tusculan
-
Posts
82 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Project Database
User Guide
Store
Events
Posts posted by tusculan
-
-
On 8/12/2017 at 4:10 PM, kermit said:
^ there are more than 17 supremacists on the White House staff.
Wow. I didn't know that. Which ones? Can you provide any handy links so I could see who these people are?
-
On 8/8/2017 at 5:58 PM, Scribe said:
Curious if this has been proposed here...
Idea: From College St to Poplar St, do not allow general/commercial through traffic. (down Trade St - though I think that is obvious)
Take away the second lane, expand the sidewalk or add bike lanes. Commercial/general traffic would still be allowed to go to hotels, etc. There are versions of this - http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Turns-onto-Market-Street-by-private-cars-barred-6434413.php
Thoughts?
Bordeaux has done this with some of their streets. The streetcars run either in the grassy median, or occasionally as the inner lane, but for the heart of downtown it runs in the middle of a large pedestrian plaza (with limited hours for local vehicle traffic) They have also re-purposed 2 cross streets as pedestrian or bike only (again with exceptions for early morning local freight etc), thus giving a whole transit mall effect. This is also what is being done in downtown Minneapolis right now - a plaza with restaurants flanking the sides opening to a pedestrian mall with the streetcar lanes in the center. It is supposed to be up and running by October, and I am excited to see how well it works.
Inasmuch as I think streetcars to be truly successful should maximize the amount of time they have independent ROW (like Minneapolis), I am all for the pedestrian mall with streetcars on it.
-
On 5/17/2017 at 0:29 PM, dubone said:
Streetcars are a far better idea than crappy bouncy choppy buses. The only reason we should look to articulated buses is because our society is cheap and throws only its lowest classes and lowest budgets at transit. So the only way to change that trend is with better budgets and better planning to draw the middle and potentially higher demographic classes.
The tram-style streetcar planned for 2020 will do better at pulling in riders and is already fulfilling its other mission of helping drive up real estate values in the west side.
I was a proponent of (or at least I understood the reasons for) using the replica trolleys, but their terrible reliability really hurt the line, and made it useless, with trips taking far longer than necessary, and often walking faster than it.
I think the real problem with the streetcar is the mixed traffic nature. Just because we are using the same street doesn't mean we ought to use the same lanes. I'm all for bicycles and cars and pedestrians on the same street, but they really ought to have different lanes and streetlight coordination. We did the starter line on a shoestring budget, but as we progress to additional phases, we should be removing street parking in favor of dedicate lanes for the streetcar to improve reliability incrementally.
Of course, none of this would be on any of our radar if there were proper transit funding, as separate right of way light rail or subway would be the preference. But if we are so cheap as a society to only have buses, then I'll be ubering or cycling.
As I have seen in various cities - Without independent ROW, signal priorities, and reliable scheduling, there isn't a big enough sell for consumers to favor streetcars over other transit options. Sure the ride is smoother..sure its more ADA compliant.... but what makes public transit worthwhile for the average person is only the following: Can I get where I want to go quicker and with less hassle than driving at a given time?
-
1 hour ago, Windsurfer said:
My wife just got to Atlanta for a conference. Originally, their (the conference folk) plans were to share two venues: Athens and downtown Atlanta and then shuttle back and forth, Those plans are now shuttled, and it's being actively promoted in Atlanta that people should teleconference and telecommute. Seems like a lot of people just quit making the drive, not really looking for different routes. If you make it difficult enough for people to go downtown vis a vis "road diets", trollies, etc. a large percentage just won't make the trip.
If they don't need to make the trip, then they found a way not to make the trip. Why is this bad? Why should we build infrastructure for mere convenience?
-
Kermit, you might be right about speed as it applies to the uptown segment. But I am guessing that there is some definable distance or zone whereby the speed will certainly play a factor - as will the stop location, for presumably you will have less frequent stops the less dense the community is.
I will certainly agree that within uptown - frequency and keeping to a schedule matter almost as much as the route. No one wants to sit outside in a suit in July waiting for the streetcar to finally appear.
-
11 hours ago, southslider said:
^Land use matters. CPCC boosts ridership. Route directness helps.
Ok - better route. Sure. The argument in the text seems to be that the streetcar is performing so badly that it must be a cataclysm of different factors. Route, management, maintenance, speed, too many stops, too slow, and no independent ROW. Can we determine which of these actually matter though by way of a comparison to other streetcar systems? Does anyone know of a way to compare them, so that one can evaluate which of these is most important? Let's say a perfect score is 100 - if route matters the most, and the route is bad, then the highest grade you can get is a 65 - barely passable if everything else is spot on...
In my estimation,
Route (including number of stops) = 35%, management (including integration with devices and other transit) = 15%, maintenance/reliability =25%, speed (irrespective of ROW) 20%, all other factors 5%.
Does that seem reasonable?
-
The following is from Streetsblog. What are the lessons here?
Unable to assemble new funding from the state to significantly improve the rapid transit system, the city of Atlanta chose to focus on a cheaper-to-implement streetcar line. The route opened in December 2014 after a year of delays and an almost $30 million cost increase, from $72 million to $98 million.
The hope was that the streetcar would attract 2,000 daily passengers, but it’s only moving about 700 riders a day as of the latest reporting. It has also faced considerable maintenance problems that have led state and federal officials to question its management.
The fact that the city runs the line, rather than an experienced transit agency like MARTA, probably doesn’t help. But there are fundamental flaws in the project that no maintenance or operational expertise is likely to overcome.
The streetcar travels only 1.3 miles, from downtown to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center, so it’s only useful for a limited variety of trips. It stops too frequently — six times over the course of its very short route — slowing service. And because the trains operate in lanes shared with cars, they average less than 10 mph on a good day; often, they get stuck at signals and behind cars, leading to delays and a high degree of unreliability.
Everyone I spoke with for this series agreed the street car line is not a model for future investment. No one wants to spend millions of dollars on projects that don’t work.
-
On 2/17/2017 at 0:13 PM, AirNostrumMAD said:
Streetcar service really does need more frequency. I feel like I often walk instead of waiting and it pays off bigly just to walk. Other times I get there and it's there within 5 minutes and it's great. I feel like I have waited 20 minutes before
I think everyone understands that this phase 1 is a joke. Poor equipment, slow vehicles, infrequent scheduling, lack of integration and technology, and poor layout. Basically the only thing it has right is location. Phase 2 will certainly help with the vehicle speed and more reliable equipment. But the integration with the Blue Line and the technology really need upgrades. And the scheduling absolutely has to be fixed. The biggest draw to light rail/ streetcars over bus is dependability and frequency. If, through incompetence, this doesn't get fixed then the streetcar will be an abject failure. There should be cars travelling this route every 5 or 10 minutes on the dot in each direction.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, JBS said:
^^
As a small "l" reformed libertarian, I'm ashamed of myself for how much I want the city and county to use tax dollars to subsidize a billionaires vanity project...but I can't help myself.
Just because you are a libertarian does not mean, I hope anyway, that we are reduced to living in a hovel. There can be legitimate uses of public funds that have a tangible if only indirect public benefit.
-
The biggest drawback that I see from this location is the need to reroute the traffic from N. College. But this doesn't seem insurmountable as there are simply the two lanes of traffic that are heading onto 277. I think as S. College springs from S. Tryon, the best solution would just be to fold those lanes of traffic onto 9th and then onto Tryon around the west side of any proposed stadium. This traffic deviation might even be nice as it allows the Blue Line ext and the Charlotte Rail Trail to be the 'front' of the stadium.
-
On 12/7/2016 at 6:04 AM, southslider said:
Sharing Blue Line works as long as each line is 10 minutes, even with three-car trains, allowing for a train every 5 minutes in Uptown. Conversely, you would need to wait up to 10 minutes to transfer between the lines, if not overlapping at Uptown stations .
Having long delays between transit modes is a concern. If you have to wait longer than 5 or so minutes, people will be far less likely to use it, especially outdoor or above ground stops. However, it is fundamentally easier to add more trains than to remove them. In 20 years, our concern will not be that the trains don't come often enough, but how to have greater capacity.
If I am not mistaken, the current schedule during peak times for blue line trains is every 15 minutes. If scheduled correctly then, the wait at a junction station like Stonewall would be 7.5 minutes for a transfer at current scheduling frequency. This is indeed a problem.
I see three solutions. 1) simply increase frequency to at least a train every 10 minutes to cut service time. The obvious downside to this is that it would either meaning running emptier trains, or running multiple kinds of services, like express or local, which I am not sure the infrastructure can accommodate.
2.) This is a little bold. But what if in construction of the silver line there is a rail connector to the blue line directly, or via the gold line? Is there a way to re-route certain Silver Line trains elsewhere in Uptown that would lessen the need for a wait now. But in the future wouldn't be used? If I recall correctly, the streetcars can be used on the LRV routes but not vice versa because of weight and turning radii. But might there be a mixed solution for now?
3) Simply coordinate the Gold line (hahaha) with the silver and the blue by using signal priority systems. If you could do this, then you could time all three lines in relation to one another - so yes it would be a 7 minute wait for the Blue line, but only if you didn't want to wait the 2 minutes for the Gold line and come into uptown from the East. Does that make sense?
-
12 hours ago, kermit said:
yea, I completely agree. Other than the Blue Line sharing route, the Stonewall option provides the most one-seat ride opportunities to uptown (plus it offers a nice Gold Line interchange station). The routing also offers big benefits for 2nd Ward transformation. Making Midtown / CPCC an interchange would be more interesting if CPCC didn't already swallow up all of the neighborhood.
I seem some merit to the 12th street route because it opens up a portion of uptown that could really benefit from better connectivity, but the barrier of the Brookshire feels like it would severely limit development opportunities. In addition we all know that Levine Land will still be vacant by the time the Silver Line opens. Gateway station connectivity is a bonus to this route.
The Blue Line sharing route would have the best connections to the most jobs but it would do nothing to improve access to other portions of uptown (where growth is certainly headed). Its biggest issue is that it creates significant capacity issues on shared tracks that have 5 (?) grade crossings.
The Belk / Carson options all feel silly to me. Very poor access to uptown and the creation of the node / transfer station at Carson funnels accessibility to a place that doesn't really need it. If any more transit dollars go to Southend I think they would be better spent on a streetcar loop connecting Midtown, Kenilworth / CMC and East / West (and possibly up Mint to Gateway).
I am completely in agreement with this. Any junction of the two major axes of transit that doesn't take place a) actually in uptown and b) with a line that only skirts uptown is pointless. Who is going to ride from Matthews, ride along the belk freeway, switch to the blue line after circling to SouthEnd to finally go into uptown, but only ride 2-3 stops? IF the route is along Stonewall- people can easily walk anywhere along the south side of uptown - from Trade down to the Belk Freeway.
The blue line sharing route is a solution in the same way that two car trains was a solution. Its short sighted. Sure maybe capacity works now - but no vision for future use. What if there is a spur to Mint Hill - will that also be using this alignment?
Moreover, with the possible exception of the 12th St. alignment, the Stonewall alignment is the easiest to get out to the airport. You can either head out west on Morehead or along the NCRR corridor. Frankly, I fail to see how this is not far and away the best option.
-
On 10/27/2016 at 11:02 AM, archiham04 said:
Okay, this got me thinking.... I am all about some overlapping routes.... so what about a route that used the north end of the BLExtension and the Southern Route of the Silver line, but was Connected by this inter median Eastway line?
... sorry this is probably venturing away from traffic congestion topic and into long term transit planning, or light rail territory
All sorts of systems do overlapping routes. See the NY Subway- where they track 'services' not 'lines' like most subway or metro systems. I think the only downside is that people get used to using the colors to denote lines, and then they have difficulty transitioning.....Wait, what am i riding? the Silver-Orange-Blue train? Do I need to get off to transfer? I don't think there is a difficulty in technology, just in nomenclature. Ultimately, we would need to stop using things like the Blue Line to refer to the route, but only the infrastructure, and instead Alpha-numeric or symbol names which aren't going to be as limited.
The alternative is to run different lines....Blue, Green etc, but then change the designation of the train on the route....express, local, etc. And one could include with these special service names...the Derita Flyer...covers this service.
-
2 hours ago, Spartan said:
I don't think Route 4 was never going to be a freeway - it was just a connected route that looped around the entire city based on its size at the time.
I think Route 4, which mostly follows the old outline of the City from 1970, should have an inter-median light rail. Could connect to the Derita station whenever the Red Line gets moving...the Sugar Creek BLE station....Gold Line at Central....Silver Line at Eastway....then jog south to South Park for the other Cats Bus hub, then back to meet the Blue Line Woodlawn station and then out to the airport/airport station. In fact, if it only stopped at these 8 or even 10 locations plus had signal priority by being in the median, this could be far quicker than driving in traffic to go around the middle of the city.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Third Strike said:
How about using the alignment that's closer to I-277? It could run southwest of the Stonewall development, and Hill street could be reconfigured more towards the south to make way for the Silver Line. Heck, there's even an abandoned railroad line near the Charlotte Observer site that can be utilized. It also opens up the possibility of extending the line westward along US 74 towards the airport.
Otherwise, the only other option I can think of is either burying the Silver Line under Stonewall, or an elevated line, both of which can be costly.
I think that the silver line should not try to parallel the Brookshire freeway either on 11th or 12th, as that would be a mess to redesign all of that. I think that there are only 2 proposals that really make sense - Option 1: go to the south side of uptown via Charlottetown, and then head west on Stonewall. Stonewall is a wide street that could handle a 32 ft right of way down the middle of it, it is not as busy (foot traffic wise) as other crosstown streets immediately north, and it already has an interchange with the Lynx Blue Line. I like the idea stated above that a possible option in this corridor is to move the line to the south toward the Belk freeway after Caldwell, push Hill St. further south and link up with the tracks by the Observer that ultimately run around the south stands of Bank of America Stadium. I like this idea mostly because it provides a way out of the west end of uptown, though the tracks would probably be diverted so that they don't head north along the NCRR up to Gateway, but rather south or west near Morehead. If that option isn't used, then getting the Silver Line out of uptown becomes a bit trickier....since you don't want to head north up Graham, you either need to cut south through a parking lot to turn onto Mint, cut south in a rather tight window around the west side of Bank of America Stadium, or head west through the old outlet for the P & N by the Panthers practice field.
These alignments are all desirable in my estimate, especially as they provide an easy stop for Panther games, and an easy outlet out of uptown to head west to the airport. However, its a bit of an awkward alignment especially as regards transfers to the Gold Line - only happening outside of uptown in Elizabeth --and no connection to transit centers -either the CTC or the new Gateway station.
Option 2 that I suggest is for the use of the 7th street corridor from Charlottetown to the NCRR. In First ward, a sizable amount of this corridor is next to parking lots, so there is allowance for growth either of businesses or ROW additions. It would then cross the Blue Line and head toward Tryon St. after Tryon, however, 7th street becomes only 2 lanes of traffic, and eventually stops in 4th ward at the park. I would advocate closing 7th street in 4th ward to automobile traffic, and have solely the silver line along a pedestrian corridor. After reaching Smith St., the track could turn southward and run parallel the NCRR to Gateway, where it would also meet with the Gold Line.
The advantage of this corridor is better connecting service to the Gold line and Gateway, better service to more of uptown's museums, it involves the construction of a pedestrian corridor, and it makes for a denser swath of uptown that is served by rail transit. The walk from Trade St. to 7th is only a couple of minutes, and by increasing the density of the transit in uptown, you provide a guide for development and for people to visit uptown.
-
This Times article is rather unsurprising. "Streetcars need dedicated ROW because they are quicker..." This seems patently obvious but also entirely unhelpful. Not really discussed are ancillary issues to dedicated ROW such as difficulties with signaling and to some extent carving up the city more rather than facilitating a more ambulatory environment.
Does anyone know of actual research that has been done on the benefits and limitations of full ROW with independent signalling, vs limited ROW with signal pre-emption, vs mixed traffic (or mixed traffic with signal pre-emption)? Surely, there is data out there with the growing number of systems - or extensive systems like Toronto. I certainly don't think a system needs to be all or nothing, and I do wonder about the phase 3 section of Central and whether its density and traffic patterns demand a different type of answer than on Trade at Johnson and Wales.
It seems to me that once a certain percentage of the people using the route are using it as a transit route and not for neighborhood stops, then the streetcar service ought to transition as well. Again, I don't know what the numbers are - but I don't think that very many people who would ride on a line that goes from South Park to Uptown would be interested in mixed traffic service, for instance.
Does anyone know of a source for this info? And can anyone propose some corridor criteria that would justify the different kinds of service?
-
Two thoughts. If Gateway is really going to be built following one of these models - then it seems it will only serve four platforms, at most. So what this means is that realistically, there has to be a new station configuration built on the north side of uptown. 4 platforms can really probably only handle about 12 -16 trains an hour. That may sound like a lot, and I'm sure it will work for 20/40 years even with commuter lines. But don't think that this is any long-term solution.
Secondly, as to the line to Raleigh for inter-connectivity, I know it increases traffic to go through Greensboro, but again, the long-term solution is different, I think than the short-term. In the long run, a path from Raleigh to Charlotte that goes south to Sanford and then West will be much easier to build at the specifications needed for higher speed traffic. It also would shave off between 30-50 miles of distance.
Unfortunately, we need both the practical short-term solutions, as well as the long-term vision to go ahead and buy the land and the trackage necessary. Good luck with that.
-
On 8/3/2016 at 1:10 PM, tozmervo said:
Went to the Gateway Station visioning concept meeting today - just right now I don't have time to leave extensive thoughts, but I am attaching scans of the handouts. There are three broad "concepts" that were shown to illicit feedback. The primary goal right now is to tie down an area plan and goals - the track work is proceeding, so they want to establish the area plan to guide the development that's coming.
Made me chuckle. I realize you were in a rush...but I think what they want is to elicit feedback, and not illicit feedback.
-
3
-
-
18 hours ago, Nick2 said:
I was ignorant about street cars as recently as a few years ago. What I mean when I say that is I used think of San Francisco's trolleys with the dinging bells creeping along at maybe double walking speed at best - slow and inefficient. I know now that that's incorrect but I'd wager if that's how my opinion was of street cars, that's how other people feel as well. Just like the buses, street cars have a bad reputation.
Now I know how well a modern street car system can work when planned properly and put in the right location. People need to see it as a convenient means of transit where you don't have to pay attention to driving on the way into work. You don't have to find parking or pay for gas. There are plenty of benefits to riding that people just don't see.
I hope they shelve phase 3 of the Gold line for now until the silver line and red line are both completed and especially some kind of light rail from the airport to Uptown. Simply because of the costs/benefits associated with those projects. The path of the street car is solid and it will greatly help develop a connected center city.
I used to be completely against the building of the street car lines and I still wish they would have spent the money on an additional light rail line instead but the street car has been successful so far and I look forward to seeing how phase 2 performs however I'm a little concerned about ridership once fares are introduced. Have there been any studies done to see how having a fare will affect it?
I think that since our streetcar is serving two functions, there ought to be a two tiered fare system. Urban circulator from Johnson and Wales to cpcc is free. After that, 5 cents per stop. This keeps it cheap enough that no one will really be upset by it, but introduces the concept that outside of uptown, it is to be used as transit, and not as a free alternative to walking a block or two.
Even if phase three is built, this would result it costing $1 from Rosa parks to uptown, and $1.50 from Eastland. I think the idea that you pay a flat rate of $1.50 per ride regardless of where you go would have a deleterious effect to people who live near central. As they would have to pay the same to go four stops as 20. At that point, why not just drive?
-
A little story on starter streetcar lines in other cities, and problematic ridership levels:
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/12/reminder-just-laying-track-is-no-guarantee-riders-will-come/
-
1 hour ago, QCxpat said:
From Demographia World Urban Areas, 12th Annual Edition: April, 2016 -- http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf
"Demographia World Urban Areas applies a generally consistent definition to built-up urban areas. Built-Up urban areas are the city in its physical form, as opposed to metropolitan areas, which are the city in its economic or functional form." See Newgeography "Largest Cities in the World: 2016" by Wendell Cox at http://www.newgeography.com/content/005219-largest-cities-world-2016.
The 2016 edition of Demographia World Urban Areas ranks 1,022 large urban areas with more than 500,000 population.
Charlotte was ranked the 316th largest urban area globally with a population of 1,600,000 covering 741 square miles at a density of 1,700 per square mile.
Atlanta was ranked the 79th largest urban area globally with a population of 5,120,000 covering 2,645 square miles at a density of 1,700 per square mile.
Austin was ranked the 298th largest urban area globally with a population of 1,675,000 covering 523 square miles at a density of 2,600 per square mile.
Baltimore was ranked the 215th largest urban area globally with a population of 2,275,000 covering 717 square miles at a density of 3,100 per square mile.
Birmingham was ranked the 619th largest urban area globally with a population of 800,000 covering 530 square miles at a density of 1,400 per square mile.
Charleston was ranked the 805th largest urban area globally with a population of 625,000 covering 293 square miles at a density of 1,900 per square mile.
Columbia was ranked the 794th largest urban area globally with a population of 630,000 covering 380 square miles at a density of 1,400 per square mile.
Jacksonville was ranked the 422nd largest urban area globally with a population of 1,170,000 covering 530 square miles at a density of 2,000 per square mile.
Knoxville was ranked the 780th largest urban area globally with a population of 645,000 covering 438 square miles at a density of 1,300 per square mile.
Louisville was ranked the 482nd largest urban area globally with a population of 1,035,000 covering 477 square miles at a density of 2,000 per square mile.
Miami was ranked the 67th largest urban area globally with a population of 5,820,000 covering 1,239 square miles at a density of 4,400 per square mile.
Memphis was ranked the 453rd largest urban area globally with a population of 1,110,000 covering 497 square miles at a density of 2,100 per square mile.
Nashville was ranked the 455th largest urban area globally with a population of 1,105,000 covering 563 square miles at a density of 1,700 per square mile.
New Orleans was ranked the 542nd largest urban area globally with a population of 925,000 covering 251 square miles at a density of 3,600 per square mile.
New York was ranked the 9th largest urban area globally with a population of 20,685,000 covering 4,495 square miles at a density of 4,500 per square mile.
Orlando was ranked the 233rd largest urban area globally with a population of 2,125,000 covering 790 square miles at a density of 2,400 per square mile.
Raleigh was ranked the 444th largest urban area globally with a population of 1,130,000 covering 518 square miles at a density of 1,700 per square mile.
Richmond was ranked the 485th largest urban area globally with a population of 1,030,000 covering 492 square miles at a density of 1,900 per square mile.
Tampa-St. Petersburg was ranked the 178th largest urban area globally with a population of 2,660,000 covering 957 square miles at a density of 2,600 per square mile.
Virginia Beach-Norfolk was ranked the 344th largest urban area with a population of 1,465,000 covering 515 square miles at a density of 2,800 per square mile; and
Tokyo-Yokohama was ranked the largest (1st) urban area globally with a population of 37,750,000 covering 3,300 square miles at a density of 11,400 per square mile.
Tokyo is 2.5x as densely populated as New York....NO THANK YOU! yikes
-
7 hours ago, ah59396 said:
Here's your fun and incredibly depressing aerial view of Charlotte in the late 90's:
There were literally tens of places to go. And hundreds of parking spots. Who doesn't like that ratio?
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, kermit said:
I thought all three companies were speccing vehicles with battery power sufficient to get through the square?
Oh, good to know. It didn't say anything about that in the Observer piece. I was only basing my info on the Brookville websited, that markets the lack of electrical connection on the Dallas streetcar.
-
3 hours ago, Nolan said:
http://www.brookvillecorp.com/Files/Admin/PDFs/BROOKVILLE-Liberty-Modern-Streetcars-2015-WebRes.pdf
The Dallas Streetcar layout is side seats and front facing seats
Thanks, Nolan. I don't think the Brookville is a good enough option. All the boarding is in the middle only, then you have to go up a step to get to the seating areas. Horrible flow! Plus it simply looks like a poor man's Siemens' in my opinion. Its also the slowest ...with a top speed of 45. Maybe this isn't a big issue on the Central route, but hopefully in building a whole network we can get at least 50. I only see two advantages with the Brookville - its made in the US, and it has batteries that would allow it to cross Tryon without having to put the catenary there.
I think it would be better to look at Stadler to see if they have corrected the problems from Munich and London, and maybe we can get a good price since they have yet to break into the North American market...and then go with them or Siemens.
Political Digression Thread -- Save UP! Move the politically focused stuff here
in Charlotte Coffee House
Posted · Edited by tusculan
The deaths of people killed by Communism in the 20th century : estimated 100 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
Kermit, so you don't have any proof? Other than CNN. how many Jewish people did Breitbart employ while Bannon was there? how many of Trump's kids are Jewish? Sebastian Gorka, who writes about the challenge of political Islamism in the West is anti-Jewish?