|
Cichlidae posted:Do you have a maps link for the area in question? It's a lot easier to make an informed decision when you can see the context. Googling the WB-67 reference vehicle led me to this which is very interesting: http://www.lowermanhattan.info/extras/pdf/LowerManhattanTruckTurningGuide.pdf I wonder how many other areas have such a comprehensive guide as to what streets are accessible to large vehicles.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Well I just went and google-maps measured a bunch of warehouses and such that handle big trucks. Universally I found from the edge of the loading dock every single facility had 40m of clear space. So it looks like if I'm designing access to a warehouse, trucks need 40m of space to get their trailers in and out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
grover posted:Japan is a great example, where large swaths of the population have access both to excellent roads and excellent mass transit. Rail is amazing in Japan. You're never much more than a 10 minute walk from a rail station in the cities. They also have this level crossing:  http://goo.gl/maps/I1cHk The crossing gates can be down for over 15 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Since everyone is talking about level rail crossings: how about a level runway crossing!: http://goo.gl/maps/KvrBD Only one road runs from North to South of Gibraltar. And that one road crosses the runway. Cichlidae, have you seen anything else like this before, besides railways? Terminal Entropy fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Quick update on the flying spaghetti monster in Tampa: The ramps are coming along nicely:  Ramps.  Lots and lots of ramps.  It doesn't look like it, but this ramp is about 10 stories off the ground.  You need a toll gantry to pay for said ramps, of course. It's also where everything comes together from both directions.  This ties into the previous discussion about trucks. The Selmon/I-4 connector is essentially a $400 Million truck ramp, to get trucks in and out of Port of Tampa without using local roads or getting delayed at freight railroad crossings. Varance fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Here is another airport crossing: http://goo.gl/maps/WZWEI  I think what is weird about this is that the runway was extended into the road a few years ago rather than being a legacy type thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
This reminds me of a few cases. There's this military airfield in Holland: Maps. The runway doesn't cross the road, but it ends right at the road. At the other side of the road there's the runway 'head' lights for pilots. The road has big signs saying that it is dangerous to stop at all there, and a traffic light at each end, which I think is controlled by the airfield traffic control. Then there is this similar case on the Carribean island of St. Maarten (another constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands): Maps. In this case, there's the end/beginning of a runway, then a road, and then a beach. The beach is actually used for sunbathing and stuff, and you can guess what happens with all the sand... and people, whenever a jet plane comes in mere meters above the ground. It's probably not very safe, but some people go there just so they can watch planes come in. By the way, I believe I read a news article a few months ago about a similar setup, I think it was somewhere in the USA. That road wasn't very clearly signed, and this small aircraft bumped with its landing gear into a car while landing. I know the people in the plane survived, because they were interviewed. I'm not certain what happened with the car driver.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 09:21
|
|
|
Terminal Entropy posted:Only one road runs from North to South of Gibraltar. And that one road crosses the runway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
I'm from Blackpool originally, in the North West of the UK, and this road runs around the back of the airport, just before the runway: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=bl...133.22,,0,-5.44 It won me a pub quiz prize when the question was "Where in Blackpool are the street lights shorter than normal." You can see the runway approach lights on the right hand side (yellow sticks)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Do you have a maps link for the area in question? It's a lot easier to make an informed decision when you can see the context. Sure, here's a street view before the corner, the speed limit sign is maybe 100m behind the camera here: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=rh...2,29.78,,0,6.35 Wow, google spits out some long links. Before the 30 limit it's a 40mph limit, but that's only a 600m length and before that it's 60, so people haven't normally slowed down to the speed limit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
mamosodiumku posted:Rail is amazing in Japan. You're never much more than a 10 minute walk from a rail station in the cities. Without Japanese level crossings, we would never have had this masterpiece of animation: http://youtu.be/lC2PS7k9agE?t=4m18s
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Crankit posted:Sure, here's a street view before the corner, the speed limit sign is maybe 100m behind the camera here: The first thing we would do is trim the foliage along the left side of the road. Property owners are responsible for maintaining a clear line of sight, and building a fence right up to the side of the road isn't going to cut it. Extending out those zigzag shoulder lines a hundred meters would also help out - anything that narrows the travel lanes will slow people down. Normally, I'd also recommend lateral rumble strips, but this is a very residential area, and you'll find that people don't appreciate the occasional sound of cars running over them at 3 in the morning. Speaking of which, drat is it ever windy here. I woke up at 4 and basically had to get out of bed because the hail and howling wind made me think there was a tornado.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The first thing we would do is trim the foliage along the left side of the road. Property owners are responsible for maintaining a clear line of sight, and building a fence right up to the side of the road isn't going to cut it. By this do you mean trimming the foliage way back so they are not right up against the fencing? Or just getting rid of any overhang? Pedantic UK Edit: Also the zig-zag marks are a no parking enforcement area as well as a warning, and there is a maximum limit of 18 marks on either side of the crossing that has a low visibility (this one already has 16) so there isn't much scope for change there. There isn't a trilingual traffic light warning sign that I could see though, which I would have thought would have been near a a set of lights like this. nozz fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
Great thread. Random question (that may have already been answered in the massive great thread): Does anyone that you work with or that has a similar job have any other kind of engineering degree (other than civil) that would allow you to get started in the industry? My friend is interested, but has an industrial degree. He doesn't want to work in a factory somewhere and would love to get into traffic engineering, but I don't know that there'd be work there for him. My degree is mechanical so I'd be interested to know... BUT I'm pretty well stuck in my factory setting. Whoops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Gat posted:By this do you mean trimming the foliage way back so they are not right up against the fencing? Or just getting rid of any overhang? I'm a little hypocritical for saying this, because we don't follow our own rules, but any sight obstructions should be removed until the entire line of sight is clear. This is the property owner's responsibility, and if he won't do it himself, the work should be done by municipal forces and the owner billed. At least, that's how it works here. I'm not familiar with British law, so I'm not sure exactly what the rules are, but it's gotta be someone's job. Trim as much fencing and foliage as you need to ensure peds don't get hit. Brian Fellows posted:Great thread. Random question (that may have already been answered in the massive great thread): Does anyone that you work with or that has a similar job have any other kind of engineering degree (other than civil) that would allow you to get started in the industry? My friend is interested, but has an industrial degree. He doesn't want to work in a factory somewhere and would love to get into traffic engineering, but I don't know that there'd be work there for him. There are plenty of electrical engineers around, since signal design and illumination are tied in very closely with traffic engineering. Their work seems pretty boring to me, though; designing conduit runs, trenching, NEMA stuff... As for other degrees, I think you'd have limited success, at least around here. The job market is extremely competitive, and a lot of the people we've been hiring are Masters or Doctorate Civil Engineering grads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'm a little hypocritical for saying this, because we don't follow our own rules, but any sight obstructions should be removed until the entire line of sight is clear. This is the property owner's responsibility, and if he won't do it himself, the work should be done by municipal forces and the owner billed. At least, that's how it works here. I'm not familiar with British law, so I'm not sure exactly what the rules are, but it's gotta be someone's job. Trim as much fencing and foliage as you need to ensure peds don't get hit. There is an equivalent law for this, and for overhanging foliage (which needed to be enforced here as the School sign seems to be slightly obstructed), but for line of sight/visibility splays over someone's property it seems like it can only be enforced for road junctions or private driveways, rather than for pedestrian crossings by themselves. I'm not 100% sure though. It seems to me like this crossing just needs bit more warning, we often put down a big SLOW road marking in the middle of the lane, or bright LED signs that light up when a vehicle is approaching to warn of a crossing, or a variant that displays the current speed limit if the vehicle is breaching it. Or if you are feeling extreme make the road narrower as the speed limit drops. The fact there seems to be very little warning in the approach to this crossings suggests to me that the council have never really had much problem here. Further back up the road we have a speed limit drop of 60 down to 40 followed by a pedestrian crossing. Here the speed limit is 'signposted' a bit more clearly with making the lanes a bit narrower (when it was freshly painted anyway), and the crossing itself has a sign and a change of road surface, suggesting that this was considered to be more dangerous. I'm not actually any kind of expert though! nozz fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Feb 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Is there any reasonable way to 'fix' this intersection? http://goo.gl/maps/wmby7 It's so built up I can't imagine being able to take any land, and right now the northmost signal is phased such that when SB Rhode Island has the green, the left from SB 1 onto the south part of Rhode Island has the left turn signal. Which causes major problems when cars on SB 1 want to make a left on Rhode Island, because there's barely room for 4-5 cars to queue for the permissive left. Only thing I can think of that might help (and would probably hurt the larger area overall) is turning it into one big no-mans land with 6 phases. Back on Ewing is a lot of industrial stuff too, so big trucks are always going in and out of there. Closing off the southern part of Rhode Island from 1 probably won't work either, because a lot of the shops back there have back entrances, which especially get used by SB 1 traffic (easier to make a right turn into the back entrance than a left turn across 1).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
Gat posted:There is an equivalent law for this, and for overhanging foliage (which needed to be enforced here as the School sign seems to be slightly obstructed), but for line of sight/visibility splays over someone's property it seems like it can only be enforced for road junctions or private driveways, rather than for pedestrian crossings by themselves. I'm not 100% sure though. There are all sorts of little things you can do. Additional signs, radar-actuated signs, flashers, chicanes, speed tables, median islands, optical illusions, hell, even mirrors. A traffic engineer has an amazing arsenal at his disposal, and what he ends up using depends on local conditions, budget, and his own taste. If it were me, I'd enforce the sight lines first, see how that changes things, then start lowering speeds through subtle geometric changes. If there's a major accident problem, then begin with more dramatic changes - a median combined with lane narrowing would be a good start. Roflex posted:Is there any reasonable way to 'fix' this intersection? It looks like that was already a no-man's-land back in the day, before RI Avenue got realigned. Doing that would mean your red clearances would be gigantic, and accident rates would skyrocket. Now ideally, I'd move the left junction of US 1 and RIA a bit to the West, lining it up with Montgomery Rd. That'd give you better curvature, a more normalized intersection, and all-around better service. Unfortunately, you've got that building in the way. So we do this:  Alternately, you could punch it straight out to 1 through that field to the left. I can't tell whether it's a graveyard, so I didn't put it there, but it is a better location.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:There are all sorts of little things you can do. Additional signs, radar-actuated signs, flashers, chicanes, speed tables, median islands, optical illusions, hell, even mirrors. A traffic engineer has an amazing arsenal at his disposal, and what he ends up using depends on local conditions, budget, and his own taste. If it were me, I'd enforce the sight lines first, see how that changes things, then start lowering speeds through subtle geometric changes. If there's a major accident problem, then begin with more dramatic changes - a median combined with lane narrowing would be a good start. I like you, you have some cute notions where the UK is a functional country. I don't know if there's any special provision for clearing stuff at the side of the road when it's on private property, but I doubt it. I know that when someone's tree is over your land you're allowed to cut it back as long as you leave the cuttings on their land, and there's generally not a responsibility on the owners part unless it's damaging someone elses property (might be root system specific though). I've checked on the local district council website, the trees and hedges on the left of the road are part of a conservation area, so can't just be cut down without notifying the council and giving 6 weeks notice in which time they might file Tree Preservation Orders (quite likely as the website has a PDF explicitly noting that the trees & hedges make the view down to the village hall pretty). There may already be existing TPOs but I'd have to go to the council office and fight a tiger in the basement to find out. In reference to Gat's point about the other crossing, the reason that it's had slightly more attention paid to it, at least in part, is that it's the crossing used to get to a private school. Cichlidae posted:optical illusions, hell, even mirrors, subtle geometric changes. This is some Warlock traffic poo poo right here. Just curious what you would go first to if you couldn't change the sight lines and what would you do if you knew there wouldn't be follow up changes so whatever you did would be the permanent solution? Is there a traffic calming difference in the UK and US? Do different techniques work better with different drivers, or are certain types more favoured in each country?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
I think most of those fields are USDA/UMD land already (they do agricultural research there or something). I thought at first maybe you could punch RI through to Worcester, but that road doesn't look like it could handle constant 2-way flow without major reworking (then again we are talking about reworking a major intersection in the first place). Then you might be able to clip the corner off the southern RI/1 junction and allow people to go somewhat straight through to south RI. I don't think the people living on Worcester would appreciate it though, it looks like a quiet area. e: 
Xerol fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Crankit posted:Just curious what you would go first to if you couldn't change the sight lines and what would you do if you knew there wouldn't be follow up changes so whatever you did would be the permanent solution? Is there a traffic calming difference in the UK and US? Do different techniques work better with different drivers, or are certain types more favoured in each country? I don't have any experience with what works in the UK, so I'm just going by what I've seen here. We also never have "permanent solutions," especially not for small things like this. It's super easy to go back and add a sign, change pavement markings, revise a curbline... But if I had to go with one thing, I'd probably use stamped concrete to look like brick pavers about 200 meters upstream, combined with a narrow painted island in the middle of the road, and a small raised island at the crossing itself. That'd get people's attention and slow 'em down without endangering anyone. Roflex posted:I think most of those fields are USDA/UMD land already (they do agricultural research there or something). I thought at first maybe you could punch RI through to Worcester, but that road doesn't look like it could handle constant 2-way flow without major reworking (then again we are talking about reworking a major intersection in the first place). Then you might be able to clip the corner off the southern RI/1 junction and allow people to go somewhat straight through to south RI. I don't think the people living on Worcester would appreciate it though, it looks like a quiet area. Yeah, like you suspected, there's no way you can implement that without some serious residential freakouts. I'd rather just have that northbound RIA traffic all take a left onto Sunnyside Avenue; not an optimal solution, but it would work with minimal right-of-way involvement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/01/case-against-one-way-streets/4549/ Apparently one-way streets aren't actually worth it
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/01/case-against-one-way-streets/4549/
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
grover posted:How do you make left-hand turns when left-hand turns are banned? 3 rights? ---------------------------- Florida roads: we hate our transit users and drivers as much as we hate pedestrians!  
Varance fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Feb 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
I don't get it. The Express Lanes here in LA on the 110 have been a great success as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:I don't get it. The Express Lanes here in LA on the 110 have been a great success as far as I can tell. Florida isn't LA - the standard of living is far lower, meaning people don't have the same coin to throw around for something like an express toll. We've got managed lanes on the Selmon Expressway, and the drat things are usually empty. A pleasure to drive, when the office is paying for them and not me. Varance fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Feb 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Varance posted:Yes. In that respect, the roads function just like one-way corridors. Man that layout for the rail doesn't look particularly safe. That render doesn't seem to include any barriers at all between the road and the train tracks... Varance posted:They're talking $1/mile tolls, or about $8 each time you want to get in and out of downtown. Bonus points for light rail down the center of an interstate, which is a concept that has failed far more than it has succeeded. Yea but is that variable tolling or what? If it's always a dollar a mile then yeah that's stupid but these are usually implemented so that the toll varies by time and demand. Also if it's $8 to get in and out of town on the express lanes the light rail might get more use than you seem to expect...
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Varance posted:They're talking $1/mile tolls, or about $16 for a round trip in and out of downtown - the literal definition of "Lexus Lanes." Well, that's a failure to manage the lanes properly, not a failure of infrastructure. LA Metro posted:What is congestion pricing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
How.... how do you cross that?? You could fit a whole city block or two in the width of that monster. Hell you could house all the people that's commutes are causing the "need" for the highway in the land the highway is taking up. And where are the tram stations? It's just highway into the horizon with no stations, no overpasses, no crossing bridges. The korean DMZ seems better than that.
Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Feb 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Man that layout for the rail doesn't look particularly safe. That render doesn't seem to include any barriers at all between the road and the train tracks... I think they are using limited grade separation and the imagery just isn't clear on that. Though an 18" curb isn't going to do a hell of a lot for something barreling down the road at 80mph.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Well, that's a failure to manage the lanes properly, not a failure of infrastructure. It only costs $2.50/$3.00 to use the crosstown to go the same distance. Chaos Motor posted:I think they are using limited grade separation and the imagery just isn't clear on that. Though an 18" curb isn't going to do a hell of a lot for something barreling down the road at 80mph. Varance fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Feb 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
I like that on top of all the other things pointed out about the render, they couldn't be assed to have it all be flat. Looks like the tram could be fun to ride with all the bunny hops it has to the horizon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
The thing about it is, all of these road expansions are needed for emergency management purposes. A widescale evac in the event of a Cat 5 hurricane would be very difficult right now with the roads and transit being what they are currently, even with contraflow. Road capacity NEEDS to be built, whether we want more transit-oriented development or not. It's too bad they're being idiots about the whole process. The light rail system needs to be about 10 blocks to the south, where all the TOD has been taking place over the last few years. Even Cypress would be better than 275.  (Click for full size) Red is LRT, green is BRT (darker mixed traffic, lighter exclusive ROW), yellow is people mover/streetcar. Varance fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Feb 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
I have a fairly general question about CITY BLOCKS. Every city does it differently. Some have small perfectly square blocks, some have slightly rectangular blocks, some have quite long blocks. Some don't even have blocks (madness). My question is, what drives this? Is it fairly arbitrary or did it have to do with when the city was planned? NY for instance has fairly long rectangular blocks which run perpendicular to the up/down island flow of traffic. Wouldn't it have made more sense to put them them other way since traffic is mostly flowing that way, or am I off base? Then you've got Barcelona's perfectly square blocks with tapered corners, was designed way way pre-car though. Portland OR and a lot of american mid-west cities also often have perfectly square grids, often in sizes that seem too small (many have just 4 buildings on them, sometimes just 1!). What are the advantages/disadvantages to many common block sizes/shaped/patterns? Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Feb 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:NY for instance has fairly long rectangular blocks which run perpendicular to the up/down island flow of traffic. Wouldn't it have made more sense to put them them other way since traffic is mostly flowing that way, or am I off base? That traffic pattern simply did not exist in 1811 when the grid plan was approved. Most of the island was farms or open space. So yeah you're kind of totally off base with assuming the pedestrian and horse traffic of 200 years ago bore much relation at all to it now. This was what thecity looked like 50 years later:  This is what that view looks like now: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Varance posted:Yeah, Jersey Barrier. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I have a fairly general question about CITY BLOCKS. It's all about planning. The Wiki for urban planning has a brief history of the whole thing, and it's clear that blocks have been around almost as long as cities have. The reasons you'll find so many cities without regular street grids are: - They may have been desired, but there was no political motivation or capital to get them laid out. - They were laid out, but disregarded by the populace. Back before brick pavers and tarmac, it was pretty easy to make a road anywhere you wanted. - There may have been no planning at all, for example, in cities that grew slowly or without a central civil structure. - The city may have been designed completely differently, for example, built in rings terraced on a hill. - Warfare and fires often knock out part of a grid, and it's rebuilt haphazardly. If you think New York's grid is tricky, imagine how it would be if it were built diagonally! To go up Manhattan, you'd have to constantly make a series of turns. I can talk for pages about blocks and the advantages of a grid, but I've got to go to work. I'll let someone else take a crack at it and fill in the gaps when I get back this afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
Yeah I'm more wondering the pro's and con's of various TYPES of grids, and if you're doing rectangular grids which way they rectangles should run and why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I can talk for pages about blocks and the advantages of a grid, but I've got to go to work. I'll let someone else take a crack at it and fill in the gaps when I get back this afternoon. Here's a start: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-grids.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Alright, more about grids. This might seem pretty obvious, but every building is going to want street frontage. This is a cultural thing, and it's closely linked with automobiles. If you look at some old cities in North Africa, for example, there are huge swaths with no roads at all. Check out Ghadames in Libya. It's hundreds of buildings, clustered together like a beehive. Having street frontage was a liability when your village was under constant threat of invasion. Next, have a look at Orléans, a city built well before cars were on the scene. When the density was much lower, buildings were only along the outside of the block, and the inside was taken up with gardens or grazing land. Once demand grew, the blocks were filled in, and now there are plenty of interior buildings with no street frontage. But we're in the modern era, in a very car-centric society. Every building needs to face a street, and that means we're going to need streets spaced no farther apart than two buildings. That's how New York's blocks are set up, in essence. Whereas some modern cities would just put in little dead-end roads to access the interiors of larger blocks, having every road go all the way through, as in NYC's case, is much more efficient. It's also incredibly flexible. If there's construction along one road, a parallel road 264 feet away will serve in its place. There are fewer north-south roadways, but, on the whole, they're a good deal wider. Cars are funneled into a few routes, giving any businesses along them excellent exposure, while leaving the narrower streets relatively quiet for residential communities. Of course, that might just be the SimCity gamer in me talking... Now, having a traffic signal every couple hundred feet is going to utterly destroy your arterial level of service. When you're designing an arterial, you'll ideally want your closest intersections half a mile apart. This is going to conflict with your "two building wide" configuration, and here's why: - If you put intersections every two buildings, you don't have an arterial anymore. You have a traffic jam. - If you make those intersections unsignalized, right-in/right-out, you've basically prohibited all through traffic and cut your grid. - If you make blocks half a mile wide, you're going to have vast areas without street frontage. - If you rotate your blocks so they're a half mile long and two buildings wide, your arterials rotate with them and you're in the same jam.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 01:35
|
|