The research section of the report is complete. I am confident that I now have a much better understanding of the issue. My initial strong opposition to PMB twining and H1 expansion has somewhat eroded.
This heated issue has captivated numerous organization but has hardly broken into the public interest even if it involves their tax-dollars. It was interesting that both sides offered statistics from polls and surveys showing that the majority of citizens supported their cause. This was one of the main reasons I could not use the concept that the "majority" supports or opposes the project. The logic used by both sides was often similar but ultimately provided different conclusions. There was much more information opposing the GP but much of it was based on similar logic and offered similar solutions.
As difficult as it was to write an informed and balanced research summary, I believe it will be even more difficult to try to resolve this issue in the opinion piece. I will need to do more research to back up my ideas. However both sides of the argument are so deeply entrenched that I doubt any amount of rational reasoning could achieve agreement of both.
.
Gateway Sucks?
Gateway Sucks. Gateway Sucks. 3 Nov. 2008 website.
Gateway Sucks is an organization strongly opposed to the gateway project. It uses the same logic and solution offered by the DSF and LRC.
The Get Moving BC for the opposite argument. I still do not like the polarizing rhetoric even if it does appeal to the masses. Their position is, however, based on the academically supported logic established by the much more credible DSF and LRC. In my opinion the organization is an attempt to appeal to a broader range of people by the opposing group.
November 3
.
Gateway Sucks is an organization strongly opposed to the gateway project. It uses the same logic and solution offered by the DSF and LRC.
The Get Moving BC for the opposite argument. I still do not like the polarizing rhetoric even if it does appeal to the masses. Their position is, however, based on the academically supported logic established by the much more credible DSF and LRC. In my opinion the organization is an attempt to appeal to a broader range of people by the opposing group.
November 3
.
Get Moving BC!
Get Moving BC. Get Moving BC. 3 Nov. 2008 website.
Bridging the Infrastructure Gap. Sep. 2008 Get Moving BC. 1 Nov. 2008 website.
An organization self-proclaimed to represent that majority of citizens who, in their belief, support the Gateway Program. They are mainly supported by Jordan Bateman, a Langley Councilor. Their report, “Bridging the Infrastructure Gap”, focuses on the inadequate number of bridges in the Metro Vancouver area compared to other major Canadian cities. They find that in order to live up to the standard of these other cities, Vancouver needs at least four times more bridges. They promote massive increases in both vehicular and transit infrastructures all across the region. They also support the use of PPP’s to finance projects. Bateman supports another organization which is called South Fraser OnTrax which wants to revive light rail in the South Fraser Valley to also help ease congestion.
Any websites that attempts to bribe people into registration for iPods or transit passes in my personal opinion should carry no weight in an argument. I also have a problem with their list of "40 groups working to keep you stuck in traffic"; I doubt that is their true intention. In addition they do not take a balanced approach on the issue of congestion; they turn it into a black and white argument. Their solutions are not realistic: that many infrastructure projects could create a fantastic society but would not only be very costly to build but also to maintain. I understand that their belief is that PPPs will help cover some costs but it does not seem economically viable. They seem to believe that bountiful cheap vehicular infrastructure and transit infrastructure can coexist. True both infrastructures are necessary but it is not economically sound logic that both can prosper. In addition their ideas are based on infinite oil reserves which is a fundamentally false concept. Their report is widely discussed on the internet as making unnecessary comparisons to Canadian cities in the prairies. I just cannot accept like their rhetoric.
November 3
.
Bridging the Infrastructure Gap. Sep. 2008 Get Moving BC. 1 Nov. 2008 website.
An organization self-proclaimed to represent that majority of citizens who, in their belief, support the Gateway Program. They are mainly supported by Jordan Bateman, a Langley Councilor. Their report, “Bridging the Infrastructure Gap”, focuses on the inadequate number of bridges in the Metro Vancouver area compared to other major Canadian cities. They find that in order to live up to the standard of these other cities, Vancouver needs at least four times more bridges. They promote massive increases in both vehicular and transit infrastructures all across the region. They also support the use of PPP’s to finance projects. Bateman supports another organization which is called South Fraser OnTrax which wants to revive light rail in the South Fraser Valley to also help ease congestion.
Any websites that attempts to bribe people into registration for iPods or transit passes in my personal opinion should carry no weight in an argument. I also have a problem with their list of "40 groups working to keep you stuck in traffic"; I doubt that is their true intention. In addition they do not take a balanced approach on the issue of congestion; they turn it into a black and white argument. Their solutions are not realistic: that many infrastructure projects could create a fantastic society but would not only be very costly to build but also to maintain. I understand that their belief is that PPPs will help cover some costs but it does not seem economically viable. They seem to believe that bountiful cheap vehicular infrastructure and transit infrastructure can coexist. True both infrastructures are necessary but it is not economically sound logic that both can prosper. In addition their ideas are based on infinite oil reserves which is a fundamentally false concept. Their report is widely discussed on the internet as making unnecessary comparisons to Canadian cities in the prairies. I just cannot accept like their rhetoric.
November 3
.
Municipal Opposition to the Gateway Program
Provincial Gateway Program: Status Report. 25 May 2005 the City of Burnaby. 3 Nov. 2008 website.
Report to Council. 6 June 2006 the City of Vancouver. 3 Nov. 2008 website.
The city of Burnaby and Vancouver have both chosen to oppose the Gateway Program on grounds similar to that of the LRC and DSF. The both stand by the LRSP and other regional plans that do not include highway expansion. They demand that the province further analyzes the situation and carry out full analysis of alternatives considered to me more in line with the LRSP.
The unanimous decisions by these city councils are important because they represent a large proportion of citizens and would have to change their policies if the Port Mann Bridge was indeed twinned. However, the citizens of the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby would benefit the least from the mega project so they could be acting in their own interest rather than that of the region. The city of Vancouver has often been accused of acting in such a manner.
November 3
.
Report to Council. 6 June 2006 the City of Vancouver. 3 Nov. 2008 website.
The city of Burnaby and Vancouver have both chosen to oppose the Gateway Program on grounds similar to that of the LRC and DSF. The both stand by the LRSP and other regional plans that do not include highway expansion. They demand that the province further analyzes the situation and carry out full analysis of alternatives considered to me more in line with the LRSP.
The unanimous decisions by these city councils are important because they represent a large proportion of citizens and would have to change their policies if the Port Mann Bridge was indeed twinned. However, the citizens of the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby would benefit the least from the mega project so they could be acting in their own interest rather than that of the region. The city of Vancouver has often been accused of acting in such a manner.
November 3
.
More Opposition to the GP
CSDP Policy on the Port Mann / Highway 1 expansion. Civil Society Development Project. 3 Nov. 2008 website.
Keeling, Paul, and Christopher Barrington-Leigh. “Greenwashing Gateway.” The Tyee 19 Mar. 2007. 31 Oct. 2008 website.
The Civil Society Development Project is also opposed to H1 expansion. However they introduce a thorough analysis of PPPs that are now frequently used by the provincial government in major projects. Their claims are that by introducing the concept of profit into services for the general public, a conflict of interest arises. The claim is made that maximizing profits will create inequalities amongst the users. Many examples are used from Toronto and Australia of PPPs where public interest has been compromised. They also claim that PPPs do not have to be as accountable as the government and that there are then issues relating to transparency. They state is that if the government wishes to go ahead with the project, the tolls must be public and be enacted on a system wide basis in order to act equally on all citizens. They say that this would be the most effective way to discourage unnecessary trips. In addition, they explain that if the province and region keep opposing views of infrastructure development, future city planning will be nearly impossible.
The Civil Society Development Project including Keeling and Barrington-Leigh take a more balanced perspective on the issue. They clearly state that they are opposed to the project on similar ground to the LRC and DSF. This article offers some good insight about how to satisfy the economic necessities of twining the PMB and sustainable development. The argument against PPP’s is very strong and builds off what we learned in class. What is even more interesting is the proposal for system wide tolling in order to discourage vehicle usage and finance transportation projects. It would probably be expensive to implement but I can see how it would benefit the region in the long term. It raises the issue of equal treatment of all citizens of Metro Vancouver; why should only those south of the Fraser be paying for vehicle use and be punished for being vehicle dependent.
November 3
.
Keeling, Paul, and Christopher Barrington-Leigh. “Greenwashing Gateway.” The Tyee 19 Mar. 2007. 31 Oct. 2008 website.
The Civil Society Development Project is also opposed to H1 expansion. However they introduce a thorough analysis of PPPs that are now frequently used by the provincial government in major projects. Their claims are that by introducing the concept of profit into services for the general public, a conflict of interest arises. The claim is made that maximizing profits will create inequalities amongst the users. Many examples are used from Toronto and Australia of PPPs where public interest has been compromised. They also claim that PPPs do not have to be as accountable as the government and that there are then issues relating to transparency. They state is that if the government wishes to go ahead with the project, the tolls must be public and be enacted on a system wide basis in order to act equally on all citizens. They say that this would be the most effective way to discourage unnecessary trips. In addition, they explain that if the province and region keep opposing views of infrastructure development, future city planning will be nearly impossible.
The Civil Society Development Project including Keeling and Barrington-Leigh take a more balanced perspective on the issue. They clearly state that they are opposed to the project on similar ground to the LRC and DSF. This article offers some good insight about how to satisfy the economic necessities of twining the PMB and sustainable development. The argument against PPP’s is very strong and builds off what we learned in class. What is even more interesting is the proposal for system wide tolling in order to discourage vehicle usage and finance transportation projects. It would probably be expensive to implement but I can see how it would benefit the region in the long term. It raises the issue of equal treatment of all citizens of Metro Vancouver; why should only those south of the Fraser be paying for vehicle use and be punished for being vehicle dependent.
November 3
.
The Official Gateway Program
British Columbia. Ministry of Transportation. “Gateway Program Backgrounder.” 5 May 2008 website.
British Columbia. Ministry of Transportation. “Gateway Program Definition Report: Summary.” 31 Jan. 2006 website.
The “Program Definition Report” on the GP prepared by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation presents the current problem of congestion and offers expanding the PBM and H1 as a viable solution. In addition it discusses current and future projects that could also be used with highway expansion in order to ease traffic congestion. The report begins by explaining the situation of both current and future congestion due to population growth. It then analyzes congestion in both monetary and social costs and states that quality of life would decrease unless the current vehicular capacity was increased. The report then explains what and how the GP would do reduce congestion. Highway expansion and other congestion reduction methods must be used in order to reduce future traffic. This includes tolls, better HOV, cycling, pedestrian and transit infrastructure. If all is properly implemented, there should be no traffic congestion until 2031. The cost of the project is reported to be much less than the benefits of time saved and lower operating costs. Construction should be completed by 2013
The full report is available but the Executive Summary has given me a basic idea of the logic and goals used by the government. The Backgrounder provides some updated information and effectively summarizes the project. It is interesting how little analysis there is of alternative options, I expected proof that expansion of H1 was the most effective option. In my opinion this is very troublesome because the Ministry of Transportation could be so strongly implicated in their support of GP that they may be discounting all other options. When an idea is put forth, an effort must be made to demonstrate full understanding of the issue and complete analysis of alternative options. This should be the main priority for the government who should be working in the interest of all citizens.
November 3
.
British Columbia. Ministry of Transportation. “Gateway Program Definition Report: Summary.” 31 Jan. 2006 website.
The “Program Definition Report” on the GP prepared by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation presents the current problem of congestion and offers expanding the PBM and H1 as a viable solution. In addition it discusses current and future projects that could also be used with highway expansion in order to ease traffic congestion. The report begins by explaining the situation of both current and future congestion due to population growth. It then analyzes congestion in both monetary and social costs and states that quality of life would decrease unless the current vehicular capacity was increased. The report then explains what and how the GP would do reduce congestion. Highway expansion and other congestion reduction methods must be used in order to reduce future traffic. This includes tolls, better HOV, cycling, pedestrian and transit infrastructure. If all is properly implemented, there should be no traffic congestion until 2031. The cost of the project is reported to be much less than the benefits of time saved and lower operating costs. Construction should be completed by 2013
The full report is available but the Executive Summary has given me a basic idea of the logic and goals used by the government. The Backgrounder provides some updated information and effectively summarizes the project. It is interesting how little analysis there is of alternative options, I expected proof that expansion of H1 was the most effective option. In my opinion this is very troublesome because the Ministry of Transportation could be so strongly implicated in their support of GP that they may be discounting all other options. When an idea is put forth, an effort must be made to demonstrate full understanding of the issue and complete analysis of alternative options. This should be the main priority for the government who should be working in the interest of all citizens.
November 3
.
Livable Region Coalition
Will Freeway Expansion Kill the Livable Region. Oct. 2004 The Livable Region Coalition. 1 Nov. 2008 website.
The Livable Region Coalition effectively argues that the provincial GP counters many regional initiatives for sustainable growth. They cite LRSP goals of protecting green space, building complete communities, achieve a compact metropolitan region, and increased transportation choices and then proceed to demonstrate how the highway enlargement violates these goals. They demand a thorough assessment of the most effective method of long-term congestion reduction. They claim that the plan will not solve the problem of congestion, will have negative effects on the liveability of the region, does not consider more effective solutions, and that the process lacks transparency. The report demonstrates the highways lead to more traffic and not reduced congestion. It also explains the detriments to standards of living such as suburban sprawl, congestion on secondary roads, public health and physical activity, and environmental impacts. The report follows with other solutions of improved transit, carpooling, light rail, flow regulation, congestion tolls, and managing demand on the transportation infrastructure. The conclusion of the LRC is that the GP will not achieve its intended purpose and that different approaches are necessary in order to reduce congestion while keeping Metro Vancouver liveable.
In order to add more weight to the argument, the LRC lists their supporters on the first page. Some may state that this is an elitist strategy and that they are trying to use their credentials instead of logic. I am of the opinion that it demonstrates that they have made a thorough analysis of their position. It makes it easy to distinguish in whose interests the report was prepared. Because I made an analysis of the DSF paper first, and this report is two years older the DSF one and predates the GP Definition Report by 6 months, it is slightly less relevant.
November 3
.
The Livable Region Coalition effectively argues that the provincial GP counters many regional initiatives for sustainable growth. They cite LRSP goals of protecting green space, building complete communities, achieve a compact metropolitan region, and increased transportation choices and then proceed to demonstrate how the highway enlargement violates these goals. They demand a thorough assessment of the most effective method of long-term congestion reduction. They claim that the plan will not solve the problem of congestion, will have negative effects on the liveability of the region, does not consider more effective solutions, and that the process lacks transparency. The report demonstrates the highways lead to more traffic and not reduced congestion. It also explains the detriments to standards of living such as suburban sprawl, congestion on secondary roads, public health and physical activity, and environmental impacts. The report follows with other solutions of improved transit, carpooling, light rail, flow regulation, congestion tolls, and managing demand on the transportation infrastructure. The conclusion of the LRC is that the GP will not achieve its intended purpose and that different approaches are necessary in order to reduce congestion while keeping Metro Vancouver liveable.
In order to add more weight to the argument, the LRC lists their supporters on the first page. Some may state that this is an elitist strategy and that they are trying to use their credentials instead of logic. I am of the opinion that it demonstrates that they have made a thorough analysis of their position. It makes it easy to distinguish in whose interests the report was prepared. Because I made an analysis of the DSF paper first, and this report is two years older the DSF one and predates the GP Definition Report by 6 months, it is slightly less relevant.
November 3
.
Halcrow Analysis of Transit-Only Option
Krajczar, Karoly. Re: Assessment of Transit-only Option for Port Mann Bridge. 31 Mar. 2006 Halcrow Consulting. 1 Nov. 2008 website.
Memo by Halcrow, an infrastructure consultation company, who has been commission by GP to analyze LRC claims that current and future congestion issues on PMB can be solved using only transit. The sketch planning method is used to show that a 20% transit mode share of commuters on the Port Mann Bridge, more than the regional average, could only reduce 350 vehicles. This figure is not enough considering the 650 vehicle queue during the peak morning commute. They state the problem with using transit on the PMB is that it would have to compete with the SkyTrain. The results are the same when using a reliable and frequently used transportation model with a frequency 40 buses per hour. Ridership is estimated at 660 passengers but most are estimated to have been newly generated commuters or been taken from the SkyTrain and only 100 vehicles removed from the Port Mann Bridge queue. The conclusion is that transit-only solutions are not a viable alternative to expanding the Highway 1 corridor.
There are some issues based on historical Halcrow cooperation with the GP and other governmental infrastructure projects. They may have an advantage of good knowledge of the situation; however it is in their interest to keep these infrastructure programs moving to make themselves more business. Their methodology seems sound, especially the use of two models to prove their data. However the seem to miss the point that the LRC demands transit improvements everywhere not just on the congested H1; the PMB express bus would not be competing with the SkyTrain but work with it.
November 3
.
Memo by Halcrow, an infrastructure consultation company, who has been commission by GP to analyze LRC claims that current and future congestion issues on PMB can be solved using only transit. The sketch planning method is used to show that a 20% transit mode share of commuters on the Port Mann Bridge, more than the regional average, could only reduce 350 vehicles. This figure is not enough considering the 650 vehicle queue during the peak morning commute. They state the problem with using transit on the PMB is that it would have to compete with the SkyTrain. The results are the same when using a reliable and frequently used transportation model with a frequency 40 buses per hour. Ridership is estimated at 660 passengers but most are estimated to have been newly generated commuters or been taken from the SkyTrain and only 100 vehicles removed from the Port Mann Bridge queue. The conclusion is that transit-only solutions are not a viable alternative to expanding the Highway 1 corridor.
There are some issues based on historical Halcrow cooperation with the GP and other governmental infrastructure projects. They may have an advantage of good knowledge of the situation; however it is in their interest to keep these infrastructure programs moving to make themselves more business. Their methodology seems sound, especially the use of two models to prove their data. However the seem to miss the point that the LRC demands transit improvements everywhere not just on the congested H1; the PMB express bus would not be competing with the SkyTrain but work with it.
November 3
.
PMB Gets the Go-Ahead
“Port Mann Bridge twining gets green light.” CBC News 13 Jun. 2008. 3 Nov. 2008 website.
A current article about that explains that the PMB twining project has passed an environment assessment and is looking for a contractor. Comments are given by an NDP MLA opposing the project on ground that the road will remain congested once completed and a member of Get Moving BC supporting the project.
This article demonstrates that the project is currently moving forward even with ongoing debate.
November 3
.
A current article about that explains that the PMB twining project has passed an environment assessment and is looking for a contractor. Comments are given by an NDP MLA opposing the project on ground that the road will remain congested once completed and a member of Get Moving BC supporting the project.
This article demonstrates that the project is currently moving forward even with ongoing debate.
November 3
.
David Suzuki PMB Briefing
Bruce, Ian. Briefing Document: Proposed twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1 expansion. 13 Jun. 2006 David Suzuki Foundation. 1 Nov. 2008 website.
The briefing document by the David Suzuki Foundation analyzes the implications of twining the PMB on current regional goals. Bruce acknowledges that there is congestion but believes it is due to the approaches and not the bridge itself. He also states that unlike the other Gateway projects which assist cargo transport, the PMB project focuses on SOV use during peak-hour commutes. One of the reasons they oppose highway expansion is that it would lead to urban sprawl which conflicts with the Livable Regions Strategic Plan of Metro Vancouver that promotes sustainable growth. In addition, the document outlines the failures of highway expansion at reducing congestion in the long term through sprawl, longer commuting distance and pressure on secondary roads. They also state that the minimum 1.5 billion dollar cost is too expensive (not including social costs of increased obesity, traffic accidents and air pollution) and actions are required now and not as far as the 2013 completion date. Finally the report claims that alternatives were not sufficiently considered and provides numerous options, many of which have been considered by regional organizations, for alleviating traffic congestion on Highway 1. The proposed options include increased bus service in both frequency and area service, more Park and Ride locations, a rapid bus to Coquitlam on priority bus lanes, better connections to an expanded SkyTrain system, Evergreen line construction, and rescheduling peak commercial transportation demand with longer port hours.
The David Suzuki foundation has strong national and international support and accreditation. As a founding member of the Livable Region Coalition, one of the strongest opponents of the GP, their briefing holds decent weight on the discussion. The source is well written and documented. They could have used statistical evidence to show that their alternatives are viable but I don’t think that was their intention.
November 2
.
The briefing document by the David Suzuki Foundation analyzes the implications of twining the PMB on current regional goals. Bruce acknowledges that there is congestion but believes it is due to the approaches and not the bridge itself. He also states that unlike the other Gateway projects which assist cargo transport, the PMB project focuses on SOV use during peak-hour commutes. One of the reasons they oppose highway expansion is that it would lead to urban sprawl which conflicts with the Livable Regions Strategic Plan of Metro Vancouver that promotes sustainable growth. In addition, the document outlines the failures of highway expansion at reducing congestion in the long term through sprawl, longer commuting distance and pressure on secondary roads. They also state that the minimum 1.5 billion dollar cost is too expensive (not including social costs of increased obesity, traffic accidents and air pollution) and actions are required now and not as far as the 2013 completion date. Finally the report claims that alternatives were not sufficiently considered and provides numerous options, many of which have been considered by regional organizations, for alleviating traffic congestion on Highway 1. The proposed options include increased bus service in both frequency and area service, more Park and Ride locations, a rapid bus to Coquitlam on priority bus lanes, better connections to an expanded SkyTrain system, Evergreen line construction, and rescheduling peak commercial transportation demand with longer port hours.
The David Suzuki foundation has strong national and international support and accreditation. As a founding member of the Livable Region Coalition, one of the strongest opponents of the GP, their briefing holds decent weight on the discussion. The source is well written and documented. They could have used statistical evidence to show that their alternatives are viable but I don’t think that was their intention.
November 2
.
Planners oppose Gateway Program
Ward, Doug. “Planners oppose Gateway Program.” Vancouver Sun 20 Jun. 2006. 31 Oct. 2008 website.
An article about planners at the World Planners Congress signing a petition to stop the gateway project because they believe it will lead to more car dependency and urban sprawl. They state that rising energy costs and the future drought of oil will make it a careless and useless expense. They also state that densification should occur in the area not only in high-rise construction.
This article is simplistic. It provides no alternatives to the GP, only the position of people who oppose it.
October 31
.
An article about planners at the World Planners Congress signing a petition to stop the gateway project because they believe it will lead to more car dependency and urban sprawl. They state that rising energy costs and the future drought of oil will make it a careless and useless expense. They also state that densification should occur in the area not only in high-rise construction.
This article is simplistic. It provides no alternatives to the GP, only the position of people who oppose it.
October 31
.
SOV's on PMB
Bisetty, Krisendra. “Car pool, transit better than twinning Port Mann, group claims.” Vancouver Sun 11 Apr. 2005. 31 Oct. 2008 website.
A news article about research and ideas from an east-Vancouver-based group, called Citizens Concerned with Highway Expansion. They use very basic vehicle counts to show that the majority of weekday bridge users are SOV. They suggest using transit or carpooling to reduce the number of vehicles on the PMB. They see this as a solution instead of twining the PMB.
This article does not address the problem of how to get commuters to make the switch. The concept of a bus over the PMB is nearly impossible to implement. As long as it does not have the infrastructure to support it, the bus would get up stuck in traffic and its effectiveness would be compromised. They have good ideas that need more substance.
October 31
.
A news article about research and ideas from an east-Vancouver-based group, called Citizens Concerned with Highway Expansion. They use very basic vehicle counts to show that the majority of weekday bridge users are SOV. They suggest using transit or carpooling to reduce the number of vehicles on the PMB. They see this as a solution instead of twining the PMB.
This article does not address the problem of how to get commuters to make the switch. The concept of a bus over the PMB is nearly impossible to implement. As long as it does not have the infrastructure to support it, the bus would get up stuck in traffic and its effectiveness would be compromised. They have good ideas that need more substance.
October 31
.
Introduction
This essay will focus on the section of the Gateway Program that plans to twin the Port Mann Bridge and widen Highway 1 in Metro Vancouver.
Posts will be organised as follows:
Posts will be labeled for quick reference:
ProG: Source that support GP
ConG: Source that opposes GP
NeuG: Source that takes a neutral stance on GP
Scolr: Scholarly source
Rlvnt: Relevant source
IRlvnt: Irrelevant source
NArticle: News article
Article: Article
Orgn: Organisation
Esay: Essay
Rsrch: Research
.
Posts will be organised as follows:
Link to source
Short description of the article, organisation, essay
A quick analysis of the source (Not for the Summary)
Last date the post was editited
Posts will be labeled for quick reference:
ProG: Source that support GP
ConG: Source that opposes GP
NeuG: Source that takes a neutral stance on GP
Scolr: Scholarly source
Rlvnt: Relevant source
IRlvnt: Irrelevant source
NArticle: News article
Article: Article
Orgn: Organisation
Esay: Essay
Rsrch: Research
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
