Santa Ana City Council
June 4, 2024

VISION ZERO PLAN
May 2024
Santa Ana
Acknowledgements
City of Santa Ana
Zdenek “Zed” Kekula, Principal Civil Engineer
Ruben Castaneda, Senior Engineer
Mauricio Castaneda, Associate Engineer
KTUA
Joe Punsalan, Principal
Tom Bertulis, Senior Associate, Project Manager
Morgen Ruby, Senior Planner, Assistant Project
Manager
Darren Jacobsen, Associate
Latino Health Access, Children
Youth Engagement (CYE)
Rosario “Charis” Galeas, CYE Outreach and
Education Program Coordinator
Adriana Alvarez, Program Associate of CYE
Nallely Enriquez, Youth Engagement Coordinator,
CYE
Lisette Martinez-Acebo, Program Director, CYE
Mark Thomas
Aaron Silva, PE. Senior Project Manager, Associate
Paul Martin, Senior Project Manager
A special thank you to our...

Stakeholder Advisory Group
• Alyssa Murakami, Caltrans
• Alyssa Ventura, City of Santa Ana Planning
• Beck Levin, Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled
• Carl Benninger, Com-Link
• Frank Bejarano, City of Santa Ana Planning
• Gabriela Laufer, SAPD
• Irene Cabanas, Willard Neighborhood Association President and SAAS volunteer
• Kristopher Fortin, SAAS
• Lauren Fuertes, KidsWork Intern and Graduate Student
• Manny Escamilla, Environmental and Transportation Advisory Commission (ETAC) Commissioner, and bus rider
• Margarita Macedonio, COSA
• Maria Ruvalcaba, KidsWork
• Megan Beard, OC Health Care Agency
• Michelle Micallef, City of Santa Ana Public Works
• Ruby Woo, Artesia Pilar Neighborhood Associatoin, President • Susie Lopez-Guerra, SAUSD

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
01 04
05 06
07 02
03 Contents

1.1 What is Vision Zero? 4

1.2 Equity-minded Strategies 6

1.3 Relationship of this Document to Existing Documents 7

1.4 Consistency Review 8

1.5 Vision Zero Strategies, Policies, and Goals to Adopt 15 Existing Conditions 20

2.1 Land Use 22

2.2 Roadway Network 22

2.3 Existing Infrastructure for People Walking, Rolling, 30 and Using Mobility Aids

2.4 Existing Infrastructure for People Biking 35

2.5 Equity and Disadvantaged Communities 35
Collision Analysis 38

3.1 Overview 40

3.2 Equity and Collision Analysis 42

3.3 Pedestrian Collisions 46

3.4 Bicycle Collisions 51

3.5 Automobile Collisions 56

3.6 Analysis of Systemic Safety Needs 61

3.7 Collision Summary 61
Community Engagement Summary 66

4.1 Overview 68

4.2 Outreach Materials 68

4.3 Outreach Events 72

4.4 Public Outreach Summary 75
Toolbox of Potential Improvements 78

5.1 Descriptions of Potential Street Improvements 80

5.2 Strategies and Performance Measures 86
Recommended Engineering Improvements 88
Appendices

6.1 Overview 90

6.2 Project Prioritization 90

6.3 Field Review of Top 20 Projects 95

6.4 Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects 96

6.5 Typical Design Details 140

6.6 Program Recommendations 144
Appendices B
Introduction 2
1 Introduction
Photo Location: Bike Trail on Bear Street at Alton Avenue 4 1.1 What is Vision Zero?
Traffic Safety in Santa Ana
The City is undergoing an update for the 2016 Safe Mobility Santa Ana (SMSA) Plan, now being called Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan (SAVZ), to evaluate mobility priorities and identify innovative transportation solutions for an all-around safer Santa Ana. This Vision Zero plan starts from and builds upon the original SMSA plan to further progress Vision Zero projects in Santa Ana to align with the City’s mission of zero traffic fatalities. Project locations from SMSA are showcased in Figure 1-1.

Due to motor vehicle collisions, there have been 40 fatalities and 149 serious injuries amongst pedestrians and bicyclists during the years 2017 to 2021. When including drivers and passengers, there have been a total of 603 killed or seriously injured roadway users in Santa Ana during this same time period. Pedestrians and bicyclists make up about nearly one third of all collisions resulting in fatalities or serious injuries. This Plan addresses these traffic-related collisions and proposes countermeasures to enhance roadway safety for all users using the FHWA’s “Safe Systems’’ approach, which has a significant focus on people walking and bicycling. This study will evaluate mobility priorities and take proactive steps to innovative transportation solutions for a safer Santa Ana.

Vision Zero Overview
This Santa Ana Vision Zero Action Plan is an initiative to eliminate traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries in Santa Ana by 2040. It is guided by “Vision Zero,” a traffic safety concept that aims to achieve a roadway system with no fatalities or serious injuries involving road traffic. The main principle of Vision Zero is that life and health cannot be exchanged for other societal benefits, such as a conventional cost-benefit analysis. In the 1990s, Sweden developed “Vision Zero” and the Netherlands concurrently developed “Sustainable Safety” (aka “Vision Zero Plus”), and the concepts have been widely embraced around the world. In the United States, the concepts were first adopted in New York City (NYC) which, mainly due to the widespread implementation of innovative, low-cost pedestrian safety measures, has seen the lowest number of pedestrian fatalities in the first year of enactment since 1910. After NYC, Vision Zero spread to dozens of cities across the country. Within the region, the Cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, El Monte and Los Angeles County have all enacted Vision Zero plans, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has made a commitment to zero deaths. Notably, the City of Hoboken, New Jersey became the first US city of its size to reach Vision Zero.

Vision Zero vs. Traditional Safety Research
Vision Zero is proactive rather than reactive. In practice, this means it is necessary to identify and remedy dangerous roadway conditions and characteristics before serious injury or fatality occurs. Recent research points to the benefits of identifying the types of roadway characteristics that lead to more pedestrian-involved collisions and recommends proactive measures to mitigate safety issues at those locations. Even when there are no known collisions at the location of, for example, the intersection of two four-lane roads, the research recommends proactively introducing safety measures at that type of location as a preemptive measure against collisions.

The 94% Myth
At the heart of the traditional approach to traffic safety is the myth that human error causes most car collisions. Individual road users, bad drivers, careless bicyclists, and distracted pedestrians have historically been presented as the problem and seen as the cause of collisions.

Unlike in Europe, which accepts that society at large is responsible for safer streets, in the United States historically, the responsibility for road safety largely falls on the person walking, bicycling, or driving, which is slowly shifting. American transportation departments, licensing agencies, and media outlets frequently cite that most collisions – “94% of them,” are solely due to human error. Blaming poor decisions of roadway users implies that nobody could have prevented these “accidents.” Even using the term “accident” versus “crash” implies an incident that is not preventable.

Many agencies in the United States focus on getting bicyclists to be “more visible” and pedestrians to be “less distracted.” Data suggests the focus should be in other places, such as re-engineering roadways.

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

INTRODUCTION
5 Figure 1-1: Safe Mobility Santa Ana (2016) Project LocationsW 1 S
T
S
T

S BRISTOL ST
W
M
C
F
A
D
D
E
N
AV

S RAITT ST

S FA RI VIEW ST

N MAIN ST
E
1 S
T
S
T
W
1 7
T
H
S
T
W
WA
R
N
E
R
AV
E
1 7
T
H
S
T

S GRAND AV
W
E
D
I
N
G
E
R
AV
S
U
N
F
L
O
W
E
R
AV

N BRISTOL ST
W
M
A
C
A
R
T
H
U
R
B
LV
D

S MAIN ST

S FLOWER ST

N GRAND AV
W
S
E
G
E
R
S
T
R
O
M
AV
E
E
D
I
N
G
E
R
AV

N BROADWAY

N FAIRVIEW ST

N FLOWER ST
E
WA
R
N
E
R
AV

S STANDARD AV

S LYON ST
W
A
LT
O
N
AV

S SUSAN ST
W
5 T
H
S
T

BEAR ST
C
I
V
I
C
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
W

HARBOR BLVD

N ROSS ST
E
D
Y
E
R
R
D
E

DINGE R AV

S EUCLID ST

N TUSTIN AV

S GREENVILLE ST
W
S
A
N
TA
C
L
A
RA
AV
FA
I
R
H
AV
E
N
AV

N NEWHOPE ST

S NEWHOPE ST

N HARBOR BLVD
E
M
C
FA
D
D
E
N
AV
W
E
S
T
M
I
N
S
T
E
R
AV
W
S
A
N
TA
A
N
A
B
LV
D

GREENVILLE ST
E
4 T
H
S
T
E
S
A
N
TA
C
L
A
R
A
AV

S HARBOR BLVD
E
F
R
U
I
T
S
T

EUCLID ST
W
WA
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
AV
W
DY
E
R
R
D

N EUCLID ST

PENN WY
E
M
E

M ORY LN
W
4 T
H
S
T
E
C
H
E
S
T
N
U
T
AV

MAIN ST
E
D
I
N
G
E
R
AV
N

BRISTOL
ST
W
5 T
H
S
T

N TUSTIN AV

S MAIN ST
E
4 T
H
S
T
SantaAnaBoundary
2016SafeMobility
SantaAnaProject
Locations
[

00.250.51Miles
6 A 2019 research study by the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) entitled “Distraction Shouldn’t be Deadly” found that “cell phone use by pedestrians does not appear to be disproportionately contributing to fatal pedestrian crashes,” and that “despite growing concerns, NYCDOT found little concrete evidence that device-induced distracted walking contributes significantly to pedestrian fatalities and injuries.”
Consequently, traffic safety solutions have too often focused on perfecting human behaviors through strategies like licensing, testing, road user education, and media campaigns. But in the Vision Zero framework, the road safety problem isn’t the individual but rather the flaws in the transportation system. Those flaws mean, for example, that distracted drivers in cars and road users have to share the road in unsafe conditions.

Systemic Safety and the FHWA
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has taken a leading role in implementing Vision Zero or “Systemic Safety.” They promote taking a “Safe System approach to road safety” – a holistic view that requires people to think about the road system in its entirety, from infrastructure projects to government agencies. This refers to understanding how the whole system operates, including “upstream factors” such as design guidelines, public participation, policy, and vehicle regulations, and how all influence transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries. Safe Systems focus on the most vulnerable road users, which are people walking and biking, and utilizes effective, low cost measures that can be systematically implemented citywide. One of the ways cities are implementing this is by creating steering committees and task forces with representation from all the different agencies involved.

Proposal for a New Traffic Safety Framework
In 2023, authors David Ederer, Rachael Thompson Panik, Nisha Botchwey, and Kari Watkins wrote a paper called “The Safe Systems Pyramid: A new framework for traffic safety.” The paper moves away from the “6 Es of traffic safety,” citing what they call the “false equivalence of education and engineering.” They postulate that although education measures are effective, they are not as effective as widespread engineering measures in reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries.

They also stress the importance of policies and programs that focus on public health, land use, and above all, equity. The paper could be called “Energy and Equity” due to its focus on what they call “energy,” from energy amounts in size of vehicles to energy in types of vehicles, explaining that “there is less latent energy in a bicycle than a car.” This Plan will do its best to make recommendations in line with the thesis of the paper.

1.2 Equity-minded Strategies
This Plan intends to mobilize disadvantaged and underrepresented groups in order to implement policies and programs to create a better active transportation network to serve these populations. This is particularly important in Santa Ana, where 55 percent of the population do not have access to a vehicle and 37% of census tracts are considered disadvantaged per Senate Bill 535. Throughout the community outreach process, community members shared a variety of recommendations and concerns related to ensuring that the planning process was done in an equitable manner. These recommendations were organized into the following five categories:

1. Focus on street improvements that make the streets safer for our most vulnerable residents, such as children and senior citizens. (i.e., accessibility, mobility, and permeability)

2. Have a formula to prioritize which streets or areas to improve first (e.g., based on need, high number of collisions, excessively large street widths)

3. Have standard guidelines to proactively prevent and mitigate displacement that may result from transportation projects (i.e., housing development and affordability and street widening)

4. Focus on more education and less enforcement strategies to encourage improved behaviors (i.e., public safety)

5. Assess the impacts of Vision Zero infrastructure improvements on the surrounding community and prioritize projects that provide the most benefit. Priority was given to promote a wider range of mo-

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

INTRODUCTION
7 bility choices for those Santa Ana residents who have few, if any, choices. These options would allow the community to recognize what would best establish a transportation system from one that is focused around the use of motor vehicles to one that meets the needs of all users. The goals for this plan are to facilitate social and economic opportunities by providing equitable levels of access to affordable and reliable transportation options based on the needs of the populations being served, particularly populations that are traditionally underserved and underrepresented.

Chapter 4 documents the extensive, equitable community engagement process that the Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan underwent in more detail.

1.3 Relationship of this Document to
Existing Documents
The SAVZ Plan incorporates regional and local planning efforts that are directly related to walking, bicycling, and vehicle travel. These efforts range from long-range regional planning to specific plans. The following information summarizes the planning documents that were evaluated.

Santa Ana General Plan
The Santa Ana General Plan is the primary citywide comprehensive plan that guides future growth and was reviewed as part of the SAVZ Plan to ensure consistency between the report recommendations. The General Plan contains goals and objectives to guide decisions and preserve the quality of life within the City of Santa Ana. The Circulation, Growth Management, Open Space, Scenic Corridors, and Urban Design Elements contain goals and objectives that contribute to the success of this SAVZ Plan.

Santa Ana Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan is a targeted plan, developed through a partnership between the community, elected officials and City staff. The Plan is intended as a means to implement the City’s mission, “To deliver efficient public services in partnership with our community which ensures public safety, a prosperous economic environment, opportunities for our youth, and a high quality of life for residents.” The SAVZ Plan aligns with the public safety and quality of life aspirations of the Strategic Plan.

Safe Mobility Santa Ana Plan
The Safe Mobility Santa Ana (SMSA) plan, the precursor to the SAVZ Plan, identified specific hotspot locations in Santa Ana, using a detailed collision analysis. This plan uses best practices and citywide trends in traffic safety to propose solutions that will make the Santa Ana road network safer for all users. The recommendations of this plan recognize the need to balance the many objectives of the local transport system, including travel time reliability, safety, and meeting the mobility needs of a variety of roadway users. The SAVZ Plan will build upon solutions, goals and objectives from the SMSA plan by providing detailed recommendations of countermeasures and which locations they should be implemented, including CAD drawings that can be submitted in grant applications.

Downtown Santa Ana Complete Streets
The Downtown Santa Ana Complete Streets Plan is intended to improve access and mobility for all modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, transit, and motor vehicles within and around the downtown area. Through an extensive and inclusive public engagement process, stakeholder collaboration and community workshops, five priority corridors were identified, designed which the City has already begun implementing. The SAVZ Plan report started with these priority corridors as potential corridors for inspiration for detailed site layouts and builds upon them.

Central Santa Ana Complete Streets
The Central Santa Ana Complete Streets Plan was developed to provide the City of Santa Ana a guide to establish a network of Complete Streets to improve bicycling and walking throughout central Santa Ana.

This plan analyzes the connections between the selected corridors and other existing or planned Complete Streets corridors to create a 8 connected network. The goal is to improve access and mobility for all modes including: walking, bicycling, transit and motor vehicles. Priority corridors were identified for improvement and this SAVZ Plan started with the identified corridors as selected locations for more detailed site layouts and project scope definition. The City has begun final engineering design and implementation of several corridors in this Plan such as separated bikeways and protected intersections on Standard Avenue and Willits/ Bishop Street Bicycle Boulevard.

Safe Routes to School Plan
The Santa Ana Safe Routes to School Plan involves an extensive and inclusive community engagement process, identification and prioritization of school infrastructure improvements, and the development of programs and strategies to better educate and encourage students to walk and bike to school. The result is a comprehensive “6 E’s” plan that will lead to improved safety and mobility for all Santa Ana residents, especially the community’s students and youth, through engineering, education, encouragement, and enforcement recommendations. Priority corridors and routes identified in the Safe Routes study were included in the list of priority projects that would include detailed site layouts and project scope definition. Typically the SRTS plan focuses on residential streets near schools while the Vision Zero plan focuses on the large roads where all the fatalities and serious injuries are occurring.

Santa Ana Active Transportation Plan
The Santa Ana Active Transportation Plan provided recommendations for safer, more walkable streets for pedestrians and bicyclists through implementation of non-motorized travel infrastructure. These recommendations are based on a thorough inventory of existing infrastructure and network deficiencies. Thirty-five priority projects were selected to create a network of complete streets that will improve non-motorized travel. The recommendations present a design concept, show cost estimates, and share various characteristics along each corridor that needs to be improved so the plans complement each other with minimum overlap which the SAVZ Plan builds upon.

1.4 Consistency Review
A review of several regional planning documents was completed to make sure previous efforts were built upon and conditions better understood.

In support of the Santa Ana Vision Zero document and its proposed project solutions, Local, Regional, and State Planning documents were reviewed for policy consistency and guidance. Documents reviewed include plans and studies by local Orange County agencies, the County of Orange, the Orange County Fire Authority, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and Caltrans.

The following Vision Zero concepts were considered in the development of the Santa Ana Vision Zero plan:
• Implementation of “neighborways”/calm street network
• Implementation of safety interventions citywide/systemically • Pedestrian-focused engineering countermeasures to reduce vehicle versus pedestrian collisions
• Bicyclist-focused engineering countermeasures to reduce vehicle versus bicycle collisions
• Truck aprons on large curb returns that lead to excessively high speed turns
• Curb refuge islands (CRIs) and rubber turning humps to slow turns • Speed humps and traffic calming to reduce speed
• Roundabouts and traffic calming circles
• Senior zones for increased safety
• Pedestrian signals, lighting, high-visibility crosswalks • Lane re-allocation/road buffet/road diet
The following section discusses the relevant documents and resources identified for the reviewed agency as they relate to Vision Zero concepts and goals. The sourced materials are organized alphabetically starting with local jurisdictions, then regional/state agencies, and then climate action plans.

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

INTRODUCTION
9 City of Costa Mesa
General Plan 2015-2035
Circulation Element
The General Plan Circulation Element emphasizes the importance of complete streets, development of safety programs, and implementation of enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities as mechanisms for reducing collisions and fatalities, as well as increasing the bicycle and pedestrian mode share. The document identifies policies that encourage and accommodate all roadway users, consistent with Vision Zero.

Housing Element
The General Plan Housing Element discusses sustainable development aligned with transportation opportunities as a means of reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.

Active Transportation Plan 2018
The 2018 Active Transportation Plan provides countermeasures to improve safety for bicycle and pedestrian modes that are consistent with Vision Zero goals. The document also identifies bicycle education programs and a Bicycle Safety Guide for improved comfort and confidence navigating the bicycle network appropriately.

Complete Streets Safety Assessment 2021
The Costa Mesa Complete Streets Safety Assessment was conducted by the University of California Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) to study the complete streets conditions at various study locations within the City of Costa Mesa. This assessment identified safety countermeasures with an aim to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, walkability, and accessibility, consistent with Vision Zero goals.

Local Road Safety Plan 2022
The Costa Mesa Local Road Safety Plan identifies a framework to identify, analyze, and develop transportation safety enhancements on the City’s roadway network. The plan vision stated in the document is to enhance the transportation network to achieve zero traffic fatalities and serious injury related collisions, consistent with Vision Zero goals.

Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Education Program
The Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Education Program has identified goals to provide bicycle safety education, encourage safe bicycling habits, and create safer, calmer streets and neighborhoods. The program includes the development of a safety curriculum for youth, bicycle rodeos, and other training materials that are all consistent with Vision Zero goals.

Pedestrian Safety Tips Webpage
The City of Costa Mesa provides a webpage on Pedestrian Safety Tips for safely navigating the roadway network that aligns with Vision Zero goals. This webpage focuses on safe habits and procedures for crossing streets, as well as improving self-awareness and visibility.

City of Fountain Valley
General Plan
Circulation Element
The draft updated General Plan includes a Mobility Element with Goal CM-2 seeking: “A comprehensive and multimodal network of streets, bikeways, and pedestrian areas that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods while minimizing vehicle miles traveled.” Housing Element 2022
The Housing Element references bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements to shift transportation from vehicular modes per the following:
• Single room occupancy residential projects must provide one secure bicycle stall for each 3 units, to help encourage active transportation options.
• Various references to zero net energy homes to help address climate change. • Site improvements section quote: “Though most of the City is cur- 10 rently served by adequate roadways and sidewalks, improvements for access or internal navigation may be necessary.”
• Auxiliary dwelling units are noted as a strategy to increase density in single family neighborhoods to increase transit feasibility to ideally reduce private vehicle use.
• Access to transit: “Access to public transit is best in the low and moderate resource areas, both for local service and access to regional transit hubs.”
Fountain Valley Crossing Spec Plan (FVCSP) Webpage FAQ
The FVCSP is a city effort to rezone an industrial area to also allow commercial, office, and limited residential by existing 200 business owners. It aims to revitalize an older industrial area with more retail activities, dining, shopping, farmers market, and diverse housing options.

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was part of the study with greenhouse gas (GHG) as one of the topics. Based on information in the EIR, the project might support Vision Zero concepts by encouraging mixeduse development and improved walkability.

Fountain Valley Crossing Specific Plan Project (FVCSP) EIR GHG The FVCSP includes the following measures: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures and bicycle and pedestrian facilities and amenities to encourage non-motorized transportation. “The Project’s diverse mix of uses would help promote a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG emissions” and “would provide residential and commercial uses in walking distance to proposed recreational uses, entertainment, and commercial retail, which would result in reduced VMT, as compared to a project of similar size and land uses at a more suburban location”.

City of Garden Grove
The Garden Grove Active Streets Master Plan 2018
The Garden Grove Active Streets Master Plan is supportive of bicycle and pedestrian improvements that align with Vision Zero goals of reducing collisions and injuries. The proposed bicycle network plans numerous bicycle improvements and facilities which include shareduse paths, bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes, separated bikeways, bicycle routes, neighborhood greenways, and bicycle parking. Pedestrian improvements included in the Garden Grove Active Streets Master Plan include the following:
• Crossings and intersections, ramps, enhanced crosswalks, curb extensions, median refuge, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB).
• Traffic signals and warning beacons.
• Sidewalks-separate from traffic by landscaped park strips and/or parking, accessible, continuity, shade trees, etc.
• Intersections - pedestrian friendly, area to congregate, accessible, design for safety comfort, minimize pedestrian crossing distance, lighting, transit stops.

Garden Grove General Plan 2030
Circulation Element 2030
The Circulation Element does not specifically reference Vision Zero but references accommodating OCTA corridors that include Vision Zero focused improvements and offers countermeasures that align with Vision Zero under Neighborhood Traffic Management. Funding constraints are cited as challenges to implementing proposed bikeway projects included in the plan, but the following Circulation Element goals are supportive of Vision Zero concepts.
• Goal 3 to minimize vehicle intrusions into neighborhoods “1) expanding parkways to reduce the roadway width, 2) limiting the number of ingress/egress locations on-site, 3) traffic circles, 4) diverters, or speed humps, 5) curb extensions, 6) entrance treatments, or other effective traffic management techniques that reduce or eliminate the traffic intrusion…”
• Goal 4 “...reduce vehicle miles traveled… by approving mixed use developments…”
• Goal 5 “Increased awareness and use of alternate forms of transportation generated in, and traveling through the City of Garden Grove.” • Goal 6 “A safe, appealing, and comprehensive bicycle network….” - “encourage PWD to consider bikeways in their prioritization of re-paving…” - “...amend zoning …traffic generators to include bikeway facilities.” - “...incentives to developers who incorporate bikeways….” - “...Safe Routes to schools..” - “...pursue grants for bike facilities…”

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

INTRODUCTION
11 Housing Element 2014-2021
The Housing Element does not specifically address Vision Zero but site improvements sections list bikeways, walkways, and equestrian trails as typical requirements for development. The energy conservation opportunities section notes sidewalks and bike racks to encourage walking and biking supporting the Air Quality element to reduce vehicle trips.

Safety Element 2030
The Safety Element does not specifically mention Vision Zero but supports mixed-use and transit-oriented development to increase walking, bicycling, and transit use.

Garden Grove Accident Reduction Team (ART)
The ART supports Vision Zero by educating commuters on existing law and how to safely share the road with bicyclists and pedestrians.

The ART also provides education specific to bicyclists and pedestrians. Funding for the team is provided by the California Office of Traffic Safety.

Garden Grove Open Streets
The City has hosted multiple RE: Imagine Garden Grove Open Streets events, with the most recent occurring in April 2022. Per the City: “The Open Streets event is part of the City’s continuing efforts to highlight Garden Grove’s Downtown, while promoting the Re: Imagine Garden Grove mission of bringing more art to the community, creating more walkable areas of the city, and encouraging people to live a healthier, more connected life.”
City of Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach Bike Plan 2013
The Huntington Beach Bike Plan supplements an extensive existing bike lane network and supports new bicycle projects which align with Vision Zero concepts of improving safety through increased separation between bicyclists and vehicles.

City of Huntington Beach General Plan 2017
Circulation Element
Huntington Beach has developed a majority of its streets according to the Complete Streets approach.

City of Huntington Beach Capital Infrastructure Projects (CIP) Tables 2019-2023 Huntington CIP projects include a safe pedestrian walkway with sidewalks and curb ramps suggesting support for Vision Zero concepts of pedestrian-vehicle separation for improved safety.

City of Huntington Beach Webpage 2023
The City of Huntington Beach Webpage provides guidance on what context pedestrian enhancements like flashing beacons, marked crosswalks, and pedestrian signal heads are provided.

HB In Motion
The City of Huntington Beach is currently preparing the HB In Motion study, focused on enhanced access and mobility. The study focuses on the portion of the Beach Path the City is responsible for, as well as the citywide bicycle and pedestrian networks.

City of Irvine
City of Irvine General Plan 2015
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element language provides language supportive of Vision Zero concepts of separating bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicle modes to reduce collisions and injuries. The following objectives reflect support for Vision Zero concepts:
• “Plan, provide and maintain a comprehensive bicycle trail network that together with the regional trail system, encourages increased use of bicycle trails for commuters and recreational purposes.” • “Bike trip destinations…provide showers and bike racks. • “…traffic signal phasing for bike crossing…”
12 • “...grade separated crossing for class 1 bikeways at major ….” • “...increase public awareness of bike safety…”
• “Plan, develop and maintain a riding and hiking trail network and support facilities to satisfy the needs of riders and hikers.” • “Work with Orange County Transportation Authority to implement a public transit system for trips within the City and adjacent areas.

City of Irvine Active Transportation Plan 2015
The 2015 Irvine Active Transportation Plan provides countermeasures to improve safety for bicycle and pedestrian modes that are consistent with Vision Zero goals.

City of Irvine Strategic Active Transportation Plan 2020 The 2020 Irvine Strategic Active Transportation Plan (ISATP) provides extensive bicycle and pedestrian improvements to make walking and biking safer and reduce collisions and injuries consistent with Vision Zero goals.

City of Irvine Bikeways Map
The Irvine Bikeways Map shows an extensive bicycle network with a large quantity of separated bikeways which suggests support for separating bicycle and pedestrian modes from vehicles to reduce collisions and injuries.

Irvine Webpage - Biking
The Irvine Webpage for biking suggests support for Vision Zero, with the site stating, “the pedestrian and bicycle networks form the foundation for multi-modal transportation” and that plans include grade separating bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicles to reduce collisions and injuries.

Irvine Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
The City of Irvine kicked off the development of its first Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) in June 2021. By setting ambitious but achievable emissions reduction targets and laying out thoughtfully planned greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and climate adaptation measures, the CAAP will lay a pathway to achieving the City’s climate goals. The study is under preparation and draft actions include the following:
• Expand bicycling and walking options through infrastructure improvements. • Increase transit ridership through the enhancement and expansion of connected transit lines.

City of Orange
City of Orange 2010 General Plan
General Plan Vision
The General Plan Vision offers a vision statement that aligns with Vision Zero goals; “Residential areas ... balanced, multimodal circulation network that accommodates vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, hikers, and equestrians. This network will create additional opportunities for walking and biking, enhancing circulation safety,…”
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element has numerous references to safe multimodal connections, including bike and pedestrian modes, with cross sections showing bike lanes and separated paths which suggest support for the Vision Zero goal of reductions in roadway collisions and injuries.

Infrastructure Element
The Infrastructure Element does not directly reference Vision Zero topics but supports implementation of bike lanes and sidewalks.

Urban Design Element
The Urban Design Element does not directly reference Vision Zero topics but encourages bike facilities and sidewalks. The General Plan states the City will provide safe multi-modal routes to walk, bike, and drive; “City will update the Zoning Code to encourage features that buffer street activity and pedestrians from automobile traffic by providing both distance and substantial landscaping. Within mixed-use areas and other commercial districts, the City will employ pedestrian-friendly amenities such as enhanced crosswalk areas, lighting, benches, and trash receptacles to create a safer, more inviting, and more walkable environment.”

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

INTRODUCTION
13 Santiago Creek Vision Plan 2018
Prepared by a local community based organization named the Greenway Alliance, the Santiago Creek Vision Plan supports a separated bike and walking trail system which may support Vision Zero goals and concepts.

City of Tustin
City of Tustin General Plan 2018
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element states support for providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and separating them when possible to reduce collisions and injuries. Goal 6 of the Circulation Element supports increasing transit facilities, curb ramps, bike lanes, and separated paths which are also supportive of Vision Zero.

Housing Element 2021-2029
While not explicitly discussing Vision Zero concepts, the Housing Element’s Environmental Sensitivity Goal 5 - Sustainable Development states to “prioritize sustainable housing... in proximity to services and employment centers thereby enabling the use of public transit, walking or bicycling and promoting an active lifestyle.”
Downtown Specific Plan 2018
The City of Tustin Downtown Specific Plan provides language supportive of Vision Zero concepts per the following:
• “Vision for downtown…..Promoting pedestrian-oriented commercial first floor development ...expand walkability; Transforming streets... pedestrian and bicycle-oriented improvements ...high-quality integrated residential mixed ...multi-family development.” • “Bike improvements…new bike lanes downtown...sharrows on various other roads… bike racks throughout downtown and transit stops.” • “Off-road bicycle lane (Class 1) integrated with the sidewalk…” • “Balance auto-centric nature with increased pedestrian and bicycle amenities on Main Street”.
• “Create “complete streets” …pedestrians and bicyclists greater emphasis and vehicles less dominance.“ • “Reduced vehicular lanes, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, onstreet parallel and diagonal parking, pedestrian bulb-outs, enhanced pedestrian crossings, and landscaping to visually support the roadway transformation.” • ”...Pedestrian friendly corridor by reducing...traffic lanes...widths...onstreet buffered bicycle lanes, diagonal parking...wider sidewalks.” • “...Create public gathering areas adjacent to the sidewalk…seating areas….”
• Various Pedestrian improvements: Widened Sidewalks- Decorative Sidewalk Paving- Decorative Crosswalks- Bulb-Outs- Crosswalk Enhanced Paving- Pedestrian Gathering Areas Increasing Sidewalk Widths- Accessible Pedestrian Signals- Flashing Light Crosswalks.

County of Orange
OC Council of Governments - Complete Streets Handbook 2016 The Complete Streets Handbook envisions transforming Orange County streets into a Complete Streets network and supports separation of bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicles to reduce collisions and injuries.

County of Orange Active Transportation Plan
The County is currently preparing an Active Transportation Plan encompassing the unincorporated areas and flood channels throughout Orange County.

Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
Fire Master Plans for Commercial & Residential Development OCFA’s Fire Master Plan suggests support of Vision Zero concepts by providing guidance on roadway design standards to ensure Orange County’s roadways can support the access and mobility of emergency service vehicles. These standards consider design elements such as curb-to-curb widths and the placement and accessibility of fire hydrants to improve emergency response times and efficiency. 14 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
Districts 1 & 2 Bikeways Strategy 2013
The Districts 1 & 2 Bikeways Strategy advances bicycle facility and pedestrian network planning within Orange County to reduce bicyclist and pedestrian visions and support Vision Zero. The document encourages the development of off-street multi-use paths and barrier-separated facilities to reduce conflicts between bikes and vehicular traffic to improve user comfort and reduce collisions.

OC Foothills Bikeways Strategy 2016
The OC Foothills Bikeways Strategy advances bicycle facility and pedestrian network planning within Orange County to reduce bicyclist and pedestrian visions and supports Vision Zero. The document encourages the development of off-street multi-use paths and barrier-separated facilities to reduce conflicts between bikes and vehicular traffic to improve user comfort and reduce collisions.

OCTA’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) 2017
The OCTA MPAH has some language supporting Vision Zero topics, specifically regarding coordination with local agencies on safety efforts to balance regional travel demand with addressing the needs of all users of the roadway.

OCTA Long Range Transportation Plan 2022
The OCTA Long Range Transportation Plan has some language supporting Vision Zero topics including education and mentions reducing bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions.

OC Active 2019
The OC Active Plan advances bicycle facility and pedestrian network planning within Orange County to reduce bicyclist and pedestrian visions and supports Vision Zero.

South OC Multimodal Transportation Study 2022
The South OCTA Multimodal Transportation Study has few specific references to Vision Zero related concepts but mentions the OC Loops project for bicycle modes.

OCTA Mobility Hubs Study 2022
The OCTA Mobility Hub Study focuses on multi-modal vehicle lots connecting to transit services and references the OC Complete Street Handbook which supports bicycle and pedestrian separation from vehicles to reduce collisions and injuries.

OC Loops Gap Feasibility Study 2023
The OC Loops project expands the original OC Loop to additional loops and a diagonal connector that serves all of Orange County. The bikeway feasibility study prioritizes the 8 to 80 audience through enhanced bikeways that separate cyclists from moving traffic where possible.

Safe Transportation Education Program (STEP)
OCTA has secured grant funding to administer STEP, which provides approximately twenty-five schools in Orange County with free resources, activities, and events to encourage families to walk and roll to school safely and more often. Additional funding has been secured for future expansion of the program. STEP is a partnership project between OCTA and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), and is funded by a Caltrans Active Transportation Program grant.

Safe Routes to School Action Plan
OCTA and OCHCA are leading the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Action Plan that serves every school and school district with a series of steps to advance more SRTS improvements and activities. The study is under preparation and aligns with Vision Zero goals of improving safety for youth traveling through active transportation means.

Bus Stop Accessibility and Safety Plan
Using funding provided by the Southern California Association of Governments, OCTA will lead a study that will evaluate the busiest 41 bus stops in Orange County for pedestrian access and safety. The majority of the study locations are within the City of Santa Ana along Harbor Boulevard, Main Street, and 17th Street. The study will support Vision Zero goals of improving safety for people walking to access transit.

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

INTRODUCTION
15 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Connect SoCal, 2020
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan, titled, Connect SoCal, has a vision to locate housing, jobs, and transit closer together; increase investment in transit and complete streets; and increase mobility options to achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Relevant policies, practices, and programs include reducing vehicle miles traveled through transportation demand management, focusing growth near destinations and mobility options and promoting livable corridors, and setting metrics to track reductions in fatalities and serious injuries. To achieve regional safety targets, SCAG developed a High Injury Network (HIN) mapping tool, provides safety education campaigns, and advocates for funding strategies.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Toward an Active California 2017
Toward an Active California is the State Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan adopted by Caltrans to support bicycle and pedestrian mobility with clear objectives, strategies, and actions. Consistent with Vision Zero goals, safety is identified as a key component of the plan with strategies including the further development of safer streets and crossings, safety education, data, and enforcement.

Caltrans District 12 Active Transportation (CAT) Plan 2022 The District 12 CAT Plan identifies pedestrian and bicycle needs across the state highway system in Orange County. Consistent with Vision Zero goals, the document identifies the types of facilities needed and a prioritization of those needs based on a number of factors, including collision history.

Freeway Ramp Active Mobility Enhancement Study
Caltrans District 12 is evaluating ten of the highest need interchanges within Orange County based on the District 12 CAT Plan to develop concept level plans for improved safety and mobility for people walking and cycling. The study is underway and includes three interchanges within the City of Santa Ana, and is planning to align with Vision Zero goals of enhanced separation between vulnerable road users and motorist traffic.

1.5 Vision Zero Strategies, Policies, and
Goals to Adopt
Policies to Adopt
The City of Santa Ana has already established several policies related to achieving zero fatalities and improving the way residents travel within the City. From the 2022 General Plan’s Mobility Element, the following policies provide guidance for this Vision Zero Plan and future complete street projects.
• Policy M-1.1 Safety: Achieve zero fatalities from traffic collisions through education, enforcement, and infrastructure design. • Policy M-1.2 Balanced Multimodal Network: Provide a balanced and equitable multimodal circulation network that reflects current and changing needs.
• Policy M-1.9 Regional Consistency: Ensure the street network is consistent with standards set in the OCTA Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the Congestion Management Program. • Policy M-1.10 Intergovernmental Coordination: Collaborate with federal, state, SCAG, OCTA, rail authorities, and other agencies to fund and improve the regional transportation system.
• Policy M-3.1 Non-motorized Travelway Network: Expand and maintain a citywide network of non-motorized travelways within both the public and private realms that create linkages between neighborhoods, recreational amenities, schools, employment centers, neighborhood serving commercial, and activity centers.
• Policy M-3.2 Non-motorized Travelway Amenities: Enhance non-motorized travelways with amenities such as landscaping, shade trees, lighting, benches, crosswalks, rest stops, bicycle parking, and support facilities that promote a pleasant and safe experience. • Policy M-3.5 Education And Encouragement: Encourage active transportation choices through education, special events, and programs. • Policy M-3.7 Complete Streets Design: Enhance streets to facilitate 16 safe walking, bicycling, and other non-motorized forms of transportation through community participatory design. • Policy M-3.9 Neighborhood Traffic: Develop innovative strategies to calm neighborhood traffic, increase safety, and eliminate collisions, while also maintaining access for emergency response.
• Policy M-5.1 Enhanced Street Design: Improve the beauty, character, and function of travelways with amenities such as landscaped parkways and medians, bike lanes, public art, and other amenities. • Policy M-5.5 Street Design: Design and retrofit streets based on their combined land use context and road function to achieve safety objectives. • Policy M-5.8 Traffic Safety: Prioritize the safety of all travelway users when designing transportation improvement and rehabilitation projects.

Strategies to Adopt
It is the recommendation of this plan, aside from the aforementioned policies, that the City of Santa Ana also focus on the following strategies and concepts:
• Identification of roadways with motorist speeding behaviors. Add automated enforcement of speeding at problematic locations • Identification of roadways with motorist red light running behaviors.

Add automated enforcement of red light running at problematic intersections • Implementation of safety interventions citywide/systemically • Pedestrian-focused engineering countermeasures to reduce vehicle versus pedestrian collisions
• Bicyclist-focused engineering countermeasures to reduce vehicle versus bicycle collisions
• Left turn tight radius, bulb-outs, Leading Pedestrian Interval signal timing
• Pedestrian refuge curb/bollards to slow left turns
• Turn calming
• Speed humps to reduce speed
• Roundabouts and traffic circles
• Senior zones for increased safety
• Pedestrian signals, lighting, crosswalks
• Lane re-allocation/road buffets/road diets
• Adding continuous sidewalks or speed humps at driveways to mitigate conflicts from vehicles turning on and off of driveways • Adding hardened centerlines, both including tubular markers along centerlines and small rubber humps in front of crosswalks to enforce, through design, slower left turn movements and reduce pedestrian exposure to turning traffic
Hardened Centerlines, Source: Seattle Department of Transportation • Adding “Intersection Daylighting” systematically across the City of Santa Ana. Daylighting is the simple concept that safety is improved by removing parked cars within 20 feet of crosswalks. By keeping the area next to crosswalks clear of parked vehicle obstructions, people walking and people driving/biking on the street can see each other better, thereby significantly increasing safety in a cost-effective manner. Because only paint and tubular markers are involved in tactical urbanism forms of daylighting, it is considered highly cost effective and a “tried-and-tested” way to increase safety in cities. The newly published December 2023 edition of the MUTCD has, for the first time, a section sanctioning Daylight of intersection using just paint and tubular markers. It is the recommendation of this Plan that the City of Santa Ana utilize the MUTCD to use tactical urbanism to channelize intersections city-wide where daylighting is feasible.

As seen in the Consistency Review from Section 1.4, multiple agencies within Orange County adjacent or overlapping with the City of Santa Ana have also advanced Vision Zero goals and actions. This literature review illustrates the depth of actions and additional potential ideas for consideration in the City of Santa Ana

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

INTRODUCTION
17 The consistency review earlier in this chapter reviewed strategies and policies from around the region, with many standing out as good practice. Garden Grove’s Circulation Element is prominent as another best practice. The Circulation Element itself does not specifically reference Vision Zero but includes Vision Zero-focused improvements and offers countermeasures that align with successful Vision Zero strategies and policies. This Plan recommends reviewing those strategies and policies for future consideration.

Namely, under Neighborhood Traffic Management, the following policies are supportive of Vision Zero concepts:
• Policy 3 to minimize vehicle intrusions into neighborhoods “1) expanding parkways to reduce the roadway width, 2) limiting the number of ingress/egress locations on-site, 3) traffic circles, 4) diverters, or speed humps, 5) curb extensions, 6) entrance treatments, or other effective traffic management techniques that reduce or eliminate the traffic intrusion…”
• Policy 4 “...reduce vehicle miles traveled… by approving mixed use developments…”
• Policy 5 “Increased awareness and use of alternate forms of transportation generated in, and traveling through the City of Garden Grove.” • Policy 6 “A safe, appealing, and comprehensive bicycle network….” - “encourage PWD to consider bikeways in their prioritization of re-paving…” - “...amend zoning …traffic generators to include bikeway facilities.” - “...incentives to developers who incorporate bikeways….” - “...Safe Routes to schools..” - “...pursue grants for bike facilities…” • In particular, the “Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035 Policies and Programs” are to be highlighted as an example of best practice for use in Santa Ana. Those policies and programs can be found in Appendix A.

Goals to Adopt
The goals of Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan are derived from the original Safe Mobility Santa Ana Plan to:
• Substantially increase safe mobility in all areas of the City • Achieve zero fatal bicycle and pedestrian collisions
• Reduce vehicle speeds
• Minimize demonstrated collision patterns
The Plan’s objectives include:
• Reduce collisions citywide, while focusing capital investments at high collision locations.
• Recommend solutions to evolve the roadway network so people can make transportation decisions and unanticipated mistakes without risk of severe injury or death .
• Reject severe and fatal injuries as a necessary by-product of multimodal transportation. • Prioritize traffic safety over congestion management, accepting that improving safety for all roadway users will in some cases result in unavoidable delay.
• Suggest infrastructure improvements that reduce speeds and separate vulnerable roadway users from moving traffic.

Next Steps
• Pursue implementation of Safe Routes to School (SRST) plan. • Develop and implement Safe Routes to Parks (SRTP) plan. • Pursue development and implementation of Citywide Street Light Master Plan.
• Monitor laws to pursue opportunities to legally reduce the posted speed limits.
18 Let’s embrace our City of Santa Ana, where
bikes and pedestrians flow, hand in hand,
and side by side. From busy intersections
to tranquil lanes, let’s share the road with
empathy and refrain. Zero deaths is our
mission for pedestrians, bike riders, and all
road users. Together, we can build a future
where safety reigns, where every traveler’s
life is cherished and sustained.

Mauricio Castaneda
Associate Engineer
City of Santa Ana
Photo Location: Civic Center Drive near the County Administration building

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

INTRODUCTION
19 This page is intentionally left blank.
2 Existing
Conditions
Photo Location: Santa Ana High School
22 In order to make recommendations to change the built environment in Santa Ana, a clear picture of current conditions must be painted.

This chapter attempts to describe the existing conditions in the City of Santa Ana, with subsequent chapters describing the analysis, countermeasures, and recommendations that the City of Santa Ana needs to reach Vision Zero.

2.1 Land Use
Figure 2-1 showcases the existing land use pattern in Santa Ana is dominated with single-family residential development interspersed with pockets of low-medium and multi-family residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial. Commercial, professional, and administration offices are primarily along major thoroughfares like Tustin Avenue and Grand Avenue. Activity areas are located in places such as Downtown and areas designated as District Centers in large land use blocks that are distributed along the perimeter of the city as well as the core area of central Santa Ana near the City Hall. Urban neighborhoods are usually near these activity centers east of downtown, along Harbor Boulevard, Bristol Street, and Main Street. Open space is scattered throughout most of the City, but a large dedicated area is provided around Santa Ana River running north-south near the east edge of the city.

Commercial and office activity centers are mostly concentrated along major and secondary arterials including Bristol Street, Main Street, Harbor Boulevard, 1st Street, 17th Street, and Tustin Avenue. Public sites, such as schools and parks, are more evenly distributed throughout Santa Ana.

2.2 Roadway Network
The City of Santa Ana maintains over 400 centerline miles of streets.

The streets in Santa Ana are classified into six different categories, which is consistent with OCTA’s Master Plan of Streets and Highways.

The street network consists of principal arterials, major arterials, primary and secondary arterials, collectors, divided collectors, and local streets. Most of these streets are not interrupted by the railroad corridors and highways that traverse and surround the City. The minor streets primarily service the residential neighborhoods near railroad, highways, and utility right-of-way corridors. Nonetheless, Santa Ana has a substantial grid network and, for a suburban community, relatively few cul-de-sacs, but enough that main roads require bike facilities to allow cyclists to get through neighborhoods. The prevalence of major arterials within Santa Ana underscores the need for defined facilities along the wide roadways with higher lane counts as they typically experience higher traffic volumes and collisions. It also identifies connector streets that may be good alternatives for bicycle facilities given that they have fewer lanes. The roadways were analyzed further to determine suitability as part of this study.

Street Classification
Primary arterial streets are limited to connections from the freeway to downtown and short segments through industrial zones at the east edge of the city. Major and secondary arterial streets follow a typical city grid pattern while supporting commercial, industrial and residential uses. A limited commuter classification runs along Broadway Boulevard, Civic Center Boulevard, and Chestnut Avenue. As shown in Figure 2-2, most streets are classified as local streets at more than 75% followed by major arterials at 12% of all roadways in Santa Ana.

Speed Limits
All speed limits in the City of Santa Ana comply with the California Vehicle Code and California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

While more than 75% of Santa Ana’s roadway network has a speed limit of 25 mph, these low speeds are primarily located in residential neighborhoods, as shown in Figure 2-3. Though none of the streets have posted speeds over 45 mph, Santa Ana’s busiest corridors along major arterials, such as Fairview Street and portions of Grand Avenue and 1st Street, have the highest posted speeds with nearly 80% marked at 45 mph. When factoring in primary and secondary arterials as well as major arterials, nearly 70% are marked 40 to 45 mph. The City’s lowest speed streets have a posted speed limit of 25 mph, which makes them conducive to bicycle facilities, such as bicycle boulevards, also known as neighborways, while streets with more lanes and higher speeds should have physical separation if bicycle facilities exist with additional enhancements at the intersections.

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS
23 S BRISTOL ST
E
1 S
T
S
T

N GRAND AV

S FLOWER ST
W
1 S
T
S
T
W
A
LT
O
N
A
V
E
D
Y
E
R
R
D

S RAITT ST
S
U
N
F
L
O
W
E
R
AV

S MAIN ST

N HARBOR BLVD

BEAR ST
W
E
D
I
N
G
E
R
AV
E
1 7
T
H
S
T
E
C
H
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V

S FAIRVIEW ST
W
M
C
F
A
D
D
E
N
A
V
W17THST

S STANDARD AV

N MAIN ST

S GRAND AV

S GREENVILLE ST
E
E
D
I
N
G
E
R
AV

N SANTIAGO ST

N FAIRVIEW ST

N BRISTOL ST
E WARNER AV E 1ST S
T

N MAIN ST

N FAIRVIEW ST
W
1 7
T
H
S
T

S RAITT ST

S MAIN ST
W
1 S
T
S
T

N MAIN ST
SantaAnaBoundary
GeneralPlanLand
Uses
LowDensity
Residential
Low-MediumDensity
Residential
MediumDensity
Residential
CorridorResidential
Institutional
OpenSpace
Professionaland
AdministrativeOffice
GeneralCommercial
Industrial
FLEXIndustrial
UrbanNeighborhood
OneBroadwayPlaza
DistrictCenter
DistrictCenter
[

00.250.51Miles
Figure 2-1: Land Use
24 W 1ST ST

S BRISTOL ST

W MCFADDEN AV

S RAITT ST

S FAIRVIEW ST

N MAIN ST
E 1ST ST
W 17TH ST

W WARNER AV
E 17TH ST

S GRAND AV

W EDINGER AV

SUNFLOWER AV

N BRISTOL ST

W MACARTHUR BLVD

S MAIN ST

S FLOWER ST

N GRAND AV

W SEGERSTROM AV

E EDINGER AV

N BROADWAY

N FAIRVIEW ST

N FLOWER ST

E WARNER AV

S STANDARD AV

S LYON ST

W ALTON AV

S SUSAN ST
W 5TH ST

BEAR ST

CIVIC CENTER DR W

HARBOR BLVD

N ROSS ST

E DYER RD

EDINGE R AV

S EUCLID ST

N TUSTIN AV

S GREENVILLE ST W SANTA CLARA AV

FAIRHAVEN AV

N NEWHOPE ST

S NEWHOPE ST

N HARBOR BLVD

E MCFADDEN AV

WESTMINSTER AV

W SANTA ANA BLVD

GREENVILLE ST
E 4TH ST

E SANTA CLARA AV

S HARBOR BLVD

E FRUIT ST

EUCLID ST

W WASHINGTON AV

W DYER RD

N EUCLID ST

PENN WY

E MEM ORY L N
W 4TH ST

E CHESTNUT AV

MAIN ST

EDINGER AV

N BRISTOL ST
W 5TH ST

N TUSTIN AV

S MAIN ST
E 4TH ST
Street Classification
Principal Arterial
Major Arterial
Primary Arterial
Secondary Arterial
Divided Collector
Collector
Santa Ana Boundary
Schools
Parks
[ 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Figure 2-2: Street Classification

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS
25 Table 2-1: Street Classifications, Interpreted per the General Plan, Mobility Element, page M-06 Classification Description Examples
Principal Arterial A street with eight travel lanes and a center median. Typically includes bus transit, pedestrian sidewalks, and bicycle lanes.

Typical ROW: 146’ / 126’ curb-to-curb / 14’ median / 10’ sidewalk Dyer Road
Major Arterial A street with six travel lanes and a center median. Typically includes bus transit, pedestrian sidewalks, and bicycle lanes.

Typical ROW: 120’ / 100’ curb-to-curb / 14’ median / 10’ sidewalk Bristol Street, Harbor Boulevard,
and Edinger Avenue
Primary Arterial A street with four travel lanes and a center median. Typically includes pedestrian sidewalks and may include bus transit services and bicycle lanes.

Typical ROW: 104’ / 84’ curb-to-curb / 14’ median / 10’ sidewalk 4th Street (between Grand Avenue and Interstate 5), and Sunflower Avenue 4th Street (between Grand Avenue
and Interstate 5), and Sunflower
Avenue (west of Raitt Street)
Secondary Arterial A street with four travel lanes and no center median. Typically includes pedestrian sidewalks and may include bus transit and bicycle lanes. Serves more local traffic than a Primary Arterial.

Typical ROW: 80’ / 64’ curb-to-curb / 8’ sidewalk
Main Street (through Downtown),
and Newhope Street
Divided Collector
Arterial
A street with two travel lanes and a continuous center two-way left turn lane, but may be divided by raised median, with an expanded right-of-way to accommodate bike lanes.

Typical ROW: 80’ / 64’ curb-to-curb / 8’ sidewalk
Raitt Street and Standard Avenue
Collector Street A street with two travel lanes and no center median, typically includes pedestrian sidewalks, may include shared bicycle routes.

Typical ROW: 60’ / 40’ curb-to-curb / 10’ sidewalk
Broadway south of 1st Street (north
of Civic Center)
Local Street A street with two travel lanes serving residences and businesses. Typically includes pedestrian sidewalks and on-street parking. May include shared bicycle routes. Local streets are the most common street type.
* Not part of the City’s MPSH.

Lacy Street, Orange Avenue,
Raitt Street, Santa Clara Avenue,
Wilshire Avenue
26 Road Lane Quantities
The number of lanes on a street have a significant effect on safety and stress for people walking, rolling, and bicycling. The more lanes, the more vehicles, the more merging, the higher the speeds, and the greater risk for collisions and injuries, as shown in Section 3.6, Analysis of Systemic Safety Needs. Figure 2-4 shows major arterials can have up to six lanes but transition down to five and four lanes as they reach the center of the city. Secondary arterials will typically have four lanes but can transition down to two lanes near the center of the city.

Raised Medians
The safety benefits that raised medians provide pedestrians are unparalleled. Medians at crossing locations improve safety by giving people walking a safe place to wait in the middle of the street so they can focus on looking only one direction for each side of the road they cross.

The FHWA research report entitled “Safety Benefits of Raised Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Areas” found the following:
“Providing raised medians or pedestrian refuge areas at pedestrian crossings at marked crosswalks has demonstrated a 46 percent reduction in pedestrian crashes. At unmarked crosswalk locations, pedestrian crashes have been reduced by 39 percent. Installing raised pedestrian refuge islands on the approaches to unsignalized intersections has had the most impact reducing pedestrian crashes.”
When raised medians include plantings or colored aggregate, they create an edge friction effect that can calm or reduce traffic speeds and reduce collisions. As shown in Figure 2-5, most major arterials have segments of raised medians with some gaps. Streets with higher percentages of raised medians include 1st Street, 17th Street, Edinger Avenue, Segerstrom Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, and Bristol Street. The City of Santa Ana aims for all major and principal arterials to have raised medians.

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS
27 S BRISTOL ST
E
1 S
T
S
T

N GRAND AV

S FLOWER ST
W
1 S
T
S
T
W
A
LT
O
N
A
V
E
D
Y
E
R
R
D

S RAITT ST
S
U
N
F
L
O
W
E
R
AV

S MAIN ST

N HARBOR BLVD

BEAR ST
W
E
D
I
N
G
E
R
AV
E
1 7
T
H
S
T
E
C
H
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V

S FAIRVIEW ST
W
M
C
F
A
D
D
E
N
A
V
W17THST

S STANDARD AV

N MAIN ST

S GRAND AV

S GREENVILLE ST
E
E
D
I
N
G
E
R
AV

N SANTIAGO ST

N FAIRVIEW ST

N BRISTOL ST
E WARNER AV E 1ST S
T

N MAIN ST

N FAIRVIEW ST
W
1 7
T
H
S
T

S RAITT ST

S MAIN ST
W
1 S
T
S
T

N MAIN ST
SantaAnaBoundary
RoadSpeedLimit
25mph
30-35mph
40-45mph
[

00.250.51Miles
Figure 2-3: Speed Limit
28 Figure 2-4: Road Lane Quantities

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS
29 Figure 2-5: Raised Medians
30 2.3 Existing Infrastructure for People
Walking, Rolling, and Using Mobility Aids
Sidewalks
A complete pedestrian network without gaps is helpful for encouraging people to walk to more destinations in a safe and comfortable environment. Existing sidewalk network data provided by the City was analyzed, especially around key destinations that include schools, parks, and employment centers. As shown in Figure 2-6, the sidewalk network is fairly well connected with only a few small neighborhoods and short segments missing. Some of the sidewalk obstructions relate to utilities.

Curb Ramps
Curb ramps are another important component for an effective pedestrian network for accessibility as well as comfort for walking to your destinations. City provided curb ramp data from 2017 is shown in Figure 2-7 with numerous missing curb ramps and a near equal quantity that are ‘visually non compliant’ in terms of geometric configuration and/or missing the standard truncated domes on the ramp surface.

Street Lighting
Street lighting is an important factor for public safety when walking at night. Community members have indicated that dark roadway segments are a concern on some residential streets and crossings. Using City provided data, Figure 2-8 shows the existing coverage throughout the City. The City of Santa Ana recently started a Citywide Street Light Master Plan. This Plan will help identify street lighting needs.

Transit Routes and Stops
There are 27 bus routes and nearly 700 bus stops within Santa Ana, as shown in Figure 2-9. The transit services include Fixed Routes, Community Shuttles, Intracounty Express Routes, and Metrolink Feeder Routes throughout the City primarily on Major and Secondary Arterials.

The Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (shown as OC Metrolink Station on figure) provides commuter rail services through Metrolink’s Orange County Orange County and Inland Empire-Orange County Lines, connecting Santa Ana with Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Oceanside. Based on the Census 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimate, approximately four percent of workers use public transit as their primary mode of transportation.

The OC Streetcar serves downtown Santa Ana and extends west to the northwest city edge to connect more of the City to downtown and the Regional Transportation Center. This project will create a last-mile connection that will provide greater mobility and transportation choices to the residents of Santa Ana and the region.

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS
31 S BRISTOL ST
E
1 S
T
S
T

N GRAND AV

S FLOWER ST
W
1 S
T
S
T
W
A
LT
O
N
A
V
E
D
Y
E
R
R
D

S RAITT ST
S
U
N
F
L
O
W
E
R
AV

S MAIN ST

N HARBOR BLVD

BEAR ST
W
E
D
I
N
G
E
R
AV
E
1 7
T
H
S
T
E
C
H
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V

S FAIRVIEW ST
W
M
C
F
A
D
D
E
N
A
V
W17THST

S STANDARD AV

N MAIN ST

S GRAND AV

S GREENVILLE ST
E
E
D
I
N
G
E
R
AV

N SANTIAGO ST

N FAIRVIEW ST

N BRISTOL ST
E WARNER AV E 1ST S
T

N MAIN ST

N FAIRVIEW ST
W
1 7
T
H
S
T

S RAITT ST

S MAIN ST
W
1 S
T
S
T

N MAIN ST
Sidewalks
ExistingSidewalk
SidewalkObstruction
PrivateProperty
SantaAna
[

00.250.51Miles
Figure 2-6: Sidewalk Network
32 Figure 2-7: Curb Ramps
Note: Data shown is from 2017. City has installed and upgrade curb ramps not reflected on this figure.

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS
33 Figure 2-8: Street Lighting
34 Figure 2-9: Transit Network

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS
35 2.4 Existing Infrastructure for People Biking
Santa Ana’s Master Plan of Bikeways 2022 aims to build upon the current bicycle network to implement many miles of new facilities. Class IV separated bikeways are proposed extensively citywide so residents will be able to get across town in a protected bikeway. A few Class I multi-use paths are being proposed, the longest segment along nearly the entire Fairview Road corridor. Though separated bikeways are prioritized, Class II bike lanes and III bike routes will be proposed as well.

Calmer residential streets are designated as Class III neighborways, with sharrows and traffic calming. As shown in Figure 2-10, Santa Ana has citywide coverage which will be enhanced as each bikeway project from the Master Plan is implemented.

2.5 Equity and Disadvantaged Communities
California census tracts in the highest 25 percentile are considered disadvantaged communities per Senate Bill 535. The higher the CalEnviroScreen score, or darker the red color, the more disproportionately burdened a community is by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution.

In Santa Ana, 24 of the City’s 64 census tracts are considered disadvantaged, as shown in Figure 2-11.

Understanding where disadvantaged communities are located helps guide the City to make informed decisions during the recommendations and prioritization process. Senate Bill 535 states that at least a quarter of California Climate Investments go to disadvantaged communities. California Climate Investments are funds from the proceeds of California’s Cap-and-Trade Program and specifically target reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In recent years in the State of California, there has been an increased emphasis on safety, active transportation for public health, and greenhouse gas reduction. All mitigation measures and recommended projects for the SAVZ Plan will be passed through a community-driven lens for infrastructure and non-infrastructure programming.
36 W 1ST ST

S BRISTOL ST

W MCFADDEN AV

S RAITT ST

S FA RI VIEW ST

N MAIN ST
E 1ST ST
W 17TH ST

W WARNER AV
E 17TH ST

S GRAND AV

W EDINGER AV

SUNFLOWER AV

N BRISTOL ST

W MACARTHUR BLVD

S MAIN ST

S FLOWER ST

N GRAND AV

W SEGERSTROM AV

E EDINGER AV

N BROADWAY

N FAIRVIEW ST

N FLOWER ST

E WARNER AV

S STANDARD AV

S LYON ST

W ALTON AV

S SUSAN ST
W 5TH ST

BEAR ST

CIVIC CENTER DR W

HARBOR BLVD

N ROSS ST

E DYER RD

EDINGE R AV

S EUCLID ST

N TUSTIN AV

S GREENVILLE ST W SANTA CLARA AV

FAIRHAVEN AV

N NEWHOPE ST

S NEWHOPE ST

N HARBOR BLVD

E MCFADDEN AV

WESTMINSTER AV

W SANTA ANA BLVD

GREENVILLE ST
E 4TH ST

E SANTA CLARA AV

S HARBOR BLVD

E FRUIT ST

EUCLID ST

W WASHINGTON AV

W DYER RD

N EUCLID ST

PENN WY

E MEM ORY LN
W 4TH ST

E CHESTNUT AV

MAIN ST

EDINGER AV

N BRISTOL ST
W 5TH ST

N TUSTIN AV

S MAIN ST
E 4TH ST
Santa Ana Boundary
Master Plan Proposed
Bikeways
Class I: Multi-use Path
Class II: Bicycle Lane
Class III: Bicycle Route
Class IV: Separated
Bikeway
Existing Bikeways
Class I: Multi-use Path
Class II: Bicycle Lane
Class III: Bicycle Route
Class IV: Separated
Bikeway
[ 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Figure 2-10: Bicycle Network

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS
37 Figure 2-11: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentiles
W 1ST ST

S MAIN ST

S BRISTOL ST

W MCFADDEN AV

S RAITT ST

S FAIRVIEW ST
E 1ST ST

N MAIN ST
W 17TH ST

W WARNER AV
E 4TH ST

S GRAND AV
E 17TH ST

W EDINGER AV

N BRISTOL ST

W MACARTHUR BLVD

N GRAND AV

W SEGERSTROM AV

N BROADWAY

E EDINGER AV

E DYER RD

E WARNER AV

S STANDARD AV

N FAIRVIEW ST W ALTON AV

S LYON ST

S FLOWER ST

BEAR ST

CIVIC CENTER DR W

HARBOR BLVD
W 5TH ST

E MCFADDEN AV

SUNFLOWER AV

N TUSTIN AV

S EUCLID ST

E ALTON AV

FAIRHAVEN AV

N NEWHOPE ST S NEWHOPE ST

N HARBOR BLVD

WESTMINSTER AV

E SANTA CLARA AV

S HARBOR BLVD
S

GREENVILLE ST

EUCLID ST

W DYER RD

N EUCLID ST
PENN
WY

N CABRILLO PARK DR

E MEMORY LN

E COLUMBINE AV ALTON PKWY

N RAITT ST

W SANTA ANA BLVD

S FLOWER ST

N BRISTOL ST
N
TUSTIN
AV

WESTMINSTER AV
CalEnviroScreen 4
Score Percent
0 - 10
>10 - 20
>20 - 30
>30 - 40
>40 - 50
>50 - 60
>60 - 70
>70 - 80
>80 - 90
>90 - 100
Santa Ana Boundary
[ 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
3 Collision
Analysis
Photo Location: Santa Clara Avenue adjacent to Portola Park 40 3.1 Overview
Santa Ana is one of the most densely populated cities in Orange County. According to the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau, 44% of residents are under the age of 30, 2.5% of workers 16 and up are without a car, and 1.5% use public transportation as means of transportation to work. This Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan aims to assist those with and without access to a motor vehicle.

A quick comparison of transportation modes used by people living in Santa Ana and adjacent cities is shown in Table 3-1. As shown in the table, Santa Ana has the highest percentage of people who report commuting to work using transit (after Anaheim), but fewer people commuting by bike or on foot than Irvine or Anaheim. This may be due to Irvine’s extensive bike network and the high student population in Irvine.

Mode of
Transportation Santa Ana Orange Irvine Anaheim
Walk to Work 1.5% 2.2% 2.6% 1.2%
Bike to Work 0.3% 0.3% 1.3% 0.7%
Transit to Work 1.5% 0.1% 0.3% 1.7%
Table 3-1: Mode of Transportation Comparison with Adjacent Cities Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Table S0801:

Commuting Characteristics by Sex
Another comparison tool is the “WalkScore’’ webpage, a free service available to the general public to compare the level of access to amenities and destinations via various transportation modes. WalkScore determines an areas accessibility per mode on a scale of 1 to 100, where higher scores deem a place to be more “walkable, bikeable, or transit-friendly.” Table 3-2 includes a comparison of walk, bike, and transit access in adjacent cities as of February 2023. As shown in the comparison table, Santa Ana scores favorably in most categories compared to nearby cities. The WalkScore webpage describes Santa Ana as having “some public transportation, and is somewhat bikeable. The most walkable Santa Ana neighborhoods are Downtown, Willard, and Eastside.”
City Walk Score Bike Score Transit Score
Santa Ana 67 62 43
Irvine 43 69 26
Orange 51 53 32
Anaheim 56 52 34
Table 3-2: WalkScore Comparison with Adjacent Cities
Figures 3-1 through 3-3 show the maps provided by the website WalkScore.com. Figure 3-1 shows the Walk Score, which measures the density of destinations that are accessible by foot. Downtown, shown in a darker green, has a higher density of destinations. Figure 3-2 shows Figure 3-1: Santa Ana WalkScore

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

COLLISION ANALYSIS
41 Figure 3-2: Santa Ana BikeScore Figure 3-3: Santa Ana 30-minute Travel Distance on Public Transit the Bike Score, which measures whether an area is good for biking based on bike lanes and trails, hills, road connectivity, and destinations.

The more green it has, the more bikeable it is. Figure 3-3 illustrates the Transit Score, which measures how well a location is served by public transit based on the distance and type of nearby transit lines.

A total of 19,494 collisions occurred in Santa Ana from 2017 to 2021.

Over this period, 17,915 collisions were auto-only, 906 were pedestrian-involved collisions, and 673 were bicyclist-involved. In total, 1,579 collisions (8% of total) involved pedestrians or bicyclists.

Collision data from the “Crossroads Traffic Collision Database” was used for the Collisions Analysis. This data was provided by the City.

This summary focuses on fatal, severe, and visible injury collisions. To help identify locations that more frequently see serious injury or fatal collisions, this study analyzed the latest five years (2017 to 2021) of ‘Crossroads’ collision data, supplemented in certain cases by data for the 10-year period from 2012 to 2021, as can be seen in this report.

Each collision is shown on maps in the following sections, then tables summarize the collisions by severity of injury, who is getting injured, and when and where disproportionate quantities of collisions occur.

Additional analysis later in this chapter identifies risk factors and road characteristics at select locations that may be contributing to serious injury or fatal collisions to help inform project recommendations outlined in Chapter 6. 42 Chart 3-2: Bicycle Collisions from 2017 to 2021

3.2 Equity and Collision Analysis
This Plan began with the identification of underserved communities throughout the City of Santa Ana, which makes up most of the City, as can be seen from the CalEnviroScreen data in Section 2.4. A majority of the City, particularly central, southeast, and Downtown Santa Ana score above the 75th percentile for high pollution and low income. The following safety analysis comprehensively looks at the entire City, but with an equity-lens in mind to focus improvements in the underserved communities. The following section provides an overview of all collisions in Santa Ana between 2017 to 2021 as documented in the Santa Ana Crossroads database. As summarized in Table 3-3, there were a total of 906 pedestrian collisions over five years, 673 bicycle collisions, and 17,915 motor vehicle collisions. As shown in the serious injury and fatality columns in the table, a significantly disproportionate quantity of pedestrians suffered serious injuries and fatalities when compared to total bicycle and vehicle collisions. Sixteen percent of all pedestrian collisions resulted in a serious injury or fatality compared to 5% of all bicycle collisions and 2% of all non-highway vehicle collisions.

Transportation
Mode Fatalities Serious Injuries Total
Pedestrian 33 119 906
Bicycle 7 30 673
Vehicle 67 347 17,915
Table 3-3: Collision Severity per Travel Mode (between years 2017-2021) Source: Crossroads Software’s Traffic Collision Database Collisions for each of the past five years are shown for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in Charts 3-1 through 3-3. This includes serious injuries, fatalities, other visible injuries, complaints of pain, and property damage only.

Figure 3-4 shows all of the collisions as points, then Figure 3-5 uses the collision points to make a ‘heatmap’ that highlights locations with highest concentrations of collisions with darker shades of red.

Five-Year Heatmap
Figure 3-5 demonstrates a greater concentration of collisions (darker red color) along most of 1st Street (west to east), and Main Street (north to south). The full length of McFadden Avenue, Edinger Avenue, Warner Avenue and 17th Street (all west to east) also see higher levels 0 50
100
150
200
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
0 50
100
150
200
250
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Chart 3-1: Pedestrian Collisions from 2017 to2021
Chart 3-3: Vehicle Collisions from 2017 to 2021

SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN

COLLISION ANALYSIS
43 Figure 3-4: All Collisions from 2017-2021
44 !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
! !! !
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
! !! !
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
! !! !
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
! !! !
! !! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!