Where the Palo Alto City Council candidates stand on rail crossings – Palo Alto Online

News
by Palo Alto Weekly staff / Palo Alto Weekly
Uploaded: Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 8:39 am 9
Time to read: about 7 minutes
Traffic waits on Churchill Avenue for a southbound Caltrain at the Churchill train crossing on March 21, 2019. Photo by Veronica Weber.
Election season is in full swing across Palo Alto, where campaign signs are becoming more noticeable across town.
To assist local voters in their decision at the ballot box, the Weekly asked this year’s seven City Council candidates to fill out questionnaires about their qualifications, vision for the city and priorities if elected. They also explained where they stand on housing, climate change, rail crossings and policing and crime, among other topics.
The candidates’ answers on all these topics will be published as separate articles, one per day, through Sept. 19. Here’s what they had to say to the following question: Which designs do you support for Palo Alto’s rail crossings? How can we actually get this work done?
Doria Summa. Courtesy Doria Summa.
Doria Summa
I currently support the following overall approach:
• Palo Alto Avenue and the Transit Center crossings need to be coordinated and part of the Downtown Area Plan to ensure consistency.
Help sustain the local news you depend on.
Your contribution matters. Become a member today.
• Churchill will be best served by a partial underpass to reduce impacts on nearby streets and neighborhoods and should include a bike/ped crossing near Seale.
• East Meadow and Charleston need to be treated identically and at the same time due to their proximity to each other. I support an underpass for both.
• There should be additional bike/ped crossings in the vicinity of Loma Verde/Matadero Creek and near Adobe Creek.
However, before final decisions are made, we need to evaluate the results of geotechnical tests that are underway, and work with Caltrain to address the issue of modernizing their technical requirements and dealing with the issue of passing tracks.
Given the scope, cost, and complexity of the project, the three bike/ped crossings should be constructed first. This is consistent with the bicycle/pedestrian Master Plan and will provide additional crossing options during the lengthy construction period.
Stay informed
Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.
Stay informed
Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.
I support the business tax in order to have local funding available to access the 2016 Measure B money and pursue State and Federal funding opportunities. Throughout the development of these projects, we must have robust communication and resident engagement.
Vicki Veenker
Vicki Veenker. Courtesy Vicki Veenker.
Palo Alto’s at-grade (street level) rail crossings are a threat to public safety and cause traffic back-ups, which will worsen when Caltrain electrification increases the number of trains. To address this, we should eliminate at-grade crossings and separate trains from other modes of transportation, such as cars, bikes, and pedestrians. Whether trains go up or down, other modes go under the tracks, or roads get closed, there are different tradeoffs in different neighborhoods.
At the Churchill crossing next to Palo Alto High School, I support pursuing the community-generated partial underpass option, where turning lanes onto Churchill from Alma would go under the tracks and a separate bike/pedestrian crossing would be constructed nearby. To further evaluate this option, we need the results of the geotechnical assessment, and we should continue to engage with key stakeholders including the School District, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Stanford.
At the Meadow and Charleston crossings, I prefer exploring underground options instead of elevating trains, if the geotechnical analysis supports this. I lean toward the vehicle underpass designs under review because of the expense of trenching to put trains below grade and the dewatering required. However, we need to refine and integrate the associated bike/pedestrian designs. Like Churchill, we need continued community outreach and to work with Caltrain to review how updated technical standards could help improve the designs being considered.
The Palo Alto Avenue crossing is close enough to the University Avenue Station that it should be reviewed as part of a coordinated area plan.
Most Viewed Stories
■ Stanford wants ‘educational’ tax exemption for faculty homes
■ Lawsuit, possible license suspension loom for Tesla over alleged autonomous-vehicle deceptions
■ Police: Woman arrested after car search nets gun, suspected drugs
■ Why it’s so hard for kids in crisis to access the mental health care they need in Santa Clara County
■ Where the Palo Alto City Council candidates stand on climate change
Most Viewed Stories
■ Stanford wants ‘educational’ tax exemption for faculty homes
■ Lawsuit, possible license suspension loom for Tesla over alleged autonomous-vehicle deceptions
To make this happen, in addition to the above, we need to access funding from the proposed business tax, earmarked Measure B dollars, and state and federal dollars dependent on local dollars and having a plan.
Julie Lythcott-Haims
Julie Lythcott-Haims. Courtesy photo.
It’s a fact that the CalTrain will be electrified throughout the corridor before Palo Alto gets its grade separations completed, bringing more trains per hour through our city which will result in outright gridlock at our four crossings, as well as harmful emissions and public safety hazards.
Alas, that horse has left the barn!
Of 113 crossings in the corridor, at least 71 are done. Clearly, other cities have made their hard choices. Why haven’t we? As an outsider this strikes me as a clear example of trying to serve many masters accustomed to local control, and failing to lead.
We need to take immediate action to start the construction of the Partial Underpass Alternative at the Churchill intersection, where traffic could back up to increased lines of 10-12 minutes without grade separation. At the Charleston and Meadow intersections, City Council has narrowed down the options to Hybrid, Underpass, and Trench. I worry about what the trench will do to creeks/water flow. I believe the visual barrier created by Hybrid will further segment and separate the east of the city from the west. Therefore I prefer the Underpass. It keeps the train where it is and allows cars, bikes, and pedestrians to go under in well-designed routes with
proven roundabouts that are logical and safe. Before Charleston and Meadow construction begins, however, we need to put in bike/pedestrian crossings at Seale and Matadero/Loma Verde so that students can get to Gunn.
Lisa Forssell
Lisa Forssell. Courtesy Lisa Forssell.
One of the most urgent things Palo Alto needs to do is create plans for grade separations at Palo Alto’s four Caltrain crossings at Meadow, Charleston, Churchill, and Palo Alto Ave. I favor the designs that increase bicycle and pedestrian safety and convenience – ideally with completely separate paths – while still offering vehicle access.
City Council needs to approve a specific design ASAP and allocate funding.
I support the proposed business tax which will provide funds for these grade separations. Palo Alto can then tap into its $350M allocation from Santa Clara County’s 2016 Measure B. With a shovel-ready project the City can apply for additional state and federal funds as well.
With a design and funding, we have what we need to begin construction.
Ed Lauing
Ed Lauing. Photo by Magali Gauthier.
I support continuing the refinement of the Partial Underpass for Churchill because it addresses the vehicular needs without moving cars into another neighborhood. The bicycle/pedestrian portion specifically needs further refinement, and I support a robust outreach process working closely with stakeholders including PAUSD, PABAC and Stanford.
Caltrain is upgrading its technical standards, and the geotechnical work underway will help continue to inform the alternatives for Meadow/Charleston. In the meantime, we must prepare for years of construction. That’s why I support additional bike/pedestrian rail crossings in the area of Loma Verde/Matadero Creek, near Adobe Creek/Alma and at Seale/Alma, before the grade separations are built, to provide safe passage during the expected years of construction. This has been a priority for years in the Comprehensive Plan, the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Rail Corridor Study as well as XCAP.
How can we actually get this work done?
+ We need to ensure that Caltrain updates itsr technical and operating standards ASAP. Modernizing the standards can help LOWER costs and improve the design of all grade separations along the line. For certain city decisions and process, including construction cost estimates, we remain dependent on what they eventually decide.
+ For the Palo Alto Ave./Alma crossing we need to fund the work needed for a Downtown Coordinated Area Plan to consider transportation and land use in a cohesive and cost-efficient manner.
+ Funding
Palo Alto will receive $350 Million from Measure B. That money requires a local match.
An approved business tax by voters would provide an estimated $3.3M per year for 35 years =$115M.
Together, these funding sources would allow us to pursue significant State and Federal funding opportunities to complete these critical projects.
Brian Hamachek. Courtesy Brian Hamachek.
Brian Hamachek
This is a very simple issue to me. We need to underground the train tracks. I realize that Council has already ruled out this option, but I feel that was a mistake. All other options either divide the city in two or create an unreasonable traffic burden. Undergrounding the train is without a doubt an expensive proposition, but I feel it is well worth the expense.
Alex Comsa
Alex Comsa. Courtesy Alex Comsa.
Palo Alto Ave crossing has not been studied at all, and it should be part of the downtown plan which means looking at the land use and transportation issues together.
Churchill crossing: the closure of Churchill may not be practical since the Embarcadero one needs to be studied too, and not sure if Embarcadero can handle the additional traffic that would be routed from Churchill. We need to know a bit more about the status of Embarcadero: historical status, the lifetime of that underpass, etc. The partial underpass for Churchill may be a good compromise for now and it looks like the current City Council approved this concept.
East Meadow and Charleston: More work needs to be done on the bike and pedestrian portion of the underpass. This one interests me as a father, in that it completely separates the bikes and pedestrians from the cars and trains, so it is safe for kids. I believe we need more details on cost and further refinement on the design/flow. The hybrid solution could be an option and it is the cheapest, although I am a bit skeptical since the cost is shown as $190M to $230M versus the underpass at $340M to $420M.
Particularly, we should work with Caltrain and neighboring cities to re-evaluate the technical standards to improve the design and reduce costs. Business tax dollars will help us get access to county and State/Fed funds: $3.3M per year, over 35 years, plus $350M from Measure B, then we apply to State funding. Overall, we need about $300M/crossing, so a total of $1.2B.
Although the tunnel option would be my first preference (less intrusive for residential neighborhoods), due to the high cost and also environmental limitations too, I’m going with the above options/designs.
Check back on Palo Alto Online tomorrow for candidates’ take on another city issue.
Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?
Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.
Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

by Palo Alto Weekly staff / Palo Alto Weekly
Uploaded: Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 8:39 am

Election season is in full swing across Palo Alto, where campaign signs are becoming more noticeable across town.
To assist local voters in their decision at the ballot box, the Weekly asked this year’s seven City Council candidates to fill out questionnaires about their qualifications, vision for the city and priorities if elected. They also explained where they stand on housing, climate change, rail crossings and policing and crime, among other topics.
The candidates’ answers on all these topics will be published as separate articles, one per day, through Sept. 19. Here’s what they had to say to the following question: Which designs do you support for Palo Alto’s rail crossings? How can we actually get this work done?
I currently support the following overall approach:
• Palo Alto Avenue and the Transit Center crossings need to be coordinated and part of the Downtown Area Plan to ensure consistency.
• Churchill will be best served by a partial underpass to reduce impacts on nearby streets and neighborhoods and should include a bike/ped crossing near Seale.
• East Meadow and Charleston need to be treated identically and at the same time due to their proximity to each other. I support an underpass for both.
• There should be additional bike/ped crossings in the vicinity of Loma Verde/Matadero Creek and near Adobe Creek.
However, before final decisions are made, we need to evaluate the results of geotechnical tests that are underway, and work with Caltrain to address the issue of modernizing their technical requirements and dealing with the issue of passing tracks.
Given the scope, cost, and complexity of the project, the three bike/ped crossings should be constructed first. This is consistent with the bicycle/pedestrian Master Plan and will provide additional crossing options during the lengthy construction period.
I support the business tax in order to have local funding available to access the 2016 Measure B money and pursue State and Federal funding opportunities. Throughout the development of these projects, we must have robust communication and resident engagement.
Palo Alto’s at-grade (street level) rail crossings are a threat to public safety and cause traffic back-ups, which will worsen when Caltrain electrification increases the number of trains. To address this, we should eliminate at-grade crossings and separate trains from other modes of transportation, such as cars, bikes, and pedestrians. Whether trains go up or down, other modes go under the tracks, or roads get closed, there are different tradeoffs in different neighborhoods.
At the Churchill crossing next to Palo Alto High School, I support pursuing the community-generated partial underpass option, where turning lanes onto Churchill from Alma would go under the tracks and a separate bike/pedestrian crossing would be constructed nearby. To further evaluate this option, we need the results of the geotechnical assessment, and we should continue to engage with key stakeholders including the School District, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Stanford.
At the Meadow and Charleston crossings, I prefer exploring underground options instead of elevating trains, if the geotechnical analysis supports this. I lean toward the vehicle underpass designs under review because of the expense of trenching to put trains below grade and the dewatering required. However, we need to refine and integrate the associated bike/pedestrian designs. Like Churchill, we need continued community outreach and to work with Caltrain to review how updated technical standards could help improve the designs being considered.
The Palo Alto Avenue crossing is close enough to the University Avenue Station that it should be reviewed as part of a coordinated area plan.
To make this happen, in addition to the above, we need to access funding from the proposed business tax, earmarked Measure B dollars, and state and federal dollars dependent on local dollars and having a plan.
It’s a fact that the CalTrain will be electrified throughout the corridor before Palo Alto gets its grade separations completed, bringing more trains per hour through our city which will result in outright gridlock at our four crossings, as well as harmful emissions and public safety hazards.
Alas, that horse has left the barn!
Of 113 crossings in the corridor, at least 71 are done. Clearly, other cities have made their hard choices. Why haven’t we? As an outsider this strikes me as a clear example of trying to serve many masters accustomed to local control, and failing to lead.
We need to take immediate action to start the construction of the Partial Underpass Alternative at the Churchill intersection, where traffic could back up to increased lines of 10-12 minutes without grade separation. At the Charleston and Meadow intersections, City Council has narrowed down the options to Hybrid, Underpass, and Trench. I worry about what the trench will do to creeks/water flow. I believe the visual barrier created by Hybrid will further segment and separate the east of the city from the west. Therefore I prefer the Underpass. It keeps the train where it is and allows cars, bikes, and pedestrians to go under in well-designed routes with
proven roundabouts that are logical and safe. Before Charleston and Meadow construction begins, however, we need to put in bike/pedestrian crossings at Seale and Matadero/Loma Verde so that students can get to Gunn.
One of the most urgent things Palo Alto needs to do is create plans for grade separations at Palo Alto’s four Caltrain crossings at Meadow, Charleston, Churchill, and Palo Alto Ave. I favor the designs that increase bicycle and pedestrian safety and convenience – ideally with completely separate paths – while still offering vehicle access.
City Council needs to approve a specific design ASAP and allocate funding.
I support the proposed business tax which will provide funds for these grade separations. Palo Alto can then tap into its $350M allocation from Santa Clara County’s 2016 Measure B. With a shovel-ready project the City can apply for additional state and federal funds as well.
With a design and funding, we have what we need to begin construction.
I support continuing the refinement of the Partial Underpass for Churchill because it addresses the vehicular needs without moving cars into another neighborhood. The bicycle/pedestrian portion specifically needs further refinement, and I support a robust outreach process working closely with stakeholders including PAUSD, PABAC and Stanford.
Caltrain is upgrading its technical standards, and the geotechnical work underway will help continue to inform the alternatives for Meadow/Charleston. In the meantime, we must prepare for years of construction. That’s why I support additional bike/pedestrian rail crossings in the area of Loma Verde/Matadero Creek, near Adobe Creek/Alma and at Seale/Alma, before the grade separations are built, to provide safe passage during the expected years of construction. This has been a priority for years in the Comprehensive Plan, the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Rail Corridor Study as well as XCAP.
How can we actually get this work done?
+ We need to ensure that Caltrain updates itsr technical and operating standards ASAP. Modernizing the standards can help LOWER costs and improve the design of all grade separations along the line. For certain city decisions and process, including construction cost estimates, we remain dependent on what they eventually decide.
+ For the Palo Alto Ave./Alma crossing we need to fund the work needed for a Downtown Coordinated Area Plan to consider transportation and land use in a cohesive and cost-efficient manner.
+ Funding
Palo Alto will receive $350 Million from Measure B. That money requires a local match.
An approved business tax by voters would provide an estimated $3.3M per year for 35 years =$115M.
Together, these funding sources would allow us to pursue significant State and Federal funding opportunities to complete these critical projects.
This is a very simple issue to me. We need to underground the train tracks. I realize that Council has already ruled out this option, but I feel that was a mistake. All other options either divide the city in two or create an unreasonable traffic burden. Undergrounding the train is without a doubt an expensive proposition, but I feel it is well worth the expense.
Palo Alto Ave crossing has not been studied at all, and it should be part of the downtown plan which means looking at the land use and transportation issues together.
Churchill crossing: the closure of Churchill may not be practical since the Embarcadero one needs to be studied too, and not sure if Embarcadero can handle the additional traffic that would be routed from Churchill. We need to know a bit more about the status of Embarcadero: historical status, the lifetime of that underpass, etc. The partial underpass for Churchill may be a good compromise for now and it looks like the current City Council approved this concept.
East Meadow and Charleston: More work needs to be done on the bike and pedestrian portion of the underpass. This one interests me as a father, in that it completely separates the bikes and pedestrians from the cars and trains, so it is safe for kids. I believe we need more details on cost and further refinement on the design/flow. The hybrid solution could be an option and it is the cheapest, although I am a bit skeptical since the cost is shown as $190M to $230M versus the underpass at $340M to $420M.
Particularly, we should work with Caltrain and neighboring cities to re-evaluate the technical standards to improve the design and reduce costs. Business tax dollars will help us get access to county and State/Fed funds: $3.3M per year, over 35 years, plus $350M from Measure B, then we apply to State funding. Overall, we need about $300M/crossing, so a total of $1.2B.
Although the tunnel option would be my first preference (less intrusive for residential neighborhoods), due to the high cost and also environmental limitations too, I’m going with the above options/designs.
Check back on Palo Alto Online tomorrow for candidates’ take on another city issue.
Thank you Doria Summa, Ed Lauing and Alex Comsa for saying that the Churchill crossing needs more study to avoid pushing additional traffic into the neighborhood.

“Churchill crossing: the closure of Churchill may not be practical since the Embarcadero one needs to be studied too, and not sure if Embarcadero can handle the additional traffic that would be routed from Churchill.”

Embarcadero has long been a mess and traffic now backs up PAST Casti and that’s before Casti’s multi-year construction at Embarcadero and Bryant has even started. In the 6 years of Casti hearings did our “planners” ever consider the impact of closing Churchill?

Maybe all the “stakeholders” could finally get out of their offices and look at what’s happening with 2 closely spaced traffic lights at Paly and Town & Country and that only 4 cars maximum can turn onto El Camino further compounding this mess?

Back in the days of Jaime Rodriquez we’ve been hearing about the need for the stakeholders to meet and work things out. That’s 10 years ago! Maybe now’s the right time? Just a thought.

I think the undergrounding of the tracks is too late now that the electrification work is so close to being done. Therefore the undergrounding of the crossings is the only option that is now viable. I do like the suggestion of making roundabouts with pedestrian/bicycle tunnels as being the safest option.

However, Palo Altans don’t like roundabouts. They work safely in all other countries and most importantly they don’t top working in a power outage as there are no lights to go out.
The current underpass designs for Charleston and Meadow do NOT separate pedestrian and bicycle traffic from auto traffic. They both have bidirectional paths on one side of the road, forcing those going in one direction to cross Charleston or Meadow twice at extremely dangerous crosswalks with no traffic controls at all to get to that path. This is not safe at all and is not separating non-motorized users from auto traffic. It is forcing them to cross right in front of cars with no assistance or protection. All parents of young children should be objecting.
How long will this City Council (old and newly elected) be sitting in their chairs when it’s time to start digging? I lived in the Chicagoland area many moons ago and in the suburbs, there were underpasses below almost every set of train tracks. In the city the “L” trains are all “el”evated as the nickname suggests. We could have done it like Chicago did but we didn’t. It’s a little bit (a lotta bit) late to start elevating the tracks. In the 1800’s would have been a good time, since there were no such things as cars and the population was lower. Doing a study to find out what’s the best way to correct a colossal blunder is a waste of money. Roundabouts are a scourge on humanity, especially anywhere near a railroad crossing. I predict (but trust me, I will have expired before this prediction comes to fruition) that street cars will be completely phased out before the first underpass starts construction. Like the underestimation of the cost of a waste water treatment plant in our backyard, whatever study is paid for to estimate the cost of building underpasses will have the 2090 City Council crying “we didn’t calculate for inflation” and the project will never get off the ground. Or go unerground. We will have vacated Earth by then, and the few who will survive whatever cataclysm awaits us will be living in oxygenated domes on Mars. PS to Bystander — imagine an electrical outage when the trains are electrified and stopped dead in the middle of an intersection. A roundabout won’t help much but it sure will have people driving in circles trying to figure out how to get across the tracks!
MF, the roundabout I was thinking of would be on Alma and completely separate from the tracks. I think the trains electrical supply would be separate from the City supply from what we have been told. If there is an outage in the area, the gates still work and so do the flashing lights even if the traffic light has no power. I don’t think Caltrain comes to a stop when Palo Alto has an outage, but if someone knows better, please correct me on that.
Instead of creating an underpass, wouldn’t it be far simpler to build an overpass that runs above the tracks?

Exercising Emininent Domain would provide the necessary acreage for such an undertaking.

Bystander, I have never seen a roundabout smaller than the area between Alma Street and the train tracks. There is no space between the two. Where exactly would you locate the roundabout? Are you talking about between Churchill and East Meadow? It’s the only stretch where you could fit a roundabout that wouldn’t interfere with the train crossing. If you want to see what a roundabout would do, just drive on Alma Street during the “will it ever end” construction along the street that acts as a de facto roundabout, slowing everyone down. All a roundabout would do is create more delay, which is the primary issue. Safety should be our first concern. I’ve seen lots of kids walking and on bikes trying to get across Alma when the arms come down signaling a train, which only makes drivers do impetuous things like try to get through the intersection before the bottleneck starts. The issue for me isn’t even about the train, but about the drivers who don’t want to get stuck in traffic and endanger the safety of people who only have a couple of spots along Alma where they can cross the street. Slow down, we’ll all get there, maybe a few minutes later, but all in one piece if everybody cooperates. As for the power outage, I was thinking of something apocalyptic a la “The Day After” nuclear scenario. I’m in agreement with Fredericka Halsted, who recommends building an overpass instead of digging below the tracks. It’s a lot more feasible in cost and construction time. Keep in mind I have no engineering or finance background. I’m just saying what comes off the top of my head, like a candidate for City Council member would 😉
MF. Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.

I am no traffic expert, but I have used roundabouts of all sizes and some are fairly small. I agree space is very limited, but roundabouts do not need to have a large diameter to be efficient.

I think the thing that has to be remembered is that roundabouts are designed to move traffic efficiently, not to slow traffic or cause the same type of disruption as the traffic light sequences we see on Alma at present. I have often had to wait for the sequence to start over completely when a train comes and this type of thing would not happen with a roundabout and most of the roundabout being below the level of the tracks.

I am not saying this solution would be cheap. I am not even sure how much space something like that would need. I am just thinking that since it has been proposed it should have been given some bandwidth.

We are likely to end up with a mess because that is what happens in Palo Alto. I am not particularly optimistic that we will end up with any type of efficient or better intersection at any of the crossings we have. I would like to be proven wrong, but doubt it will happen.
According to the drawings that were published a while back, the roundabout for Charleston would be about a block east of the Alma intersection. Northbound traffic on Alma would turn right at Charleston, loop around and go down a ramp under the tracks to go west on Charleston. Northbound traffic on Alma would turn left, go around and down to go under the tracks. Eastbound traffic on Charleston would come under the tracks and up the ramp. I believe there was some uncertainty whether the same plan would work at Meadow, since it’s a narrower street.
Don’t miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.
Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don’t be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.
See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.
Home
News
TownSquare
Blogs
A&E
Community Calendar
Sports
Home & Real Estate
Visitor Info
Send News Tips
Subscribe
Print Edition/Archives
Express / Weekend Express
Promotions
Special Pubs
Obituaries
Circulation & Delivery
About Us
Contact Us
Advertising Info
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
 
Mountain View Voice
The Almanac
TheSixFifty.com
Redwood City Pulse
Redwood City Pulse
© 2022 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.
 
Embarcadero Media
 
PR MediaRelease
Sponsored content
Mobile site
© 2022 Palo Alto Online. All rights reserved.

source

About Author

Staff Editor

See author's posts