HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5521  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 5:01 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizened Variations View Post
Instead, we have lost some of our idealistic innocence as we wear our 'Rose Colored' glasses less.
How rose colored are our glasses really? How many of us on this forum (in Denver, above the age of say 25) - despite our love of transit - do not still drive a car at some point nearly every single day?

Reminds me of the classic Onion article:

Quote:
Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others

ISSUE 44•27 ISSUE 36•43 • Nov 29, 2000

WASHINGTON, DC–A study released Monday by the American Public Transportation Association reveals that 98 percent of Americans support the use of mass transit by others.

Traffic moves slowly near Seatte, WA, where a majority of drivers say they support other people using mass transit.

"With traffic congestion, pollution, and oil shortages all getting worse, now is the time to shift to affordable, efficient public transportation," APTA director Howard Collier said. "Fortunately, as this report shows, Americans have finally recognized the need for everyone else to do exactly that."

Of the study's 5,200 participants, 44 percent cited faster commutes as the primary reason to expand public transportation, followed closely by shorter lines at the gas station. Environmental and energy concerns ranked a distant third and fourth, respectively.

Anaheim, CA, resident Lance Holland, who drives 80 miles a day to his job in downtown Los Angeles, was among the proponents of public transit.

"Expanding mass transit isn't just a good idea, it's a necessity," Holland said. "My drive to work is unbelievable. I spend more than two hours stuck in 12 lanes of traffic. It's about time somebody did something to get some of these other cars off the road."

Public support for mass transit will naturally lead to its expansion and improvement, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials said.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/rep...blic-tra,1434/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5522  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 5:15 PM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
Last night (Monday) I had the misfortune of spending too long in Lodo as a pedestrian user of light rail. Yes, the beers I drank were great, but, I did not watch the time. My friend offered to take me to the light rail station, the closest of which was the DUS station. I needed to go to Littleton, to get my car and go home.

When I got to the Lodo platform via a fast trot, the 743p E train was just leaving the station. After I checked the posted schedules, I then realized there was no southbound C train (the DUS to Mineral train) after 606p so I had to catch the next E train.

When the C train does not run south from Lodo, and, a rider needs to take the southwest line, he or she must transfer to a D train, at Osage, Alameda, or Broadway Stations.


Anyway, I took the 813p E train south E trains run every 30 minutes at this time), which arrived per schedule at Broadway at 826p. At the Broadway Station, I waited until 838p to catch the next south bound D train, which arrived on schedule. I got to Littleton Station, at 904p. Total time 1 hour and 21 minutes, of which 42 minutes I spent waiting for the next train.

Of course, I could have taken the Mall shuttle south, and, caught a D train, but I did not have a schedule on me, nor was such info available at the Lodo DUS terminal. I discovered later that had I left DUS light rail quickly and had a shuttle bus been there I likely could have caught the 825p D train and arrived at Littleton Station at 849p. But I have observed, based on previous experience, if I walk a couple of miles around Lodo on business, and, subsidize the Lodo economy with a couple of beers, I want to SIT down at a safe light rail station. And even at 800p or so, I strongly believe that the DUS Light Rail station is safer than the Stout Station.

So, I decided to look at light rail ride from Littleton Station to Wadsworth Station. I am assuming that once I arrived at the Littleton Station that I noticed that the C train is not running at that time (weekday evening). Arrive just as the 806p train is leaving. I wait at the station 15 minutes and catch the next D train at 821p. Now, as I have to transfer between Broadway and Osage to an E train, I get off at Broadway Station at 831p. I wait 6 minutes at the station and catch the 837p arriving at Auraria West at 844p. There, I wait 14 minutes and catch the W train at 851p. I arrive at Wadsworth at 904p. Total transit time 43 times, total wait time 20 minutes. Add industry standard splitting the interval for wait times at the first boarding and the total time is 43 minutes + 20 minutes + 7 minutes or 1 hour and 7 minutes.

Lets assume I am going the other way. I catch the east bound W at Wadsworth at 818p (trains running every 15 minutes) I arrive at Auraria West at 8:33p. The W train I am riding is one minute late. I catch the E train (the only south bound going south of Auraria West) at 848p, having missed the E train at 833p. (I will include both figures). The 848p arrives at Broadway at 856p (for the 833p- 841p). I wait 12 minutes and catch the D train at 908p (853p) , arriving at Littleton at 919p (904p).. (in adding up wait time, I will add 7.5 minutes, rounded down, per industry standard, for wait time at Wadsworth). Total time 1 hour and 8 minutes, total travel time 31 minutes, total wait time 37 minutes (if the trains synched perfectly the total time would be 53 minutes, and, the wait time 22 minutes.)

The closer one on the SW line to Broadway, and, the closer one is to Auraria West on the W line, the higher the wait time ratio to total time.

As I have brought up before, where this gets amazing is going from Federal Station to the Convention Center (this is the furthest point with respect to time from DUS via the Mall Shuttle and Auraria West for the pedestrian) Again I using times around 8p.

I catch the 814p eastbound W train at Federal. I arrive at Auraria West at 823p. As the only southbound train at the time is the E, I catch the next E at 833pm which arrives at Osage at 836p (you get off at Osage as you want to be able to catch Stout Street bound trains that would be between Osage and Broadway). The north D train arrives at Osage at 838p and arrives at the Convention Center at 844p. Total time: 30 minutes. Transfers and wait times 13 minutes.

Remember, this is over a distance of approximately 3.5 miles as the crow flies, and, averages 7 mph.
__________________
Good read on relationship between increasing number of freeway lanes and traffic

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

Last edited by Wizened Variations; Aug 6, 2013 at 5:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5523  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 5:51 PM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
How rose colored are our glasses really? How many of us on this forum (in Denver, above the age of say 25) - despite our love of transit - do not still drive a car at some point nearly every single day?

Reminds me of the classic Onion article:



http://www.theonion.com/articles/rep...blic-tra,1434/
Yes, and live where public transit is not practical to commute to work, or to shop, or even to go have a beer. Perhaps, we just separate our transportation lifestyle from what exists now, and, what will come on stream within the next 5 years. Maybe, too, we tend to specialize in a facet of the transportation equation: maybe as I ride bikes recreationally I specialize in the bicycle commute option. Maybe because I love trains, I become entranced with bringing light and commuter rail systems on line.

All the while we sit in front of our displays going to different stalls in the Electric Carnival.

But, sir, rest assured the reality of a higher percentage of us having to do something besides driving our own car without riders is coming sooner than we would secretly have wished. And, the mistakes we see being made now, will compound logarithmically as more of us own only one car*, or no car at all.

*per couple. Also, one car that works.
__________________
Good read on relationship between increasing number of freeway lanes and traffic

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

Last edited by Wizened Variations; Aug 6, 2013 at 6:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5524  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 7:42 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizened Variations View Post
But, sir, rest assured the reality of a higher percentage of us having to do something besides driving our own car without riders is coming sooner than we would secretly have wished. And, the mistakes we see being made now, will compound logarithmically as more of us own only one car*, or no car at all.

*per couple. Also, one car that works.
You've still never adequately explained to me how we are all supposed to be plummeting from $50,000 per person average income to $5,000 per person overnight, which is what it would effectively take for your reality to come to pass. Because countries with 1/10 of our income still have cars. So we'd have to get really, really poor to see what you claim is coming sooner than we would have wished. I am curious what you see that leads you to believe we'll have Iraq-level incomes in a few years.

(And don't give me some nonsense about deficit spending. Let's be real, taking a snapshot of the national debt and population. We have $16.891 trillion in debt. Population of 316.404 million people. That's $53,384 per person. It's going to take a LOT more than that to make as as poor as you imagine.)

Last edited by bunt_q; Aug 6, 2013 at 8:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5525  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 8:53 PM
EngiNerd's Avatar
EngiNerd EngiNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 1,998
Regarding some earlier comments about RTD thinking of extending the North line of Fastracks up I-25 to connect Longmont instead of using the NW line...this got me thinking, most of that northern I-25 corridor from Hwy 7 north is not currently a part of the RTD district. If they do extend the lines up that far, would they also be incorporating those areas into the district? Seems ridiculous that they wouldn't.

http://www3.rtd-denver.com/elbert/Bo...istrictMap.cfm
__________________
"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labor to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the need of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5526  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 10:04 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by EngiNerd View Post
Regarding some earlier comments about RTD thinking of extending the North line of Fastracks up I-25 to connect Longmont instead of using the NW line...this got me thinking, most of that northern I-25 corridor from Hwy 7 north is not currently a part of the RTD district. If they do extend the lines up that far, would they also be incorporating those areas into the district? Seems ridiculous that they wouldn't.

http://www3.rtd-denver.com/elbert/Bo...istrictMap.cfm
I would say probably not. One election at a time. Build it through there, and entice them to vote in later with the promise of some in-between stations (which I have to assume RTD would withhold for now).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5527  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 10:12 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
I would say probably not. One election at a time. Build it through there, and entice them to vote in later with the promise of some in-between stations (which I have to assume RTD would withhold for now).
Connecting Longmont via the North Line might also bring CDOT into the mix with their proposal for North Front Range commuter rail. While it might not bring a lot funding, CDOT would bring in some land acquisition savvy and other skillsets. After, all, no one knows how to screw landowners like CDOT.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein


Last edited by wong21fr; Aug 6, 2013 at 10:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5528  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2013, 5:28 AM
Interzen Interzen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: La Alma/Lincoln Park - Denver, CO
Posts: 352
Wirelessly-charged electric buses start public route in South Korea
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/06/w...public-routes/

Really cool, but I couldn't find any info on energy loss to the environment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5529  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2013, 7:09 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
^
Wow.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5530  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 5:29 PM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
You've still never adequately explained to me how we are all supposed to be plummeting from $50,000 per person average income to $5,000 per person overnight, which is what it would effectively take for your reality to come to pass. Because countries with 1/10 of our income still have cars. So we'd have to get really, really poor to see what you claim is coming sooner than we would have wished. I am curious what you see that leads you to believe we'll have Iraq-level incomes in a few years.

(And don't give me some nonsense about deficit spending. Let's be real, taking a snapshot of the national debt and population. We have $16.891 trillion in debt. Population of 316.404 million people. That's $53,384 per person. It's going to take a LOT more than that to make as as poor as you imagine.)
Not true, IMO.

It would not take a huge drop in the standard of living.

**************

This is why we need well designed, well run, and, continually improving people centric public transportation.

Take the median of the bottom 90% of the population, many graphs of which can be found via the Internet under "bottom 90%", and look at their income growth, network etc. This is the demographic which determines the health of the country, i.e., defines consumption patterns. Over the last decade or so, the net increase in income for this entire group as been low. Some figures point to a net real increase in income for that group of $59 in constant dollars since 1966.

Here's an interesting table from NY for 2011 data

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...come.html?_r=0

There a vernier scale on the left, move it up and down to see values.

Factor in real inflation- not the Fed's figures that are used to minimize COLA payments- but changes in medical, food, energy, housing, college education, and transportation costs (primarily automobile).

Figures between 8% and 10% are easy to find. Shadowstats has interesting inflation graphs, but, others exist.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate...flation-charts

My point is when the bill comes due for our gross Federal Reserve and TBTF banks mismanagement, that any down turn will hit the bottom 90% the most, as this group has the least discretionary income. This group, as it is, pays the highest percentage of their income to both service debt and for their cost of money (interest rates they pay).

Let's say the US economy drops 10% in constant 1950 dollars, adjusted for real inflation. So, the per capita income for 100% of the population drops in 2013 dollars from say $50,000 to $45,000. How does this affect the bottom 90%? To start with, discretionary income evaporates in something like an inverse logarithmic relationship between percentage of US population and this type of income. For example, the number of people on food stamps, barring some billionaire's meddling (let start to starve and they will get off their asses), would grow far faster than the inverse linear drop in median income.

The relationship between increase and decrease in the median of all of us, does not affect each income segment in the same fashion. If I made $250,000 (excluding taxes) and, my buying power dropped to $225,000 excluding taxes, the impact is not nearly as severe as if I made $40,000 (excluding taxes) and my buying power dropped to $35,000.*

With China's meteoric rise, India's rapid growth, Russia's mending, Latin America's increased stabilization, I can see no way that cost to us of resources- agricultural, mineral, and, energy, will not rise. This, IMO, will determine the trend lines that will underlie real inflation costs in the US. Impose upon that trend line, large volatility due to TBTF, Federal Reserve, and, Federal government mismanagement, and, the trend line steepens.

Frankly, I believe that even a 15% drop in median income might be possible over the next decade. This would cripple the bottom 90%, and, lower the number of cars sold, regardless of technological advancement. Add in the adjustments that all of us will be forced to make due to a combination of rising interest rates (1% rise in cost of money adds $160,000,000,000 to federal government debt service) and mark to market adjustment on toxic paper and evaporating derivatives, and, the decline is inevitable.

But, we can still live well. Just far more frugally, and, hopefully, as a more humble nation.

*In more realistic terms, if the per capital income drops 10% the drop will be proportionately higher the lower one is in the economic food chain.
__________________
Good read on relationship between increasing number of freeway lanes and traffic

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

Last edited by Wizened Variations; Aug 8, 2013 at 5:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5531  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 5:46 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Do you understand the definition of the "median"?

A 15% drop in median income would not put an automobile out of reach of many Americans. You ever been to a country with a median income 15% less than ours? I'll give you a few examples. Germany. Sweden. Belgium. All clustered at slightly less than 85% of U.S. median income. Slightly more would be the Netherlands. Call me crazy, but I think I'll get by okay on a German income.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5532  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 5:56 PM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Do you understand the definition of the "median"?
LMAO!

Of course. I am a mathematician. Statistical Average. The value in the middle of the data when the data set is ordered.

What I did, is to separate the 100% population into 2 segments. The upper 10% distorts the average far more than the bottom 90. My point, if poorly stated, is simply that the decline does not have to be 'significant' for automobile use to radically decline as the decline of the average has an inverse logarithmic functional relationship to the lower the income is below the median, in the data set taken.

I am taking the data set as all individuals divided by total GDP. This would be even more distorted if the data set included all families and single individuals.

Bunt, you are making a significant miscalculation because a decline or an increase in median income does not affect each subset of the data set the same way. In your case, a 15% drop in dollars in 2013 when converted to Euros would provide you with a good standard of living, as would mine. However you are comparing apples and oranges, because the population demographics, personal income, cost of living indexes, and government subsidies are far different. I suspect strong that even in Germany at the 50% income based on population can live fairly well, in parts of Germany.

A better comparison would how would a drop of 10 or 15% of the median income in the Euro zone affect the bottom 90% of it's population?

However, the US is a far different beast.
__________________
Good read on relationship between increasing number of freeway lanes and traffic

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

Last edited by Wizened Variations; Aug 8, 2013 at 6:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5533  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 6:24 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizened Variations View Post
LMAO!

Of course. I am a mathematician. Statistical Average. The value in the middle of the data when the data set is ordered.

What I did, is to separate the 100% population into 2 segments. The upper 10% distorts the average far more than the bottom 90. My point, if poorly stated, is simply that the decline does not have to be 'significant' for automobile use to radically decline as the decline of the average has an inverse logarithmic functional relationship to the lower the income is below the median, in the data set taken.

I am taking the data set as all individuals divided by total GDP. This would be even more distorted if the data set included all families and single individuals.

Bunt, you are making a significant miscalculation because a decline or an increase in median income does not affect each subset of the data set the same way. In your case, a 15% drop in dollars in 2013 when converted to Euros would provide you with a good standard of living, as would mine. However you are comparing apples and oranges, because the population demographics, personal income, cost of living indexes, and government subsidies are far different. I suspect strong that even in Germany at the 50% income based on population can live fairly well, in parts of Germany.

A better comparison would how would a drop of 10 or 15% of the median income in the Euro zone affect the bottom 90% of it's population?

However, the US is a far different beast.
The top 10% does not distort the median at all. It distorts the mean.

Admittedly, a decline is going to effectively hut the bottom 10% of society the most. But that is not even remotely similar to what you're constantly preaching about societal decline, nobody being able to afford autos, etc. You're completely changing your argument now. If what you're saying is the "poor will get poorer" then I'll agree. And say there's something we need to do to address that. But it's nigh irrelevant to a transportation discussion, except at the very margins where a few people who can afford a car today might struggle later. But the U.S. is already so wealthy, and the affordability threshold for cars so far below even today's federal poverty level, that what you're saying is simply not accurate. Poverty level for a household of 1 is presently $11,490. That's a South Africa/Brazil level of wealth. And the median Brazilian can afford a car. So you're talking about a small and very disadvantaged segment of U.S. society. Not enough to precipitate the decline you so regularly complain about.

I'm curious where your obsession with fudging the numbers to prove just how terrible and doomed the U.S. is stems from?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5534  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 8:05 PM
RyanD's Avatar
RyanD RyanD is offline
Fast. Fun. Frequent.
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,987
__________________
DenverInfill
DenverUrbanism
--------------------
Latest Photo Threads: Los Angeles | New Orleans | Denver: 2014 Megathread | Denver Time-Lapse Project For more photos check out: My Website and My Flickr Photostream
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5535  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 8:44 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
cool!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5536  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 8:52 PM
Interzen Interzen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: La Alma/Lincoln Park - Denver, CO
Posts: 352
^^ Look at the poor Cherry Creek squeezed under the monorail in the last picture.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5537  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 9:07 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Neat find. Now before anybody gets any ideas, here's why monorails are usually not a good answer:



Basically, they have to be 100% elevated all the time. If you want them on the surface, you still build all the infrastructure for an elevated line, you just make your supports really short. And heaven help you if you need a subway, because then you've got to build an elevated line inside an underground tunnel. Unless the line you're building is going to be 100% elevated anyway, monorails add a lot of needless expense.

Oh, and since the nice-looking narrower supports for monorail can't handle as much weight as regular rail, it means the trains can't be as heavy, which means they can't be as long, which wipes out one of the main benefits of going to the expense of full grade-separation in the first place. You could solve this by bulking up the supports, but then it's not all light and airy, which is supposed to be one of the benefits of monorail over traditional.

Basically monorails give you light rail capacity for metrorail cost. They only make sense in incredibly rare situations.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5538  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 9:19 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
PS, there's one basically exactly like that Cherry Creek illustration in Wuppertal, Germany. Except it's like 100 years old, so not all '60s futurama.


Andrade on flickr
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5539  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 9:39 PM
Interzen Interzen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: La Alma/Lincoln Park - Denver, CO
Posts: 352
I like our use of the creek-side right of ways better
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5540  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 10:17 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
^
I know you're talking about the trail, and I agree about that, but OTOH I don't care much for the 8 lanes of highway.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:53 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.