Friday Roundtable: FAB Lane in SODO

55 Replies to “Friday Roundtable: FAB Lane in SODO”

1. 1 Line operations today and tomorrow:

   FRIDAY 8/22 AM PEAK: 1 Line trains will run test operations during regular service on Friday, August 22 from 5 AM to 9 AM. Please check train head signs before boarding. Test trains will run between Lynnwood and Stadium on 4-minute headways in both directions alongside regular service. Trains with “Out of Service” head signs will briefly pause at stations but doors will remain closed. This testing will help us prepare for more frequent service once the 2 Line crosses Lake Washington and extends to Lynnwood City Center. During the testing hours, we will not display estimated train arrival times on the overhead digital signs.

   OTHELLO AND RAINIER BEACH CLOSURE: Othello and Rainier Beach stations were closed during late-night service morning due to “power issues”: a shuttle bus replaced the last few trains Columbia City-TIB. It’s unclear whether this will continue with Friday morning service and the AM peak.

   SATURDAY 8/23 UNTIL 1 PM: A shuttle bus will replace trains Westlake-SODO for East Link work and testing. This is to relocate the guard shack south of CID station and test barrier operations at the 1 & 2 Line junction.

   1. I wonder if that 8/22 testing with interspersed “2 Line” trains is what led to the 2 line appearing on stations between Lynnwood and SoDo in Apple Maps with a start date of 8/22. The 2 line doesn’t show up on those stations any longer though.

   2. The Othello/RB closure was fixed by the start of service today.

   3. What is the purpose of the guard shack, especially now that there is no need to make sure buses entering the tunnel are, in fact, buses?

   4. @Mike Orr,

      I purposely rode Link this morning just to check out how simulated 2-Line operations were going. I lingered on a couple of platforms and timed the train arrivals.

      Interestingly enough, for the time I was there Link wasn’t operating at a 4-min combined frequency — it was operating at a 2-min frequency! And the arrival times between trains were almost exactly 2 minutes, meaning ST was doing a good job of maintaining headways even at 2-mins.

      There were occasional gaps of 6 minutes between a simulated 2-Link train and the next 1-Link train, but these were also fairly predictable. And then the system would go right back to 2-min, predictable headways.

      I’m not sure why they were operating at 2-min combined headways, but maybe it was just a form of stress testing. But it seemed to work.

      ST also had staff on the platforms to help with questions, which was good because a lot of people weren’t listening to the announcements and were trying to get on simulated 2-Link trains that were OOS.

      My only criticism would be that the platform staff appeared to leave exactly at 9:00 when the testing was officially over, but some simulated trains were still running on their way back to base, and the arrival time information system wasn’t yet activated. So there was a short period of rather comedic confusion on the part of some riders.

      But overall it appeared to go very well today. I give ST an A-.

      Now if they would just let us ride…

      1. ST’s official opinion is trains more than every 3 minutes would have higher reliability risk (=train bunching) without capital improvements in the DSTT. However, that goes out the window on some game days, when it has 1.5 minute northbound trains. These variously go all the way or terminate at Roosevelt, UW, or Capitol Hill, and then take a siesta on the track and turn around, going on the “wrong” side of the platform to the next crossover. Southbound trains from Lynnwood/Northgate go between them whenever they can; there’s no schedule during ballgame service.

         So those 2-minute trains aren’t unprecendented; it just only happens for temporary high-crowd events.

      2. @Mike Orr,

         ST Ops staff are Metro employees, and they tend to take a decidedly bus-like approach to crowding events. Basically they just flood the zone with resources and schedule reliability be damned.

         But it is understandable how they might be oriented towards such an approach. During big events buses get stuck in traffic anyhow, so schedule reliability is impossible no matter what. So the only approach after that using buses is just to add capacity and let the passengers sit/stand in traffic on buses.

         But trains don’t have to be that way. Adding a planned overlay from say Rainier Beach Station to Northgate Station would solve the capacity problem in both directions while maintaining schedule reliability throughout the system. And by using the pocket tracks no weird reversing moves would be required.

         It can be done, and it appears that today ST was simulating at least part of what is required to operate such a system.

         That is what was so exciting about today’s simulation. Not the fact that ST can run trains close together, but that they can do so and STILL maintain schedule reliability.

         That could be the beginning of great things.

      3. “ST Ops staff are Metro employees, and they tend to take a decidedly bus-like approach to crowding events. Basically they just flood the zone with resources and schedule reliability be damned.”

         How else can they do it? There’s tens of thousands of people leaving at once, Link is the only thing that can handle it, and not surging trains would leave a large crowd at the stadium station for hours, which would become a safety and misbehavior issue. (See British football hooligans.)

         I don’t know about ST taking a “bus-like” approach. Metro sometimes adds a few extra runs to regular routes, but usually not. All those special shuttle runs are special service, that I think is arranged by the stadium and the stadium pays for part of it. How much of that special shuttle service is even left now that Link goes more places?

2. Maybe the sign should say something like “permitted trucks ok”, rather than “trucks ok”, with permits only issued to commercial trucks. That change in wording seems better for deterring bus lane use in pick-up trucks.

   1. A shorter option might be FREIGHT OK, with the red paint as FREIGHT BUS OK?

      1. Yes, “FREIGHT OK” seems more appropriate.

   2. I assume SDOT wants to avoid issuing yet another permit to freight truck drivers. Presumably, enforcement of the bus lanes will come with the use of automated cameras and officers will have to sort out whether the offending vehicle fall into one of the allowed categories.

3. Freight + Bus sounds like a promising concept. Get freight trucks out of general traffic lanes. Give the truckers a break from car traffic. However, I’m not so sure it is a good idea to include bicycles in the mix, especially in a heavy freight corridor! At least with bus + bike lanes, the bus is only coming so often, whereas freight trucks are continuous. The bicycles really need a physically separated lane or pathway.

   1. They’re clearly trying to avoid pitting bike advocates against freight advocates in deciding who gets to use the bus lanes. I don’t know many bicyclists who actually like using bus lanes as bike lanes, and I’ve seen some bus drivers get frustrated with cyclists “blocking” the bus lane at ~10-12 mph.

      1. Having bike on bus lane shouldn’t be the long-term solution anyway. It is only better than no bike lane at all.

      2. It appears that somewhat fit cyclists go 12-15 mph, experienced cyclists go up to 22 mph and pro cyclists can go up to 31 mph. And that’s all on flat pavement. I often see bicyclists going above 25-30 mph going downhill on Seattle streets.

      3. I used to bike down 4th Ave S to Coscto, but there’s also the SODO Trail next to the busway part of the way, and wide less-used 6th Ave S. 6th goes from Royal Brougham to Industrial Way (the last crossing back to 4th).

   2. The bigger the motorized vehicle, the less the driver can see. Freight trucks and buses also generally need more stopping distance and gentler turning radii. That’s more dangerous for a bicyclist.

      Ultimately, every street cannot serve every type of mode well. If it tries, it becomes mediocre and more unsafe for all the modes. That’s the advantage of exclusive busways and bicycle trails. The same can be said about freight. And making a street try to appeal to every mode just makes it wider to cross and more dangerous to use.

      Sometimes it’s just better to advise that a mode be discouraged or banned from certain streets. It sounds discriminatory but it’s safer and easier to make it clear when a mode should or should not use a particular street.

      If we can sort our garbage for the greater good (recycling and composting) we should accept that it’s ok to sort modes too.

      1. If you deprioritize personal automobiles, it’s pretty clear from my experience in other countries that all other modes have plenty of room, without making a giant stroad. It’s just a matter of political will to get there.

      2. The whole bike thing is just an acknowledgement that… not too many people really want to ride on 4th Ave S, but if you’ve gotta do it, you’re better off staying in the curb-lane than going out into the center lanes where you’re (arguably) exposed to more traffic, more dangers, and a greater variety of dangers — where you’re typically going to be in the way of more angry drivers with less ability to get out of the way.

         You can’t just ban bikes wholesale from a street with as many destinations on it as 4th Ave S has. Most of the people actually going to work or visiting businesses on this street by bike (and these people exist, just as they do on parts of Aurora, LCW, Rainier, and other roads in Seattle that are bike-unfriendly but destination-ful) use the sidewalk, and will continue to do so, whether these signs say it’s OK to ride in the bus lane or not.

      3. From what I can tell, there just isn’t a good north-south bike path in the area. There should be (for longer bike trips). But that doesn’t mean it has to be close to the actual destinations. No rider thinks “I have to bike on the sidewalk a couple blocks at the end of my destination — screw it, I’m driving”. In contrast a lot of people think “I can’t get through that part of town. I’m driving”.

         For example we need to fix the missing Link. It should not go through the heart of Ballard. It should skirt it, like it skirts Fremont and the U-District. Then folks like me (timid bikers) can easily bike from Ballard to Fremont or Ballard to the U-District or Fremont to the U-District (even if it means biking on the sidewalk or walking the bike a couple blocks on each end).

4. Instead of FAB lanes, or BAT lanes, or whatever the “lanes de jour”, couldn’t SDOT mimic the highly successful HOT lane concept that WSDOT has already implemented on our regional freeways? Maybe call it a ”BHOT” lane for “Bus and High Occupancy Toll” lane.

   Variable tolling would allow SDOT to set tolls to maintain free flowing traffic in the lane, and the revenue raised could help fund much needed projects around the city.

   All that would be needed would be to install the pass readers, and then work out an agreement with WSDOT to join their Good-to-Go program so SDOT can use their billing infrastructure.

5. FAB lanes.
   Note the friction between transit and freight will depend on how each is using the lane; transit has to be in the outside lane to serve curbside stops; the more often transit stops, the worse the lane will work for freight. If freight wants to make deliveries, the lane would not work at all for transit. Right turns will needed and allowed for general purpose traffic and any parking; that complicates the needed signage. Has SDOT thought through these margins? Fortunately, it is a short segment. BFAT lanes?

   Routes 131 and 132
   My suggestion is that routes 131, 132, and 124 shift to 1st Avenue from 3rd Avenue. They would use the South Lander Street overcrossing and not the FAT lane segment.

   1. Yes, it is less than ideal for freight but the truck doesn’t have to use the lane. Just because trucks can use the lane doesn’t mean they can stop there (load/unload and parking are different things). As far as right turns, this really doesn’t change anything. Sometimes they are allowed, sometimes they aren’t. Note how we just added one intersection to the “not allowed” category (northbound Westlake at Denny). Yes, the signage is complicated but not as complicated as the signs that involve time limits.

      I like the idea of moving the 124, 131, 132 to 1st. That wouldn’t cost anything while providing a good level of service for First (similar to the proposed streetcar). You would have better coverage than the streetcar (as it would serve Belltown). It would not only be cheaper, but better.

   2. > My suggestion is that routes 131, 132, and 124 shift to 1st Avenue from 3rd Avenue. They would use the South Lander Street overcrossing and not the FAT lane segment.

      reading your comments below it looks like you’re suggesting starting from downtown seattle the new 131/132/124 would be on 1st avenue until lander street. Then using the lander street bridge reach 4th avenue and head south as before.

      I first thought it’d be a bit weird but actually like the idea. Most of the activity and destinations on 1st avenue are north of spokane street so this would cover most of it. and it’d still allow the bus to reach the sodo station

      1. Route 124 would use South Lander between 1st Avenue and Airport Way South. It would have the best transfer with Link. Routes 131 and 132 would use South Lander Street between 1st and 4th avenues South. I envision some non RR West Seattle routes also meeting Link via South Lander Street. The overcrossing opened in summer 2020.

   3. I’ve thought it about this some more. I’ve changed my mind. I would rather the buses (from the south) dogleg at Jackson rather than Lander. They would run by CID, which means it would connect to basically everything. East Link, Sounder, Amtrak, you name it. This means a lot more people would be able to easily connect to the buses running on First (through downtown). This makes for an ideal replacement to the streetcar on First.

      I still like the idea of service on the south part of First. I also would like to see the 21 follow the same pathway as the C Line. I would instead extend a bus from the north. A bus like the D or E could run down First until it can find a good place to layover. Ideally it would dogleg on Lander (to provide a connection to Link on both ends). You would still need HOV lanes on First.

      1. The problem with putting the D on First is it then doesn’t intersect many other routes until it gets fairly far south.

         If you could move the E or 70 to First, then it crosses a bunch of routes to get there, making it so if you’re transferring, you maybe don’t need to go as far out of your way.

6. “routes 131, 132, and 124 shift to 1st Avenue from 3rd Avenue.”

   Then I could no longer take the bus to Costco, much less carry groceries home. The nearest east-west streets crossing the railroad tracks are Spokane Street and Dawson Street. Spokane Street was ten minutes away when I was younger (a boring ten minutes in an industrial area), and closer to twenty minutes now with some pain in my hips. Ideally I’d like to walk from Link to Costco, but the nearest station is SODO, which is 1 1/2 mile away. So I usually transfer to the 131/132 at 4th & Lander (a literal last mile), or take the 131/132 to downtown and transfer. The 131/132 are annoying because of their perpetual lateness (almost always 5-15 minutes late), but I’m glad Seattle at least has a Costco in the city near frequent transit and a mostly-complete street grid and not way out in an exurb, because most cities don’t have that. Southbound I normally take the 131/132 the whole way unless I’m coming from North Seatte; northbound I usually take the 131/132 to SODO and transfer to Link to Capitol Hill, although if my things are particularly heavy or I’m particularly tired, I take the 131/132 to downtown and transfer to a bus there.

   One problem with the 131/132 is its most crowded point is between Costco and Lander — right where I’m taking it — so I sometimes can’t get a seat, and sometimes I even have to walk down the aisle with my things because the front section doesn’t have anyplace to stand. It’s especially an issue with a rolling cart: drivers don’t like them in the aisle, but sometimes the bus is so full there’s no other place for it. So I used a cart for a while but mostly don’t now. Another thing is it’s easier to get on/off Link with a full backpack and both hands full with bags than it is to get on/off a bus. I can’t avoid the 131/132, but it’s another reason I transfer to Link rather than a Pine Street bus.

   1. Costco is well south of Lander. Thus the routing would be the same through there. It wouldn’t cut over to First until it got further north. You would need to add a bus stop on Lander, between 3rd and 4th. This would make the transfer from Link to 131/132 a little bit worse, but not terrible. The bus cut also cut over to the SoDo Busway and then leave it (adding two turns each direction). Then it could use the existing stop for the 50 (which would be a better transfer than today).

      With transit on First the Pike/Pine buses should be extended to First (like the G). This would also improve the connection to buses on Third. Pine should be a two-way transit corridor (but that would require a lot more work).

      1. “Costco is well south of Lander. Thus the routing would be the same through there. ”

         But that’s the point: I take the 131/132 because Link doesn’t go south of Lander. So if they turn at Lander, that would eliminate the last-mile service.

         If they turn at Spokane Street, they’d at least be closer.

         Really you need to keep frequent service on 4th and add it on 1st, not pit them against each other. And 1st does have frequent service in the form of the 21. So why move the 131, 132, and 124?

      2. My point is that it would still be on 4th as it went by Costco. It would continue to serve this stop: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ygJw5eJZbptG6W5L9. It would only be north of Lander where it would go on First.

         The whole reason it is doglegging to First at Lander is so that it can serve First through downtown. Rather then stay on Fourth until Jackson, it moves over at Lander. You aren’t losing much coverage because the SoDo Busway is very close to Fourth.

         This would also allow the 21 to be shifted to the waterfront (like the C and H). This would mean folks from various parts of West Seattle (e. g. Avalon) could take the C or 21 (whichever comes first) either direction. The other part of First (between Spokane and Lander) would still be covered by the 50. Overall, coverage would be better, even south of Jackson.

   2. Routes 131 and 132 would serve both Costco and the South slander Link station.

      1. So they’d be on 4th north of Lander rather than south of Lander?

      2. The proposal is for routes 131 and 132 to continue to serve 4th Avenue South south of South Lander Street and to serve 1st Avenue South north of South Lander Street. They would connect Link and Costco with a walking transfer.

         Further, reliability would probably be improved if routes 131 and 132 were shifted from South Michigan Street, that often attracts I-5 related congestion; instead, they could use 1st Avenue South and South Lucille Street to/from 4th Avenue South.

7. Seattle is also lucky to have a second Costco in Shoreline at Aurora Village. I haven’t tried it since Lynnwood Link started, but before that I occasionally took the E to it. That made more sense from North Seattle than downtown, because the E takes 45 minutes from Westlake to Aurora Village. Hmm, what would Link’s travel time be?

   Link+Swift Blue to Aurora Village Costco:
   Link Westlake-Shoreline North (25 minutes) + wait for Swift Blue (10 min weekdays; 15 min Saturday; 20 min Sunday) + Swift Blue (4 min) = 30-43 minutes.

   131-132 to SODO Costco:
   131/132 3rd & Pike – Costco = 15 minutes + 5-15 minute unreliability = 20-35 minutes.

   So the Aurora Village alternative would take ten minutes longer. On the plus side, you wouldn’t have to wait at “the worst bus stop in Seattle” (sketchy people), you’d have a bench to sit at, you wouldn’t have to stand for an indeterminate amount of time until whenever the bus comes, and the bus segment would be shorter and faster. Hmm, I think I’ll try that.

   Then you could move the 131/132 to 1st, except that would screw over a lot of other people who work or go to SODO. 4th is central between 1st and Airport Way. 1st is way at the left edge. And as I said, there aren’t a lot of east-west streets crossing the railroad tracks between 1st and 4th. So 4th needs a frequent bus route in any case. And Metro would never eliminate it, especially with its equity priority now, and wanting to support jobs, and with north of Spokane Street a RapidRide 150 candidate.

   1. How many people even ride the bus to Costco. Other than the obvious case of employees who work at the store, I don’t see much use for it, given that there are other, more convenient ways to buy groceries (especially for someone who doesn’t have a car), and that anything not available at a store near you, you can order off Amazon Prime and have it delivered. When I lived without a car for 11 years, I did almost all of my grocery shopping on foot, and used the bus only in special circumstances, like if it’s on the way at the end of a trip I’m making anyway.

      I would even go so far as to argue that, if you don’t have a car, it’s not even worth the money for a Costco membership, since 1) you can’t use it on gas, and 2) whatever money you save on groceries would be insufficient to justify the hassle of going there.

      1. When I take the return bus northbound there are often 1-2 other people, sometimes 6. All are middle-aged, and many are immigrants who look like they’re buying food for their working-class families.

         I’ve been a fan of Costco ever since it opened in 1984, but nowadays I only buy certain things there. I go there for the biggest discounts on cheese, meat, certain staples (wheat thins, chocolate chips, avocado oil), underwear, folding chairs, glasses, my mom’s eyedrops/lotion/vitamins, etc. But I go elsewhere for produce and bread to get more specific kinds. Eggs I get at Trader Joe’s because the price is about the same and the size is more convenient. Toilet paper, paper towels, and distilled water for my CPAP I get at a convenience store (City Market) to shorten the walk and because the Costco bundles are too big to carry without a car.

      2. Don’t need a car to get that sweet $1.50 hot dog and soda!

      3. I probably save $10 for a small trip (less than $80), $20 for a large trip ($120), or more for a large investment (e.g., a printer or desk chair shipped to my apartment). Is $10 worth it for a $6 transit fare (but I have a monthly pass) and 40 minutes more travel/wait time compared to going to closer stores? It is for me in aggregate, though sometimes I wonder when I spend 2-3 hours and get aggravated at the 131/132. But it baits me to no end to spend $15 on 2 pounds of Tillamook cheddar cheese at another store vs $17 for 5 pounds at Costco. And some things I get not because they cost less, but because they’re a little better for the same price. Membership is $130/year at the executive level but you get 2% back at the end of the year. Usually my rebate pays for my next year’s membership and I get $10-20 cash back on top of that. This year it didn’t so I had to pay $20 for the next year.

         The convenience store is $2-3 more per item compared to a regular supermarket. That’s fine so I don’t have to carry toilet paper or a gallon of water a mile or on the bus, or if I’m just getting a couple things so I don’t have to walk all the way to a supermarket. So what I save at Costco I probably spend at the convenience store so it’s a wash. And some of the things at the convenience store are obviously from Costco, so I’m paying a few dollars not to have to carry it.

   2. I’m definitely going to try the Shoreline Costco next time. The time on Link will no longer be overhead but my foamer excuse to ride Link to Shoreline. And Swift Blue will definitely be less frustrating than the 131/132.

      1. You could also take the bus down the hill to Edmonds and do your shopping on the way back. It’s not Bellingham, but there’s some neat little shops and a short bit of waterfront that’s nice.

8. The 21 used to run on 4th but the ymoved it to 1st when rhe lander construction was doing on on. Now It reverts to the old routhing at the end of mariners matinees and Seahawks games. I’ve been wondering if it will ever revert back to the old routing. The bus stop under Edgar really is the best way to take transit to the stadiums. Rhe stadium link station isn’t really that great for that. Too bad they had to end the new lane south of royal brougham…

   1. What is old? For decades, Route 21 served 1st Avenue South. Before fall 1998, it was paired with Route 16. After fall 1998, it was paired with routes 15 and 18, along with routes 22 and 56. In spring 2011, the local routes were shifted to 3rd Avenue, as the SR-99 AWV replacement project closed 1st Avenue South. After fall 2012 and the C Line, routes 5 and 21 were paired and the latter got improved frequency, Monday through Saturday. In fall 2020, the Saturday frequency of routes 5-21 was reduced to 20-minutes. In 2020, the SR-99 deep bore opened; its time to restore service to 1st Avenue; the zombie streetcar is gone.

9. Has anyone seen trains on I-90 bridge?

   1. @Delta,

      Nope. Not a one.

      We are now approaching an additional 2 full months of delay. At this rate the Full ELE wont Be ready for the World Cup and the Eastside will be cut out of most of the economic benefit of the approx 850k visitors that are expected to descend on Seattle.

      If I was an Eastside political leader or business owner I’d be getting p*ssed right about now.

      1. Other modes cross the lake.

   2. I haven’t seen trains on the bridge, but from my view on the 550, the number of work crews on the bridge has decreased significantly over the past few weeks.

      For 2-3 weeks, I was seeing a small group of workers every morning on the edge of the bridge, each in some type of small tent structure. I have no idea if that is related to the calibration that is apparently holding things up with WSDOT, but I don’t think that I saw those workers at all this week.

      Progress isn’t where we want it to be, but progress sure seems to be happening.

      1. @Drew,

         It has been absolute crickets on the I-90 floating bridge.

         At first, immediately after the dead tow test, you’d see workers out on the bridge working on the track and installing some of the items that weren’t installed in time for Balducci’s little performative “test” for the cameras. But since then it has gone to absolute zero. Absolutely nothing. Not even a hi-railer moving down the track.

         I hope that changes, and changes soon. Because any more delay and Full ELE will be at risk for not being in service for the World Cup.

         But hey, FWLE is coming along! And FWLE will definitely be in service in time for the World Cup.

         So at least something is happening locally in transit.

10. > . As most SUVs sold today are legally “light trucks”, the “Trucks OK” part of the FAB signs could be applied to a wider range of vehicles than expected.

    I don’t think many people get confused that Trucks on signs means semi-trucks.

    There’s other ‘no truck’ signs etc…

    1. Legally speaking, pickup trucks and most SUVs are considered to be light trucks, and traffic signs are definitely not a place to encourage rules-lawyering. If someone thinks they can get away with it, they will.

       1. Considering that people have gone to court arguing that a fetus should count as a legal person for HOV lane purposes, somebody doing the same to argue that their SUV is a legal truck would not surprise me the least. Whether they’d win or not is another story.

       2. So SUV drivers on the freeway are supposed to drive 60 mph when the sign says “Cars 70, Trucks 60”? Please. Everyone knows that sign is for semitrucks. Otherwise the state patrol would be giving out tickets left and right for going 15 over.

       3. > Legally speaking, pickup trucks and most SUVs are considered to be light trucks, and traffic signs

          When people see the “no trucks” sign do they think it applies to their SUV. There’s truck only parking etc…

          regarding “legally speaking” there are multiple laws for different situations. The one you are talking about for “pickup trucks and most SUVs are considered to be light trucks” is about import taxes and environmental regulations.

          It’s actually the same debate about whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, that was about taxation. “In the United States, tomatoes are classified as vegetables for taxation purposes due to a landmark 1893 Supreme Court case. The Court ruled that, despite their botanical definition as a fruit (containing seeds).”

    2. Things get fuzzy around the 3500 series.
       For most manufacturers the standard has been
       ½Ton = 10 series (or 15)
       ¾Ton = 20 series (/25)
       1 Ton = 30 series (/35)
       Which are designated as “Light duty trucks”
       Most delivery trucks are the “Medium duty” – 4~,5~, and 6~ series.

       Along with the problem of light duty trucks getting larger all around, and almost resembling their medium duty brethren, Amazon delivery trucks are 3500 series.
       Technically a “light truck”

Comments are closed.