DOCSLIB.ORG

International Road Engineering Safety Countermeasures and Their Applications in the Canadian Context

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
International Road Engineering Safety Countermeasures and Their Applications in the Canadian Context Transport Canada International Road Engineering Safety Countermeasures and their Applications in the Canadian Context Final Report Prepared by: AECOM Canada Ltd. 220 – 2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 1V8 T 905.858.8798 F 905.858.0016 www.aecom.com In Association with: CIMA+ 3400, boulevard du Souvenir, bur. 600, Laval, Quebec, Canada, H7V 3Z2 T 514.337.2462 F 450.682.1013, and Lund University, Box 117 S-221 00 Lund, Sweden T 0046 (0)46 222 00 00 F 0046 (0)46 222 47 20 Project Number: 110245 Date: May 2009 Transport Canada International Road Engineering Safety Countermeasur es and their Applications in the Canadian Context Statement of Qualifications and Limitations © 2009 AECOM CANADA LTD. OR CLIENT (IF COPYRIGHT ASSIGNED TO CLIENT). ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND TRADE SECRET LAW AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER, EXCEPT BY CLIENT FOR ITS OWN USE, OR WITH THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF AECOM CANADA LTD. OR CLIENT (IF COPYRIGHT ASSIGNED TO CLIENT). The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report: • are subject to the budgetary, time, scope, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); • represent Consultants’ professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; • may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified; • have not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and their accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which they were collected, processed, made or issued; • must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; • were prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; • in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. Unless expressly stated to the contrary in the Report or the Agreement, Consultant: • shall not be responsible for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared or for any inaccuracies contained in information that was provided to Consultant; • makes no representations whatsoever with respect to the Report or any part thereof, other than that the Report represents Consultant’s professional judgement as described above, and is intended only for the specific purpose described in the Report and the Agreement; • in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for variability in such conditions geographically or over time. Except as required by law or otherwise agreed by Consultant and Client, the Report: • is to be treated as confidential; • may not be used or relied upon by third parties. Any use of this Report is subject to this Statement of Qualifications and Limitations. Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts thereof shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report. Final Report AECOM, CIMA+, Lund University Transport Canada International Road Engineering Safety Countermeasur es and their Applications in the Canadian Context Distribution List # of Hard Association / Company Name PDF Copies Copy 11 Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation - Transport Canada, Ontario 1 10 Final Report AECOM, CIMA+, Lund University May 2009 Transport Canada International Road Engineering Safety Countermeasur es and their Applications in the Canadian Context Revision Log Revision # Revised By Date Issue / Revision Description 1 Alireza Hadayeghi / Dec 18 th , 2008 Addressing Steering Committee’s Comments Hossein Zarei 2 Alireza Hadayeghi / May 21 st , 2009 Adding French Version of Executive Summary Hossein Zarei Final Report AECOM, CIMA+, Lund University May 2009 Transport Canada International Road Engineering Safety Countermeasur es and their Applications in the Canadian Context Signature Page Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By: Hossein Zarei, M.A.Sc. Ali Hadayeghi, P.Eng., Ph.D Transportation Safety Analyst Supervising Engineer Reviewer Project Team Members Advisor: Christer Hydén, Ph.D (Lund University), Brian Malone, P. Eng., P.T.O.E. (AECOM) Chantal Dagenais (CIMA+), and Oleg Tonkonojenkov, Ph.D (AECOM) Final Report AECOM, CIMA+, Lund University May 2009 Transport Canada International Road Engineering Safety Countermeasur es and their Applications in the Canadian Context Executive Summary According to 2005 Annual Report on Road Safety Vision 2010 Canadians are among the most mobile people in the world. Unfortunately, this level of mobility has come with a price. During 2006, the most recent year for which traffic collision data are available, according to Road Safety Vision annual report, 2,889 road users were killed and about 200,000 were injured (Transport Canada, 2006) . Despite the fact that during the past 20 years road transportation deaths and serious injuries have been halved on a per unit of population basis, traffic collisions have remained one of the leading contributors to years of lost life among Canadians - accounting for more than 94% of fatalities and 99% of serious injuries in transportation-related occurrences according to the same report. The annual economic cost to Canadian society, due to fatal and injury traffic collisions, is estimated at $63 billion (Transport Canada, 2007) . In October 2000 Canada officially approved its second national road safety plan; Road Safety Vision 2010. The goal of Road Safety Vision 2010 is to make Canada’s roads the safest in the world. The initiative has set an ambitious national target calling for a 30% decrease in the average number of road users killed or seriously injured during the 2008-2010 period, as compared with 1996-2001 average figures. Also in this initiative, there are some sub-targets addressing areas such as occupant restraint use, impaired driving, rural road safety, intersection and speed-related collisions, commercial vehicle safety, young drivers, and vulnerable road users. It is well known that rural road safety, intersection and speed-related collisions, collisions involving vulnerable road users, and commercial vehicle safety would greatly benefit from the implementation of road engineering safety countermeasures. While the majority of effective countermeasures being implemented in Canada are well documented and readily available to Canadian practitioners, there still appears to be a knowledge gap with respect to many countermeasures that have been implemented in other top-ranked member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in support of their national road safety plans. Often the related information remains fragmented, scattered, under-evaluated and not readily available to practitioners in Canada. Therefore in order to further support the implementation of Canada Road Safety Vision 2010, Transport Canada decided to retain Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. to identify such countermeasures, to evaluate their relevance to the vision and to asses their respective applicability to Canadian conditions. This research is mainly dedicated to finding countermeasures from other OECD countries that have the potential to be transferred to Canadian applications, provided that they are not already well known to the Canadian road engineering community and have not been widely implemented in Canada. It has also been decided to further include countermeasures that are highly successful in OECD countries, which are well known in Canada, but have yet to be implemented due to reasons not related to safety. This was done in hopes that including such countermeasures may facilitate a fresh look, and may prompt new ideas among Canadian practitioners, on how such countermeasures could be successfully implemented in Canada. An extensive literature search and agency contact has been conducted. All collected material was reviewed and a considerable amount of efforts were put to compile descriptions of countermeasures with illustrations and their known safety effects followed by a discussion of their safety effects, different aspects of design, implementation, public acceptance, costs, environmental impacts, etc. Also in parallel to the literature Final Report AECOM, CIMA+, Lund University May 2009 - i - Transport Canada International Road Engineering Safety Countermeasur es and their Applications in the Canadian Context search, some selected agencies were contacted as needed to identify and obtain all related published and unpublished materials containing information on the most successful countermeasures introduced in the respondent’s respective country. Based on the results of the literature search, review, and agency contact, the study team has compiled a long list of countermeasures in a matrix format, as shown in Appendix B of this report, which contains a countermeasure name, concise description, and general evaluation criteria as defined above. Also in order to select the most efficient countermeasures, some general evaluation criteria
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Community Meeting for Mary Avenue Grade Separation, Aug. 10, 2017
    Caltrain Grade Separation Feasibility Study Mary Avenue Railroad Crossing Community Meeting August 10, 2017 Agenda • Meeting format review • Goals and context • Mary Avenue options Feedback • Q and A • Next steps • Adjourn 2 Caltrain Grade Separations Project Goals Improve Safety (LUTE Policy 24, 36, 40, 41, 42, 46) Enhance Reduce Ped/Bike Traffic Delay Access (LUTE Policy 32, 42) (LUTE Policy 24, 33, 36, 41) 4 Project Context 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 Average Daily Ridership Daily Average 20,000 76 trains 92 trains 114 trains (2003) (2016) +80-106 HSR (2040) Caltrain Grade Separation – VTA Program Description Sunnyvale has 2 of the 8 at grade crossings VTA criteria include cost efficiency and Complete Streets 6 Screening Alternatives Screening • Establish rail and road criteria Alternatives • Identify existing conditions • Develop cursory design of alternatives • Identify impacts and constraints Impacts • Bring results to community Variants of • Identify feasible alternatives Screening • Develop variants to minimize impacts Alternatives • Engage community for input 7 Initial Screening Alternatives 8 At-grade Railroad Crossing Grade Separated Crossing - Overpass At-grade Railroad Crossing Grade Separated Crossing - Underpass Design Criteria Roadway Railroad Grades 4.75% 1.2% max Design speed 30 - 45 mph 79 mph for shoofly (temp rail) Based on posted speed 110 mph for final condition plus 5 mph Bridge depth 5’ 6.75’ Supporting roadway Supporting railroad Vertical clearance Underpass Overpass 15.5’ over roadway 27’ over railroad Roadway
    [Show full text]
  • MN MUTCD Chapter 2H
    Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS 2B.1 Application of Regulatory Signs ..........................................................................................2B-1 2B.2 Design of Regulatory Signs ..................................................................................................2B-1 2B.3 Size of Regulatory Signs ......................................................................................................2B-1 2B.4 Right-of-Way at Intersections ...............................................................................................2B-7 2B.5 STOP Sign (R1-1) and ALL WAY Plaque (R1-3P) ...............................................................2B-8 2B.6 STOP Sign Applications .......................................................................................................2B-9 2B.7 Multi-Way Stop Applications ...............................................................................................2B-9 2B.8 YIELD Sign (R1-2) ..............................................................................................................2B-10 2B.9 YIELD Sign Applications .....................................................................................................2B-10 2B.10 STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement .................................................................................2B-10 2B.11 Stop Here For Pedestrians Signs (R1-5 Series) ....................................................................2B-11 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Purpose Trails Plan
    CITY OF COSTA MESA MULTI-PURPOSE TRAILS PLAN JUNE 2016 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Costa Mesa Multi-Purpose Trails Plan was prepared under the guidance of: Raja Sethuraman, Transportation Services Manager This plan was prepared by KTU+A Planning + Landscape Architecture: John Holloway, Principal, PLA, ASLA, LCI Joe Punsalan, Senior Associate, GISP, PTP, LCI Alison Moss, Associate Mobility Planner, AICP Beth Chamberlin, Associate Planner Juan Alberto Bonilla, Planner Diana Smith, GISP, GIS Manager Kristin Bleile, GIS Analyst This is a project for the City of Costs Mesa with funding provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainability Program. The Sustainability Program is a key SCAG initiative for implementing the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS), combining Compass Blueprint assistance for integrated land use and transportation planning with new Green Region Initiative assistance aimed at local sustainability and Active Transportation assistance for bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts. Sustainability Projects are intended to provide SCAG-member jurisdictions the resources to implement regional policies at the local level, focusing on voluntary efforts that will meet local needs and contribute to implementing the SCS, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and providing the range of local and regional benefits outlined in the SCS. The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant(s) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in accordance with the provisions under the Metropolitan Planning Program as set forth in Section 104(f) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein.
    [Show full text]
  • PBOT Traffic Design Manual Volume 1
    Traffic Design Manual Volume 1: Permanent Traffic Control and Design CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON January 2020 Updated June 2021 0 of 135 Table of Contents Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 1 Permanent Traffic Control Signs ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Regulatory Signs ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Warning Signs .................................................................................................................................. 17 1.3 Guide Signs....................................................................................................................................... 21 2 Pavement Markings ................................................................................................................................. 31 2.1 Centerlines ........................................................................................................................................ 31 2.2 Lane Widths ...................................................................................................................................... 33 2.3 Turn
    [Show full text]
  • TAC 2003 Jughandle Final
    UNCONVENTIONAL ARTERIAL DESIGN Jughandle Intersection Concept for McKnight Boulevard in Calgary G. FurtadoA, G. TenchaA and, H. DevosB A McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Surrey, BC B McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Edmonton, AB ABSTRACT: A functional planning study was initiated along McKnight Boulevard by the City of Calgary in response to the growing traffic and peak hour congestion routinely experienced along the corridor. The objective of the study was to identify and define, the most suitable improvements for medium term (2015 horizon) and long-term (2038 horizon) traffic demands, while conforming to a large number of independent constraints. Numerous alternatives were identified, and in due course rejected, due to their inability to adequately address the project requirements or satisfactorily meet stakeholder needs. Ultimately, a conventional intersection design involving widening along the south side of the corridor and the jughandle intersection concept were short listed for further evaluation and comparison. These design alternatives were subjected to a relatively rigorous appraisal that included performance, signing, laning and signalization requirements, property impacts, access and transit requirements, safety considerations, human factors and environmental impacts to name a few. It was found that operationally, the jughandle intersection design has compelling application potential in high volume corridors where local access is required and full grade separation is impractical or too costly. However, the jughandle property acquisition requirements and resulting costs along highly urbanized corridors, combined with their limited implementation experience in North America, can preclude their use in less than optimum circumstances. 1. INTRODUCTION Arterial roadways are typically designed and built with the intention of providing superior traffic service over collector and local roads (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)
    What Why How CFI - SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Intersection Control Evaluation A performance-based approach to objectively screen alternatives by focusing on the safety related benefits of each. Traditional Intersections SR 11 @ SR 124, Jackson County, GA Johnson Rd @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Dogwood Trail @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Roundabout SR 138 @ Hembree Rd, Fulton County, GA Roundabout • 215+ Existing • 50+ On System/or GDOT $$ • 165+ Off System • 20+ Currently Under Construction • 155+ Planned/programmed RBTs 6 Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) I-95 @ SR 21, Port Wentworth, Chatham County, GA Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) • 6 Existing • 2 Design/under construction • 10+ Under consideration Total: 18+ Continuous Green T SR 120 @ John Ward Rd SW, Cobb County, GA Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) SR 400 @ Lenox Rd NE, Fulton County, GA Reduced Conflict U-Turn (RCUT) SR 20 @ Nail Rd, Henry County, GA Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Unsignalized Signalized • Minor Stop • Signal • All-Way Stop • Median U-Turn • Mini Roundabout • RCUT • Single Lane Roundabout • Displaced Left Turn (CFI) • Multilane Roundabout • Continuous Green-T • RCUT • Jughandle • RIRO w/Downstream U-Turn • Diamond Interchange (signal) • High-T (unsignalized) • Quadrant Roadway • Offset-T Intersections • Diverging Diamond • Diamond Interchange (Stop) • Single Point Interchange • Diamond Interchange (RAB) • Turn Lane Improvements • Turn Lane Improvements • Other Intersection Control Evaluation Deliver a transportation
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Transportation
    Sturbridge Master Plan 2010 (DRAFT) February 2011 7 Transportation Introduction Positioned at the junction of two major Interstate highways, I-84 and I-90, Sturbridge has excellent regional access to major urban areas. This regional interstate proximity brings benefits in terms of convenient access but also brings high traffic volumes and speeds, which compromises pedestrian, bicyclist and driver safety. For this reason, the location of Sturbridge at the junction of I-84 and I-90 is considered to be both a strength and weakness in terms of transportation and land use balance. In addition, Sturbridge’s Main Street, Route 20, is a state-owned roadway. The 1988 Sturbridge Master Plan identified traffic as one of Sturbridge’s most pressing issues. During the public outreach efforts for this Master Plan, Sturbridge residents reiterated similar transportation-related themes from the 1988 Master Plan including: Develop an identity and sense of arrival into Sturbridge through the creation of distinct gateways and streetscaping, especially given the number of tourists coming to the area; Balance the need to facilitate traffic flow with desires to make the roadways more walkable and bikeable; calm vehicle traffic speeds where appropriate (especially through the Commercial Tourist District (CTD) along Route 20); Eliminate sign clutter and improve wayfinding to the key destinations; Ensure that paratransit service meets the expanding needs for elderly and disabled residents; and Make public transportation more available. Over the last 30 years, Sturbridge has experienced rapid residential growth. The population is expected to continue to increase due to the availability of land, the relatively low cost of house lots, and the proximity and access to major highways.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Infrastructure Design for Transport Projects: a Road Map To
    GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS A ROAD MAP TO PROTECTING ASIA’S WILDLIFE BIODIVERSITY DECEMBER 2019 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS A ROAD MAP TO PROTECTING ASIA’S WILDLIFE BIODIVERSITY DECEMBER 2019 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2019 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 8632 4444; Fax +63 2 8636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved. Published in 2019. ISBN 978-92-9261-991-6 (print), 978-92-9261-992-3 (electronic) Publication Stock No. TCS189222 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS189222 The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Manual
    Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Manual FHWA Safety Program http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or the use thereof. This Report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The contents of this Report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers named herein. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. ii TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-SA-18-026 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Guide October 2018 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jenior, P., Butsick, A., Haas, P. and Ray, B. 20447 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Improvements for the US 130-Bridgeboro Road Corridor
    Transportation Improvements for the US 130-Bridgeboro Road Corridor JUNE 2017 The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is dedicated to uniting the region’s elected officials, planning professionals, and the public with a common vision of making a great region even greater. Shaping the way we live, work, and play, DVRPC builds consensus on improving transportation, promoting smart growth, protecting the environment, and enhancing the economy. We serve a diverse region of nine counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer in New Jersey. DVRPC is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Greater Philadelphia Region — leading the way to a better future. The symbol in our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal and is designed as a stylized image of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for the findings and conclusions herein, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, and related nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Transportation to the Year 2000
    PRO CEE J IN S- Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting Theme: "Transportation Management, Policy and Technology" November 2-5, 1983 Marriott Crystal City Hotel Marriott Crystal Gateway Hotel Arlington, VA Volume XXIV • Number 1 1983 gc <rR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH FORUM 1. Road Transportation Requirements To the Year 2000 by J. R. Sutherland* and M. U. Hassan** H'S PAPER presents an overview of are to avoid the experience of the state T the present and future role of the of disrepair of the U.S. highway system road mode in Canada with emphasis on due to lack of timely investment and the Provincial highway system. It brief- resulting damage to the economy, it is .d escribes the trends in road transpo- important that the state of Canada's tation demand and supply: looks at fu- road system be seriously monitored and demand and in general terms iden- appropriate measures taken. tifies the infrastructure and provincial The purpose of this paper is to pro.. flanc..ial requirements to the year 2000. scat an overview of the role of the road The keep its dominant mode in Canada with emphasis on the role private car will in passenger travel which is expect- provincial highway system. The paper ed to grow at 2% per year. The infra- briefly describes the trends in road structure will require capacity expansion transportation demand and supply: it ,en primary highways, upgrading of sur- looks at future demand and in general Laci standards on secondary highways terms identifies the infrastructure and and timely rehabilitation and mainte- financial requirements. Some alterna- ilaPe2.
    [Show full text]
  • 30 by 42 Zoning
    Brick Plaza Towne Hall Shoppes MANTOLOKING BORO Eagle Ridge P V r a r Q B g t e y i L W Mantoloking R l i y n k s n D d t n S d i s B a r l w o a t o i S i a r h r e s y a y i e w lli u c k Wab h r e e n O r c A o e l y d e s r k a h t e k M e M c g i e r n e R e u r p a h M a o F v H d v S l D n t a i c t e t O k Iv l t ld B r y w u w ridge i n H e e n S R r a S o u y K l m i i S l l i e l o D s Yale R e B n e a G a a r l h l e m R e n n o o m w l e r o t i a a v r m H gory m re n d n S i D a re r B v S g o D t G o e p in s m t o p y le e e i o a l a o v u u d l r id V e c S T M A r r s n r S e pple o y a g d e s ga m e t te m l i y W a i p on r n h m a k t e y l y rm a ra P i s i n r m Fa t C o r d A a o a D n r d d D a o a y I W L v o Mayfair a a a o o n o n i r h M D n k N e o E r l n n S C c n e t r n o U i d u i B y i oo w h S d n se s c t o G v R s h A U w n T y ty e i a e i t si e r t e e e r o w n niv wan x Osbornsville l g U S e y e i O o h te l a t e w Whi ll e v i w u i g e G a n s z r F s r o h m i h mN D s l t r t o a d y b y o a d n l e b e o y r P a m n l B Elementary n i e y B D Do S n w a r R l n ne m e Robyn n r L o r W sa s r Li a r w n a a o l i S k eynold n A R e o a e a r l a K x d d u f S n e l H r E t f h i School s c c o e F M C a i a r l e r a F e a t l i c r JACKSON TWP n a k n i a l i T n rw C Jennifer o a L h k e a C a m m y S d iss r r a F s n n g n L s c o l M o l t a w r a s C t s d t t i e e r s a vi n o o I z l t o u m e e n e es y M a e r m d n r x a C e h O l n M v r e rum Point A A i w V D s n r ld
    [Show full text]