DOCSLIB.ORG

Odot 2017 I-44 Fastl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Odot 2017 I-44 Fastl Supporting information can be found at: US -75 & I-44 Tulsa County FASTLANE ODOT Contact: Matthew Swift, P.E., Strategic Asset and Performance Management Division, ODOT (405) 521-2704 email: [email protected] This project was submitted for FASTLANE funding in FY 2017 under the project name: Reconstruction of I-44/US-75 Interchange Bridges and Related Improvements on I-44, City of Tulsa, Oklahoma Previously Incurred Project Cost: $ 1,084, 580 . Project on NHFN? YES . Future Eligible Project Cost: $108,686,040 . Project on NHS? YES . Total Project Cost: $109,770,620 . Project to add Interstate capacity? YES . NSFHP Request: $63,829,200 . Project in national scenic area? NO . Rail grade crossing or separation included? NO . Total Federal Funds (including . Intermodal or freight rail project, or freight $86,948,830 NSFHP) project within freight rail, water, or NO intermodal facility? . If yes, specify: NA . Matching funds restricted to NO specific project component? . NSFHP $ to be spent on above two items: NA State: Oklahoma Begin: Lat/Long: 36˚5’20.40”N / 96˚01’50.17”W Inclusion in Planning Documents: End: Lat/Long: 36˚5’23.40”N/ 95˚59’36.12”W . TIP: NO* Size of project: Large . STIP: NO* Submitting TIGER project? No . MPO LRTP: YES Urbanized Area (UA): Tulsa, OK . State LRTP: YES UA population, 2015 686,033 . State Freight Plan: NA *elements of this project are included in the current STIP and TIP documents Submitted by: Oklahoma Department of Transportation CONTENTS 1.0 Project Description .................................................................................. 1 2.0 Project Location...................................................................................... 4 3.0 Project Parties........................................................................................ 6 4.0 Grant Funds, Sources and Uses of Project Funds ............................................... 6 4.1 Future Eligible Cost .................................................................................. 6 4.2 Availability and Commitment of all Committed and Expected Funding Sources and Uses of all Project Funds .................................................................................. 6 4.3 Federal Funds Already Provided and Required Matching Funds for Those Funds .......... 7 4.4 Detailed Budget ...................................................................................... 7 4.5 Amount of Requested NSFHP Funds ............................................................... 7 5.0 Merit Criteria ......................................................................................... 7 5.1.1 Economic Outcomes ................................................................................ 8 5.1.2 Mobility Outcomes .................................................................................. 9 5.1.3 Safety Outcomes .................................................................................. 10 5.1.4 Community and Environmental Outcomes ...................................................... 12 5.2 Other Review Criteria .............................................................................. 13 5.2.1 Partnership and Innovation ........................................................................ 13 5.2.2 Cost Share ............................................................................................ 13 6.0 Large/Small Project Requirements .............................................................. 14 7.0 Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................. 14 7.1 Economic Outcomes ................................................................................ 16 7.2 Mobility Outcomes .................................................................................. 16 7.3 Safety Outcomes .................................................................................... 16 7.4 Community and Environmental Outcomes ...................................................... 16 7.5 Regional Benefits ................................................................................... 17 8.0 Project Readiness ................................................................................... 18 8.1 Technical Feasibility ............................................................................... 19 8.2 Project Schedule .................................................................................... 19 8.3 Required Approvals ................................................................................. 20 8.3.1 Environmental Permits and Reviews ............................................................. 20 i 8.3.2 State and Local Approvals ......................................................................... 22 8.3.3 State and Local Planning ........................................................................... 22 8.3.4 Assessment of Project Risks and Mitigation Strategies ....................................... 23 8.3.5 System for Award Management (SAM) Information ............................................ 23 Figures FIGURE 1: I-44 FASTLANE Project Map, Tulsa County, Oklahoma ............................................................... 1 FIGURE 2: Proposed Typical Section for I-44 ........................................................................................ 2 FIGURE 3: Existing Queuing on I-44 Westbound Collector/Distributor Road in PM Peak ..................................... 3 FIGURE 4: Trucks Stopped at I-44 Westbound Collector/Distributor On-Ramp at 51st Street ............................... 3 FIGURE 5: Tulsa Transportation Management Area (TMA) ........................................................................ 4 FIGURE 6: Project Elements Map ...................................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 7: Major Truck Flows To, From, and Within Oklahoma ................................................................... 8 FIGURE 8: Major Freight Generators and Rail Lines ................................................................................. 8 FIGURE 9: Selected Corridor Crash Statistics ...................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 10: I-44 Crash Severity Cluster Map (2010-2014) ........................................................................ 11 FIGURE 11: HollyFrontier’s Tulsa Refinery ......................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 12: Key Demographic Groups ............................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 13: Summary of Schedule Highlights ...................................................................................... 20 Tables TABLE 1: Sources and Uses of Funds .................................................................................................. 6 TABLE 2: Summary of Project Costs .................................................................................................. 7 TABLE 3: Forecasted Population Growth Trends .................................................................................... 9 TABLE 4: Bridge Condition .............................................................................................................. 9 TABLE 5: Large Project Requirements.............................................................................................. 14 TABLE 6: Benefit Estimates by Merit Criteria, 20-year Analysis Period (2023–2042) for Local Impacts ................. 15 TABLE 7: Overall Results of the Benefit-Cost Analysis (Local Impacts) ....................................................... 15 TABLE 8: Merit Criteria and Cost-Effectiveness - Summary of Infrastructure Improvements and Associated Benefits (Regional Impacts) .......................................................................................................... 17 TABLE 9: Overall Results of the Benefit Cost Analysis (Regional Impacts), Millions of 2015 Dollars ..................... 18 TABLE 10: Agency Coordination to Date ............................................................................................ 21 ii DOCUMENTATION OF CHANGES FOR FY 2017 The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) submitted the subject project to USDOT in the first round of FASTLANE grant improvements (FY 2016). With this application, ODOT is resubmitting the project for consideration in FY 2017. This memo documents the changes and updates to the application from FY 2016. While minor changes have been made throughout the application document, the major substantive changes are summarized here. Project Description – Information about the expected users of the project and the transportation challenges has been added. A typical section graphic was added from the recent Preliminary Engineering (PE) study. Traffic volume information was added. Project Cost – the previously incurred cost amounts have increased due to progress on the I-44 corridor PE study, Union Avenue over I-44 PE, and the traffic study for the I-44 over 33rd W. Avenue bridges. While the total project cost has not changed, the future eligible costs have decreased somewhat. The amount of the FASTLANE grant request has not changed. A discussion of the funds currently programmed for the improvements has been added. Merit Outcomes- the following updates are included: Mobility Outcomes – The recent nomination of I-44 and US-75 as Alternative Fuel Corridors is discussed. Additional discussion of improvements to regional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ROUND the BEND TEAM Being Through Our Efforts
    Round the bend Farm A CENTER FOR RESTORATIVE COMMUNITY 1 LETTER FROM THE It’s been an AMAZING monarch year for us here at RTB. We even offered CO-VISIONARIES a monarch class in July Desa & Nia Van Laarhoven and we’ve been hatching & Geoff Kinder some at RTB to increase s fall descends on Round the Bend Farm their odds. (RTB), vivid colors mark the passage of time. Autumn’s return grounds us amid Aeach day’s frenetic news cycles. It reminds us of the deeper cycle that connects us all to the earth and to each other. And yet one news story, from late September, has done the same. More than 7.5 million people came together in cities and villages across the planet to call in unison for an environmentally just and sustainable world. This is a story that speaks to RTB’s mission and purpose and demonstrates the concept of Restorative Community that’s so central to our existence. You can see it in the image that juxtaposed September’s global crowds with the prior year’s solitary Swedish protester. You can hear it in the words spoken by an Indigenous Brazilian teen to 250,000 people lining the streets of New York City. Restorative Community is a force multiplier for our own personal commitments to justice, health and peace. It nurtures and supports us as individuals, unites and strengthens us as a movement and harnesses our differences in service of our common goals. In community, we respect, enjoy and learn from each other. As you page through this year’s annual report, we hope you experience the same! We’re This past year, we continued to expand our inspired and encouraged by what we’ve Restorative Community at RTB, more than accomplished this year and we’re honored to doubling the number of people who visited serve our community in ever new ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Ncbr (Fastlane)
    APPLICANT CONTACT Port of Moses Lake Jeffrey Bishop, Executive Director 7810 Andrews N.E. Suite 200 Moses Lake, WA 98837 Port of Moses Lake www.portofmoseslake.com [email protected] Project Name Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project Was a FASTLANE application for this project submitted previously? Yes If yes, what was the name of the project in the previous application? Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project Previously Incurred Project Costs $2.1 million Future Eligible Project Costs $30.3 million Total Project Costs $32.4 million Total Federal Funding (including FASTLANE) $9.9 million Are matching funds restricted to a specific project component? If so, No which one? Is the project of a portion of the project currently located on Yes National Highway Freight Network? Is the project of a portion on the project located on the NHS? This project crosses under the NHS as well is it runs adjacent to the NHS Does the project add capacity to the Interstate system? Yes, by diverting VMT to rail Is the project in a national scenic area? No Does the project components include a railway-highway grade No crossing or grade separation project? The project includes crossing If so, please include the grade crossing ID improvements. Do the project components include an intermodal or freight rail Yes project, or freight project within the boundaries of a public or private freight rail, water (including ports, or intermodal facility? If answered yes to either of the two component questions above, $9.9 million how much of requested FASTLANE
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise Best Practices for Ios Devices On
    White Paper Enterprise Best Practices for iOS devices and Mac computers on Cisco Wireless LAN Updated: January 2018 © 2018 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. This document is Cisco Public. Page 1 of 51 Contents SCOPE .............................................................................................................................................. 4 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 4 WIRELESS LAN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................... 5 RF Design Guidelines for iOS devices and Mac computers on Cisco WLAN ........................................................ 5 RF Design Recommendations for iOS devices and Mac computers on Cisco WLAN ........................................... 6 Wi-Fi Channel Coverage .................................................................................................................................. 7 ClientLink Beamforming ................................................................................................................................ 10 Wi-Fi Channel Bandwidth ............................................................................................................................. 10 Data Rates .................................................................................................................................................... 12 802.1X/EAP Authentication ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures
    Implementing the Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures June 2017 June 2017 Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure i Contents A Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Background ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Structure of Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 2 3. Application of Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 3 4. Assessing Financial Impacts of Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities ............................................................ 4 B Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 11 C Guidance for All Sectors .............................................................................................................................. 14 1. Governance ................................................................................................................................................................. 14 2. Strategy .......................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2KSWIN WWE2K19 PC Online
    IMPORTANT HEALTH WARNING: PHOTOSENSITIVE SEIZURES A very small percentage of people may experience a seizure when exposed to certain visual images, including flashing lights or patterns that may appear in video games. Even people with no history of seizures or epilepsy may have an undiagnosed condition that can cause “photosensitive epileptic seizures” while watching video games. Symptoms can include light-headedness, altered vision, eye or face twitching, jerking or shaking of arms or legs, disorientation, confusion, momentary loss of awareness, and loss of consciousness or convulsions that can lead to injury from falling down or striking nearby objects. Immediately stop playing and consult a doctor if you experience any of these symptoms. Parents, watch for or ask children about these symptoms—children and teenagers are more likely to experience these seizures. The risk may be reduced by being farther from the screen; using a smaller screen; playing in a well-lit room, and not playing when drowsy or fatigued. If you or any relatives have a history of seizures or epilepsy, consult a doctor before playing. Product Support: http://support.2k.com Please note that WWE 2K19 online features are scheduled to be available until May 31, 2020 though we reserve the right to modify or discontinue online features without notice. 2 KEYBOARD CONTROLS ACTION KEY WAKE UP TAUNT 1 TOGGLE SIGNATURE / FINISHER 2 TAUNT OPPONENT 3 TAUNT CROWD 4 PAUSE ESC DISPLAY CURRENT TARGET C FRONT FACELOCK / GRAPPLE DOWN ARROW IRISH WHIP / PIN RIGHT ARROW SIGNATURE / FINISHER
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Statewide Freight Plan
    November 2017 Connecticut Statewide Freight Plan This page intentionally left blank. LIST OF ACRONYMS AHTD – Annual Hours of Truck Delay ATA – American Trucking Association BPA – Bridgeport Port Authority CIP – Capital Improvement Plan CMAQ – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program CNG – Compressed Natural Gas COG – Council of Governments CPA – Connecticut Port Authority CRA – Connecticut Railroad Association CRFC – Critical Rural Freight Corridors CTDOT – Connecticut Department of Transportation CUFC – Critical Urban Freight Corridors CVISN – Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks DECD – Department of Economic and Community Development DEEP – Department of Energy and Environmental Protection DMV – Department of Motor Vehicles EJ – Environmental Justice EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency FAA – Federal Aviation Administration FAST Act – Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act FHWA – Federal Highway Administration FMCSA – Federal Motor Carrier Administration FRA – Federal Railroad Administration FTA – Federal Transit Administration FTIP – Freight Transportation Improvement Program GIS – Geographic Information System GPS – Global Positioning Systems HCAADT – Heavy Commercial Average Annual Daily Traffic HHS – U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HOS – Hours of Service HSIP – Highway Safety Improvement Program ITS – Intelligent Transportation Systems LEP – Limited English Proficiency LRP – Long Range Plan MAP-21 – Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act MPG – Miles Per Gallon MPH –
    [Show full text]
  • Consumerfinance.Gov January 13, 2017 the Honorable Ted Mitchell
    1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552 January 13, 2017 The Honorable Ted Mitchell Under Secretary of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20202 RE: Revised Payback Playbook Transmittal Dear Under Secretary Mitchell, Thank you for your continued collaboration with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to strengthen student loan servicing for all consumers. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the Department of Education and the Department of the Treasury to explore challenges facing student loan borrowers and advance the joint principles released last year.1 This collaboration is particularly important as the Office of Federal Student Aid implements the policy guidance you issued last July to create a new student loan servicing ecosystem.2 Enclosed, please find a memorandum describing our ongoing work to improve the prototype student loan Payback Playbook that the CFPB, in coordination with the Department of Education and the Department of Treasury, released last year. 1 U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Joint Statement of Principles on Student Loan Servicing, 80 Fed. Reg. 67389 (Nov. 2, 2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_treasury_education-joint-statement-of-principles-on-student-loan- servicing.pdf. 2 U.S. Department of Education, Policy Direction on Federal Student Loan Servicing (July 2016), http://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/loan-servicing-policy-memo.pdf. consumerfinance.gov The attached memorandum provides an overview of public feedback received in response to our April 2016 Notice and Request for Information Regarding Student Loan Borrower Communications, including nearly 3,500 comments from individual student loan borrowers, student loan market participants, higher education policy experts and other stakeholders.3 In support of this initiative, the CFPB also retained an independent research firm to perform iterative user testing on the prototype Payback Playbook.
    [Show full text]
  • EPP Graduate Fellowship Table Name Deadline for Application
    EPP Graduate Fellowship Table Deadline for Contact Information/ Name Eligibility requirements Brief Description Application Website CMU's Fellowship & CMU FSO Scholarship n/a n/a Fellowship and Scholarship Office http://www.cmu.edu/fso/ Office (FSO) Applicants must be from one of the following GEM: Graduate Application open on July underrepresented groups: For MS or PhD students in Gem Fellowship Degrees for Minorities 1, 2017 through Native American, African physical or natural sciences, or http://www.gemfellowship.org/gem- in Engineering and November 13, 2017. American, Latino, Puerto engineering. fellowship Science Rican, or other Hispanic American. Applicants must be nominated Ph.D. students who have an by doctoral faculty members interest in solving problems that IBM Fellowship The IBM Ph.D. Applications accepted and enrolled full-time in a are important to IBM and http://www.research.ibm.com/universi Fellowship Program through October 26,2017 college or university Ph.D. fundamental to innovation in ty/phdfellowship/ program. multiple areas. Students pursuing PhD studies in applied physics, biological and engineering sciences. US citizens Applications accepted or permanent residents. August 15, 2017 - The Hertz Foundation Fellowships Applications from students The Hertz Foundation October 27, 2017. U.S Citizens or permanent Brochure currently beyond their first year of Fellowships Reference Reports must resident aliens. http://hertzfoundation.org/fellowships/ graduate school are rarely acted be received by October, fellowshipaward upon favorably, and only 30, 2017. considered in cases of exceptional leverage. (Critical to apply to as a first year). 2018 Pre-doctoral Ford Foundation For graduate study in any field for National Academies Fellowship application deadline: Fellowship for U.S Minorities those planning a career in teaching http://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/ December 14, 2017 Minorities or research.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Truck Parking Information Management System FASTLANE 2016 • April 14, 2016
    Colorado Truck Parking Information Management System FASTLANE 2016 • April 14, 2016 Previously Incurred Project Cost $0 Future Eligible Project Cost $9,000,000 Total Project Cost $9,000,000 NSFHP Request $5,000,000 Total Federal Funding (including NSFHP) $7,200,000 Are matching funds restricted to a specific project component? If so, which one? No Is the project or a portion of the project currently located on National Highway Freight Network? Yes Is the project or a portion of the project located on the National Highway System? Yes • Does the project add capacity to the Interstate system? No • Is the project in a national scenic area? No Do the project components include a railway-highway grade crossing or grade separation project? No Do the project components include an intermodal or freight rail project, or freight project within the No boundaries of a public or private freight rail, water (including ports), or intermodal facility? If answered yes to either of the two component questions above, how much of requested NSFHP funds N/A will be spent on each of these projects components? State(s) in which project is located Colorado Small or large project Small Also submitting an application to TIGER for this project? No Urbanized Area in which project is located, if applicable N/A Population of Urbanized Area? N/A Is the project currently programmed in the: • TIP? No • STIP? No • MPO Long Range Transportation Plan? No • State Long Range Transportation Plan? Yes • State Freight Plan? Yes Table of Contents A. Project Description ............................................................................................... 1 B. Project Location .................................................................................................... 8 C.
    [Show full text]
  • A04120071 Page 1 of 1
    +PC * S NATIONU SCIENCE FOUNDATION OFFICEOFFICE OF OF INSPECTOR INVESTIGATIONS GENERAL z4 .q$$@!0 CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM D~~~~ \o Case Number: A04120071 Page 1 of 1 In connection with a proactive review, we reviewed an awardee's ' General Ledger. This review revealed that the awardee had spent the last $32,000 of NSF funds on post-award expenditures. Further iilvestigation revealed that the PI had requested an extension of tiine to complete work beyond the award's expiration, but NSF denied this request. In addition, investigation revealed that despite NSF's denial of the second-no-cost extension, the PI engineered the draw down of the $32,000 by falsely characteriziilg the draw down as a reimbursement. However, the ~najorityof the funds, approxi~nately$27,000, were used to fund newly incurred, ongoing, post-award expenses. Thereafter, the awardee filed a false final Federal Cash Transaction Report certifying that all award funds had been spent. Then, the PI filed a Final Report that falsely represented that all work on the award was complete. When asked about this by OIG investigators, the PI said she didn't know the second no-cost extension had been denied by NSF. The weight of the evidence refuted this assertion. Without adinitting liability, the awardee settled a civil false claims case with the Department of Justice for $52,150 and agreed to enter into a self-governance programdesigned to ensure that it will operate with honestly and integrity and in compliance with applicable law. In a separate and unrelated ad~ni~listrativeaction, the PI was debarred by NSF for 5 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-18-38, Discretionary Transportation Grants
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees November 2017 DISCRETIONARY TRANSPORTATION GRANTS DOT Should Take Actions to Improve the Selection of Freight and Highway Projects GAO-18-38 November 2017 DISCRETIONARY TRANSPORTATION GRANTS DOT Should Take Actions to Improve the Selection of Freight and Highway Projects Highlights of GAO-18-38, a report to congressional committees. Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In December 2015, the Fixing In 2016, the Department of Transportation (DOT) developed a multi-phased America’s Surface Transportation Act review and selection process for a new grant program—the Fostering (FAST Act) authorized DOT to award Advancement in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of $4.5 billion in discretionary grants for National Efficiencies (FASTLANE). DOT awarded FASTLANE grants to 18 fiscal years 2016 through 2020; DOT freight and highway projects. Multiple teams of reviewers evaluated 218 awarded $759.2 million in fiscal year applications based on an evaluation plan that outlined the criteria and process 2016. for evaluating applications. GAO found that the awarded projects addressed key The FAST Act required GAO to assess program requirements, such as ensuring that at least 10 percent of awarded FASTLANE’s processes for selecting funds went to small projects and 25 percent to projects located in rural areas. grants. This report addresses: (1) the DOT generally followed the process outlined in the FASTLANE evaluation plan; processes used to evaluate and award however the plan resulted in inconsistencies and allowed for broad discretion FASTLANE grants, (2) the extent to which DOT followed its FASTLANE during certain team reviews.
    [Show full text]
  • No Holds Barred Elimination Match the Shield Vs Evolution Победител – Evolution 5Т
    NO HOLDS BARRED ELIMINATION MATCH THE SHIELD VS EVOLUTION Победител – EVOLUTION 5т. Финишър –Spear 3т. Winner by – pin 1т. LAST MAN STANDING MATCH JOHN CENA VS BRAY WAYTT Победител – JOHN CENA 5т. Финишър –АА 3т. Winner by –КО 1т. BAD NEWS BARRETT VS ROB VAN DAM Победител – . BAD NEWS BARRETT 5т. Финишър – Bull Hammer 3т. Winner by –pin 1т. SHEAMUS VS CESARO Победител – SHEAMUS 5т. Финишър –Roll up 3т. Winner by – pin 1т. INTERCONTINENTAL TITLE BIG E VS BAD NEWS BARETT or RVD Победител – Bad News Barett 5т. Финишър – Bull Hammer 3т. Winner by – pin 1т. PAIGE VS ALICIA FOX Победител – PAIGE 5т. Финишър – Cloverleaf (RamPaige) 3т. Winner by – Submission 1т. RUSEV VS BIG E Победител – RUSEV 5т. Финишър – Аccolade (Camel Clutch) 3т. Winner by – Submission 1т. denkata398 No Holds Barred Tag Team Elimination Match The Shield vs. Evolution Победител – The Shield 5т. Финишър – Spear 3т. Winner by – Pinfall 1т. Last Man Standing Match John Cena vs. Bray Wyatt Победител – John Cena 5т. Финишър – Attitude Adjustment 3т. Winner by – KO 1т. Intercontinental Championship Match Intercontinental Champion Bad News Barrett vs. Rob Van Dam Победител – Bad News Barrett 5т. Финишър – Bad News Bull Hammer Elbow 3т. Winner by – Pinfall 1т. United States Championship Match United States Champion Sheamus vs. Cesaro Победител – Sheamus 5т. Финишър – Brogue Kick Winner by – Pinfall 1т. Divas Championship Match Divas Champion Paige vs. Alicia Fox Победител – Paige 5т. Финишър – Scorpion Crosslock 3т. Winner by – Submission 1т. Rusev vs. Big E Победител – Rusev 5т. Финишър – The Accolade 3т. Winner by – Submission 1т. 51 точки g2e 1.NO HOLDS BARRED ELIMINATION MATCH THE SHIELD VS EVOLUTION Победител – ЩИТ 5т.
    [Show full text]