DOCSLIB.ORG

West End Transitway AA Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
West End Transitway AA Report –– ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT – FINAL JULY 2016 This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT PURPOSE ............................................................................. 6 2. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 12 3. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 26 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................... 33 5. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................ 35 6. ALTERNATIVES ANAYSIS SUMMARY .................................................................................... 37 7. CITY APPROVAL AND NEXT STEPS ....................................................................................... 39 Figures Figure 1: Project Study Area .................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2: Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 3: Alternatives Analysis Summary .............................................................................................. 3 Figure 4: Project Study Area .................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 5: Transportation Master Plan Corridors .................................................................................. 12 Figure 6: Landmark/Van Dorn Transit Boulevard Cross Section ........................................................ 13 Figure 7: Transitway Feasibility Study Corridors ................................................................................. 14 Figure 8: Beauregard Small Area Plan Transitway Recommendations .............................................. 15 Figure 9: Build Alternative Configuration ............................................................................................. 19 Figure 10: Weekday Peak and Midday Route Patterns and Frequency (TSM and Build Alternatives) .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 11: Weekday Evening and Weekend Route Pattern (TSM and Build Alternatives) ................ 21 Figure 12: Framing the Alternatives in the Context of the Corridor Long-Term Vision ....................... 22 Figure 13: Build Alternative to Mature Corridor Transition .................................................................. 23 Figure 14: FTA New Starts Framework ............................................................................................... 27 Figure 15: Alternatives Evaluation Scoring Summary ......................................................................... 32 Alternative Analyis Report – Final July 2016 ALEXANDRIA WEST END TRANSITWAY PROJECT Tables Table 1: Corridor Issues and Needs ...................................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Overview of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 10 Table 3: Summary of Key Project Refinements................................................................................... 17 Table 4: Summary of System Operations, Infrastructure and Service Elements ................................ 23 Table 5: West End Transitway Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................. 28 Table 6: Transit Criteria Evaluation Summary ..................................................................................... 29 Table 7: Other Transportation Criteria Evaluation Summary .............................................................. 30 Table 8: Land Use and Economic Development Criteria Evaluation Summary .................................. 31 Table 9: Capital Cost Summary ........................................................................................................... 35 Table 10: Operational Cost Summary ................................................................................................. 36 Appendices Appendix A: Purpose and Need Technical Memorandum Appendix B: System Plan and Operational Summary Appendix C: Development Potential Analysis Technical Memorandum Appendix D: Alternatives Evaluation Technical Memorandum Appendix E: City Council Resolution (March 29, 2016) Alternatives Analysis Report – Final July 2016 ALEXANDRIA WEST END TRANSITWAY PROJECT Executive Summary Introduction and Alternatives Analysis (AA) Overview The City of Alexandria is proposing transit improvements along portions of Eisenhower Avenue, Van Dorn Street, Sanger Avenue, Mark Center Drive, and Beauregard Street in the City’s West End. The corridor and the project study area are shown in Figure 1. The Transitway Corridors Feasibility Study, completed in the fall of 2012, analyzed multiple alignments, termini, transit modes (including bus and rail), cross sections (side-, center-, and median-running), operational (dedicated and shared lane), and service options for the West End Transitway (then referred to as Corridor C). The Alexandria City Council, on November 17, 2012, approved the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the alternative of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in dedicated lanes from the Van Dorn Street Metrorail Station to the Pentagon. This decision established a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) as part of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) project development process. This enables the metropolitan planning organization to adopt the LPA as part of the long-range transportation plan. The West End Transitway Build Alternative represents a refined version of the Planning Commission’s recommendation developed in coordination with the public and local stakeholders. Figure 1: Project Study Area Alternatives Analysis Report – Final Page 1 of 40 July 2016 ALEXANDRIA WEST END TRANSITWAY PROJECT The current phase of the project includes an environmental analysis to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. In addition to the environmental documentation, the City of Alexandria chose to pursue the preparation of an Alternatives Analysis (AA) document for the West End Transitway, recognizing the value of the structure and requirements of the formerly required AA process for federal and local decision-making. The AA process effectively concluded on March 29, 2016 when City Council unanimously approved (Appendix E) a re-concurrence of the LPA identified by City Council in 2012. This AA document provides an overview of the AA process including the project background, project purpose and need, alternatives development and evaluations, and financial considerations. Purpose and Need The West End Transitway responds to issues within the corridor and advances work that upholds and promotes City policies, goals, and plans. The purpose and need of the project is summarized below in Figure 2 and provided in detail in Appendix A. The main objectives of the West End Transitway project are to: Support and help catalyze the City’s land use and economic development policies and plans Manage increase in traffic congestion by providing a high quality, competitive, and reliable transit service Improve the quality and effectiveness of transit service Figure 2: Purpose and Need Alternatives and Evaluation The AA process looks at three alternatives: The No Build Alternative The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative The Build Alternative The Build Alternative, as defined in this AA report, was originally based on the Corridor C recommendation from the Transitway Corridors Feasibility Study (2012). While the Transitway Alternatives Analysis Report – Final Page 2 of 40 July 2016 ALEXANDRIA WEST END TRANSITWAY PROJECT Corridors Feasibility Study was specific in many regards for Corridor C, it left several features for consideration in the current AA. This phase of the project addressed many of the outstanding coordination issues and evaluated the Build Alternative as well as the No Build Alternative and a TSM Alternative. The alternatives evaluated in the West End Transitway AA are listed below. Each alternative is defined in greater detail in Chapter 2: In order to assess each alternative based on its performance, a set of evaluation criteria was developed. While the criteria were developed based on satisfying the project’s purpose and need, each evaluation criterion also relates to one of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Project Justification Criteria. FTA uses a defined set of criteria to measure project benefits as part of its New and Small Starts funding application process that could be a potential source of funding for the project. The criteria were broken down into three main categories: transit, other transportation, and land use and economic development. Multiple sub criteria within these categories were evaluated and the scores were averaged for each category. The category scores were summed to a composite score for each alternative. The summary of the analysis is shown below: Figure 3: Alternatives
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Strategies for High Intensity Bus: Best Practices for Operating Buses in Managed Lanes Velyjah Southern, Et Al, Texas Southern University
    Texas Southern University From the SelectedWorks of Earthea Nance, PhD (Stanford University, 2004) 2017 Strategies for High Intensity Bus: Best Practices for Operating Buses in Managed Lanes Velyjah Southern, et al, Texas Southern University Available at: https://works.bepress.com/nanceea/25/ 1 Invited Student Paper: Strategies for High Intensity Bus: Best Practices for Operating 2 Buses in Managed Lanes 3 4 5 6 7 Velyjha Southern 8 Graduate Research Assistant 9 Texas Southern University 10 3100 Cleburne St. Houston, TX 77004 11 713-313-4365 (p) 713-313-4821 (f) 12 [email protected] 13 14 Earthea Nance, Ph.D. 15 Associate Professor 16 Texas Southern University 17 3100 Cleburne St. Houston, TX 77004 18 713-313-4854 (p) 713-313-7153 (f) 19 [email protected] 20 21 Carol Abel Lewis, Ph.D. 22 Professor and Director, CTTR 23 Texas Southern University 24 3100 Cleburne St. Houston, TX 77004 25 713-313-7924 (p) 713-313-4821 (f) 26 Jermaine Potts 27 Graduate Research Assistant 28 Texas Southern University 29 3100 Cleburne St. Houston, TX 77004 30 713-313-4365 (p) 713-313-4821 (f) 31 32 33 Prepared for consideration for 34 Presentation at the 96th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 35 Washington D.C. January 2017 36 37 Word Count: 6,237 (Body) + 1,250 (Tables and Figures) = 7,487 38 References= 18 39 Submission date: November 14, 2016 40 41 42 Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 2 1 2 3 4 5 ABSTRACT 6 This paper examines high intensity bus (HIB) service in managed lanes in the US.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX O INDIRECT and CUMULATIVE EFFECTS TECHNICAL REPORT May 2020 INDIRECT and CUMULATIVE EFFECTS TECHNICAL REPORT
    APPENDIX O INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS TECHNICAL REPORT May 2020 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS TECHNICAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Study Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Alternatives Evaluated .................................................................................................................. 4 2 SCOPING AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................9 2.1 Legislation and Regulatory Guidance............................................................................................ 9 2.2 ICE Analysis Scope and Methodology ........................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Resource Identification and Data Collection ...................................................................... 10 2.2.2 ICE Analysis Area Boundary ................................................................................................ 10 2.2.3 ICE Time Frame ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Jo U Rn a L O F P U B Lic T Ransp O Rta Tio N
    Vo Volume 12, No. 3, 2009 lume 12, No. 3 Journal of Public Public of Journal Tr Brian Caulfield A Stated Preference Analysis of Real-Time ansp Margaret O’Mahony Public Transit Stop Information or Laura Eboli A New Customer Satisfaction Index for Gabriella Mazzulla Evaluating Transit Service Quality ta tion Ahmed M. El-Geneidy Bus Transit Service Planning and Operations in a John Hourdos Competitive Environment Jessica Horning Matthew H. Hardy Transit Response to Congestion Pricing Opportunities: Policy and Practice in the U.S. John Pucher Integrating Bicycling and Public Transport in North America Ralph Buehler Mario G. Beruvides The Concept of a Regional Maintenance Center James L. Simonton Natalie M. Waters Ean Ng Siva Chaivichitmalakul Cheng-Chu Chiu-Wei Pelin Z. Altintas Phil Nash 2009 Luis Barroso Paul Moon N C T R JOURNAL OF Public Transportation Volume 12, No. 3, 2009 ISSN 1077-291X TheJournal of Public Transportation is published quarterly by National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida • College of Engineering 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, Florida 33620-5375 Phone: (813) 974-3120 Fax: (813) 974-5168 Email: [email protected] Website: www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/journal.htm © 2009 Center for Urban Transportation Research Volume 12, No. 3, 2009 ISSN 1077-291X CONTENTS A Stated Preference Analysis of Real-Time Public Transit Stop Information Brian Caulfield, Margaret O’Mahony ...............................................................................................1 A New Customer Satisfaction Index for Evaluating Transit Service Quality Laura Eboli, Gabriella Mazzulla ....................................................................................................... 21 Bus Transit Service Planning and Operations in a Competitive Environment Ahmed M.
    [Show full text]
  • No Action Alternative Report
    No Action Alternative Report April 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. NEC FUTURE Background ............................................................................................................................ 2 3. Approach to No Action Alternative.............................................................................................................. 4 3.1 METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS .................................................................................... 4 3.2 DISINVESTMENT SCENARIO ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 4. No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 TRAIN SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 4.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE RAIL PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 Funded Projects or Projects with Approved Funding Plans (Category 1) ............................................................. 9 4.2.2 Funded or Unfunded Mandates (Category 2) .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Regulatory Assessment Final Revised
    Final Regulatory Assessment Final Revised Accessibility Guidelines for Buses, Over-the-Road Buses, and Vans (36 CFR Part 1192, Subpart B) UNITED STATES ACCESS BOARD WASHINGTON, DC United States Access Board 1331 F Street, NW – Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-111 www.access-board.gov Nov. 9, 2016 (This page intentionally blank.) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................3 3. Background ....................................................................................................................................5 3.1. Existing Regulatory Requirements for Buses, Vans, and OTRBs .........................................5 3.2. Announcements on Fixed Route Buses – History of Compliance Issues ..............................6 3.3. Growing Use of Intelligent Transportation Systems by Transit Agencies ............................7 3.4. Final Rule – New or Revised Accessibility Requirements with Cost Impacts ......................9 4. Overview of Cost Methodology ...................................................................................................11 4.1. Automated Stop Announcement Systems – Large Transit Agencies ..................................11 4.2. Other Accessibility Requirements - Over-the-Road Buses .................................................13 4.3.
    [Show full text]
  • NVTA 2030 Plan
    Northern Virginia 2030 Transportation Plan April 2006 Draft Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures......................................................................................................................................... iv 1 Overview of the TransAction 2030 Plan Study................................................................................ 1 1.1 Study Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 TransAction 2030 Plan Process ................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Plan Organization ...................................................................................................................... 8 2 Transportation Challenges in Northern Virginia .......................................................................... 9 2.1 Highway and HOV System Challenges ................................................................................... 11 2.2 Transit System Challenges...................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Park-and-Ride Lot Challenges ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of BRAC 133 Final Environmental Assessment of July 2008 and Transportation Management Plan of July 2010 (Report No
    Additional Information The Department of Defense Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Policy and Oversight, prepared this report. If you have questions, contact the signer of the report. Suggestions for Assessments To suggest ideas for or to request future reviews, contact the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Policy and Oversight at (703) 602-1017 (DSN 664-1017) or fax (703) 604-9808. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to: Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Policy and Oversight Department of Defense Inspector General 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 1011) Arlington, VA 22202-4704 INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-4704 April 20, 2011 MEMORANDUM FOR AUDITOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SUBJECT: Assessment of BRAC 133 Final Environmental Assessment of July 2008 and Transportation Management Plan of July 2010 (Report No. D-2011-TAD-001) On October 13, 2010, the DoD IG Technical Assessment Directorate initiated a detailed independent engineering assessment of the sufficiency of the Army's Final Environmental Assessment Implementation of 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Recommendation 133, dated July 2008 (BRAC 133 EA), and the Transportation Management Plan for BRAC 133 at the Mark Center, dated July 2010 (BRAC 133 TMP). The assessment was undertaken in response to a requirement of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Section 2704, "Transportation Plan for BRAC 133 Project under Fort Belvoir, Virginia, BRAC Initiative," (Public Law 111-383). The Act directed that the DoD IG “submit to the congressional defense committees a report evaluating the sufficiency and coordination conducted in completing the requisite environmental studies associated with the site selection of the BRAC 133 project.” The assessment was contracted to the engineering firm Acelsior, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • ANC6A Resolution No. 2021-002
    ANC 6A RESOLUTION NO. 2021-002 Resolution regarding ANC 6A support for completing the DC Streetcar from Benning Road Metro Station to Georgetown as Planned and Promised WHEREAS, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) were created to “advise the Council of the District of Columbia, the Mayor, and each executive agency with respect to all proposed matters of District government policy,” including transportation and economic development; WHEREAS, public transportation is a shared public benefit and can only function as such when it’s shared with all neighborhoods; WHEREAS, ANC 7E recently passed a resolution of support for the streetcar extension to Benning Road Metro station; WHEREAS, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) recently published its Final Environmental Assessment where it found the extension to Benning Metro Station is the preferred alternative and only feasible alternative from an engineering perspective; WHEREAS, the eastward extension to Benning Road Metro is the only feasible alternative that provides a multi-modal connection to Metro; WHEREAS, the eventual westward extension to Georgetown would establish the only east-west rail-transit option for travel all the way to Georgetown; WHEREAS, the eventual westward extension to Georgetown would be the first and only fully unified transit system from eastern portions of the District to Georgetown; WHEREAS, the full streetcar route from Benning Road Metro to Georgetown would provide an enjoyable and robust east-west transportation option for residents in ward 6 and
    [Show full text]
  • Benning Road Reconstruction and Streetcar Project
    Benning Road Reconstruction and Streetcar Project overview The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) has initiated the final design phase of the Benning Road Reconstruction and Streetcar Project. This final design phase will continue the work to improve the Benning Road corridor to safely and efficiently accommodate all modes of transportation following the approval of the Benning Road and Bridges Transportation Improvements Environmental Assessment (EA) in November 2020. The draft EA was published in 2016 and modified during the preliminary engineering phase of the project in 2019 and 2020. The project will improve safety conditions and operations, address deficiencies in infrastructure, and provide additional transit options in Ward 7 and Ward 5 and along the approximately two miles of Benning Road NE from Oklahoma Avenue NE to East Capitol Street. This includes: • Enhancing safety and operations along the • Enhancing and installing pedestrian and bicycle corridor and at key intersections facilities • Improving transportation infrastructure conditions • Extending DC Streetcar transit service to the Benning Road Metrorail station • Rehabilitating roadways and bridges that cross the Anacostia River, DC-295, and CSX freight rail tracks Community needs, preferences, and input voiced during past studies—including the DC Transit Future System Plan, DDOT Benning Road Streetcar Extension Study, and Benning Road Corridor Redevelopment Framework Plan and EA—will help shape and inform the project to improve access, operations, and safety for all users along Benning Road Public involvement will be continuous throughout this next phase of the project, which seeks to connect Ward 7 and Ward 5 neighborhoods to employment, activity centers, the regional Metrorail system, and multimodal transportation services at Union Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Transit Fare Collection Practices
    T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M SPONSORED BY The Federal Transit Administration TCRP Synthesis 26 Bus Transit Fare Collection Practices A Synthesis of Transit Practice Transportation Research Board National Research Council TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1997 SELECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN OFFICERS MICHAEL S. TOWNES Peninsula Transportation District Chair: DAVID N. WORMLEY, Dean of Engineering, Pennsylvania State University Commission Vice Chair: SHARON D. BANKS, General Manager, AC Transit Executive Director: ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board, National Research Council MEMBERS SHARON D. BANKS MEMBERS AC Transit LEE BARNES BRIAN J. L. BERRY, Lloyd Viel Berkner Regental Professor, Bruton Center for Development Studies, Barwood Inc University of Texas at Dallas GERALD L. BLAIR LILLIAN C. BORRONE, Director, Port Commerce Department, The Port Authority of New York and New Indiana County TransitAuthority Jersey (Past Chair, 1995) SHIRLEY A. DELIBERO DAVID G. BURWELL, President, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy New Jersey Transit Corporation E. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation ROD J. DIRIDON JAMES N. DENN, Commissioner. Minnesota Department of Transportation International Institute for Surface JOHN W. FISHER, Director, ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh University Transportation Policy Study DENNIS J. FITZGERALD, Executive Director, Capital District Transportation Authority SANDRA DRAGGOO DAVID R. GOODE, Chairman, President, and CEO, Norfolk Southern Corporation CATA DELON HAMPTON, Chairman & CEO, Delon Hampton & Associates LOUIS J. GAMBACCINI LESTER A. HOEL, Hamilton Professor, University of Virginia, Department of Civil Engineering SEPTA JAMES L.
    [Show full text]
  • Leesburg Pike Line Find the Stop at Or Nearest the Point Where You Will Get on the Bus
    How to use this timetable Effective 6-6-21 ➤ Use the map to find the stops closest to where you will get on and off the bus. ➤ Select the schedule (Weekday, Saturday, Sunday) for when you will 28A travel. Along the top of the schedule, Leesburg Pike Line find the stop at or nearest the point where you will get on the bus. Follow that column down to the time you want to leave. ➤ Use the same method to find the times the bus is scheduled to arrive at the stop where you will get off the bus. Serves these locations- ➤ If the bus stop is not listed, use the Brinda servicio a estas ubicaciones time shown for the bus stop before it as the time to wait at the stop. l King St-Old Town station ➤ The end-of-the-line or last stop is listed l Bradlee Shopping Center in ALL CAPS on the schedule. l Inova Alexandria Hospital Cómo Usar este Horario l Southern Towers ➤ Use este mapa para localizar las l No. Va. Comm. College (Alexandria campus) paradas más cercanas a donde se subirá y bajará del autobús. l Skyline City ➤ Seleccione el horario (Entre semana, l Bailey’s Crossroads sábado, domingo) de cuando viajará. l Seven Corners Transit Center A lo largo de la parte superior del l Falls Church horario, localice la parada o el punto más cercano a la parada en la que se l West Falls Church station subirá al autobús. Siga esa columna l Tysons Corner Center hacia abajo hasta la hora en la que l Tysons Corner station desee salir.
    [Show full text]
  • 1At\Ta AT\Pazb Atetaqtapct
    M V The fastest way to an accredited Bachelor’s (see ad inside) :IN;EB<:MBHGH? uPPP'P:LABG@MHGIHLM'<HF(>QIK>LLuH<MH;>K/%+))-u-- 5A44++ P^]g^l]Zr 1aT\TaAT\PaZbATeTaQTaPcT Z_m^kma^_Zeeh_;Z`a]Z]' Pabm^Ahnl^]^_^g]lBkZjiheb\rZfb]kb_mho^kmkhhie^o^el BgZgngnlnZein[eb\ F0B78=6C>=kMa^Pabm^Ahnl^lmZng\aer blmkZmbhgZg]Êlahne]aZo^[^^g^o^gfhk^ Z\dghpe^]`f^gmh_bgm^k& ]^_^g]^]bmlBkZjiheb\rMn^l]ZrZlg^pjn^l& bglblm^gmËpa^gablZ]ob\^pZlk^c^\m^]' gZe]bll^gm%;nla\ZfiZb`g mbhgl^f^k`^]Z[hnmIk^lb]^gm;nlaÍlik^pZk ;k^f^kÍlk^fZkdlp^k^fZ]^]nkbg`Z lihd^lfZg;kbZgChg^llZb] ]^\blbhglZg]ihlmpZkieZggbg`' li^^\amhZ\hg_^k^g\^h_bglnkZg\^Z`^gmleZlm ;k^f^kZg]ma^fbebmZkr ?hnkp^^dl[^_hk^>e^\mbhg=Zr%=^fh\kZm fhgma%[nmma^r\Zf^mheb`amZ_m^kma^rp^k^ [kZllaZ]\eZla^]' ChagD^kkrihng\^]hgma^Z\dghpe^]`f^gm k^e^Zl^]Fhg]Zr[r\hg_^k^g\^hk`Zgbs^kl' "REMER Ê:f[ZllZ]hk;k^f^k *)--!#-),,!.!0 [r_hkf^kBkZjZ]fbgblmkZmhkIZne;k^f^kmaZm D^kkrlZb]ma^k^pZlZÊehg`eblmh_fblmZd^lË ]b__^k^]pbmama^\hffZg]& 4ROOPSSECURE3AMARRAAS"ABILASSAULTBEGINS ma^Ngbm^]LmZm^laZ]ÊiZb]Z[b`ikb\^Ë_hk maZmma^;nlaZ]fbgblmkZmbhgaZ]fZ]^bg ^klbgma^_b^e]%ËChg^llZb]'ÊMaZmblablkb`am% bgln__b\b^gmmkhhie^o^elZ_m^kma^bgoZlbhg' BkZj'ÊBÍf`eZ]maZmIZne;k^f^kaZl_bgZeer [nmma^ik^lb]^gmaZlZepZrllZb]maZma^pbee =Tf>UUT]bXeT)J#H#!>gVf^ ;nlaÍlaZg]&ib\d^]BkZj\ab^_lZb]a^kZbl^] Z]fbmm^]Zme^Zlmmphh_ma^f%Ëa^lZb]%k^_^k& eblm^gmhabl\hffZg]^klhgma^`khng]Zg] igddehaVjcX]XVbeV^\cV\V^chi \hg\^kglho^kmkhhie^o^elpbmabgma^Z]fbg& kbg`mhmkhhie^o^elZg]Z_Zbenk^mhlmhiehhmbg` `bo^ma^fma^lniihkmma^rg^^]_hkob\mhkr'Ë0? b^a^iVcih^c7VW^aegdk^cXZq% 10B410;;?;0H>55BkBC0AC8=6>55F8C7010=6
    [Show full text]