DOCSLIB.ORG

PBOT Traffic Design Manual Volume 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 Lanes ........................................................................................................................................ 35 2.4 Stop Bars .......................................................................................................................................... 37 2.5 DO NOT BLOCK markings ............................................................................................................. 38 2.6 Guidance and Warning Devices ....................................................................................................... 38 2.7 Parking .............................................................................................................................................. 39 3 Traffic Signals .......................................................................................................................................... 41 3.1 Traffic Signal Warrants and Design Elements ................................................................................. 41 3.2 Traffic Signal Approval Process ....................................................................................................... 41 3.3 Half Signal Guidelines ...................................................................................................................... 44 3.4 RRFB Guidelines .............................................................................................................................. 46 4 Traffic Control and Design for Pedestrians ............................................................................................. 49 4.1 Pedestrian Signs ................................................................................................................................ 49 4.2 Crosswalks ........................................................................................................................................ 51 4.3 Pedestrian Island Design .................................................................................................................. 60 5 Traffic Control for School Areas ............................................................................................................. 63 5.1 School Signs ..................................................................................................................................... 63 5.2 School Crosswalks ............................................................................................................................ 65 5.3 School Traffic Signal Warrants ........................................................................................................ 66 6 Traffic Control and Design for People Biking ......................................................................................... 67 6.1 Bicycle Signs .................................................................................................................................... 67 6.2 Bicycle Pavement Markings ............................................................................................................. 71 6.3 Green-Colored Bike Facilities .......................................................................................................... 80 6.4 Bicycle Signals ................................................................................................................................. 87 6.5 Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 88 6.6 Construction Traffic Control for Bicycles ........................................................................................ 94 7 Traffic Control and Design for Transit .................................................................................................... 95 7.1 Transit Queue Bypass and Queue Jump/Bus Signal Designs ........................................................... 95 7.2 Transit/BUS Only and Business Access and Transit (BAT) Lane Design ....................................... 97 7.3 Transit Stop Design ........................................................................................................................ 106 7.4 Transit Stop Designs - Streets With Bike Facilities ....................................................................... 111 8 Traffic Calming ...................................................................................................................................... 119 8.1 Speed Bumps .................................................................................................................................. 119 8.2 Traffic Circles ................................................................................................................................. 125 8.3 Curb Extensions .............................................................................................................................. 130 9 Shared Streets......................................................................................................................................... 133 References ................................................................................................................................................. 134 1 of 135 The PBOT Traffic Design Manual currently consists of three volumes, which can be accessed and printed in their entirety from the PBOT website: Volume 1: Permanent Traffic Control and Design https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/751333 Volume 2: Temporary Traffic Control https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/648243 Volume 3: Traffic Signal Design Guide https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/643224 The City of Portland ensures meaningful access to city programs, services, and activities to comply with Civil Rights Title VI and ADA Title II laws and reasonably provides: translation, interpretation, modifications, accommodations, alternative formats, auxiliary aids and services. To request these services, contact 503-823-5185, City TTY 503-823-6868, Relay Service: 711. 2 of 135 Preface Preface PURPOSE The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) sets forth the basic principles that govern the use of traffic control devices. The Oregon Department of Transportation adopts a Supplement to the MUTCD. The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) Traffic Design Manual is intended for use as a supplement to the MUTCD and Oregon Supplement. It documents standard practices of the bureau and provides guidelines for specific traffic control devices not included in the MUTCD. In this manual, the words “shall,” “should” and “may” are used to describe specific conditions. To clarify the use of these terms, the following definitions apply. 1. SHALL: A mandatory condition or action. 2. SHOULD: The practice under normal conditions. 3. MAY: An option where no requirement for design, application, or standards is intended. This manual references the City of Portland Standard Construction Specifications, Special Provisions and Standard Drawings, as well as ODOT Standard Drawings, which shall supersede information contained in this document. Current versions can be found on the Design + Construction page of PBOT’s website, which is on the PDX Streets & Infrastructure tab, under For Engineers, Contractors & Consultants: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/40032 3 of 135 Glossary Glossary ADA STANDARDS The 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design and, if any, supplemental ADA standards for application within the public right-of-way, as adopted by the US Department of Justice and US Department of Transportation. ARTERIAL A street with a high traffic volume that forms part of the network carrying the majority of traffic entering, leaving, and moving across the city. This street type also carries mass transit and freight. BIKE BOX A green pavement marking installed at intersections to reduce conflicts between people biking and driving.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration, New York City
    HE tV 18.5 U M T A-M A-06-0049-84-4 a A37 DOT-TSC-U MTA-84-18 no. DOT- Department SC- U.S T of Transportation UM! A— 84-18 Urban Mass Transportation Administration Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration - New York City j ™nsportat;on JUW 4 198/ Final Report May 1984 UMTA Technical Assistance Program Office of Management Research and Transit Service UMTA/TSC Project Evaluation Series NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. - POT- Technical Report Documentation Page TS . 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No. 'A'* tJMTA-MA-06-0049-84-4 'Z'i-I £ 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date MADISON AVENUE DUAL EXCLUSIVE BUS LANE DEMONSTRATION. May 1984 NEW YORK CITY 6. Performing Organization Code DTS-64 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authors) J. Richard^ Kuzmyak : DOT-TSC-UMTA-84-18 9^ Performing Organization Name ond Address DEPARTMENT OF 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) COMSIS Corporation* transportation UM427/R4620 11501 Georgia Avenue, Suite 312 11. Controct or Grant No. DOT-TSC-1753 Wheaton, MD 20902 JUN 4 1987 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Urban Mass Transportation Admi ni strati pg LIBRARY August 1980 - May 1982 Office of Technical Assistance 14.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Role of High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lanes Highway Construction Management In
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1280 131 Role of High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lanes In• Highway Construction Management ALLAN E. PINT, CHARLEEN A. ZIMMER, AND FRANCIS E. LOETTERLE The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is con­ 3. How has construction affected use of the HOV lane? structing 1-394 along the portion of US-12 that extends from 4. What was the role of the HOV lane in traffic management do\\lntown MinneapolL5 to the suburb of Wayzata. When com­ during construction? pleted, I-394 will have high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes. 5. How has the HOV lane affected the highway construction Mn/DOT builr a temporary HOV lane along US-12 before con­ structing 1-394 to introduce th , HOV lane concept to commuters project? and to improve capacity during construction. Mn/DOT and the FHW A have been conducting an evaluation of this temporary HOV lane. Phase I evaluated operation in an arterial highway FUTURE 1-394 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM environment before construction. Phase II evaluated operation and use of the HOV lane during highway construction. Five key When completed, 1-394 will have two mixed traffic lanes in issues were addressed in the Phase II evaluation: (a) what can each direction and two lanes for high-occupancy vehicles (3 be learned about the design and operation of HOV lanes, (b) mi of separated reversible lanes and 8 mi of concurrent flow who uses HOV lanes and what factors cause people to choose diamond lanes). I-394 is being built along the alignment of carpooling or the bus over driving alone, (c) how has con truction existing US-12, from downtown Minneapolis to the third-ring affected use of the HOV lane, (d) what was the role of the HOV lane in construction traffic management, and (e) how has the suburban municipality of Wayzata, 11 mi to the west.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • FINAL SAR 98-1 STRATEGIC ANALYSIS REPORT On
    FINAL SAR 98-1 • 03/08/99 • Page 1 transportation needs in the Multimedia Gulch and potential solutions, and the impact of transportation issues on multimedia business retention. The Board also FINAL SAR 98-1 directed staff to explore welfare-to-work connections/ opportunities in the Gulch. The SAR examines these STRATEGIC ANALYSIS REPORT issues and provides a context and road map for on MULTIMEDIA GULCH policymakers about transportation improvements in the Gulch. It also makes specific recommendations. Initiated by Commissioner Katz Adopted by San Francisco County Transportation The SAR analyzes current conditions and assesses the Authority Board on March 8, 1999 need for transportation improvements in the Gulch. The Gulch is one of the most accessible areas of the City, well Table of Contents served by freeways and regional transit. However, it is clear that traveling within the Gulch by transit can be I. Introduction ......................................................................1 difficult. The SAR also reviews some initiatives to II. Background.......................................................................2 improve the transportation system in the Gulch that are III. Strategic Analysis .............................................................2 being developed by the San Francisco Partnership’s A. Needs Assessment .....................................................2 Multimedia Task Force Transit Work Group. We B. Analysis of Multimedia Transit Work Group evaluated these initiatives in terms of effectiveness, Proposals...................................................................6
    [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]