Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Swiftway BRT: Issues highlighted in public consultation

Options
«13456

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,546 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    I'm not sure what (if anything) has changed but that was originally posted on the NTA site in June and linked to by myself here in the main BRT thread:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91101565&postcount=537


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    lxflyer wrote: »
    I'm not sure what (if anything) has changed but that was originally posted on the NTA site in June and linked to by myself here in the main BRT thread:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91101565&postcount=537

    Errrr... For some reason the reports are dated differently -- your link is to one dated June and mine to one dated July. Same number of pages and at a quick glance it looks about the same.

    Must of missed or forgot about your post and when I spotted the July date on the report I thought it had not been covered.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    I'm actually surprised at the comments.... most of them are quite sensible and meaningful and not a pile of NIMBYism.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    The Nimbyism seems to be contained to the Swords section only. Residents in one estate are concerned about the proposed route cutting across green open space. And private operators are concerned that BRT will divert some of their custom. But by and large there appears to be widespread support for the scheme.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Aard wrote: »
    The Nimbyism seems to be contained to the Swords section only. Residents in one estate are concerned about the proposed route cutting across green open space. And private operators are concerned that BRT will divert some of their custom. But by and large there appears to be widespread support for the scheme.

    Quite surprising (and encouraging) to note a mere 315 signatures to the "Petition" against the project.

    This level of significant resistance compared to the density of population in the Swords-North County area is at best minimal.

    My thinking is that Swords Swiftway will be up and running on schedule....barring Legal Action on the part of the 315....:eek:


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭TheBandicoot


    I see Victor made a representation.

    I also found some amusement from the juxtaposition of these two lines:
    • The bus licence to operate the BRT routes should be put out to tender - this
    should increase competition in the transport sector.
    • Dublin Bus should be awarded this contract through direct award model due to its
    track record and expertise in Dublin City.

    :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    Some good ones in there alright. The "build an underground transport system" being among my favourites.

    I am still wholly unconvinced about BRT, especially for Swords. I hope it doesn't get the green light, at least in its current format.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Stevek101


    I seen someone wanted it to run it through Beaumont as well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,849 ✭✭✭Van.Bosch


    My suggestion that it should not accept cash, it should be be leap tag on flat fare only but if not possible tag off should be implemented similar to Luas was not referenced!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Stevek101


    They won't accept cash all ticketing is off bus.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Uriel. wrote: »
    Some good ones in there alright. The "build an underground transport system" being among my favourites.

    I am still wholly unconvinced about BRT, especially for Swords. I hope it doesn't get the green light, at least in its current format.

    Indeed, if it weren't for the crash we wouldn't be having this consultation at all we'd be zipping around on metro north and DARTu, with no need to glorify the QBCs for the sake of appearances.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Indeed, if it weren't for the crash we wouldn't be having this consultation at all we'd be zipping around on metro north and DARTu, with no need to glorify the QBCs for the sake of appearances.

    That may not be true.

    BRT looks like it was being planned regardless of Metro North and Dart Underground. Maybe not the Swords route, but BRT is not a replacement for Dart Underground or Metro North.

    BRT is a replacement for more surface Luas lines. Even with Dart Underground and Metro North, Dublin's transport infra would still be lacking. Dart Underground is still on the cards in the mid term. Metro North does not look to be but it's not because of BRT -- and BRT alone will not be replacing it (likely also Luas via Finglas and maybe Dart too).


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    People seem to forget that BRT isn't just about Swords and the airport. The bulk of BRT will be elsewhere in the city along corridors that do not have any alternative plans. (Well except the Rathfarnham route with Luas E.). Those four radials (Blanch/Clongriffin/UCD/Tallaght) will still warrant BRT whether or not Metro North and/or DartU get built.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,546 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Aard wrote: »
    People seem to forget that BRT isn't just about Swords and the airport. The bulk of BRT will be elsewhere in the city along corridors that do not have any alternative plans. (Well except the Rathfarnham route with Luas E.). Those four radials (Blanch/Clongriffin/UCD/Tallaght) will still warrant BRT whether or not Metro North and/or DartU get built.

    LUAS E is not an alternative. It was rightly well and truly ditched due to being totally unworkable.

    Apart from that, I'd agree totally with your point. People fixate on certain locations without recognising the benefits for the corridor as a whole.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    I didn't mean to suggest that Luas E was a viable alternative. Just wanted to include it for historical accuracy.

    The thing about the BRT proposal that I'm surprised gets little mention is the curtailment of the Blue Route at UCD. I'd have thought that given the apparent success of the 46a/145 that that route could easily extent to Stillorgan if not Foxrock Church or beyond. UCD seems very close to town.

    Then I got to thinking about Top Secret Conspiracy Theories. The route is indicated blue on the maps. It ends at UCD. Also ending in and around UCD was the coincidentally named "Blue Line" to Sandyford via the motorway reservation. From having looked at applications for planning permission on lands abutting the reservation, it would appear that DLR are still considering using that route for BRT. So, I wonder if at some point we'll see amalgamation of both "Blue Lines" into one route from Blanch>UCD>Sandyford. Or maybe I should take my tinfoil hat off!


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    It is really an awful plan. The whole thing is predicated on an average speed that is totally unrealistic - 30 km per hour -. This despite the service having to cross the Luas in six places (the authority incorrectly believes it has to cross only four places) and having to traverse 40 sets of traffic lights on its round trip.

    The 41 would be faster. As far as I know, its route is such that it won't cross the Luas at all.

    It is really a waste to plough money into this. A few junction improvements and a corridor improvement scheme would achieve more or less the same thing for maybe four million euros. And as someone has said, it isn't really about Swords and the Airport which are actually pretty well served now. It's about sorting out the suburbs closer to the city.

    It would make a lot more sense to put the extra money the Ballymun corridor, which is very badly operated and woefully inadequate for the demand.



    As a footnote, detail I received from the Authority. It is more detailed than anything in the actual documentation, and contains a lot of hard to believe statements:
    Regarding the route length for example, based on the indicative preferred route identified the route length is approximately 18km long. This level of detail is sufficient for our needs at this stage of appraisal. We will obviously have much more precise lengths and co-ordinates available when we carry out further detailed design on the preferred route after the consultation period. As this route from Swords to the City Centre runs along the same roads for the vast majority of the route with the exception of a single lane loop on Earlsfort Terrace for a round trip 36 km should suffice. If you imagine your service starts and ends at Earlsfort Terrace it is slightly longer outbound.

    The journey time will be approximately 35 minutes from Swords to City Centre. Based on the level of segregation, traffic priority and off-board ticketing this will be consistent at all times, not just at peak times. The exact service provision has not yet been decided. A round trip would be approximately 70minutes. There is not anticipated to be a layover in the city centre.

    I think there is approximately 40 traffic lit junctions crossed and the indicative route crosses/interacts with the Luas 4 times with interchange provided where possible.

    Hopefully this information suffices and we welcome your continued input as the project progresses. We will be able to furnish you with more detailed answers at that stage


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    It is really an awful plan. The whole thing is predicated on an average speed that is totally unrealistic - 30 km per hour -. This despite the service having to cross the Luas in six places (the authority incorrectly believes it has to cross only four places) and having to traverse 40 sets of traffic lights on its round trip.

    The 41 would be faster. As far as I know, its route is such that it won't cross the Luas at all.

    It is really a waste to plough money into this. A few junction improvements and a corridor improvement scheme would achieve more or less the same thing for maybe four million euros. And as someone has said, it isn't really about Swords and the Airport which are actually pretty well served now. It's about sorting out the suburbs closer to the city.

    It would make a lot more sense to put the extra money the Ballymun corridor, which is very badly operated and woefully inadequate for the demand.



    As a footnote, detail I received from the Authority. It is more detailed than anything in the actual documentation, and contains a lot of hard to believe statements:
    Regarding the route length for example, based on the indicative preferred route identified the route length is approximately 18km long. This level of detail is sufficient for our needs at this stage of appraisal. We will obviously have much more precise lengths and co-ordinates available when we carry out further detailed design on the preferred route after the consultation period. As this route from Swords to the City Centre runs along the same roads for the vast majority of the route with the exception of a single lane loop on Earlsfort Terrace for a round trip 36 km should suffice. If you imagine your service starts and ends at Earlsfort Terrace it is slightly longer outbound.

    The journey time will be approximately 35 minutes from Swords to City Centre. Based on the level of segregation, traffic priority and off-board ticketing this will be consistent at all times, not just at peak times. The exact service provision has not yet been decided. A round trip would be approximately 70minutes. There is not anticipated to be a layover in the city centre.

    I think there is approximately 40 traffic lit junctions crossed and the indicative route crosses/interacts with the Luas 4 times with interchange provided where possible.

    Hopefully this information suffices and we welcome your continued input as the project progresses. We will be able to furnish you with more detailed answers at that stage


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    The devil will be in the detail. How on Earth can there be a reliable brt service through cabra and stoneybatter? I look forward to seeing how thats possible. Same for the Georges St part and most of the route out to tallaght


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    It is really an awful plan. The whole thing is predicated on an average speed that is totally unrealistic - 30 km per hour -. This despite the service having to cross the Luas in six places (the authority incorrectly believes it has to cross only four places) and having to traverse 40 sets of traffic lights on its round trip.

    The 41 would be faster. As far as I know, its route is such that it won't cross the Luas at all.

    It is really a waste to plough money into this. A few junction improvements and a corridor improvement scheme would achieve more or less the same thing for maybe four million euros. And as someone has said, it isn't really about Swords and the Airport which are actually pretty well served now. It's about sorting out the suburbs closer to the city.

    It would make a lot more sense to put the extra money the Ballymun corridor, which is very badly operated and woefully inadequate for the demand.

    As a footnote, detail I received from the Authority. It is more detailed than anything in the actual documentation, and contains a lot of hard to believe statements:

    Where are the 6 places the Swords route would have to cross Luas? I'm thinking Parnell St, O'Connell St, O'Connell Bridge, College Street... where else?

    I'm struggling to defend the plan without seeing the detail first, but I have to say that like Luas, speed is a factor, however, frequency and reliability are more important.

    cgcsb wrote: »
    The devil will be in the detail. How on Earth can there be a reliable brt service through cabra and stoneybatter? I look forward to seeing how thats possible. Same for the Georges St part and most of the route out to tallaght

    With lots of restrictions. For example, the Old Cabra Rd could be closed to through traffic. Can't wait to see their solution for Stoneybatter -- the more I think about it, not using Grangegorman seems like a larger and larger missed opportunity.

    Under the NTA city centre plan, Georges Street could be bus / cycle / taxi only.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    monument wrote: »
    Where are the 6 places the Swords route would have to cross Luas? I'm thinking Parnell St, O'Connell St, O'Connell Bridge, College Street... where else?

    I mean on the 70-minute return journey. Three times in each direction. The third crossing is because BXD is split across two streets.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    monument wrote: »
    I'm struggling to defend the plan without seeing the detail first, but I have to say that like Luas, speed is a factor, however, frequency and reliability are more important.

    The problem is that the new system won't have very much priority. It won't benefit from a railway order to give it the priority that Luas has, and even if it did, it would still have to interact with the Luas lines.

    The fundamental problem is the lack of road space. The new luas line will mean that there is less road space in the city than any time since the fifties.

    The whole idea of building long metro-like uber-routes into the suburb using busways is plain wrong. The whole benefit of a bus network is that it can provide a far more comprehensive service for a much wider, less densely populated area.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I mean on the 70-minute return journey. Three times in each direction. The third crossing is because BXD is split across two streets.

    I'm counting four times one-way, but I was only thinking northbound (there's only three southbound):
    • At the junction of Pearse Street Garda Station
    • Crossing D'Olier St onto O'Connell Bridge
    • Junction of Abbey St / O'Connell St
    • Junction of Parnall St / O'Connell St / Parnall Square

    Unless they are crazy enough to try two-way bus/BRT on the east carrageway of O'Connell St? That would bring it down to three and allow buses and trams to cross the river at the same time and would mean the BRT route would be only crossing a single track of the green line (southbound).


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    The problem is that the new system won't have very much priority. It won't benefit from a railway order to give it the priority that Luas has, and even if it did, it would still have to interact with the Luas lines.

    The fundamental problem is the lack of road space. The new luas line will mean that there is less road space in the city than any time since the fifties.

    The whole idea of building long metro-like uber-routes into the suburb using busways is plain wrong. The whole benefit of a bus network is that it can provide a far more comprehensive service for a much wider, less densely populated area.

    If they do it right and give the BRT routes a reasonable amount of priority and segregation, then the planning permission to change roads to suit the BRT routes could act much in the way of a railway order. Maybe I'm being too optimistic.

    Buses can be good at a wider web, but focused, higher-frequency routes in European BRT projects have also worked well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Sure, it can all work, if you have road space. Decent bus operations help too. We have neither in Dublin.

    You can't really override or control a railway order with a planning permission as I understand it. In legal terms, the railway order holds its precedence until you vary it. It obviously depends on the management of the whole system too. It is really a matter of how much the train operator decides to allow green to the traffic.

    It's not really workable to have joint running of a stopping bus service through a tram stop. Think about it. It just won't work. If the bus station is before the luas stop, the bus will block the luas. If the bus stop is after the luas station, the luas will block the bus, and in certain circumstances the bus will still block the luas. It just won't work. It could work if you had a bypass at the stations to keep the buses and trams out of each others' way. But there is really no space to do that.

    If they did want to do this, which would be crazy, I think they would have to go back to ABP and have the railway order varied.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    monument wrote: »

    Under the NTA city centre plan, Georges Street could be bus / cycle / taxi only.


    Have you seen Georges St/Dame St/ Westmoreland st at night time ? It looks like a taxi convention most of the time, any plan that allows taxis use the route is doomed to failure unless the serious oversupply of Taxis in Dublin is addressed first. At a minimum you need to get rid of at least 70% of the taxis currently licensed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,785 ✭✭✭thomasj


    yep completely agree, Georges street is going to mental with the extra bus routes alongside the amount of taxis etc when the luas works kick in. I can't imagine how its going to work with brts


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    cdebru wrote: »
    Have you seen Georges St/Dame St/ Westmoreland st at night time ? It looks like a taxi convention most of the time, any plan that allows taxis use the route is doomed to failure unless the serious oversupply of Taxis in Dublin is addressed first. At a minimum you need to get rid of at least 70% of the taxis currently licensed.

    Crikey cdebru...do you want to start an armed insurrection :eek: !

    I see your point however,as it is the direct and entirely predictable result of one of the most cack-handed implimentations of "Policy" ever attempted by an Irish Government.

    The,by now,Infamous Bobby Molloy decision to come up with yet another ISIP (Irish Solution-Irish Problem) in panic stricken response to,yet another,Constitutional Issue,sealed the fate of Dublin City's already precarious Traffic Management infrastructure.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deregulation-ruined-taxi-drivers-overnight-29709864.html

    However,the notion of "getting rid of" 70% of the current suspects,however attractive it may seem,is a non-runner.

    What IS enitrely feasible is for the Regulatory Authority to REGULATE the situation.

    This could be done in many ways,one of which would be to simply allocate "Shifts" to numbers of Taxi Drivers or Vehicles accurately patched to the demand profiles which are by now well charted.

    Taxi's could be allocated free "Shifts" with any operations outside those allocated hours being subject to a "Surchage" enforced by Roof Sign Number and payable automatically by Direct Debit from the Taxidrivers pre-registered operating account.

    When one comes across lines of parked Taxi's totally blocking City Centre Streets,often for hours,then it is illustrating regular over-provision,which,in the circumstances,merits Immediate action.

    Similarly,a quick inspection of the vehicles passing through the College Green Bus-Gate each day will show a significant number of EMPTY Taxi's,many of which can be seen doing circuits of the CC area in the hope of a fare.

    No problems here,except that their presence is rendering the PRINCIPLE of the Bus-Gate redundant,simply due to the numbers of empty Taxi's involved.

    Regulating the Taxi Industry is what the NTA are being paid to do,with the only question being,WHY are they not doing it ?

    It sure aint Rocket Science,as already proven by Bobby Molloy T.D ;)


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Sure, it can all work, if you have road space. Decent bus operations help too. We have neither in Dublin.

    You can't really override or control a railway order with a planning permission as I understand it. In legal terms, the railway order holds its precedence until you vary it. It obviously depends on the management of the whole system too. It is really a matter of how much the train operator decides to allow green to the traffic.

    It's not really workable to have joint running of a stopping bus service through a tram stop. Think about it. It just won't work. If the bus station is before the luas stop, the bus will block the luas. If the bus stop is after the luas station, the luas will block the bus, and in certain circumstances the bus will still block the luas. It just won't work. It could work if you had a bypass at the stations to keep the buses and trams out of each others' way. But there is really no space to do that.

    If they did want to do this, which would be crazy, I think they would have to go back to ABP and have the railway order varied.

    As other cities in Europe show, it's not just about space but about how we use the space. Extra restrictions city centre on private cars are coming with Luas and BRT can add to that.

    Sometimes it's mainly about road design and layout -- for example the Drumcondra Road: If centre-of-road BRT is used on such roads it could give BRT a distinct advantage by removing a lot of conflicts (parking, left turns, loads etc) and allow for buses to overtake others at stops.

    Re railway order: I think I missunderstood you when you said BRT "won't benefit from a railway order to give it the priority that Luas" -- I was thinking more along the lines of the general route priority etc, not the interaction with the current/planned Luas lines. There's really no interaction expect the crossing points mentioned and the bit at lower O'Connell St -- lots of that could be avoided or limited by putting two-way BRT on the east side of O'Connell Street.

    This is what I have in mind for centre-of-road BRT:

    318664.png

    318661.png

    An example of staggered stops north and south of the junction to allow for turning lanes:

    318662.png

    318663.png
    cdebru wrote: »
    Have you seen Georges St/Dame St/ Westmoreland st at night time ? It looks like a taxi convention most of the time, any plan that allows taxis use the route is doomed to failure unless the serious oversupply of Taxis in Dublin is addressed first. At a minimum you need to get rid of at least 70% of the taxis currently licensed.

    Yes, I have. Wexford St is the worst by far, and BRT does not go that far. But with taxis at night, a Friday / Saturday night issue should not be dictating how we plan BRT lines.

    A maybe less apparent but a far larger problem for a larger percentage of the time is the poorly designed and regulated loading and parking. This issue affects rush hour on weekdays and weekends outside cycle lane hours when the streets become a free-for-all for parking (and that affects buses and adds to the taxi issue too).

    thomasj wrote: »
    yep completely agree, Georges street is going to mental with the extra bus routes alongside the amount of taxis etc when the luas works kick in. I can't imagine how its going to work with brts

    While private cars often make up a small percentage of the people traveling on the street, they often cause more or at least as much congestion as taxis.

    Even just look at the left turn from Georges Street to Dame Street -- the line of cars is often backed up to Exchequer St, which stops buses from getting into the often half empty bus / cycle /taxi right turning lane.

    Trying to make out that removing private cars won't make any difference because there's too many buses or taxis (which are also issues) was already claimed and proven wrong about College Green. The oversupply of taxis is an issue, I'm not claiming otherwise but tackling the level of private cars is one way of making a difference.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    I suggest that you can be fairly confident that by the time the Swords BRT route is operational (Q3 2016 ? ),there will be a co-incidental and as yet unpublicised Traffic Management and Control regime in place between Whitehall and Stephens Green.

    Politics,politicians,political expediency and the overriding requirement for corporate support and funding currently make any such announcements unlikely,but the certainty of further restrictions on General Private Motoring within the Canal Cordon is (IMO)a given.

    To it's credit,the NTA is the first agency involved in Irish Public Transport to even nod in this direction...whether or not It's good intentions can come to full fruition is somewhat less certain.:cool:


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,984 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Crikey cdebru...do you want to start an armed insurrection :eek: !

    I see your point however,as it is the direct and entirely predictable result of one of the most cack-handed implimentations of "Policy" ever attempted by an Irish Government.

    The,by now,Infamous Bobby Molloy decision to come up with yet another ISIP (Irish Solution-Irish Problem) in panic stricken response to,yet another,Constitutional Issue,sealed the fate of Dublin City's already precarious Traffic Management infrastructure.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deregulation-ruined-taxi-drivers-overnight-29709864.html

    However,the notion of "getting rid of" 70% of the current suspects,however attractive it may seem,is a non-runner.

    What IS enitrely feasible is for the Regulatory Authority to REGULATE the situation.

    This could be done in many ways,one of which would be to simply allocate "Shifts" to numbers of Taxi Drivers or Vehicles accurately patched to the demand profiles which are by now well charted.

    Taxi's could be allocated free "Shifts" with any operations outside those allocated hours being subject to a "Surchage" enforced by Roof Sign Number and payable automatically by Direct Debit from the Taxidrivers pre-registered operating account.

    When one comes across lines of parked Taxi's totally blocking City Centre Streets,often for hours,then it is illustrating regular over-provision,which,in the circumstances,merits Immediate action.

    Similarly,a quick inspection of the vehicles passing through the College Green Bus-Gate each day will show a significant number of EMPTY Taxi's,many of which can be seen doing circuits of the CC area in the hope of a fare.

    No problems here,except that their presence is rendering the PRINCIPLE of the Bus-Gate redundant,simply due to the numbers of empty Taxi's involved.

    Regulating the Taxi Industry is what the NTA are being paid to do,with the only question being,WHY are they not doing it ?

    It sure aint Rocket Science,as already proven by Bobby Molloy T.D ;)
    or an even better idea, stop issuing licences and let the market sort itself out, that way the taxis will eventually match to demand, if it goes under the amount for the demand then issue licences again for a while til it comes back up

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



Advertisement