oltmannd John WR A few more things might be said about Amtrak and congestion. In the Northeast and Middleatlantic states highways the not the only things that are congested. Our air lanes are congested too . Amtrak intercity trains can relieve air land congesting leaving more of them open for longer flights. Much of the Northeast corridor is owned by Amtrak. Commuter trains also run over these tracks which do reduce rush hour highway congestion. Exactly. Which is why the places where you can get the most benefit for the buck are NEC extensions and similar short haul, densely populated corridors. It's also why congested cities like Atlanta and Dallas and Houston need to start with commuter rail before they start thinking too hard about intercity service.
John WR A few more things might be said about Amtrak and congestion. In the Northeast and Middleatlantic states highways the not the only things that are congested. Our air lanes are congested too . Amtrak intercity trains can relieve air land congesting leaving more of them open for longer flights. Much of the Northeast corridor is owned by Amtrak. Commuter trains also run over these tracks which do reduce rush hour highway congestion.
A few more things might be said about Amtrak and congestion.
In the Northeast and Middleatlantic states highways the not the only things that are congested. Our air lanes are congested too . Amtrak intercity trains can relieve air land congesting leaving more of them open for longer flights.
Much of the Northeast corridor is owned by Amtrak. Commuter trains also run over these tracks which do reduce rush hour highway congestion.
Exactly. Which is why the places where you can get the most benefit for the buck are NEC extensions and similar short haul, densely populated corridors.
It's also why congested cities like Atlanta and Dallas and Houston need to start with commuter rail before they start thinking too hard about intercity service.
The Trinity Railway Express that runs between Dallas and Fort Worth has been operational for more than 10 years. It offers approximately 40 trains a day between Big D and Fort Worth, although some of the trains originate and terminate at CentrePort.
The Denton County Transportation Authority operates a commuter rail service between Denton, TX and Carrollton, where it offers across the platform connections with DART's Green light rail line that runs into downtown Dallas. The DTCA commuter line is 21 miles. It offers 47 trips per day between Denton and Carrolton. The one way fare between Denton and Carrollton is $5.00.
In FY11 the average rider subsidy per trip was $$5.44 or 17.5 cents per passenger mile. The fare to travel from Dallas to Fort Worth is $5.00, whilst the Region 1 fare (part of the distance from Dallas and/or Fort Worth to an intermediate station) is $3.50. Interestingly, in December the Region 1 fare will drop to $2.50. There are other fares for day passes and monthly commuter tickets.
In FY11 daily passenger trips averaged 8,500 for weekdays and 4,400 on Saturdays. There is no service on Sunday.
John WRWhile NJT commuter fares are much less than Amtrak fares the agreement did fill Amtrak seats which otherwise would have been empty so for Amtrak the revenue was pure profit.
Those seats were empty only because the train came out of Phila with seats to fill at Trenton and PJ. It's why the clockers were ditched by Amtrak.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Finally, for several months I commuted between Princeton Junction and Newark, NJ on an Amtrak intercity train. Amtrak and New Jersey Transit had an agreement which allowed NJT commuters to use their tickets on Clockers and some Keystone Service trains. The agreement ended when Amtrak stopped running Clockers. The agreement grew out of the years the Pennsylvania Railroad ran commuter trains on their tracks into New York. It worked well; I would get on a train about 6:30 am and arrive in Newark 50 minutes later. While NJT commuter fares are much less than Amtrak fares the agreement did fill Amtrak seats which otherwise would have been empty so for Amtrak the revenue was pure profit.
iron mountainThis information led me to another link discussing the cost of highway congestion. That was broken down into the categories of travel costs, additional business costs, and productivity. The Texas Tansportation Institute pegged this at $67B per year.
There are a couple of things to think about when considering the cost of congestion. Certainly, it is real and time is valuable, but we need to consider the quality of the time saved - that is, how big are the chunks of time saved? - and where is the congestion occurring?
First, the quality. If congestion causes a 2 minute delay for a few thousand drivers, it is not likely that that 2 minute delay is going to stop them from doing something or 2 minutes of additional free time is going to enable them to get something more done in the day. Two minutes is just doesn't have much value. But, 10 or 20 minute periods of time give you time to do things like get a bite to eat or walk the dog. These are more valuable minutes....
Second, the congestion delays in the US are nearly all from commuters. We built all these urban freeways, and we use them! You can make a good case for commuter rail as a partial solution to urban freeway congestion. In fact, in places like LA and Northern VA, that is exactly what has occurred.
Amtrak and intercity rail will never play much of a role in highway congestion mitigation, simply because the number of travelers per hour is just too low. Even the southern half of the NEC doesn't carry a half a lane's worth of Amtrak patrons in each direction during peak periods.
schlimm http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_09.html and total motor vehicle fuel consumption was at the lowest level in 2010 since 2002.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_09.html
and total motor vehicle fuel consumption was at the lowest level in 2010 since 2002.
But, the CAFE stds did not changed from 2002 to 2010. You are looking at the effect of the Great Recession.
If you take the data in you link and plot avg mpg against avg miles per vehicle, you get a really nice linear correlation with an R^2 of 0.86. If you drop everything prior to 1975 and after 2007, the R^2 is still 0.86.
The slope of the line shows that for every 1 mpg improvement, you induce 5-700 more miles of driving
Another way of looking at it: The range of fuel per vehicle per year has been from 830-661 (830 is 25% more than 661). The range of mpg has been from 9.5 to 17.6 (85%)
And that leads to another problem, reduced gas tax revenues. And that leads to increased taxes if the auto/highway complex is going to be adequately funded.
While on this tack I read that AAA estimated the cost of accidents and fatalities at $164.2 B for a year. That includes property damage, medical care, emergency services, and lost productivity.
This information led me to another link discussing the cost of highway congestion. That was broken down into the categories of travel costs, additional business costs, and productivity. The Texas Tansportation Institute pegged this at $67B per year.
Of course the solution to addressing these problems is increased cost in highway construction and better safety engineering in cars.
Well, as I said before, I do not consider myself particularly knowledgable in the area of cost analysis. I think I can say with assurance that coming up with a true cost per passenger mile or whatever is not only a complex task but also a task that is relative to the framework within which it is presented. And that last remark may be the most important aspect of this conversation.
Finally, I must ask if all these above-mentioned costs are taken into consideration when someone states the cost per automobile passenger mile is cited? I am not debating I am asking because I don't know. Anyone feel free to enlighten me.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
iron mountainSo Obama can strive all he wants to for increased fuel efficiency, but will the increased mpg reduce consumption?
True, and provable. The stats on miles driven has increased at nearly the same rate as the fleet avg fuel economy. CAFE standards are a lousy way to conserve energy. They are a good way to increase highway usage, though.
I am in no way as sophisticated in cost/analysis as many of you folks. But I do want to toss something out there for consideration. It is Jevon's Paradox. In 1865 A. Jevon established that the more technological efficiency that is achieved in the usage of a resource (in this case coal), the more the consumption of said resource increases. This paradox has been applied to other commodities and energies. So Obama can strive all he wants to for increased fuel efficiency, but will the increased mpg reduce consumption? It will not unless, and here comes the dreaded "T" word, an increasingly costly tax makes driving automobiles prohibitive to a significant number of people who then will seek another mode of transportation. And, if anyone listened to Obama's campaign rhetoric, increased costs for driving personal autos is not at all troubling to him.
In trying to get a handle on the cost/efficiency highway vs. rail business I investigated some data on US highway accidents and deaths from 1995 to 2009. The fatalities have declined about 25% from 44K per year to 33K per year. Meanwhile the accident rate had a 6% decline in1995 but has remained fairly static to 2009 at 10.8 million per year. I am sure some bean counter has already put a cost to this. All I know is what the last trip to the doctor for an annual physical cost and a what a recent minor fender bender cost. Multiply this over millions and factor in severe medical issues and auto damage and the cost of automoblie usage is very great indeed.
Someone may already have pointed out the cost to our economy for the fatalites and accidents on the highway, so forgive me if I am being redundant concerning this issue.
blue streak 1 Erik; Natural gas generation does have many advantages as the new recuperating generator setups have almost a 50% energy recovery. The natural gas turbines can be started spinning as demand gets close to supply and then fired up with a 10 minutes warm up time. this gives about a 25 - 30% energy recovery. the waste heat is then cycled to a steam generator and in 1 hr gives the 50% energy recovery.
GE is claiming a 60% thermal efficiency for their latest combined cycle plants and 46% for their best simple cycle turbines (and 40% at 50% turndown). A natural gas fueled combustion turbine is likely to have close to zero particulates, minute SO2, reasonably low level of NOx, low CO2 emissions per kW-hr and also light on the cooling water requirements. It certainly would be cleaner running trains off these plants compared to diesel locomotives, once you get past the much higher capital costs and objections from people about the catenary.
One problem with turbines is the efficiency drops when run at less than full output (which is why GE touted the 40% efficiency at 50% turndown), don't like being started overly frequently and thus make a less than optimal back-up for generation that has large, rapid and unexpected changes in generation - (cough) wind (cough). Your comment about the 10 minute warm up time, implies that wind farms should be built with a 10 to 15 minute back-up to allow adequate time for replacement power to come on-line after the wind farm is becalmed.
- Erik
P.S. To give a concrete example of how turbines are really bad at idling, UP's 4500HP GTEL's consumed 450 gal/hr at full output and 200 gal/hr at idle.
Not all passengers should be counted equal.
Until we get away from the number of passengers and go to revenue passenger miles a rational view of what is needed will be impossible.
RRs report carloadings but it is the million revenue ton miles that pay the bills
Pulling people from cars is a market process. As noted, if the cost of driving becomes prohibitive, getting people out of their cars in Texas, especially for commuting, becomes a realistic probability. Otherwise, it is not likely to happen. At least not in significant numbers.
We have built an intensive light rail and commuter rail system in Dallas as well as between Dallas and Fort Worth. Approximately three to five per cent of the Metroplex population use these systems as well as buses. The trains run frequently, including more than 40 trains a day between Dallas and Fort Worth. The average FY11 subsidy for the commuter railway was $5.44 per passenger or 16.3 cents a passenger mile.
Several years ago I ask DART for data regarding ridership on the light rail system, the buses, and the commuter rail system. Surprisingly, they sent me spreadsheets for each route. The load factor on the morning and evening trains is higher than the average load factor. During the rush hours the load factor approaches 83 per cent, but during the off peak hours it falls to as little as 10 per cent, with the daily average being 44.3 per cent.
Along with the light rail and commuter rail systems, Dallas Area Rapid Transit invested heavily in HOV lanes on all the major highways leading into Dallas. The average subsidy for the HOV lane is $0.22 per motorist.
There are six trains per day between Charlotte and Raleigh. Their average load factor in FY11 was 46 per cent. There are numerous NEC regional trains per day between Washington and Boston. The average load factor was 46 per cent in FY11. There are approximately 22 trains per day between LA and San Diego. The average load factor was 35.3 per cent in FY11.
The Carolina trains lost $3.5 million before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. The NEC regionals had an operating profit of $15.2 million before the allocation of the capital expenses, which probably wiped out the operating profits. The LA to San Diego trains lost $33.9 million before the capital expenses.
Building it does not appear to be a magic bullet. It will take more than just building it to get Americans to make greater use of public transit or intercity trains.
erikem . Natural gas has the advantage of being plentiful due to advances in drilling and production technology, as well as being clean. As a source of power for RR electrification, it has the advantage of being available when needed as opposed to only being available when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. - Erik
. Natural gas has the advantage of being plentiful due to advances in drilling and production technology, as well as being clean. As a source of power for RR electrification, it has the advantage of being available when needed as opposed to only being available when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.
John WR With regard to natural gas, Erik, today many people argue that is the solution to our energy problems. But on TV we all see people turning on their water faucets and lighting the gas that comes out. Natural gas also has its problems.
With regard to natural gas, Erik, today many people argue that is the solution to our energy problems. But on TV we all see people turning on their water faucets and lighting the gas that comes out. Natural gas also has its problems.
FWIW, my dad told me stories of visiting his aunt and uncle's farm as a teenager and seeing his cousin light the gas coming out of the faucet. Needless to say, there wasn't any frac'ing going on at that time.
Every source of energy has problems of one kind or another. Natural gas has the advantage of being plentiful due to advances in drilling and production technology, as well as being clean. As a source of power for RR electrification, it has the advantage of being available when needed as opposed to only being available when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Having schedules changing from hour to hour due to vagaries of wind and solar generation will not be a good way to woo people out of their cars.
N.B. Geothermal can provide reliable generation, but the sources are limited and it has some environmental issues as well.
Nobody needs to "pull people out of their cars." To paraphrase Field of Dreams, if we build some real passenger service in short to medium corridors, the public will have something to come to. Outside the NEC and maybe 1-2 other emerging corridors, there are no real passenger rail services in the US. And service, as henry6, oltmann, phoebe, bluestreak and others have reminded us is more than 1-2 trains running per day.
I drive from Austin to Dallas on I-35 at least two or three times a month. I am familiar with the highway, which by the way is being rebuilt.
With a few exceptions the median is not wide enough to accomodate a single track railway line let alone a dual track line. Through Austin, Waco, Hillsboro, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Denton there is essentially no median. Equally important, there is little land on either side of the highway, especially through the aforementioned cities. Given the scaring impact of the interstate highways on our cities, widening the footprint to include rail lines does not seem like a good idea. Even in those rural areas where the median or side right-of-way is wide enough to accomodate a single track railway line, the median is blocked in many locations by bridge supports.
The best bet for improved passenger rail service in the I-35 corridor in Texas is to use the UP line from San Antonio to Round Rock and the former MKT line from there to Fort Worth. It parallels I-35 in many locations, but upgrading it would be very expensive.
I-35 is being widened from six to eight lanes from I-635 in north Dallas to U.S. 380 in Denton. According to the Dallas Morning News, the estimated cost for the two additional lanes, as well as relocating the frontage roads, and rebuilding all the overpasses will be approximately $4 billion. The distance is 28 miles, giving a preliminary estimated cost of $142.9 million per mile. The highway runs through a heavily populated urban area, which increases the upgrade cost significantly.
DART's green line and DTA's railway rights-of-ways parallel I-35. They have taken a few cars off I-35 but not many. Unless the cost of driving becomes unduly prohibitive, Texans are not going to be pulled out of their cars and trucks irrespective of what the planners in Austin and Washington want. There are too many variables to overcome.
Some are, many are not. Curves are more of a problem. Grades can be smoothed, plus dedicated lines should be electric from the beginning.
schlimm A question for V. Payne: What is a typical cost per mile to expand an Interstate one lane in each direction on existing RoW? For Don Oltmann: I wonder how that might compare with cost for using existing interstate RoW (as proposed in FL) to build a dedicated two-track or single track rail line with long sidings for higher speed passenger rail? Shared RoW with freight lines is not going to work in a real passenger system.
A question for V. Payne: What is a typical cost per mile to expand an Interstate one lane in each direction on existing RoW? For Don Oltmann: I wonder how that might compare with cost for using existing interstate RoW (as proposed in FL) to build a dedicated two-track or single track rail line with long sidings for higher speed passenger rail? Shared RoW with freight lines is not going to work in a real passenger system.
Interstates generally don't make good HSR alignments, either. Curves (vertical and horizontal) are too sharp for high speeds.
John WR I live in New Jersey, Sam. Many of my neighbors here and in New York have lost everything--homes, furniture, vehicles--the things they have worked for a life time to have are gone. To compare this devastation with deliberately foregoing electricity for a measured amount of time leaves me wondering what to think.
I live in New Jersey, Sam. Many of my neighbors here and in New York have lost everything--homes, furniture, vehicles--the things they have worked for a life time to have are gone. To compare this devastation with deliberately foregoing electricity for a measured amount of time leaves me wondering what to think.
My point was to highlight the fact that people will not voluntarily forgo electric energy and, therefore, wind and solar generation must be backed-up with fossil or nuclear generation capability. The people who were harmed by Sandy can attest, I am sure, to the problems associated by being without electric power for even a relatively short period of time.
Those who believe that wind and solar are viable sources of generation without having installed generation to take up the slack when they fail are not being realistic.
NJ did a bad thing letting nearly all the barrier islands get completely covered with dense,residential housing. It's going to be hard to get the "beach house" genie back in the bottle. Hope the state exercises its riparian lands laws to the fullest during the recovery. The next hurricane could be worse! Might be time to stop the Federal subsidy of flood insurance, too.
Related to trains? Yes. With the exception of Cape May, the shore towns on the barrier islands all developed because the railroad was built out onto the islands. The very first was Atlantic City. A fellow bought Absecon Island and then built the RR down from Camden in order to entice developers to buy his land (at a nice profit). It worked! And, the race was on...
Wind is actually a pretty nice chunk of the base load already.
for 2011:
Coal - 42.3%
Gas - 25.0%
nuclear - 19.3%
hydro - 7.8%
wind 4.7%
Wind and gas have likely grown in 2012 and coal has shrunk. As a comparison, coal was 50.1%, gas 18.2% and wind 2.1% in 2002.
Electric consumption was only up 6% from 2002 to 2011.
I'd say we need to keep putting up windmills at the same rate going forward. We also need to keep up the frac-ing and switch to gas from coal and oil as fast as we can go. Local environmental issues aside, natural gas is SOOOO much cleaner than coal and oil, it's a no-brainer. We can figure out the local environment stuff on the fly. Can't let "perfect"get in the way of "good".
If an electric utility can get a portion of its industrial and commercial customers to agree to interruptible contracts, it can get by with less than a megawatt of back-up generation for every megawatt of installed wind or solar generation. However, our company did not have many interruptible contract takers; they need the juice for a variety of on-going processes.
Having a megawatt of reserve for every megawatt of wind or solar power does not mean that one can simply mothball it and start it leisurely to cover for a sudden drop in wind generation. The back-up plants have to be staffed, albeit it often with a minimum staff, to maintain the equipment and be prepared to run when called upon. For example, the turbine has to turn slowly to prevent shaft warp.
As far as I know, all major electric utilities have some spinning reserve, which is used in case a fossil or nuclear unit trips, but in most instances addition back-up capability is required to cover for wind and solar. The hard fact of the matter is that these sources of generation are not yet reliable enough for prime time.
If one believes that people would be happy to have their juice cut off for a couple of days, I suggest they study the reaction of the victims of Sandy in New York and New Jersey this past week or so.
I suggest that if history teaches anything it teaches that we should not rely on any one single source of energy. Relying on coal alone caused horrendous air pollution problems. When we relied on oil we wound up fighting wars, wars where we had funded our opponents by buying oil from them. We need to have diverse sources of energy. We also need to wean ourselves away from both excessive energy use and from paving over massive areas of our whole country. We need multiple energy sources, multiple forms of transportation and we need to use less energy than we do now.
Dixie Flyer If Amtrak carried 4 times the current 30 million peasengers a year and lost 4 times the current losses (say 6-8 billion per year) how would we feel as the American people, as taxpayers etc. There would be no tri-weekly trains, most routes would have two or more trains each way, corridors would have 6-9 trains each way and there would be more corridors, most of the pre 1979 routes would be back plus a few more giving us a system similar to the ilnterstate highway system. What are your thoughts?
If Amtrak carried 4 times the current 30 million peasengers a year and lost 4 times the current losses (say 6-8 billion per year) how would we feel as the American people, as taxpayers etc. There would be no tri-weekly trains, most routes would have two or more trains each way, corridors would have 6-9 trains each way and there would be more corridors, most of the pre 1979 routes would be back plus a few more giving us a system similar to the ilnterstate highway system.
What are your thoughts?
Here is another thought to muddy the water. In FY11 Amtrak lifted 30.2 million tickets plus or minus a standard accounting error. Amtrak refers to this number as its passengers or riders. But how many customers (individual persons) did Amtrak have in FY11?
Assuming that 75 per cent of Amtrak's passengers traveled roundtrip on the train, i.e. New York to Philadelphia and back to New York, the maximum number of customers would have been approximately 18.9 million. And that assumes each customer made only one trip (one way or roundtrip) during the year, which is probably not true. There are many people in the NEC, unless it has changed dramatically since I lived there, who ride a NEC Amtrak train numerous times throughout the year. I certainly did. Accordingly, the number of Amtrak's customers, as opposed to passengers, may be few than 15 million.
Comparatively, in 2011 there were approximately 210 million licensed motorists in the U.S. Most though not all of them drive. Some are permanently out of action because of age; others are temporarily out of action because of illness, etc. These numbers suggest two key points. Amtrak really is a minor play in intercity passenger transport. And getting to 120 million passengers, riders, ticket holders or whatever you want to call them would be a huge challenge.
John WR But we do have two new promising technologies: Wind turbines and solar generation. Neither is a constant source of power. However, at least in the east, wind turbines tend to produce more power in the winter and solar generation tends to produce more power in the summer.
But we do have two new promising technologies: Wind turbines and solar generation. Neither is a constant source of power. However, at least in the east, wind turbines tend to produce more power in the winter and solar generation tends to produce more power in the summer.
The problem with wind turbines and solar cells for generating electricity is that they are not dispatchable as any imbalance between generation and load will create problems for a power system. Sam1 correctly pointed out that utilities need close to a watt of back-up capacity for every watt of wind generation, though Paul Milenkovic's suggestion of using EV charging to absorb variations in generation has some merit (Alec Brooks wrote an interesting paper about using charger/inverter connected to EV's as a means of stabilizing power systems). A related problem with wind is that the generation from wind can drop so fast that the back-up generation can't be brought on-line fast enough to cover for the absent wind power.
Solar does have the advantage of being more predictable than wind, but it is only available a few hours before and after local noon. The California ISO website shows that the late summer power demand peaks at 6PM, where solar production peaks at 12noon. A solar plant would need about 6 hours worth of energy storage to make a good fit with utility needs, keeping in mind that many energy storage technologies haven't limited cycle lifetimes. I've run a few numbers on batteries, flywheels and capacitors, with the lifetime storage costs running $0.50/kW-hr and up (a battery that cost $500/kW-hr of capacity and has a lifetime of 500 cycles will add $1.00/kW-hr to the cost of alternative energy.
It would be a lot cheaper to use natural gas in a high efficiency gas turbine - fuel costs will be on the order of $0.02 to $0.03 per kW-hr.
Paul Milenkovic So if we don't have a market system, we have a political system where people vote, and the people we vote into office are particularly sensitive to what the people want because most office holders like keeping their jobs. And the outcome of the political system is that by and large, people prefer to stay in their cars rather than switch to trains for the intercity leg of the trip, so that is what we pretty much have, only we set some money aside to have a minimal national train service in the form of Amtrak. Also, the remark "we would never fund concrete roads differently than we would fund (asphalt) roads" is, what is the correct 10-dollar word, disingenuous? A flanged-steeled-wheel road is different in kind from a concrete or asphalt road. For starters, the steel-wheel road requires a modal change for the central part of the trip whereas the other two kinds of roads do not. For some of us, that modal change is the best part of the trip because we get to ride a train and trains are kewl. For many of us, that modal change is a serious inconvenience that costs more than out-of-pocket car costs, even with high gas prices, and how do we get around at the far end of our trip?
So if we don't have a market system, we have a political system where people vote, and the people we vote into office are particularly sensitive to what the people want because most office holders like keeping their jobs. And the outcome of the political system is that by and large, people prefer to stay in their cars rather than switch to trains for the intercity leg of the trip, so that is what we pretty much have, only we set some money aside to have a minimal national train service in the form of Amtrak.
Also, the remark "we would never fund concrete roads differently than we would fund (asphalt) roads" is, what is the correct 10-dollar word, disingenuous? A flanged-steeled-wheel road is different in kind from a concrete or asphalt road. For starters, the steel-wheel road requires a modal change for the central part of the trip whereas the other two kinds of roads do not. For some of us, that modal change is the best part of the trip because we get to ride a train and trains are kewl. For many of us, that modal change is a serious inconvenience that costs more than out-of-pocket car costs, even with high gas prices, and how do we get around at the far end of our trip?
Paul,
That last phrase sums up the problem with rail travel where travel time taking the train is competitive with flying - in most areas outside the NEC, traveling by car will be just as fast, if not faster. One exception is when the ultimate destination is either a short walk from the station or accessible by a transit connection from the station and there is no nearby parking at reasonable rates. This situation is far more likely to be found in commuter rail than LD passenger.
The other downside of modal changes is waits due to rail scheduling not matching the needs of the passenger, especially when the two modes run on poorly coordinated schedules. The same can be true for airlines, but taking the car is almost certainly non-competitive with flying between any points that require changing planes.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.