News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Inefficient numbered routings

Started by TheStranger, July 15, 2019, 04:52:35 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

TheStranger

I thought of this while recalling Route 84 in Fremont, and how it takes the following eastbound routing between I-880 and the Route 238/Niles Canyon Road junction:

- I-880 south
- Thornton Avenue northeast bound
- Fremont Boulevard southeast bound
- Mowry Avenue eastbound
- Route 238/Mission Boulevard northbound

However, to get between the two points via Decoto Road and Alvarado-Niles Road is more direct and requires only 1 turn at an intersection, and is 5.1 miles long, while the actual Route 84 path listed above (880/Thornton etc.) is 6.1 miles.


Another example is in Gilroy, where Route 152 between the Leavesley Road/101 junction and Ferguson Road/Pacheco Pass Highway intersection uses a 4.4 mile routing that incorporates US 101 to the Pacheco Pass exit, while Leavesley continues right into Ferguson Road and shaves a third of a mile between those two points.

Near Susanville, US 395 takes 2 sides of a triangular loop around Lake Leavitt, totaling 18.6 miles from Buntingville to Standish (as opposed to the 8.5 mile routing along Lassen County Route A3).

One of the more extreme California examples I can recall is US 50's old Sacramento to Oakland routing, which was 122 miles via Route 99/Route 4/I-5/I-205/I-580 corridor vs. only 80 miles on the I-80/US 40 corridor instead (and even via former Route 24, now Route 160/Route 4/Route 242 and then modern Route 24 - that corridor is 95 miles long).

Any other examples?  I feel like the one that easily comes to mind for me outside of California is US 1A in Bangor, Maine - the triangular route towards Bangor and then southeast is 52 miles, while the direct US 1 routing between Stockton Springs and Ellsworth is only 27 miles!
Chris Sampang


sparker

Quote from: TheStranger on July 15, 2019, 04:52:35 AM
I thought of this while recalling Route 84 in Fremont, and how it takes the following eastbound routing between I-880 and the Route 238/Niles Canyon Road junction:

- I-880 south
- Thornton Avenue northeast bound
- Fremont Boulevard southeast bound
- Mowry Avenue eastbound
- Route 238/Mission Boulevard northbound

However, to get between the two points via Decoto Road and Alvarado-Niles Road is more direct and requires only 1 turn at an intersection, and is 5.1 miles long, while the actual Route 84 path listed above (880/Thornton etc.) is 6.1 miles.


Another example is in Gilroy, where Route 152 between the Leavesley Road/101 junction and Ferguson Road/Pacheco Pass Highway intersection uses a 4.4 mile routing that incorporates US 101 to the Pacheco Pass exit, while Leavesley continues right into Ferguson Road and shaves a third of a mile between those two points.

Near Susanville, US 395 takes 2 sides of a triangular loop around Lake Leavitt, totaling 18.6 miles from Buntingville to Standish (as opposed to the 8.5 mile routing along Lassen County Route A3).

One of the more extreme California examples I can recall is US 50's old Sacramento to Oakland routing, which was 122 miles via Route 99/Route 4/I-5/I-205/I-580 corridor vs. only 80 miles on the I-80/US 40 corridor instead (and even via former Route 24, now Route 160/Route 4/Route 242 and then modern Route 24 - that corridor is 95 miles long).

Any other examples?  I feel like the one that easily comes to mind for me outside of California is US 1A in Bangor, Maine - the triangular route towards Bangor and then southeast is 52 miles, while the direct US 1 routing between Stockton Springs and Ellsworth is only 27 miles!

Well, you won't have CA 84 through Fremont to kick around much longer; it's on the relinquishment chopping block.  While a combination of Decoto and Alvarado-Niles would be better, running a state highway down the latter would likely require "shunting" the route over to Mission Blvd. (erstwhile CA 238, but with virtually no signage as such these days) north of Niles itself; running it through the Niles historical district wouldn't be well-received locally (although the old LRN 5 did run through the town center courtesy of twin underpasses under the then-SP Niles/Milpitas line) in pre-WWII years.  But regardless, the point is moot; Caltrans has no interest in adopting any more surface mileage in urban/suburban areas. 

As far as Leavesley Road is concerned -- that was the old 152-to-101 Gilroy bypass before the US 101 freeway was constructed in 1973; used to use it all the time on trips from SoCal to visit friends in San Jose and Palo Alto.  It's a narrow road (still has 10-foot lanes) with deep drainage ditches alongside much of its length -- not particularly safe, and was always carrying a 50mph speed limit.  Since the 152 alignment south of there reaches 101 much sooner (further south) than Leavesley does, that former effective bypass is now relegated to the role of an alternate route, used during peak commute times.  But if the segment of CA 152 between US 101 and CA 156 is moved to a new expressway alignment, it'll probably be well south of the existing corridor and diverge from US 101 near the present CA 25 interchange.  But for the present, Leavesley remains utilized by a few long-distance drivers who for some reason can't avoid commute hours.  Also, CA 152 (East 10th Street) now has commercial retail from US 101 to nearly a mile east (including the area's only Sonic drive-in!), so there's a trade-off:  use Leavesley and its narrow alignment (trucks coming the opposite way can be harrowing!), where there are little to no amenities, or stick with 152, which does feature plenty of places to eat and shop.  But with the new 152 bypass being situated well south of either surface option, the chances of Leavesley undergoing upgrades and subsequently being brought into the state-maintained highway network are nil. 

I'm surprised as anyone that A3 was never brought into the system and either US 395 rerouted over it or given its own CASR number; having driven it, its geometry and standards are indistinguishable from 2-lane state-maintained rural routes. 

GaryV

In Michigan, M-22, M-25, M-29 and M-123 come to mind.

How about US-321?  US-101 in Washington?

I'm sure there's a lot more examples of routes that loop around coastlines or other physical features, or make other unexpected indirect routings.

hotdogPi

MA 31 through Charlton.

MA 133 in North Andover (Great Pond Rd. is faster)
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Max Rockatansky

CA 18 makes an almost 270 degree turn and isn't useful as a through route.  Personally I always thought swapping the alignment of 18 and 247 north to Barstow was more efficient than the current route. 

AZ 80 and by extension former US 80 were incredibly inefficient routes.  At the time of the early US Route era the alignment of US 80 was really the only roadway with good surface conditions but it took some wild jogs to Bisbee and Phoenix.  As time progressed AZ 84 and AZ 86 became the more efficient through routes which is probably why I-8 and I-10 use their corridors. 

Rothman

#5
A small one:  US 9W takes a dogleg to the west along Southern Boulevard in Albany.  Mapping services do not have you follow it if headed north from I-787, opting to cut through the southern neighborhoods.

NY 155 is something of a mess, too, if you actually want to go from its endpoint to the other.  But, there are other reasons to keep it as part of the State system than just the straightest route between A and B.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

thspfc

On a small scale, it's three minutes and one mile quicker to use Lake Antoine Rd around Iron Mountain MI than it is to use US-2. There are tons of little examples like that out there - I can think of at least 10 off the top of my head.

roadman

Quote from: 1 on July 15, 2019, 07:17:46 AM
MA 31 through Charlton.

MA 133 in North Andover (Great Pond Rd. is faster)

MA 129 between US 1 in Lynnfield and I-95/MA 128 in Wakefield
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

mgk920

Before I-41 was created, US 41 on its 'old road' city street routing through Milwaukee County, WI, when the most efficient routing for traffic between the Fox Valley region of Wisconsin and Chicagoland (as well as to and from many parts of central Milwaukee itself) was to follow the US 45, I-894 and I-94 freeways through the county, the current I-41 routing.  This was a never-ending source of confusion to motorists who were traveling to and from the Fox Valley.

Elsewhere in Wisconsin, US 61 through Lancaster, WI, with the more efficient routing being the WI 129 bypass.

A few more:
- I-70 through the Wheeling, WV area v. the I-470 bypass.
- I-70 through central Kansas City, KS/MO v. I-670.
- I-95 through Wilmington, DE v. I-495.

Mike

Rothman

Just thought of one that was corrected (and someone can correct me if I am wrong):

Back in the 1980s, I believe TCH 2 in New Brunswick ducked south to Sussex between Fredericton and Moncton.  There was all sorts of signage to indicate the faster, northern route to Moncton (probably what is NB 112 today).

At some point after, TCH 2 was routed to the north and made limited access.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

jp the roadgeek

A longer one: I-95 between New Haven, CT and Amesbury, MA.  More efficient to take I-91 to CT 15 to I-84 to I-90 to I-290 to I-495 (or stay on I-90 to I-495).

CT 10 between the eastern terminus of the US 44 concurrency, and CT 185.  Easier to cross over US 44 and stay on Nod Rd to CT 185, then turn west briefly to rejoin CT 10 (then paired with US 202). 
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

PHLBOS

Quote from: roadman on July 15, 2019, 09:10:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 15, 2019, 07:17:46 AM
MA 31 through Charlton.

MA 133 in North Andover (Great Pond Rd. is faster)

MA 129 between US 1 in Lynnfield and I-95/MA 128 in Wakefield
I'd go even further & mention the 1996 reroute of MA 129 in Lynn; although at least the former, most-direct route still exists as MA 129A.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

TEG24601

The entire routing of US-24, US-421, and SR 39 in Monticello, IN.  Every road takes several unnecessary turns, all to avoid downtown (and formerly to utilize a Railroad Street), when they could certainly use the traffic downtown to bolster business.


Then, don't get me started on the stupidity of not signing routes inside of cities with beltways in the state.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

roadman

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 15, 2019, 10:21:50 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 15, 2019, 09:10:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 15, 2019, 07:17:46 AM
MA 31 through Charlton.

MA 133 in North Andover (Great Pond Rd. is faster)

MA 129 between US 1 in Lynnfield and I-95/MA 128 in Wakefield
I'd go even further & mention the 1996 reroute of MA 129 in Lynn; although at least the former, most-direct route still exists as MA 129A.
Agreed.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

Eth

The routing of GA 154 is...certainly something, especially given that most of it is redundant with other routes (GA 14, GA 14 Alt, GA 70, GA 92, GA 166, GA 139, GA 14 again).

The quickest route from one end to the other (GA 154, I-85, I-285, US 278, GA 154) is 47 miles; following GA 154 the whole way is an additional nine miles (total 56) and takes nearly double the time (about 90 minutes without traffic versus 50).

TheStranger

Quote from: sparker on July 15, 2019, 06:14:43 AM


Well, you won't have CA 84 through Fremont to kick around much longer; it's on the relinquishment chopping block.  While a combination of Decoto and Alvarado-Niles would be better, running a state highway down the latter would likely require "shunting" the route over to Mission Blvd. (erstwhile CA 238, but with virtually no signage as such these days) north of Niles itself; running it through the Niles historical district wouldn't be well-received locally (although the old LRN 5 did run through the town center courtesy of twin underpasses under the then-SP Niles/Milpitas line) in pre-WWII years.  But regardless, the point is moot; Caltrans has no interest in adopting any more surface mileage in urban/suburban areas. 

For 84, is the arterial realignment east of Decoto effectively dead?  crazy to think how this road went from already 2 sections without a signed connection to potentially 3 in the near future!

To be fair, when I used to drive from Atherton to Sacramento several years ago on Sunday nights, I actually preferred taking 880 south to Auto Mall Parkway to 680 to 84 in Sunol which I think was faster than either the 84 surface routing in Fremont or the Decoto routing above.

Quote from: GaryVUS-101 in Washington?

While the big peninsular loop seems the obvious candidate, the one that comes to mind us more in the southwest part of the state: WA 401/WA 4 being a shorter route from the state line to Clearwater Creek park! This seems to exist primarily for US 101 to serve Ilwaco and Seaview.

Quote from: Max RockatanskyCA 18 makes an almost 270 degree turn and isn't useful as a through route.  Personally I always thought swapping the alignment of 18 and 247 north to Barstow was more efficient than the current route. 

AZ 80 and by extension former US 80 were incredibly inefficient routes.  At the time of the early US Route era the alignment of US 80 was really the only roadway with good surface conditions but it took some wild jogs to Bisbee and Phoenix.  As time progressed AZ 84 and AZ 86 became the more efficient through routes which is probably why I-8 and I-10 use their corridors.

I still feel like some sort of rationalization of 18/38/138/330 around the Big Bear area would be a good idea someday, especially since it wasn't quite as bad when 30 ran there years ago before the Highland-Redlands reroute occurred.

If I'm not mistaken, the Casa Grande-Goodyear routing of US 80, now AZ 85/I-10, has more traffic than the section of I-8 east of AZ 85 - though in terms of trajectory 8 ended up being significantly more logical.

---


US 311 for a long time served as an out-of-the-way alternate to US 220, though with the southern portion of the route decommissioned, this isn't quite the case anymore.

Before it was relegated to state route south of Flagstaff, US 89 went much further out of the way between there and Phoenix to avoid the terrain traversed by AZ 69/US 89A (and eventually I-17).  I don't think the US 89 route between Phoenix and Tucson was quite as out there when compared to today's I-10/former AZ 93.
Chris Sampang

Evan_Th

US 101 in the southwestern corner of Washington.  First, from South Bend to the Astoria bridge, it's only 17 miles using SR 4 to SR 401 against about 24 using 101.  Second, 101 then takes a six-and-a-half-mile loop through Holman and Ilwaco instead of following Alt 101 which's literally just half a mile.


Max Rockatansky

#17
Re: TheStranger:  Yes, that is indeed correct about AZ 85 being significantly busier than I-8 between Gila Bend and Casa Grande.  I would largely attribute that traffic count to AZ 85 being the favored route out of Phoenix to I-8 and San Diego.  I found in my time in the East Valley that AZ/CR 238 and AZ 347 were just as good if not a quicker route than AZ 85. 

In the same vein I would argue that AZ 260 and AZ 87 has become more efficient from Show Low to Phoenix over US 60.  US 60 has some pretty wild terrain southwest through Globe and Superior whereas AZ 260/AZ 87 have newer expressway segments on better terrain. 

AZ 95 traffic being directed towards Needles is incredibly inefficient to reach its south segment over something like Mohave County Route 1 and 10 (Old US 66). 

Since I'm a tangent about Arizona I'll note a couple more.  US 60 and US 70 is a more direct way to reach the New Mexico State Line over I-10.  US 191 over the Coronado Trail is incredibly ineffective with over 600 curves.  A better alignment on US 180 and NM/AZ 78 has been proposed.  US 89 was inefficient in terms of reaching Phoenix with a long multiplex of US 66.   US 89A was a more direct route between Flagstaff and Prescott but the alignment through Jerome is haggard at best.  I suspect those weird alignments played a role in US 89 being truncated to US 180 in Flagstaff.  Speaking of US 180 the entire route west of El Paso is inefficient and largely was designed to take a northwestern swing to reach two additional
National Parks. 

Some state highways in San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley still use 90 degree turns instead of a more efficient crossing of farm parcels.  CA 137 west of CA 99 comes to mind as the most infamous example but other examples include; CA 216, CA 201, CA 245, CA 45, CA 162 and CA 113.  CA 145 comes to mind as a more efficient design that doesn't rely on straight line alignments. 

Big John

Macon GA, I-475 bypass is more direct then staying on I-75.

hbelkins

Quite a few of these in Kentucky. There are at least two shortcuts that avoid KY 52, KY 1571 between Beattyville and Irvine, and KY 1295 between Richmond and Lancaster (although when completed, the new construction on KY 52 between I-75 and Paint Lick will eliminate that.)

Also, KY 30 runs directly between Jackson and Salyersville, but it's faster to take KY 15, KY 205, and the Mountain Parkway.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

TheStranger

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 15, 2019, 01:38:27 PM


Some state highways in San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley still use 90 degree turns instead of a more efficient crossing of farm parcels.  CA 137 west of CA 99 comes to mind as the most infamous example but other examples include; CA 216, CA 201, CA 245, CA 45, CA 162 and CA 113.  CA 145 comes to mind as a more efficient design that doesn't rely on straight line alignments. 

I've mentioned in the past how south of Knights Landing, Yolo County Road 102 is a much straighter shot to Woodland than the historic Route 24/Alternate US 40 alignment that Route 113 still uses.

With 137, it's unusual how it doesn't bother to just head directly on Waukena all the way to Route 43, instead opting for several more turns southwest.

Part of 216's oddness on the western end is that prior to the 1990s IIRC, it continued into central Visalia so it was a bit more logical then.  East of where 216 leaves 198, it follows the most direct routing possible to Woodlake at least.

Another one came to mind that I have driven on: Route 12 near Lodi taking Victor Road between Route 99 and Route 88, instead of just staying on Kettleman to get to 88.  I think this is a vestige of when US 99 ran down the modern business route, but is an odd choice today.
Chris Sampang

ilpt4u

#21
Quote from: hbelkins on July 15, 2019, 01:55:10 PM
Quite a few of these in Kentucky. There are at least two shortcuts that avoid KY 52, KY 1571 between Beattyville and Irvine, and KY 1295 between Richmond and Lancaster (although when completed, the new construction on KY 52 between I-75 and Paint Lick will eliminate that.)

Also, KY 30 runs directly between Jackson and Salyersville, but it's faster to take KY 15, KY 205, and the Mountain Parkway.
Another KY one: US 51 doglegging to Fulton at the the KY/TN line, between Clinton, KY and Union City, TN. KY 239/TN 21 is much more direct N/S, with KY 123 to tie back into US 51 @ Clinton

IN's most famous one (other than the wackyness of removing numbered routes in cities & towns): IN 63 over US 41 for thru US 41 traffic

webny99

I-10 near New Orleans is one of the more glaring examples, along with I-475 being shorter than I-75 near Macon, GA (already mentioned).

sparker

Quote from: TheStranger on July 15, 2019, 01:33:28 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 15, 2019, 06:14:43 AM


Well, you won't have CA 84 through Fremont to kick around much longer; it's on the relinquishment chopping block.  While a combination of Decoto and Alvarado-Niles would be better, running a state highway down the latter would likely require "shunting" the route over to Mission Blvd. (erstwhile CA 238, but with virtually no signage as such these days) north of Niles itself; running it through the Niles historical district wouldn't be well-received locally (although the old LRN 5 did run through the town center courtesy of twin underpasses under the then-SP Niles/Milpitas line) in pre-WWII years.  But regardless, the point is moot; Caltrans has no interest in adopting any more surface mileage in urban/suburban areas. 

For 84, is the arterial realignment east of Decoto effectively dead?  crazy to think how this road went from already 2 sections without a signed connection to potentially 3 in the near future!

To be fair, when I used to drive from Atherton to Sacramento several years ago on Sunday nights, I actually preferred taking 880 south to Auto Mall Parkway to 680 to 84 in Sunol which I think was faster than either the 84 surface routing in Fremont or the Decoto routing above.

Quote from: GaryVUS-101 in Washington?

While the big peninsular loop seems the obvious candidate, the one that comes to mind us more in the southwest part of the state: WA 401/WA 4 being a shorter route from the state line to Clearwater Creek park! This seems to exist primarily for US 101 to serve Ilwaco and Seaview.

Quote from: Max RockatanskyCA 18 makes an almost 270 degree turn and isn't useful as a through route.  Personally I always thought swapping the alignment of 18 and 247 north to Barstow was more efficient than the current route. 

AZ 80 and by extension former US 80 were incredibly inefficient routes.  At the time of the early US Route era the alignment of US 80 was really the only roadway with good surface conditions but it took some wild jogs to Bisbee and Phoenix.  As time progressed AZ 84 and AZ 86 became the more efficient through routes which is probably why I-8 and I-10 use their corridors.

I still feel like some sort of rationalization of 18/38/138/330 around the Big Bear area would be a good idea someday, especially since it wasn't quite as bad when 30 ran there years ago before the Highland-Redlands reroute occurred.

If I'm not mistaken, the Casa Grande-Goodyear routing of US 80, now AZ 85/I-10, has more traffic than the section of I-8 east of AZ 85 - though in terms of trajectory 8 ended up being significantly more logical.

---


US 311 for a long time served as an out-of-the-way alternate to US 220, though with the southern portion of the route decommissioned, this isn't quite the case anymore.

Before it was relegated to state route south of Flagstaff, US 89 went much further out of the way between there and Phoenix to avoid the terrain traversed by AZ 69/US 89A (and eventually I-17).  I don't think the US 89 route between Phoenix and Tucson was quite as out there when compared to today's I-10/former AZ 93.

To answer the first question:  the alignment that veered eastward from Decoto and intersected CA 238 about a half-mile south of the Decoto intersection had ROW purchased by Caltrans decades ago, and local development (the Decoto/Alvarado Niles area has seen plenty of "infill" dense housing development in recent years) seems not to have encroached on that ROW.  Nothing addressing this route has been included in any STIP for years; the project appears to be dormant rather than dead.  Niles Canyon Road is still an active state facility; there has been absolutely no talk about relinquishment there, and since Mission/238 south of Hayward remains state-maintained, it's possible that sometime in the future D4 will request funds to build out the Decoto bypass/reroute to replace the soon-to-be relinquished convoluted route through central Fremont; as related above, there is quite a bit of commuter traffic coming off the Dumbarton heading toward Pleasanton/Livermore and points beyond; while some of that has likely blindly followed the CA 84 routing through town, I've seen Decoto/Alvarado-Niles often used as a bypass (the intersection between the two should be avoided after 3pm on weekdays!).  IMO, this is a problem that should have been addressed back in the '80's before the area became as crowded as it is today.

I fully agree with Max about the ridiculousness of the "reverse C" shape of CA 18, particularly with its western extension back to CA 138 in L.A. County.  In a more rational world (assuming Caltrans still cares about such things) the route number "30" would be revived and, unless someone decides the High Desert Corridor needs an Interstate designation, applied to (a) that corridor between CA 14 and US 395, (b) the CA 18 extension, including the proposed Apple Valley bypass, east all the way to Lucerne Valley (replacing CA 18 east of Victorville), and (c) CA 247 east and south to CA 62 in Yucca Valley.  CA 18 would simply be rerouted over the N-S segment of CA 247, terminating at I-15 in Barstow.  That would give a single designation to the (mostly) E-W route north of the San Bernardino/San Gabriel mountains.  The gratuitous 18/247 "bump" in Lucerne Valley would be eliminated, with the path of most traffic (WB 247>WB 18 and vice-versa) singly designated.  CA 18 will still be retained as the primary mountain resort route, but instead of heading toward the High Desert exurbs, will head for Barstow, ostensibly to pick up (and drop off) traffic to and from Vegas, I-40, and CA 58; Barstow being a very good collection/distribution point (just ask BNSF!). 

TheStranger

Quote from: webny99 on July 15, 2019, 02:16:39 PM
I-10 near New Orleans is one of the more glaring examples, along with I-475 being shorter than I-75 near Macon, GA (already mentioned).

In that vein:

I-75 vs. US 23 between Toledo and Flint where 75 makes the big northeast turn to serve Detroit.

I-15 in Montana between Ulm and Vaughn, where the freeway makes the big turn to serve Great Falls, a U-shaped route that is 21 miles long, as opposed to the direct road between those two points that is only 10 miles long.  Kinda surprised that the most direct route wasn't used for the freeway (with a spur to Great Falls) instead of this big deviation, though this may have to do with First Peoples Buffalo Jump State Park being on the direct trajectory.
Chris Sampang



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.