SANDAG is committed to trying to raise taxes on voters countywide this November. They’re just not sure yet what they want the money to pay for.

The countywide half-cent tax increase would raise $18 billion over the next 40 years, and the regional planning agency SANDAG – an agency with representatives from cities all over the county – is trying to figure out a package of projects to spend the money on that can win the approval of two-thirds of county voters.

SANDAG is also trying to win over a narrower group: transit and environmental advocates who want to ensure the measure doesn’t go toward more highway expansion projects. Since the tax measure needs approval from two-thirds of all voters, SANDAG needs support from a swath of interests – labor, environmentalists and business groups like the Chamber of Commerce.

SANDAG released two proposals for how it might spend $18 billion over the next 40 years. One plan focuses on helping each city solve its own infrastructure shortfalls. The other one is geared toward regional projects like highways and major transit upgrades, but offers no money to fixing local infrastructure.


Support Nonprofit Journalism Today

 Learn more about member benefits

The SANDAG board, for its part, has already made clear it wants the measure to put money into cities’ hands for basic projects like road and sidewalk repairs.

Not only are those projects popular – and therefore more likely to help the measure pass – but they also fill a big need. Cities around the county have more infrastructure needs than money to solve them. SANDAG’s tax increase, then, could help out cities that haven’t been able to help themselves, while also fulfilling regional funding needs.

Still, tax increases that need to be approved by two-thirds of voters face a steep climb in any San Diego election.

In a poll last summer, SANDAG found just over 60 percent of respondents were open to the tax increase. Any opposition willing to spend money against the tax increase would almost certainly spell its end. Even if that doesn’t happen, it still might be hard to get it approved.

The local Republican Party has already said it’s against the measure – but that doesn’t mean it’ll actually spend money to defeat it.

On the other side, there’s a coalition of environmentalists, progressives and labor groups willing to push for the bill, but only if it satisfies their wishes.

It’s not clear either option would do that.

The Local Option vs the Regional Option

County voters in 2004 approved a tax increase for transportation projects, and the ballot language committed SANDAG to come back four years later with a plan to pay for habitat preservation.

That to-be-delivered tax increase promise became a dumping ground for additional spending priorities over the years. It’ll now include clean water, transit, highway and local infrastructure projects as well.

At the same time, SANDAG kept delaying actually putting the measure on the ballot because polling repeatedly showed it didn’t have a chance.

Now that its prospects look better, SANDAG is trying to work out what’ll be part of the spending plan. But only one of the two plans has money for local infrastructure. It’s hard to see the one without that facet – the one with more transit projects – pleasing many people, since the public and the board have both expressed a desire for those projects.

To transit advocates, it feels a bit like asking the board to choose between one plan that’s full of ice cream and one that’s full of broccoli.

“It follows a pattern they’ve established where, anytime they offer a transit-friendly plan, they pair it with policies that are either unfeasible or political nonstarters,” said Colin Parent, policy counsel with transportation advocacy group Circulate San Diego. “It begs the question, why even present this option? What is the value of even considering this, if it’s something the board almost certainly wouldn’t be interested in adopting?”

The two plans are identical in a few ways. Over 40 years, they’d both spend about $2 billion on open space, habitat preservation and clean energy projects. They’d both spend $1 billion on clean water projects. They’d both spend $364 million on bike and other active transportation projects.

Some of the major transit plans included in SANDAG’s long-term vision are also included in both plans.

The purple line, a new trolley line running from South Bay to Carmel Valley roughly following the I-805, is in both.

So are a few projects within SANDAG’s newest transit service, the “skyway” – a system of aerial gondolas. There’d be a new skyway from a planned trolley station at Balboa Avenue to Pacific Beach’s coast, and one connecting a new trolley station at UCSD to the Coaster station in Sorrento Valley. Both plans would also build a new station just off the I-94, between Golden Hill and Grant Hill for a high-frequency bus running through City Heights and into downtown.

Where the plans differ is on local spending, highways and certain transit projects.

The local plan would send $7.3 billion, or 40 percent of all the money the measure brings in, to individual cities to spend how they see fit. San Diego would receive $2.8 billion of that local funding, for instance. The unincorporated areas of the county would get $1 billion. Chula Vista would get $539 million.

That plan would spend another $5.5 billion (30 percent) on transit projects and operations, and $1.8 billion (10 percent) on new highway projects.

The regional plan, meanwhile, spends half its money on transit. Sounds good if you like transit, right?

But it spends zero dollars on local infrastructure projects – and transit advocates like the idea of improving local infrastructure, too. Meanwhile, it also sends more than $3 billion to highway projects, not quite twice as much as the local plan would spend on highways.

Nicole Capretz, executive director of the Climate Action Campaign and a member of a coalition of environmental groups that’s banded together to put pressure on SANDAG to satisfy their interests, said she and her partners need more time to look into the proposals, but hopes to start working with SANDAG to find a solution that can satisfy their vision and fix the region’s transportation problems.

The major expenditures in the regional plan are $600 million to add a second track to the Coaster, so it can run more frequently, plus improved stations along the route. It would also spend another $2 billion on operations that would let local buses and trolleys on the blue and orange lines run more frequently.

    This article relates to: Infrastructure, Land Use, SANDAG, Transit

    Written by Andrew Keatts

    I'm Andrew Keatts, a reporter for Voice of San Diego. Please contact me if you'd like at andrew.keatts@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.325.0529.

    22 comments
    John H Borja
    John H Borja subscriber

    As usual, SANDAG's takes the conventional myopic view.  Highways, while necessary, are only to be maintained properly. That is not occurring. Places that need to be brought into the 21 century are not being addressed properly.

    The housing expansion in Chula Vista did not produce a concomitant expansion in transit infrastructure.  There are four major street arteries in Chula Vista: "E Street", "L Street", "H Street", and "Olympic Parkway" that have no linkage to the trolley system. And, a quirky bus system doesn't work. Chula Vista can't mediate traffic and parking problems at a junior college. So, how could the city petition to start plans for a major research university? A major mall, Otay Ranch Mall, is poorly serviced by an expensive toll road. That toll road still doesn't have a connector to State Route 905. If SANDAG can help fix the issues in Chula Vista, maybe it could adequately address major problems in North County.

    Here's the alternative: the parking lots(highways) of 405 in Orange County and the excessive and totally unnecessary fees to ride toll roads like the 73.  Why do transit problems work better in Europe?  No one accepts the thought of dumping their Mustangs, but give families an alternative to get to school, get to work, and get to fun festivals, and they will use alternative means of transportation.  

    Walt Brewer
    Walt Brewer subscribermember

    Responding to Jack Shu;

    SANDAG's Current San Diego Forward is the RegionalPlan for providing and/operatom all elements to year 2050. The previously separate transportation Plan is incorporated so interactions, such as lannd use, transportation facilities interaction with community functions can be evaluated.

    Critical elements to improve are continuing to meet Air Quality Standards, Reducing traffic congestion, especially post 2035, and overcoming mass transit failures for 30 years to add meaningful riders where it is advantageous. Fuel wasted in congestion has doubled, as has travel delay. Costs have increased 70%

    Cleveland National Forest Foundation reports different investment priorities.

    The alternative is summarized: " In order to achieve the region’s climate change goals, SANDAG should immediately shift all planned roadway spending to other travel modes, and especially to transit investments."

    1), There is no quantitative system performance comparison to support this significantalternative, or impact on public acceptance, or regional productivity, or impact on the priority G HG reduction or traffic congestion.

    2). With emphasis onRecessionperiod Vehicle Miles Traveled, the road reductions are proposed without evidence of environment, financial, or mobility impact, including congestion.

    3),Even with reduced VMT assumptions, shown in Fig. 1, added passenger-miles are projected to increased from 111million dailyto 133 to handle population increase. But despite SD Forward mass transit capital of $40billion, 1/2 the budget, it will add only 2 million passenger miles. Neither SANDAG nor CNFF explain, depressed scale and all, advantage of this mismatch. Add reduced roads, and even more mass transit will suddenly be"transit that attracts drivers" as the slogan goes? What new feature now, when it hasn't for 30 years spending 1/3rd the transportation budget? How would the public be convinced to support even more support? The added 1/2 cent sales tax being discussed for a tiny fraction of capacity is not a slam dunk.

    4), Resolving many SANDAG vs this report differences is beyond current scope, and not likely to modify mass transit's weakness as road replacement. About 90% of SD Forward's transportation's GHG reduction comes from rapidly more efficient and cleaner autos. Example from App. N: Auto fuell reduction daily is nearly 3 million gallons. Corresponding mass transit total energy reduction is about 3% of that, while spending nearly 50% of capital costs.

    5), Attempts to show SANDAG chose the wrong mode share alternative are confused by another depressed zero scale for GHG reduction, Fig 6 .

    The segments of the alternatives shown , appear to differ significantly from the Plan. But measured from the zero common base, max different is ~6%. Compensation for about 16 million daily pass-miles is not identified..

    6), Several reasons for VMT reduction are listed that have impacts on controversial community design including density. Reducing congestion, especially its GHG impact, while absorbing nearly another million population are not evaluated.

    7), Land use favorable driverless autos are discussed, quoting very favorable road use reduction. Expanded to the more general autonomous vehicles, including guideway systems, I agree. Some experience will be needed. Example: An automated drive to work to eliminate an SOV, requires a pick up plus return trip. Can computer operations knowledge compensate?

    In high demand areas, guideways and all electric vehicles can eliminate need for road road addition.

    8), Summary tasks:

    Show how differences with SANDAG numbers add up and how far they go toward absorbing the population increase while reducing post 2035 congestion and probably additional GHG reduction.

    For proposed VMT, and same regional passenger-miles as SD Forward shows, how do CARB air quality levels compare with designated values. What is total regional cost?.

    9), SANDAG hopes mass transit access deficiency will be overcome with the costly extensive mass transit overlay and community redesigns also counting on station closeness.

    Driverless cars provide doorstep access ans sane vehicle to real destination. Riad utilization may reduce some after experience. Immediately driven cars are good surrogates. Non-drivers who now heave to use mass transit will receive transportationquality the vast majority has for years. Real costs are in the same ballpark including amortization. Public transportation can be personal. As noted, where high demand generates, narrow guideways, some using existing ROW can reduce or eliminate new roads need. Continued air quality need and economical operations will bring very efficient vehicles.

    I suggest that is truly moving San Diego forward; and matching functions CNFF prefers.. Why try to revive the inconvenientmass transit rejected decades ago?

    I refuse to enter the financial thicker in the other two documents of how to fund national transportation. I stand by my statement about the public cost of little used highly subsidized travel. 50% farebox recovery means public pays 50%remaining plus amortized capital.

    Carlynne Allbee
    Carlynne Allbee

    At a recent general election, we were all asked to vote for a CalTrans bond to help out our driving situation.  Many of us in east San Diego County did vote in favor, because one of the promised projects was the widening of the Bradley Street overpass as it goes over Highway 67.  Any time you try to go over it, especaily west to east, and not just during so called rush hour, you will find it is a bottle neck.   One lane each direction for traffic that needs at least two lanes each direction plus turn lanes for drivers wanting to go on the on ramps to Highway 67.


    I see CalTrans involved in a lot of projects, but not this one.  I contacted them and they said that SANDAG determines how to spend that money, so I need to contact SANDAG.  I did and was told that the project is still a long ways off (my words, not theirs)


    Why should we vote to raise money for SANDAG when they haven't lived up to previous promises???


    As for them trying to get us out of our cars, that might work for their friends who live where they can walk to work, but it doesn't apply to anyone I know.  I would have to walk half of a mile, which I am physically unable to do, and if, and that is a huge IF, all the links worked, it would take me 4 1/2 hours to get to work per MTS,   I have students that live off of 805 south of 94 and it takes them 2 1/2 hours to get up to Mesa College which is also off of 805.


    SANDAG needs a reality check, but I am not holding my breath.

    Walt Brewer
    Walt Brewer subscribermember

    Sorry,

    Ignore last 3 lines of previous Post.


    Where is the 21st century option supporting call up doorstep or random location automobile service? And direct to destination.With modern communication, Lyft,Uber, etc, already provide that service world-wide.

    The proposed sales tax is part of $40billion capital for mass transit in the current region Plan. Hopefully a massive overlay would improve station access, and rideshare. Optimistically that's about 2 million daily passenger-miles of the 30 need for growth to 2050, costing nearly half the capital.

    True, poor access is a major factor in 30 year's mass transit failure to absorb meaningful rideshare.

    But why not the direct approach with "Uber" doorstep and random access same vehicle to destination? Clearly that's why autos dominate. And finally with "Uber" non-drivers, principal mass transit riders now, can match quality of service others have.

    In high density and demand areas, narrow automated gudeways can be added to save more land and as personal rapid transit. Vehicles would be dual road and guideway capable. Both it and "Uber" can veencouraged to use rapidly improving efficient vehicles. San Dieo Forward shows a 3 million gallondaily fuel saving, compared to mass transit less than 100 thousand. Also that overall Greenhouse as savings are nearly 20 times most cost effective.

    New mass transit and "Uber" costs nearly match now. Fare subsidies can be applied to both.

    With major mass transit eliminated, sales tax for transportation seems unnecessary.

    Walt Brewer
    Walt Brewer subscribermember

    Where is the 21st century option supporting call up doorstep or random location automobile service? And direct to destination.With modern communication, Lyft,Uber, etc, already provide that service world-wide.

    The proposed sales tax is part of $40billion capital for mass transit in the current region Plan. Hopefully a massive overlay would improve station access, and rideshare. Optimistically that's about 2 million daily passenger-miles of the 30 need for growth to 2050, costing nearly half the capital.

    True, poor access is a major factor in 30 year's mass transit failure to absorb meaningful rideshare.

    But why not the direct approach with "Uber" doorstep and random access same vehicle to destination? Clearly that's why autos dominate. And finally with "Uber" non-drivers, principal mass transit riders now, can match quality of service others have.

    In high density and demand areas, narrow automated gudeways can be added to save more land and as personal rapid transit. Vehicles would be dual road and guideway capable. Both it and "Uber" can veencouraged to use rapidly improving efficient vehicles. San Dieo Forward shows a 3 million gallondaily fuel saving, compared to mass transit less than 100 thousand. Also that overall Greenhouse as savings are nearly 20 times most cost effective.

    New mass transit and "Uber" costs nearly match now. Fare subsidies can be applied to both.

    With major mass transit eliminated, sales tax for transportation seems unnecessary

    failreexpansion of "Uber" on demand service can be accelerated, to replace the massive transit overlay planned. Th hope is better acces to station will increase mass transit rideshare. Optimistically, a minute 2 million daily passenger-miles out of abo

    Walt Brewer
    Walt Brewer subscribermember

    Walter Brewer · Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)Earlier comment by a Mayor reads SANDSG analysis right. Why should most of the public pay sales tax as part of $40billion capital for new and rehab mass transit, then high subsidy, to provide less than 3% of total travel by 2050? And no reduction in congestion. And then pay for most of the large majority of growing travel on roads in increasingly efficient cars responsible for most air quality improvement.?

    Walt Brewer
    Walt Brewer subscribermember

    I'm not the packrat I thought. Can't find the Ordinance resulting from the 2004 ballot to extend Transnet.

    But from SANDAG "information" handouts:

    Sales tax was not increased. When original ran out in or about 2008, the new extension replaced it for 40 years.

       Mass transit projects and dollars:  7 for $2.1 Billion.

        Highways:                                    12 for $2.5 Billion 


    Projects locked in, but 2/3 vote of SABDAG Directors can change.


    Overall project review in 10 years. 2018?

    Walt Brewer
    Walt Brewer subscribermember

    Where us the 21st century option supporting call up doorstep or random location automobile service? And direct to destination.With modern communication, Lyft,Uber, etc, already provide that service world-wide.

    The proposed sales tax is part of $40billion capital for mass transit in the current region Plan. Hopefully a massive overlay would improve station access, and rideshare. Optimistically that's about 2 million daily passenger-miles of the 30 need for growth to 2050, costing nearly half the capital.

    True, poor access is a major factor in 30 year's mass transit failure to absorb meaningful rideshare.

    But why not the direct approach with "Uber" doorstep and random access same vehicle to destination? Clearly that's why autos dominate. And finally with "Uber" non-drivers, principal mass transit riders now, can match quality of service others have.

    In high density and demand areas, narrow automated gudeways can be added to save more land and as personal rapid transit. Vehicles would be dual road and guideway capable. Both it and "Uber" can veencouraged to use rapidly improving efficient vehicles. San Dieo Forward shows a 3 million gallon daily fuel saving, compared to mass transit less than 100 thousand. Also that overall Greenhouse as savings are nearly 20 times most cost effective.

    New mass transit and "Uber" costs nearly match now. Fare subsidies can be applied to both.

    With major mass transit eliminated, sales tax for transportation seems unnecessary

    Mike
    Mike subscriber


    It's surprising that an organization composed mostly of Republicans wants to raises taxes. Also ironic that the local Republican party, composed mostly of the same Republicans, won't support the effort. What's not surprising is that they pitched one of the more regressive forms of taxation where the poor people are disproportionately burdened by such a tax. In my opinion, SANDAG's track record of properly spending their funds is terrible. Many of their ideas are heavily biased toward widening highways. Only a few are truly good, but all their ideas take forever to realize. The leadership bows too easily to nimbys. Unless I see some significant changes to the wording of the proposal in terms of construction schedule, dedication of funds, and environmental friendliness, I will not be voting for this.

    Jack Shu
    Jack Shu subscriber

    What SANDAG fails to do is reallocate funding for freeways we do not need and put it towards transit which is a much more safer, healthier, and cost effective way to travel.  In cities where there is an effective transit system, people will say the transit system gives them more freedom than an auto dependent system.  SANDAG also fails in considering many other forms of funding transportation systems which is user based rather than a regressive sales tax to fund freeways which are already unfairly supported by people who do not use them. I hope voters realize that doing things like we have in the past, "balancing" freeway development with a few transit projects will only give us more of what we have now - more congestion, more pollution, not meeting our green house gas reduction goals and a depressed economy due an ineffective transportation system.  We need a vision that will truly give us and our children something better than that.

    Roy Benstead
    Roy Benstead subscribermember

    @Jack Shu The 2004 Sales Tax increase that was approved by the Taxpayers was specifically for Highway Construction. It is against the law to use those funds for anything other than that. Robbing Peter to pay Paul never works.

    If SANDAG wishes to fund Transit Systems instead of Highways, it must get funds that are specifically for that from somewhere else.

    La Playa Heritage
    La Playa Heritage subscribermember

    Not correct.  A positive 2/3-majority weighted and unweighted votes of the mainly Elected Officials in @SANDAG can allow changes in funding allocations at any time. Confirm with SANDAG.  @Roy Benstead @Jack Shu


    From Circulate San Diego.


    "TransNet Today demonstrates that SANDAG has substantial flexibility over how to implement the TransNet Extension Ordinance.   While much of the public discussion around TransNet is that it constrains SANDAG’s choices, the measure is actually quite flexible. By its very text, TransNet can be amended by a 2/3 vote of the SANDAG Board. However, such a supermajority vote is not required to implement TransNet in a more flexible and transit-friendly way."

    Roy Benstead
    Roy Benstead subscribermember

    @La Playa Heritage @Roy Benstead @Jack Shu So when a Sales Tax Increase for a specific use is approved, a 2/3 majority of the elected Officials of SANDAG can then use those funds for some other project?

    No wonder this county has lost their respect for Elected Officials.

    When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Peter gets sore, and you can't do business when Peter is sore!

    Walt Brewer
    Walt Brewer subscribermember

    @Jack Shu  Please supply some numbers; example: "------  fund freeways which are already unfairly supported by people who do not use them."  With less than 2% of travel on mass transit, do more or less suppot but not use mass transit? 

    Derek Hofmann
    Derek Hofmann subscribermember

    @Walt Brewer Here's a number: the TransNet sales tax is 0.5%. My commute doesn't take me on any freeways, yet I don't get a refund of any of that 0.5%.

    Jack Shu
    Jack Shu subscriber

    @Walt Brewer @Jack Shu  Walt, sorry my reply has taken so long. There are many sources of data which explain funding sources and who is paying for what.  For this discussion, I will only address primary costs, the costs of building and maintaining roads and freeway and not the secondary costs such as health and environmental costs which are directly related to our use of cars and trucks.  Rather than writing a super long reply, I'm going to refer you to several web sites which cover the topic well: 1) From the American Tax Foundation,  http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending  2) From Cal PIRG, http://www.calpirg.org/reports/caf/do-roads-pay-themselves-setting-record-straight-transportation-funding  from which you can download their full study which has great charts and explanations  3) From Cleveland National Forest Foundation's comment site regarding our current RTP and leveling off of VMT meaning do not need more roads and freeways, https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/transitsandiego/pages/29/attachments/original/1443808920/Smart_Mobility_Comments_on_2015_RTP_SCS_and_DEIR_(Final_with_Cover_Page).PDF?1443808920

    Here are some other bits of data I got from SANDAG's and MTS reports on transit costs, our trolley lines have about a 54% cost recovery, our bus lines a 35% cost recovery.  The trolley's Blue Line which serves some of the lowest income communities in the county has over 70% cost recovery.

    From all this it is clear that some general fund assistance and sales tax (Trans Net) goes into funding all of our transportation systems, however, roads and highways get a lot more.  That is one reason our transit system is not working very well and only attracts 2% of our mode share. Transit is still the most cost effect way to move lots of people over many miles, just think of what the trolley lines do during a baseball game or football game. It would save tax payer and individuals a lot of money if we got our mode shares for transit up to 15 or 25%. I'm not saying we should abandon roads and freeway, we already invested so much in those systems and they meet certain needs that are vital. We just need to develop other transportation systems that work cheaper, healthier, safer and do so in an equitable way. Let's get drivers off welfare.

    Walt Brewer
    Walt Brewer subscribermember

    @Jack Shu @Walt Brewer 

    Thank you for the reference. I will read them; though it will taje a while. But I'll find some article to hang them on.

    We do not disagree significantly on your general points. Our differences, and the transportation configuration that hs evolved, is involved with magnitudes of modes differences favoring the public's choices for use of time, social interactions, and productivity. Quite different from your and SANDAG's priorities.

    Example: Yes the original Blue Lone to the Border is an excellent mode match with the unique demographics. But in the trolley expansion since by a factor more than 3, ridership on the expanded part is only 25% or so higher than the shorter original segment.

    Roy Benstead
    Roy Benstead subscribermember

    The Taxpayers did approve a sales tax increase in 2004 to take care of a lot of Highway construction including SR 52 and SR125. 

    SR 52 is not finished, the back-ups at the junction of SR 52 and SR 125 are horrendous. There are some bridges on SR 52 that need to be widened and then, the existing miles of unusable pavement can be used and alleviate that problem.

    SR 125 through La Mesa is appalling. It was supposed to be widened and a freeway connector built from SR 125 South to SR 94 East completed.

    Both of these projects were on the list we approved when we voted that 2004 sales tax increase to complete them.

    Why would any of the County Taxpayers even think about voting for another sales tax increase when these and other items from the 2004 sales tax increase are not finished?

    I most certainly will not be doing that!

    Robin Martyn
    Robin Martyn subscriber

    SANDAG raised billions from the last tax increase. As far as I can see, nothing much was spent on Uptown.  They did ram a "RAPID" bus through Park Boulevard - it was an unmitigated failure.  They're about to spend a few dollars on a bike lane that is shaping up to be a worse failure than the non-rapid RAPID bus.  So, if SANDAG wants my support for another tax increase, they need to stop spending money on freeways in Mira Mesa and give Uptown its share of the pie!


    Greg Martin
    Greg Martin subscriber

    @Robin Martyn If the RAPID 215 is an unmitigated failure, I wish we could turn other routes into such failures.  While not quite as fast as advertised due to NIMBYs, it is an upgrade in terms of frequency and hours of service.  It's a very good service that could be better.

    VOSD Comment Policy

    Voice of San Diego’s Comment Policy

    If you have any questions about this policy please email info@voiceofsandiego.org. If you have a longer, more thoughtful comment, consider submitting a commentary.

    ×

    Sign Up For VOSD’s Free Email Newsletters Today

    Enter your email address below.
    Choose your newsletters:

    To stop this message from appearing for 30 days, Log in. If you’re a current subscriber, you can update your preferences by choosing a new combination.

    ×

    San Diego’s Top Stories Delivered to Your Inbox

    Get the FREE daily Morning Report.

    To stop this message from appearing for 30 days, Log in.

    ×

    Log In or Register

    Registered users can follow narratives, comment on articles, check donation history and more.

    If you’ve never logged in before, please create a free account. If you’re a VOSD member, please use the email address associated with your donations.

    Forgot Password?

    ×