The Broadway Follies Part 3 – Questions & Answers about SkyTrain

by

We continue with the question and answer format about Broadway’s transit issues, with a focus on SkyTrain. Vancouver is the only city in the world that continues to plan and build solely with automatic (driverless) light-metro and many people would like to know why. First, we must tackle the issue of SkyTrain and answer questions posed about the SkyTrain light-metro system.

  • Q: What is SkyTrain?
  • A: SkyTrain is the local name given to the Urban Transportation Development Corporation (UTDC) proprietary light-metro system, now owned by Bombardier Inc.
  • Q: What is ALRT?
  • A: ALRT or Advanced Light Rail Transit, was the second name designated for the proprietary light-metro system. ALRT superseded the original designated name of ICTS or Intermediate Capacity Transit system, as only two such transit systems were built. SkyTrain is now marketed as ART or Advanced Rapid Transit. ICTS was first developed to mitigate the high cost of subway construction.
  • Q: Is the Canada Line SkyTrain or LRT?
  • A: No, the Canada Line is a conventional metro and incompatible with the SkyTrain system.
  • Q: Is SkyTrain a proprietary railway because it is automatic or driverless?
  • A: No, question of automatic or driverless operation is the type of signaling system used (SELTRAC moving block system). SkyTrain is considered an unconventional proprietary railway because it is powered by Linear Induction Motors or LIMs in stead of regular ‘squirrel cage’ motors..
  • Q: Is SkyTrain cheaper to operate than light rail because it is driverless?
  • A: No, the savings in driver’s wages operating with LRT is nullified by the use of attendants, transit police, and a large maintenance staff to keep the metro in operation. SkyTrain’s annual operating costs are over 50% greater than comparable light rail systems.
  • Q: Is SkyTrain faster than LRT?
  • A: No, SkyTrain is only faster than LRT because the route it operates on has been designed to be faster, many LRT systems operate at speeds up to 30kph faster than SkyTrain on select portions of their routes. SkyTrain’s maximum speed is 80 kph, while newer TramTrains now have maximum speeds of over 110kph! Given identical routes, with the same number of stations with the same quality of rights-of-ways, SkyTrain would be no faster than light rail.
  • Q: Is SkyTrain as popular as many claim?
  • A: No. There are only seven SkyTrain type operations built around the world. 2 – ICTS; 1 – ALRT; 4 – ART.
  • Q: Does SkyTrain have a greater capacity than LRT?
  • A: No.
  • Q: Does SkyTrain attract more ridership than LRT?
  • A: No, despite unsubstantiated claims by TransLink, there is no study or any proof at all that SkyTrain actually attracts more ridership than light rail.
  • Q: Does SkyTrain pays its operating costs as claimed by TransLink.
  • A: No. TransLink conveniently forgets to include the annual provincial subsidy of over $230 million. Also TransLink does not divulge how it apportions fares between bus and SkyTrain, thus there is no way to validate the claim.
Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

27 Responses to “The Broadway Follies Part 3 – Questions & Answers about SkyTrain”

  1. Evil Eye Says:

    Isn’t the issue on Broadway not SkyTrain but subway versus on-street LRT?

    Zweisystem replies: Yes. SkyTrain was first designed to mitigate the high cost of subway construction by offering an elevated light-metro alternative. The problem was and is, the city of Vancouver (like most cities in the USA and Europe) do not want elevated railways, thus SkyTrain must be in a subway and this poses the problems of high costs and limited appeal to transit users.

  2. David Says:

    If a subway were to be built under Broadway it would undoubtedly be an extension or branch of the Millennium line making it SkyTrain technology in a tunnel. Thus I see no good reason to differentiate between SkyTrain and subway when dealing with this particular discussion.

  3. Richard Says:

    OK fine, lets put the LRT in a tunnel. Only problem is a new maintenance yard would be required. Even worse, an additional transfer would be required.

    It is time to stop these silly posts and start encouraging the province to fund both SkyTrain on Broadway and rail in the valley. If people who what better transit keep arguing, the government will continue to put more money into roads than transit.

    Zweisystem replies: Richard you are the one being silly. It is the high cost of SkyTrain and TransLink’s constant bungling that has driven Gateway and other highway programs. The BCIT to UBC and Stanley Park LRT is such a superior transit plan, it makes all others pale in comparison.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    To achieve the speed and capacity of Skytrain, an LRT system would have to be separated and high frequency, just like Skytrain. Richard’s point is well taken. Such an LRT system would approach the cost of Skytrain. Maybe it could be built for 10-20% less, but then you’d have the extra transfer and lack of a seamless trip from UBC to Coquitlam.

    Zweisystem replies: Actually no, the reserved rights-of-way would be quite cheap compared to a subway. On the question of capacity, even the simplest of streetcar systems have a potential capacity of over 20,000 pphpd. SkyTrain’s high commercial speeds is achieve for most part by long runs in Surrey, New Westminster and Burnaby where stations average several km. apart. Once in Vancouver commercial speed drops due the proliferation of stations.

    A LRT line with stops every 500m to 600m will have a lower commercial speed than SkyTrain with stations 1km or 1.5 km apart. But which system would be the best for transit customers?

  5. Anonymous2 Says:

    the author or the associated organization should hold some open house to educate public! Still a vast amount of public (those 50+) may not get used to Internet and will never have the opportunity to learn from the wealth of information in this site!

    Zweisystem replies: Unfortunately, Vancouver is not the purview for their efforts as we are trying to establish a Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain service. That being said, the Light Rail Committee offers to attend meetings regarding Broadway transit issues if invited. You can contact the Light Rail Committee on this blog or at oldboysrugby@hotmail.com.

  6. voony Says:

    “A LRT line with stops every 500m to 600m will have a lower commercial speed than SkyTrain with stations 1km or 1.5 km apart. But which system would be the best for transit customers?”

    it is like #9 vs #99 bus : which one the transit customer is riding?

    Zweisystem replies: Sorry Voony, not even close. Studies have shown that stops greater than 600m apart in urban areas deter ridership. The figure is not invented, but a fact that is put to good use by transit planners around the world. The fact is, when you count dwell times etc. between LRT and SkyTrain, the overall commercial speed would only slightly favour SkyTrain. You put too much emphasis on speed and not enough on convenience. Fatal mistake.

  7. Anonymous Says:

    Sorry for the dumb question, I rarely make it out to Vancouver, but SkyTrain and Canada line are incompatible, but don’t they share the waterfront station, or is it a separate area of the station, I’ve only been once and don’t remember…

    Also is the RFTV gmail still used? I sent an email and wasn’t sure if it got through.

    Zweisystem replies: They both share the same location but not the same station at Waterfront. the G Mail address goes to one of the RFV members and then forwarded to me. you can contact me at oldboysrugby@hotmail.com and put RE: transit on it.

  8. David Says:

    Regarding speed versus convenience…
    Edmonton’s new LRT routes have closer spaced stops than the original 1978 line and the transit authority plans to add intermediate stops along the old route to provide better service and better shape development. Adding stops will lower commercial speed, but they know it’s the right thing to do.

    Unlike planners in BC the people at Edmonton transit are aware that there are hundreds of real world systems to study and learn from. They’ve seen what works and what doesn’t and now they’re moving forward with plans that emulate successful systems elsewhere.

  9. David Says:

    The #9 was designed to be slow. Like many other legacy bus routes in Vancouver it actually has too many stops.
    The #99 was designed to be fast and stops have been added because it wasn’t convenient enough.

    A big reason why people take the #99 is frequency. If you miss a #9 you could be stuck waiting for more than 10 minutes. Miss a B-line and the next bus could be along before the light turns red.

    A great example of frequency as the determining factor is 41st Avenue.

    The #41 is the local bus. It has frequent stops. In fact there are two places on the east side where there are stops on both sides of the same intersection. Talk about having too many stops.
    The #43 is an express.

    Based purely on the speed argument so often seen in comments here the #43 should be packed, but it’s not.

    Just like Broadway the more frequent bus has higher average loading than the less frequent one.
    Passengers would rather spend an extra 10 minutes on board a transit vehicle than 10 minutes waiting for one.

    Zweisystem replies: In Europe, most bus routes have stop spacings a minimum of 450m apart. In Vancouver, bus top spacing is about 250m to 300m apart. In Europe bus stop spacings for trolleybuses are on par with LRT 450m to 600m apart.

  10. gayzwei12 Says:

    Moderators note: You will not be allowed to post again, all posts will be treated as spam. We know you do not like light rail nor this blog, so why waste your time with profane language and libelous insults?

  11. Justin Bernard Says:

    If both LRT, and Skytrain lines had the same station spacing, and grade-separation, LRT speed would be equal to Skytrain. It’s station spacing, not technology that determines speed. The advantage of LRT is its considerably cheaper capital costs allows more stations to be built, therefore serving more residents. Honestly, who wants to be forced to take a bus to a station? I do not know the costs of Skytrain stations, but here in Toronto, the stations for the Spadina Subway extension are costing over 100 Million each.

    Zweisystem replies: The problem is that very few people here recognize the power of the reserved rights-of-way and the ability to increase commercial speeds without the huge costs associated with grade separation. Sorry Justin, because the RAV/Canada Line is a P-3 and falls under the provincial privacy act, no one here knows the true cost of the Canada Line or its stations. The Susan Heyes lawsuit revealed that the cost of RAV/Canada Line was near $2.5 billion.

  12. Richard Says:

    Thanks David, for acknowledging the importance of frequency. This is one of the big advantages of SkyTrain and other automated systems. Many LRT systems have frequencies of 15 minutes or greater in off-peak hours to save money. With automated systems, it does not really cost any more to run trains with frequencies of 5 minutes or less in off-peak hours. At night, most people would not mind walking a couple of extra minutes to catch a train that will be their in five minutes as opposed to waiting 15 minutes or more for a tram to arrive.

    Zweisystem replies: Most LRT system operate at frequencies that is best it cater to demand. Also as many LRT lines share a route in the city centre (Portland and Calgary are good examples) frequencies increase in more populated urban centres. I understand that Calgary operates 90 second headways in the transit mall in peak hours. Studies have shown that frequencies or headways of 4 minutes is about the limit that attracts ridership. Automated transit systems also tend to operate more services in slack periods thus driving up maintenance costs. Operators of driverless metros see much higher maintenance costs than LRT operators

    Richard you also refuse to acknowledge that if off-peak passenger demand is satisfied by a 15 minute service, there would not be a ‘automatic’ metro alternative, as it would be impractical (Way too expensive). Thus those waiting 15 minutes for a tram, would have to take the car as there would be no metro alternative.

    If on Broadway, off-peak passenger demand warranted 5 minute headways, 5 minute headways would be provided, simple economics

  13. mezzanine Says:

    ” The advantage of LRT is its considerably cheaper capital costs allows more stations to be built, therefore serving more residents. Honestly, who wants to be forced to take a bus to a station?”

    Well, they are doing that with Edmonton’s LRT with great success, just like skytrain.

    “The results are much better than projected before the new stations went into service last April, when ridership was anticipated to grow to 65,000 daily passengers.

    Part of the increase comes from a realignment and elimination of some south-side bus routes to feed riders into the LRT system.”

    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/ridership+jump+shatters+record/2702873/story.html#ixzz0nNZnPOs7

  14. Justin Bernard Says:

    Richard,

    It is passenger demand that determines frequency, not technology.

    Here in Toronto, the 510 Spadina Streetcar runs every 6 minutes past 12:00 midnight! It is a regular streetcar in ROW.

    http://www3.ttc.ca/Schedule/schedule.jsp?Route=510N&Stop=UNION_STATION

    The 512 St. Clair Streetcar(whose ROW construction metro proponents love to cite to make their case against surface rail) runs a frequency of 8 minutes after 12:00, and 10 minutes from 1:00 until 2:00, when buses take over for the late-night trips. Before you make a comment about buses replacing streetcars, it is because the streetcars were built when Toronto was one of a few cities that decided to maintain their systems. The streetcars are maintenance nightmares,, and have components that are not compatible with current tram components. We have 204 new streetcars arriving in a year or so,.

    http://www3.ttc.ca/Schedule/schedule.jsp?Route=512E&Stop=ST_CLAIR_WEST_STATION

    If it was about saving money, I doubt agencies would even build automated metros. Automated metros are not cheap to build, and maintain. Not that I am against automated metros, but I doubt an agency builds one to save money.

  15. mezzanine Says:

    “It is passenger demand that determines frequency, not technology. ”

    I would argue it is operational funding and political will that determines frequency. The late-night demand may be there for the spadina tram in DT TO, and it makes it easy to justify. For vancouver’s skytrain, it’s easier to provide paris metro-like levels of of service to Richmond, surrey and vancouver because of automation. Sure it shouldn’t be the only reason to build skytrain, but it’s a nice benefit.

    “Here in Toronto, the 510 Spadina Streetcar runs every 6 minutes past 12:00 midnight! It is a regular streetcar in ROW. ”

    To play devil’s advocate, how would a busway in a cheaper ROW on spadina be different?

    http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/data/200505072354.shtml

    “In January [2005], shortly after the Toronto Transit Commission released a report calling for transit rights of way on these arterial roads, The Globe and Mail tried to assess the effectiveness of the Spadina line.

    We found that:

    A TTC document obtained last month says the trip takes one minute longer in the afternoon rush hour than in 1990. Data on historical and current transfers indicate a 17-minute bus trip in 1993 now takes 19 minutes by streetcar.

    The 510 may be the slowest of all routes between the Bloor-Danforth and Queen Street. Travel times on TTC transfers put Bloor-to-Queen trips at 12 minutes on Spadina, 8 minutes on Bathurst and 10 minutes on other routes.

    The TTC says ridership on Spadina is up 30 per cent since 1997, the year the line opened. But when compared with 1992, the last year before construction tore up the street and cut into ridership, Spadina appears to be down 1.5 per cent, while overall TTC ridership is up about 3.4 per cent.

    TTC cost-to-revenue ratio lists show the Spadina and Harbourfront lines (now considered one for accounting purposes) have plunged to 35th-best among the TTC’s 132 surface routes. In 1997, they were No. 1 and No. 9, respectively, with the Spadina bus one of only seven routes turning a profit.”

    Zweisystem replies: Mezz quotes:”it’s easier to provide Paris metro-like levels of of service to Richmond, surrey and Vancouver because of automation”.

    What is metro like levels of service? 8 to 10 car trains? As I recall, the Canada Line operates 2 car trains at a maximum of 4 minute headway, which is somewhat inferior to light rail levels of service.

    To date, SkyTrain has provided only LRT level of service at about twice the cost! No wonder it is next to impossible to sell SkyTrain!

  16. David Says:

    @ Richard:

    Yes high frequency is nice and I think running LRT more frequently than demanded by volume could be done. Why?

    LRT at frequencies matching demand costs significantly less to operate than a subway. If you’re willing to give up those savings you can run more off-peak trams.

    A subway would require a parallel bus service to remain on the corridor. With LRT you save the cost of a bus route. If you’re willing to give up those savings you can run even more off=peak trams.

    And that’s without considering construction costs at all.

  17. Justin Bernard Says:

    “To play devil’s advocate, how would a busway in a cheaper ROW on spadina be different?”

    A busway would not fit into the Spadina Streetscape. The route was experiencing high ridershhip, and frequency before the bus line was replaced with streetcar. The frequency is even higher now with the streetcar. A streetcar ROW was justified. The streetcar loops at Spadina is underground due to the high frequency of streetcars entering. and leaving the station. A bus tunnel would have cost considerably more.

    The article fails to mention that the Spadina streetcar, unfortunately did not have priority at signalized intersections. The pitfalls of a traffic department more concerned with making sure autos are accommodated, rather than transit. It seems to me, the writer is picking certain stats to make his article a little more valid. In 2003 The daily ridership for the 510 was 43,000, in 2008 it was 48,000 The line has been attracting riders between 2005, and 2008.

  18. mezzanine Says:

    “What is metro like levels of service? 8 to 10 car trains?”

    Sorry for my mistake, a more precise term would probably be “Paris metro-like levels of frequency”.

    http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/driverless-rapid-transit-why-it-matters.html

    “Some non-automated subways do run as frequently as SkyTrain, but they’re in places like Manhattan, London, and Paris, cities vastly larger than greater Vancouver. (Paris, by the way, now has a driverless line, and is beginning to convert existing lines to driverless.) No non-automated system could have delivered such high frequencies late into the night in a city of Vancouver’s scale. “

  19. Richard Says:

    The issue with streetcars is that it is cheaper to run longer trains at a lower frequency to meet demand. This results in lower quality service, less customer satisfaction, longer travel times and less people using transit. Especially in non-peak hours where driving is faster due to lack of congestion, the higher frequencies that can be economically offered by automated system, are key to providing the transit customer with the service they want. Otherwise, they will just get into their car and continue to drive.

    People need convenient service at all times of day. The customer demand is for frequent service. The argument that service should only be provided as often as a train can be relatively full is taking the bean-counter point of view and not the customer oriented point of view needed to encourage more people to use transit.

    Zweisystem replies: All LRT/tram operators offer services as demand warrants, if there is low demand, then lower service frequenies are waranted. One just doesn’t operate a transit route with almost unlimited service when there is low ridership, if one does, then there are higher maintenance costs to contends with. This is SkyTrain’s Achilles heel, it is maintenance intensive. You live in a fools paradise if you think that automatic railways can be operated at high frequencies, during periods of low demand without a maintenance penalty.

  20. Richard Says:

    “To date, SkyTrain has provided only LRT level of service at about twice the cost! No wonder it is next to impossible to sell SkyTrain!”

    This simply is not true. The most successful LRT in North America, the Calgary C-Train, runs at much lower frequencies in off-peak hours than the SkyTrain. Sure, the operating costs are about twice as much for SkyTrain, but there are probably around twice as many trains.

    Regarding the Canada Line, I think we can both agree that the operating agreement is not perfect, but if TL choses to run trains at a higher frequency, I expect the incremental cost is less than it would have been it an LRT system would have been used.

    Zweisystem replies: Your argument is one of pure invention. To date, SkyTrain has only matched LRT performance in revenue operation, that is why it has been a extremely poor product to sell. Sane transit authorities just will not spend two to five times more for an transit system that offers no real advantage.

  21. David Says:

    Life has recently forced me to switch from Expo line to Canada line. As a result my average wait time for a train has more than doubled, but even when I’m trying to get to the daycare before it closes a couple extra minutes is no big deal.

    Off peak most travellers have more time to spare and greater patience to utilize that time waiting for transit so frequency can better match demand and very few care. Still there are limits to how long people will wait and still be willing to use transit. In my opinion most North American LRT lines cut things back too much. I believe off-peak headways longer than 10 minutes have a measurable negative impact on ridership.

    One of the reasons for having public transit in the first place is to provide a social service. The problem is transit is operated by local authorities who don’t have the deep pockets or mandate to engage in activities where many of the benefits don’t show up on the financial statements.

    Social programs are typically funded by a more senior level of government and while they do provide money for transit most decline to provide the necessary long term funding. Instead they make capital contributions which typically last only until the next election. The aim is to take all the credit while attracting none of the blame. Sadly that strategy seems to work.

    There are ways of looking at the figures that would allow many places to run “uneconomical” trains. Where LRT can replace a significant number of buses the peak hour savings are enough to fund good off-peak frequency, but the bean counters don’t see it that way. Beefing up off-peak services is usually low on the priority list for cash strapped operators. Instead those savings are siphoned off to balance the books or re-directed to other uneconomical services like overnight buses.

  22. Justin Bernard Says:

    “The issue with streetcars is that it is cheaper to run longer trains at a lower frequency to meet demand. This results in lower quality service, less customer satisfaction, longer travel times and less people using transit. Especially in non-peak hours where driving is faster due to lack of congestion, the higher frequencies that can be economically offered by automated system, are key to providing the transit customer with the service they want. Otherwise, they will just get into their car and continue to drive.

    People need convenient service at all times of day. The customer demand is for frequent service. The argument that service should only be provided as often as a train can be relatively full is taking the bean-counter point of view and not the customer oriented point of view needed to encourage more people to use transit.”

    Where do people come up with these assumptions? These comments are simply not true. Here in Toronto, we run our subways(300 foot long trains) at a 5-6 minute frequency until 1:45am, because the demand warrants it! You should see the night buses after the subway is closed. Our night streetcar and bus network run a basic 30 minutes service all night, except for 2 routes which parallel the closed subway lines. Those run at 20 minutes or better service for most of the night. You do not need automation, and small metro cars to run quality service at night, especially if you cannot adequately determined where the demand at night is.
    I do agree that an agency should provide decent service at night, but you do not need automated mini-metros to provide the service. Can you name any automated metro that performs as you claim?
    The one system that comes to mind is Copenhagen’s metro, and even their system runs a 20 minute service during the weeknights, and 15 minute service weekend nights. If automated metros were the pinnacle of transit as you claim them to be, shouldn’t it be a simple task to maintain a fixed 5 minute schedule 24/7?

  23. zweisystem Says:

    This quote from American Transit specialist Gerald Fox (from the Evergreen Line letter) should dispel the notion that short headways will attract more ridership:

    “Ridership. Is a function of many factors. The Business Case report would have you believe that type of rail mode alone, makes a difference (It does in the bus vs rail comparison, according to the latest US federal guidelines). But, on the Evergreen Line, I doubt it. What makes a difference is speed, frequency (but not so much when headways get to 5 minutes), station spacing and amenity etc. Since the speed, frequency and capacity assumptions used in the Business Case are clearly inaccurate, the ridership estimates cannot be correct either. There would be some advantage if SkyTrain could avoid a transfer. If the connecting system has capacity for the extra trains. But the case is way overstated.”

    As LRT can easily achieve 5 minute headways, this transit frequency debate is moot.

  24. David Says:

    Automated metros need to be shut down overnight for maintenance making them useless for the kind of services Justin talks about.

    Zweisystem replies: Exactly, what the SkyTrain Lobby kindly forget is that automatic metros need a much higher degree of maintenance than light rail. And while we are at it, those steerable axle trucks used by SkyTrain are a maintenance nightmare. This all adds up to higher operating costs.

  25. voony Says:

    Let me understand david:

    you explain in one post that people gather to the #99 because it has better frequency than the #9 and in another you explain that “Off peak most travellers have more time to spare and greater patience to utilize that time waiting for transit so frequency can better match demand and very few care”: may you conciliate this 2 views?

    Zwei explain that below 4mn people don’t care about frequency: curious enough but it is the frequency of the #9 too, which is considered as too low by David…and people still gathering to the fast limited stop #99…

    at end the you mention “Automated metros need to be shut down overnight for maintenance ” : curious to know what you believe is happening at night with the JFK airtrain, the CDG Val and ORD Val to name few ?

    Zweisystem replies: Studies have shown that headways below 4 minutes don’t tend to attract more ridership, as alluded to in Gerald fox’s letter. Voony, the Automatic metro’s you mention do run 24/7 except for maintenance, periodically, the systems you mentioned are shut on weekends for maintenance, with a bus service running in their stead, thus the transit service runs 24/7, not the metro.

  26. David Says:

    @ voony

    Which bus someone chooses to take is dependent on many things like convenience of stops at both ends of the trip, timing of transfers, time constraints, walking ability of everyone in the group, amount of stuff being carried, and last but certainly not least the weather.

    In peak periods most travellers are alone, in a hurry and reasonably fit. They are also more likely than off-peak travellers to be headed for a high density destination with a B-Line stop.

    Off peak the mix changes and average group size goes way up. Not only is average mobility lower and the number of bags being carried higher, the off peak traveller is more likely to be going shopping, to the doctor or to a community centre. Such services are more widely distributed and less likely to have a B-Line stop. So the transit customer may be faced with the prospect of walking a significant distance at both ends of their trip.

    Shortly after the morning peak bus stops in my neighbourhood attract small groups of Asian seniors, mothers/nannies with babies and toddlers, and young adults whose school or work day starts a bit later than others.

    A significant portion of off peak travel is discretionary. Such travellers have chosen off peak despite longer wait times. It would appear that comfort is far more important than time to them.

    Part of the day the #9 runs every 12 minutes and the actual spacing is somewhat variable making waits as long as 15 minutes likely. In one of the posts you refer to I said that anything above a 10 minute headway makes people look for alternatives. No contradiction.

  27. Justin Bernard Says:

    The JFK airtrain, and and airport VALs are people movers, and shuttles. They are not automated metros.

    Zweisystem replies: Though termed an airport shuttle, the JFK is indeed an automatic ART train powered by linear induction motors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: