
With expenses like that — practically equivalent to building a new rail line from scratch — one wonders whether there was ever any fiscal advantage to using buses first along the rapidway. Did the city lose out by not choosing rail when the transitway first opened in 1983?...The downtown tunnel will decrease trip times by fifteen minutes, principally by avoiding the congestion currently resulting from bus bunching. But the direct service now offered to many parts of the city will be lost, as many passengers coming from areas not immediately adjacent to the rail stations will be shuttled via bus to the stops, where they will have to transfer to get downtown. This will result in roughly 40% of Ottawa’s transit trips using the rail line...
Had buses been retained on the transitway and been sent through the tunnel, it would have required a far more extensive tunnel because of ventilation concerns — or it would have necessitated the electrification of the bus fleet, not necessarily a cheap choice either. So Ottawa had basically no choice but to switch to rail.
from this I would conclude that the city should move forward with a modern ADA compliant electrified service OR simply purchase hybrid buses to run the route. as noted several times now, electrified service would be CHEAPER to run, not more expensive.
I could buy an extra $24 million for electrification. there's really no reason why the costs would be different otherwise except stations, which aren't on a per mile basis.
I thought a big part of the cost difference was you typically had to excavate deeper for T-style light rail, which in turn implicated all sorts of utility issues.
Quote:
the T is not commuter rail in the sense that ACR is. the rolling stock is entirely different. the T is really a hybrid, and I don't see anything wrong with it serving the waterfront, seems like a useful extension to me, rather than maintaining expensive and duplicative service...
I agree you wouldn't necessarily call it "commuter rail", but it is definitely designed as a commuter service. And I really doubt that a modern electrified streetcar would be more expensive overall, once you factor in the tunneling and such you would need to link up with the T.
Quote:
if private funding should fall through, you'd be a lot better off if you'd required electrification (or funded it). I think given what's happened in the past, it seems somewhat naive not to plan this way.
I'm agreeing on electrification, but I don't think that is the only incremental cost. And it certainly wouldn't be the only incremental cost if you wanted to actually link up to the T.
Quote:
I think you missed the point, Seattle has found it worthwhile to invest in infrastructure rather than reducing surface capacity.
Fine, but that's Seattle. We have excess surface capacity along the route I described, and we don't have much money for infrastructure projects, so it makes sense that we would do it differently.
In fact even if we had the money, I'd prefer doing a surface route and then some other project(s), because there so much other stuff that would benefit local transportation more than another Downtown tunnel.
Quote:
yes, that's what was planned. it didn't get built because of escalating costs of the north shore connector and the limited use they had planned for it but it would have allowed for penn station/convention center trains to run to the north shore via downtown.
There was also a change in planned use, from a North Side service to a North Shore service (an important distinction). In any event, that is water under the bridge (or over the tunnel), because we aren't getting that money back.
Quote:
modern trolleybuses have the ability to operate off line to get around obstacles. that in itself is a significant operating advantage . . .
That's a nice feature, but I haven't seen anyone claim it actually means trolleybuses are overall more efficient to operate than trolleys.
Quote:
another being that they used paved roads that may be paid for with another source.
Yep, as I noted they can be preferable if you don't want to--or can't--pay for the rails. If we can get someone else to pay for them, though, then that solves that problem.
Quote:
I've also noted that deisel LRT has higher maintenance costs than electric which undermines some of the energy efficiency and operating savings.
Yep, but I am assuming these will be electric trolleys.
Quote:
additionally, the inefficiencies of a captive fleet for one service can't be overstated. you always have to protect your service, with a shared fleet, you can have say, one vehicle for three lines but with one line, you still need that one vehicle just in case. then there's maintenance facilities, parts, labor, etc.
Wait, I thought we were talking about trolleys versus trolleybuses here. We have no trolleybuses, so either way you are talking about something new to the system.
Quote:
is there any reason a trolleybus couldn't share space with the T?
You can run them along the same routes, but wouldn't you have a platform height issue? In any event, I was explaining how they could be used in a much, much bigger way than along the T routes, namely through the existing bus network that uses the Busways (which is not limited to just the Busways themselves, particularly not if your trolleybuses are multimode).
Quote:
from this I would conclude that the city should move forward with a modern ADA compliant electrified service OR simply purchase hybrid buses to run the route. as noted several times now, electrified service would be CHEAPER to run, not more expensive.
I'm not sure I followed your reasoning.
First, that article was about busways being converted to light rail, not trolleys. Second, the issues described in that article don't apply to Pittsburgh. Our busways aren't anywhere close to capacity, and neither is the surface infrastructure in Downtown. Third, they are describing a $2.1 billion project, and we don't have $2.1 billion to spend on converting busways and tunneling, and if we did have $2.1 billion to spend, I would be using it for a lot of other things first (like a tunnel to Oakland--that makes sense).
I guess you might be thinking all this will someday apply to this trolley line, but I am again going to point out how it isn't going to be part of any high-volume commuter service like the one in Ottawa. Hence, there should be no reason to expect a similar capacity issue to arise.
Seriously, this is a 2.4 mile shuttle route. Maybe it will be part of a circulator someday, but it will still be relatively light volume. I'm happy to admit buses would be adequate for this service from a technological standpoint, and so the reason to do it with anything but buses is simply because that would be good for local development/investment. And that in turn is why the local developers/investors should be paying that incremental cost.
But in any event, comparisons to completely different transportation services in other cities just aren't illuminating.
Quote:
as noted several times now, electrified service would be CHEAPER to run, not more expensive.
I agree it should be electrified. I just don't think that is the only difference between making it compatible with the T, and it certainly isn't the only difference if you wanted to actually link it to the T, which would require a tunnel that would make no particular sense for Pittsburgh.
I think the Pittsburgh area would be more suited for Commuter / Light Rail. In Dense areas , it acts like a Light Rail and in less dense areas it acts like commuter Rail. You could buy Diesel or Electric LRT vehicles. Commuter rail generally has stops every 1-2 miles while LRT has stops every 500-1000ft. Perfect Example of a Commuter / LRT is the Riverline connecting Trenton-Camden. We were allowed to use LRT vehicles even though Freight trains still use part of the line. They just had to upgrade the signal systems and tracks. I think Pittsburgh could save a few billion on building a system like this instead of a regular commuter rail line or system. Electrification should only be used if the line is going to be traveled by at least 15,000+ daily , otherwise use Diesel. No matter what happens , i do see Philly & Pittsburgh restoring there systems to what they were before we ripped them all out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
