AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Illinois interesting bid annoucements  (Read 21283 times)

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3154
  • Last Login: October 15, 2017, 08:33:21 PM
Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« on: June 05, 2013, 10:38:30 PM »

The diverging diamond interchange for I-88 at IL 59 is being rebid this June (Item 198).  A couple sheets show WB I-88 getting both a control city and control state with DeKalb/Iowa.
Logged

on_wisconsin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 582
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Der Bierstaat
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:05 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2013, 10:54:43 PM »

Good thread idea! What is the link to the IDOT bid plan set page?
Logged
"Speed does not kill, suddenly becoming stationary... that's what gets you" - Jeremy Clarkson

Brandon

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8675
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 40
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 04:27:21 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2013, 11:11:05 PM »

The diverging diamond interchange for I-88 at IL 59 is being rebid this June (Item 198).  A couple sheets show WB I-88 getting both a control city and control state with DeKalb/Iowa.

Again!?!  I thought IDOT already bid this as of January or February.  I'm still convinced that IDOT will fuck it up somehow by not timing the signals with the Diehl Road intersection.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

kphoger

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5983
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 04:31:30 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2013, 10:50:02 AM »

In fact, Brandon, you posted about it back in January:
I-88 / ILL-59 - First DDI in Illinois

Perhaps "rebid" means something different?
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

on_wisconsin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 582
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Der Bierstaat
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:05 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2013, 09:28:23 PM »

IDOT Links, Please.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 09:50:19 PM by on_wisconsin »
Logged
"Speed does not kill, suddenly becoming stationary... that's what gets you" - Jeremy Clarkson

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3154
  • Last Login: October 15, 2017, 08:33:21 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2013, 09:46:54 PM »

Plan sheets for the DDI are here:
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/061413/60I31-198/PLANS/

Where the projects are posted by letting:
http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/delett.html


In fact, Brandon, you posted about it back in January:
I-88 / ILL-59 - First DDI in Illinois

Perhaps "rebid" means something different?

The Item Descriptions (http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/061413/nlitemdesc.pdf) under the notice of letting lists the project as being previously bid in January of 2013.  I'm not sure why it was rejected; the January bid tab (http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/011813/ac011813/Dist101182013.pdf) indicates that the bid price was around the acceptable estimated range back in January and had more than one contractor place a bid.
Logged

ET21

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1475
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Chicagoland, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:11:04 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2013, 12:08:34 AM »

Hopefully it'll help cure the backup it causes on West 88 when approaching the exit. Just as long as it doesn't cause horrid backups
Logged
"Show where your going, without forgetting where your from" -Chrysler 300 commercial

Clinched:
IL: I-88, I-180, I-190, I-290, I-294, I-355
SD: I-190
WI: I-90, I-94
MI: I-196

NIU Huskies: NCCAF MAC Conference Champions (2011, 2012, 2014)

Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup Champions (2010, 2013, 2015)

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3154
  • Last Login: October 15, 2017, 08:33:21 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2013, 08:50:14 PM »

Five items on the August letting have maps that may be interesting to some:

1) This one has a map on Sheet 4 that shows the corridors for the IL 53 extension and IL 120 in Lake County, shows the Amstutz being extended south and then west to end at the I-94 interchange with IL 137, and shows the once proposed Lake Freeway in Wisconsin tying into the I-94/US 41 interchange.
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/080213/60W63-023/PLANS/PL-60W63-023.pdf

2) This one has a map on Sheet 4 that shows the IL 120 corridor through western Lake and McHenry Counties, though I think it is another old map that got used since more recent proposals have the IL 120 facility staying south of the existing IL 120 until a point near the intersection of IL 120 with IL 60.
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/080213/60W64-024/PLANS/PL-60W64-024.pdf

3) The map on Sheet 4 in this set is definitely old since I-355 is not shown as complete, but it shows a continuation of the IL 394 freeway along IL 394 and then branching off of IL 1 to pass east of Beecher.  It also shows the South Suburban branching off of IL 394.
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/080213/60W67-027/PLANS/PL-60W67-027.pdf

4) This one shows an earlier alignment of the Elgin O'Hare east of York Road on Sheet 4.
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/080213/60W66-026/PLANS/PL-60W66-026.pdf

5) Sheet 4 of this set shows more of the original alignment of the eastern end of the Elgin O'Hare, shows a western extension of the EOE to the US 20 bypass of Elgin, shows the IL 53 extension being open north of Lake Cook Road, and shows something proposed east of I-90/I-94 that ends near the IL 19 intersection with Lake Shore Drive.
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/080213/60W68-028/PLANS/PL-60W68-028.pdf
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 812
  • Last Login: July 09, 2015, 09:45:47 AM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2013, 09:27:07 PM »

I saw those maps used in their annual plans (not the 5 year ones) in the 80s I think , The downstate supplemental freeways were in the annuals from 72-79 and then the terms was switched to Principle Arterials..and no set corridors.
Logged

Rick Powell

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 257
  • Last Login: October 13, 2017, 11:50:54 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2013, 11:10:36 AM »

3) The map on Sheet 4 in this set is definitely old since I-355 is not shown as complete, but it shows a continuation of the IL 394 freeway along IL 394 and then branching off of IL 1 to pass east of Beecher.  It also shows the South Suburban branching off of IL 394.
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/080213/60W67-027/PLANS/PL-60W67-027.pdf

Both the village's land use plan and the South Suburban Airport master plan envision the Beecher bypass being west of, not east of Beecher, utilizing the Ashland Avenue corridor.   
Logged

ET21

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1475
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Chicagoland, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:11:04 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2013, 02:19:57 PM »

3) The map on Sheet 4 in this set is definitely old since I-355 is not shown as complete, but it shows a continuation of the IL 394 freeway along IL 394 and then branching off of IL 1 to pass east of Beecher.  It also shows the South Suburban branching off of IL 394.
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/080213/60W67-027/PLANS/PL-60W67-027.pdf

Both the village's land use plan and the South Suburban Airport master plan envision the Beecher bypass being west of, not east of Beecher, utilizing the Ashland Avenue corridor.

It'll be interesting to see if they will consider doing something with 394 now that a 3rd airport has been approved.
Logged
"Show where your going, without forgetting where your from" -Chrysler 300 commercial

Clinched:
IL: I-88, I-180, I-190, I-290, I-294, I-355
SD: I-190
WI: I-90, I-94
MI: I-196

NIU Huskies: NCCAF MAC Conference Champions (2011, 2012, 2014)

Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup Champions (2010, 2013, 2015)

Stratuscaster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 558
  • Last Login: September 26, 2017, 03:42:55 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2013, 06:48:05 PM »

Not a fan of the overhead sign design for IL-59 thru the DDI - more specifically the way they have the far left lane signed for both I-88 and IL-59, right next to a sign with just IL-59.

I'm sure it's all related to the OAPL requirement...but it's got the potential to be just a tad confusing. (FWIW, I thought the same thing on the signage for the far right exit lane for SB IL-83 from I-88 that has both routes on it. I know it's to tell folks "yes you can get back on I-88 from this lane, too" - but it's still odd to me.)

http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/061413/60I31-198/PLANS/PL-60I31-198-301-400.pdf
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/061413/60I31-198/PLANS/PL-60I31-198-301-500.pdf
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3154
  • Last Login: October 15, 2017, 08:33:21 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2013, 11:32:21 PM »

List of projects for the January 2014 Letting is up:
http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/011714/nlitemdesc.pdf

* Item 87 is the I-57 interchange with Stunkel Road in Will County

* Item 129 is decorative LED lighting for the WB US 24 Mississippi River Bridge.

Plans are/will be posted at http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/011714/011714plans.html
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3154
  • Last Login: October 15, 2017, 08:33:21 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2013, 07:40:06 PM »

There are certainly some unique fractions on the signs for I-255 for one of the January projects:
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/011714/76F10-063/PLANS/PL-76F10-063-101-206.pdf

Don't think I've seen '59/64 mile' or '57/64 mile' before.

(Edited to fix typo)
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 10:49:11 PM by Revive 755 »
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 13174
  • not a kook

  • Age: 9
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:29:18 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2013, 07:46:00 PM »

There are sp,e certainly a unique fractions on the signs for I-255 for one of the January projects:
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/011714/76F10-063/PLANS/PL-76F10-063-101-206.pdf

Don't think I've seen '59/64 mile' or '57/64 mile' before.
(pages 20, 26, 31, 34, 36)
Yeah, what the fuck?
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I stand with any member of any group who Trump hates. I will do my best to not make America hate again.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11058
  • Hope for the Alan!

  • Age: 34
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:40 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2013, 07:51:39 PM »

There are sp,e certainly a unique fractions on the signs for I-255 for one of the January projects:
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/011714/76F10-063/PLANS/PL-76F10-063-101-206.pdf

Don't think I've seen '59/64 mile' or '57/64 mile' before.
(pages 20, 26, 31, 34, 36)
Yeah, what the fuck?
That's a font-o, to coin a new term. Certain CAD fonts yield fractions when you type special characters that appear in other fonts. If someone hits "Alt+0189" to do a "", for example, that becomes "57/64" in a different font. Clearly these plans were printed with the wrong configuration file, and thus the wrong font appeared. (CAD relates each font to a number - so for example, font 001 may be for general plans, 011 for existing text, 030 for proposed. However, each agency has its own font sets, and wants its own numbers. So 011 may work for one agency and be a completely arbitrary font for another agency. The project configuration file ensures that the right font set is brought in when opening the file. If you have a file in another project open and jump straight into this project without first changing your configuration, you get what happened here.)
Logged
~ Steve
http://www.alpsroads.net
I've listened many times, and I still can't figure out what the fox says.

"YOUR NAME IS NAMED AFTER A BUTT"

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5243
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 03:00:02 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2013, 09:04:45 PM »

That's a font-o, to coin a new term. Certain CAD fonts yield fractions when you type special characters that appear in other fonts. If someone hits "Alt+0189" to do a "", for example, that becomes "57/64" in a different font. Clearly these plans were printed with the wrong configuration file, and thus the wrong font appeared. (CAD relates each font to a number - so for example, font 001 may be for general plans, 011 for existing text, 030 for proposed. However, each agency has its own font sets, and wants its own numbers. So 011 may work for one agency and be a completely arbitrary font for another agency. The project configuration file ensures that the right font set is brought in when opening the file. If you have a file in another project open and jump straight into this project without first changing your configuration, you get what happened here.)

This kind of problem can also result from not having a resource file loaded at all, or having a resource file with the correct filename but in an incorrect version.

The sign panel details for this particular project are all generated in SignCAD (the giveaway being the font description caption beneath each sign detail).  SignCAD stores its fonts in a signcad.rsc file, which is available in several different versions.  The version of signcad.rsc that is used to view or plot a SignCAD-produced drawing in MicroStation must match the version that was used to produce the drawing in order for fonts to render correctly.  Symptoms of signcad.rsc version mismatch include FHWA series legend appearing in Clearview or vice versa.

Signcad.rsc is part of the SignCAD distribution and I am not aware of any state DOTs that include it in their CAD workspace configuration files.  I don't think standard SignCAD licensing allows DOTs to redistribute signcad.rsc, though it is possible to obtain it informally, under Chatham House rules ("Don't say you got it from me or I'll get into trouble").

In this particular case, none of the sign panel details use actual traffic sign typefaces; instead they all use CAD placeholder fonts.  This leads me to believe that the plots were generated on a computer which had Illinois DOT's standard workspace loaded, but not a copy of the signcad.rsc file, in any version.  This is quite a sloppy plotting job and, frankly, Illinois DOT should have rejected it and required the consultant to re-plot it with the correct fonts.

Edit:  Looking at the drawing chopblocks again, I think this signing plan may very well be an in-house job.  The bridge plans in the same PDF sheet set are done by Transystems, but I see no good reason to lay the signing plans at their door.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 12:59:23 AM by J N Winkler »
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11058
  • Hope for the Alan!

  • Age: 34
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:40 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2013, 11:21:03 PM »

In this particular case, none of the sign panel details use actual traffic sign typefaces; instead they all use CAD placeholder fonts.  This leads me to believe that the plots were generated on a computer which had Illinois DOT's standard workspace loaded, but not a copy of the signcad.rsc file, in any version.  This is quite a sloppy plotting job and, frankly, Illinois DOT should have rejected it and required the consultant to re-plot it with the correct fonts.
We've all heard the nickname for Illinois DOT. Are they so bad that they don't even check their plans for something this basic and obvious?
Logged
~ Steve
http://www.alpsroads.net
I've listened many times, and I still can't figure out what the fox says.

"YOUR NAME IS NAMED AFTER A BUTT"

Brandon

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8675
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 40
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 04:27:21 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2013, 12:27:08 AM »

In this particular case, none of the sign panel details use actual traffic sign typefaces; instead they all use CAD placeholder fonts.  This leads me to believe that the plots were generated on a computer which had Illinois DOT's standard workspace loaded, but not a copy of the signcad.rsc file, in any version.  This is quite a sloppy plotting job and, frankly, Illinois DOT should have rejected it and required the consultant to re-plot it with the correct fonts.
We've all heard the nickname for Illinois DOT. Are they so bad that they don't even check their plans for something this basic and obvious?

Well, it is the Collinsville District (District 8).  They aren't exactly known for good signage.  :rolleyes:
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5243
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 03:00:02 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2013, 12:52:21 AM »

We've all heard the nickname for Illinois DOT. Are they so bad that they don't even check their plans for something this basic and obvious?

It would seem so.  Font problems are very common in Illinois DOT signing plans in general.  I don't think I have previously seen anything quite so egregious as "57/64" being plotted when it is abundantly clear a much simpler fraction was meant, but I have seen plenty of signing plans with a serif placeholder font used for primary destination legend, Clearview used in route shields (could be a design mistake and not just a font problem, except the font caption sometimes also appears in Clearview, which is another symptom of signcad.rsc version mismatch), Arial instead of Clearview for primary destination legend (a very common problem in GuidSIGN--Illinois DOT allows consultants to use both major signing CAD packages), etc.

There is a lot of district-by-district variation since review of signing plans is handled at district level (in fact, District 1 has its own unpublished signing manual).  Districts 2 (Quad Cities) and 4 (Peoria) produce very good signing plans, while District 8 (East St. Louis) and District 1 (Chicago) are very hit-and-miss.  The signing plans with "57/64" are a District 8 job.  Within districts, I am not aware of a great difference between consultant-produced and in-house signing plans with regard to font substitution problems.

Bad fonts are not purely an ID(i)OT problem.  The Illinois Tollway has the same font substitution problem in its construction plans, and the incidence is roughly the same as for IDOT District 1.

BTW, in my limited experience of state DOT signing plan review processes, I have not seen a single instance of a reviewer calling out a font substitution problem in a comment (even when it was blatantly obvious) and insisting that it be corrected, although I have seen reminders of the rule not to use Clearview in negative contrast (this misuse of Clearview is a design error rather than a font problem per se).  I think there is some expectation--probably communicated verbally only--that designers will supply reviewers with draft plans that look professional, and that the reviewers will ignore font substitution problems as opposed to design errors such as incorrect line spacing, omission or otherwise of horizontal ruled lines, choice of font size not in accord with state DOT policy, etc.  As a rule, I see very few comments on general plan-presentation issues (for example, I have only once seen this comment:  "These sign designs are too small to read when this sheet is printed out at 11" x 17".  Make them larger").

I also suspect that in state DOTs where shop drawings (basically raw GuidSIGN or SignCAD sketches, one sign per page) are a required part of construction plan submittals, there is usually--not always--less pressure on designers to produce clean signing plan sheets.  Ohio DOT and Michigan DOT, for example, require shop drawings and although MDOT signing plans are usually clean, not all signing contracts have plan sheets, while Ohio DOT's signing plans are usually awful.  In contradistinction, the shop drawings are always pattern-accurate.  If Illinois DOT similarly requires shop drawings for design submittals, this may explain why so many signing plans look bad.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Brandon

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8675
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 40
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 04:27:21 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2013, 09:23:11 AM »

There is a lot of district-by-district variation since review of signing plans is handled at district level (in fact, District 1 has its own unpublished signing manual).  Districts 2 (Quad Cities) and 4 (Peoria) produce very good signing plans, while District 8 (East St. Louis) and District 1 (Chicago) are very hit-and-miss.  The signing plans with "57/64" are a District 8 job.  Within districts, I am not aware of a great difference between consultant-produced and in-house signing plans with regard to font substitution problems.

A minor quibble for accuracy, JN:  District 1 is Schaumburg, not Chicago; District 2 is Dixon, not Quad Cities; and District 8 is Collinsville, not East St Louis.  These are the places they're located and usually referred to as within the state.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5243
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 03:00:02 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2013, 11:38:59 AM »

A minor quibble for accuracy, JN:  District 1 is Schaumburg, not Chicago; District 2 is Dixon, not Quad Cities; and District 8 is Collinsville, not East St Louis.  These are the places they're located and usually referred to as within the state.

This is true.  However, I was referring to the districts by the metro areas they contained rather than by the locations of the district offices, since the former gives a better idea of where the product of each district's traffic design office can be found.  It is the same idea behind saying "KDOT's Wichita district" when in fact the district number is 5, KDOT's term for it is "South Central Kansas," and the main district office is in Hutchinson.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Brandon

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8675
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 40
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 04:27:21 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2013, 11:47:38 AM »

^^ But, District 2, for example, covers much more than the Quad Cities.  You also have the Rockford Area.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3154
  • Last Login: October 15, 2017, 08:33:21 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2014, 08:43:40 PM »

Not from the current letting but this one local roads project in Sauget has a couple sign goofs, with a US 64 shield instead of I-64(why not I-55 also?), and circular shields for IL 3.  Sure it calls out "IL Route Sign," but the code for the standard IL shield is M1-I100


On the April letting is the widening of Wabash Avenue on the western edge of Springfield, complete with more flashing yellow arrows.  Link to plans

Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3154
  • Last Login: October 15, 2017, 08:33:21 PM
Re: Illinois interesting bid annoucements
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2014, 11:58:40 PM »

Listing of projects for the June letting is up

Plans have not been posted yet

Highlights:

* Item 21 is the new flyover at the Circle Interchange for the WB I-90/I-94 ramp to WB I-290

* Item 251 is the partial deck replacement on the MLK Bridge around St. Louis

* Item 284 is the new interchange with Reider Road on I-64 (between the US 50/IL 158 cloverleaf and the IL 4 interchange)
Logged

 


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.