Buying back toll roads

Reports that the NSW Liberal government is planning to buy back the Cross-City tunnel, following the bankruptcy of the second set of private owners mark an important step in the failure of the private infrastructure program launched in the 1980s with the Sydney Harbour Tunnel[1].

The interesting failure here is not the bankruptcy of the operators but the recognition that the whole idea of imposing tolls on a road designed to divert traffic from the city is nonsense. The most sensible plan, after buying the tunnel is to remove the toll and free road space in the CBD for a variety of initiatives including light rail and cycleways.

Unfortunately, the lessons have not been learned. The new WestConnex project in Sydney is to be a largely private tollway. The proposed East-West link in Melbourne is also a toll road but “is being procured as an Availability Public Private Partnership (PPP), with the State initially retaining tolling and traffic risk.” Whether or not these projects are economically and socially justified, there is no doubt that the use of toll funding will greatly reduce the benefits, leaving more traffic on congested, but untolled, roads.

fn1. A sham deal, which was eventually reconstructed as a publicly owned tunnel with a private operating contract.

91 thoughts on “Buying back toll roads

  1. “To put it in another way. What are the theoretical conditions for congestion pricing being an optimal (or even desirable) solution? These conditions (if they have been worked out for a sufficiently complex models to capture reality) should be compared to the actual conditions and only if the actual conditions sufficiently closely approximate the theoretical conditions would I conclude this is the way to go. I’d be happy to get a reference to the theoretical conditions. I have not discovered one.”

    That you can internalise a congestion externality at sufficiently low transaction costs. There are many discussions of this topic dating back to the 1950s. See the World Bank study by T. Hau available free on web.

  2. I am wondering, since my mobile phone cost me ten dollars, why hasn’t someone handed me a free car navigation system that not only tells me the shortest route to take but is updated in real time to help avoid traffic jams and road works, and responds to traffic density and weather and so on? Surely this would be a lot more cost effective than building new roads and would save large amounts of fossil fuels, reduce CO2 emissions and other pollution, reduce road deaths and injuries, increase the lifespan of our vehicles by reducing the number of kilometers we drive, and make business more efficient as travel times are reduced? It really seems like a no brainer, but so far no one has handed me such a device. We don’t even need everybody to have one to see an improvement. If only 10% of vehicles had it we’d still see plenty of benefit. And even if we don’t want to go for fancy ones that are updated in real time we should still be handing out cheap, basic car navigation systems. If they reduce the kilometers people drive by 1% they should pay for themselves in a couple of years through reduced car costs alone while providing everyone with the benefit of reduced congestion and reduced pollution. Maybe we’re not doing it because we’re a little thick. Or maybe I am a lot thick and overlooking some major obstacle, but I don’t know what it could be, at least for simple car navigation systems.

  3. @Ernestine Gross

    Ernestine, re alternative transport modes in those northern Sydney regions – aren’t there dedicated buslanes and frequent peakhour services? What are the points of difference to a train connection for people with school etc. dropbys?

    John Cox (Road Pricing Literature Review in JB Cox and SJ Meyrick “Road charging and funding study” Aust Auto Assoc July 1997) says congestion pricing is less important in Australia cf. more densely populated cities in Europe and US, as congestion here is only a big issue in a few places and accommodated over time by housing and jobs spreading out to the suburbs (less so in Sydney, being more geographically confined with less low cost suburban land.) Such dispersion dilutes noise and local airpollution effects. However car use would increase from relocation due to fewer pub transport options. Cox notes that shopping and personal trips rather than work trips were the growth area over the decades leading up to the above report, and increasingly these are circumferential travel rather than radial into and out of CBDs.

    Change in land use would be accelerated by pricing inner city congestion as more price elastic shopping and personal trips would be moved elsewhere, unless affected interests lobbied for better public transport. I’ve noticed more and more young people don’t have cars and don’t want them – cost, lifestyle, lifecycle aspects I guess – but the constituency for better public options is still there. There’s obviously more cars around but does anyone know if passenger car travel is stagnant or in decline?

  4. @Ronald Brak

    car navigation system that not only tells me the shortest route to take but is updated in real time to help avoid traffic jams and road works, and responds to traffic density and weather and so on

    Maybe I’m being thick too but here are a few thoughts.

    1.My Garmin automatically directs me towards tollways which is a private cost I prefer to avoid if time allows
    2. wider dispersion of traffic update info. will increase movement to another place and due to the uncertainty of knowing how many others do it can cause a blockage (fallacy of composition)
    3. changes in trip routes while on the road can increase risky driving behaviour, not to mention the roadrage consequent upon frustrated expectations of a better option
    4. road works are often already flagged in advance enabling calmer consideration of adjustment
    5. weather – OK, I don’t live in the tempestuous conditions common to other places, but radio warnings, increasing use of SMS from road authorities/police plus visual observation etc. is already there; do we help or hinder responses by creating the idea that weather can be “beaten”?
    6. accidents – don’t see this one, some people are going to spend more time interacting with the things while driving, I admit to that; also, giving another distracting and annoying toy to someone who didn’t ask for it and isn’t adaptive to it safely (like me) increases safety risk
    7. “cheap and basic car nav systems” is not the way to go, intelligent systems are – over time as it becomes a standard feature, better and safer and adaptive to all drivers.

  5. @hc

    I am aware there are many discussions (in transport economics) about congestion pricing and they go back more than 50 years. But the models I’ve come across consider only the allocation of a public good (such as a road) among competing users in isolation from all other economically relevant marketable and non-marketable ‘commodities’.

    Models which take transport mode choice into account (eg Hensher) support my argument regarding Sydney. But these models still do not take into account other parameter values which restrict the choice set of people.

    To rephrase my question, taking your comment into account: To put it in another way. What are the theoretical conditions for congestion pricing being an optimal (or even desirable) solution, such “that you can internalise a congestion externality at sufficiently low transaction costs?” (In this case ‘sufficiently low transactions cost’ could be part of the definition of ‘optimal’. I don’t know whether this is your intention.)

    Congestion is a form of quantity rationing with an implied equal price, in terms of time, for each participant. If people have a choice to avoid congestion then they can do so (by using their personal price, ie preferences over how to allocate their time, relative to all other monetary – market transactions – and non-monetary -non-market – alternatives).

  6. @kevin1

    If you think that the public would be generally receptive to congestion charging, I invite you to track down any Australian newspaper article about the subject and review the comments left by readers. Here’s a particularly depressing comments thread from the Daily Telegraph, accompanying an article entitled “Congestion road tax on drivers is highway robbery” (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/congestion-road-tax-on-drivers-is-highway-robbery/comments-e6freuy9-1226103742822).

    Internationally, where congestion pricing has successfully been introduced it’s generally been despite the balance of public opinion, and there have been proposals which have stalled in the face of spectacular public opposition. In Edinburgh and Manchester, for example, they held referendums on the issue, with support for congestion pricing a mere 26% and 21% respectively.

    In Stockholm, congestion charging only got on the agenda when the Green party made it a condition of support for a minority government, and only 40% of citizens were in favour. In London, where of course there is a large percentage of non-drivers, the balance of public opinion was nonetheless slightly against charging, but Red Ken pushed it through anyway. There is strong public support for congestion charging in both cities now, but it took political serendipity or bloody-minded commitment to get the schemes up and running in the first place.

    In New York City there was strong public support for charging, again not so surprising in a public transport-oriented city, but opponents were still able to block the mayor’s scheme at the state level.

    Of course, the tricky part of selling congestion charging is that many motorists lose out in terms of the policy’s direct effects, even if they continue to drive, so there’s a need to highlight the uses to which the revenue which is raised is put. There’s strong evidence from opinion polls that hypothecating revenue for public transport projects is vital for assuaging people’s concerns about being forced to use a substandard alternative and dealing with the perception (and depending on the context, reality) of congestion pricing as regressive in its direct effects.

    By the way, with respect to your comment about “all the jurisdictions within Australia”, surely there are only at maximum five places where congestion charging might be introduced in Australia in the near term.

  7. @kevin1

    With regard to inner city congestion charging shifting trips elsewhere, there is evidence for Sydney CBD at least (Hensher and King 2001) that increased parking prices would overwhelmingly lead to mode shift rather than diversion or elimination of trips, given current public transport service levels; presumably congestion charging would have similar effects.

  8. @kevin1
    Kevin1, good point that people fiddling with their car navs might have the unintended consequence of causing more accidents even if people are spending less time on the road because of them. One major possible obstacle to the adoption of an intelligent car navigation system is that some people would want to make the systems into electronic tattletales that rat drivers out when they do something wrong. Obviously this would cause a massive resistance to their uptake. Better by far to save lives by having car navigation systems that keep their electronic mouths shut rather than not have them at all. (And really, people are stressed out enough as it is. We should take into account the unintended consequences of raised blood pressures caused by electronics programmed for betrayal.)

  9. @Luke Elford
    Thanks for int’l. info Luke, I didn’t know about that. Yes, media will have a field day. CityLink in Melb has day/night differential tolls for heavy and light commercial vehicles, but not cars. Maybe congestion charges at destination is more efficient, through CBD s/t parking Council pricehikes, State Revenue Office “congestion levies” on parking spaces significantly raised and extended to s/t parking, and now supported by RACV if applied to roads and public transport. Of course this boosts demands for greater public transport.

    Although perhaps a cover for plugging budgetary holes to some extent, applying congestion revenue to congestion reduction investment elsewhere sounds like an approximation to rational economics. If it results in mode switching to trains, with similar effects in ameliorating congestion, aren’t we already having the tax that dare not speak its name?

  10. It seems to me that it is feasible to have a realtime traffic condition analysis and route-advisory system, under certain conditions:
    * If the devices are widely available, and if they report back to a server their current locations, that in itself provides information about local traffic density;
    * A system that takes into account the effect of advising (some) cars to change route;
    * The opportunity to use other sources for assessment of traffic congestion, such as local cameras, car-mounted cameras (eg like those used for parking), etc.

    None of those conditions are impossible to meet. The more people who opt in, the better the system is likely to work well enough.

    Of course, the best answer of all is to find ways of reducing the traffic burden in general: if the sheer number of drivers seeking to drive during a particular time window is reduced for a given origin-to-destination, then the easier it is to reduce the likelihood of frustrating congestion (all other things being equal). With the ubiquity of mobile phones, organising a car pool shouldn’t be particular challenging, these days. Better public transport helps as well. Bike riding when travelling short distances is another way of reducing traffic burden. Removing any form of salary packaging with cars etc, would also assist in reducing some of the non-essential traffic burden, a) by removing incentive to purchase a car because of tax reasons, b) getting rid of the crazy effect of people driving a lot in order to bring the mileage across the threshold for the financial year.

    I thought the Liberal philosophy was to allow individuals to be free to modify their behaviour as the individual sees fit, not for government to shape it with onerous taxes and levies 🙂

  11. I thought the Liberal philosophy was to allow individuals to be free to modify their behaviour as the individual sees fit, not for government to shape it with onerous taxes and levies

    Totally true, even if it leads to worse Pareto outcomes.

  12. @Megan Why should the taxpayer bail-out a coal miner?

    I suppose the anti-coal campaigners would be conflicted on this mining company bail-out: choosing between supporting government ownership and saving the planet?

  13. This real-time traffic navigation thing that’s being talked about here already exists. I’ve been using one for about 18 months. Tomtom makes them. They contain a SIM card and use the mobile phone network for communication. They will tell you, for example, that there’s a 5 minute delay on your route, and there’s alternative route that’s 3 minutes quicker if you’d like to use it.

  14. @SJ
    SJ, that sounds like the sort of thing that could have a significant effect on congestion and it may be worthwhile to simply give these systems to people. Now giving people car navigation systems may sound a bit odd to some people, but I’m being given hundreds of millions of dollars worth of roadworks on South Street and I really don’t think I’ll get as much benefit from that as I would from a car navigation system.

    (Of course, an Australian city doesn’t have to be the first to do this. We can ride on the coat tails of foreign type cities.)

  15. @Megan

    Free public transport would solve traffic congestion instantly.

    Doubtful.

    1. Public transport in the major conurbations at peak and shoulder is very close to capacity. You couldn’t fit many more people onto the trains or buses so whether people driving cars are being discouraged ifrom using it is neither here nor there.
    2. It’s unlikely in my view that many driving cars in congested traffic are doing it to save money. You’re unlikely to save much, if anything and you will only save money if you live far enough away to waste a lot of time in your car (but not so far that you’d lose money)

    Some of the routes that fit the descriptor in #2 above have tolls excluding them.

    What’s needed is more public transport capacity, and one way of funding that is through congestion pricing. Another option is to build more housing close to the places where people commute to so that there is less demand for transport in general. You could also design suburbs with entries and exits that made driving through them to commute impracticable. You’d then run your trains through the suburb and have buses wend their way about moving people around within the suburb and between adjacent ones.

    The rationale for cars would decline in a setting like that. With consolidation you could shop and access services more often locally.

  16. Fran Barlow :
    @Megan
    2. It’s unlikely in my view that many driving cars in congested traffic are doing it to save money. You’re unlikely to save much, if anything and you will only save money if you live far enough away to waste a lot of time in your car (but not so far that you’d lose money)

    I agree with most of your comment, but mention of PT costs presses any Brisvegasite’s buttons! It is absurdly expensive. Petrol + parking is cheaper than PT for every journey I’ve costed for two people, and is frequently cheaper even for one. If you’re heading somewhere with free parking, driving is always less expensive. It costs $16 to $20 for a return trip to the CBD for two of us, from a suburb only 7k distant. Many people here drive to work because they can’t afford the bus.

    Brisbane PT is clearly priced to benefit the road construction industry which, in concert with the coal miners, pretty much runs Queensland via their proxy-troglodyte Can’tReadCambpell.

  17. @Megan

    Free public transport would solve traffic congestion instantly.

    2. It’s unlikely in my view that many driving cars in congested traffic are doing it to save money. You’re unlikely to save much, if anything and you will only save money if you live far enough away to waste a lot of time in your car (but not so far that you’d lose money)

    I agree with most of your comment, but mention of PT costs presses any Brisvegasite’s buttons! It is absurdly expensive. Petrol + parking is cheaper than PT for every journey I’ve costed for two people, and is frequently cheaper even for one. If you’re heading somewhere with free parking, driving is always less expensive. It costs $16 to $20 for a return trip to the CBD for two of us, from a suburb only 7k distant. Many people here drive to work because they can’t afford the bus.
    Brisbane PT is clearly priced to benefit the road construction industry which, in concert with the coal miners, pretty much runs Queensland via their proxy-troglodyte Can’tReadCambpell.

    [JQ: an attempt to escape overzealous mod filter. Delete last if this gets through]

  18. @Crispin Bennett

    Re parking charges, I previously said “Maybe congestion charges at destination is more efficient, through CBD s/t parking Council pricehikes, State Revenue Office “congestion levies” on parking spaces significantly raised and extended to s/t parking, and now supported by RACV if applied to roads and public transport.” I should have clarified that these are not proposals but decisions.

    FYI, Council parking charges in CBD Melb rose last May for on-street parking from $4 an hour to $5.50 an hour and council’s car parks in the CBD up from $5 to between $8 and $12 an hour. The state levy was expanded to s/t slots, previously only to long-term or all-day parking slots. Residential, hospital, disabled and charity spaces will remain exempt. Treasurer said “at $1300 a year, the levy was still short of the $2160 per space charged in Sydney” and claimed the lift will boost government coffers by $44 million a year.

    Interestingly, both state govt and Council rises were 37%, happened within a couple of weeks of each other, and were defended for budgetary not congestion reasons, though state said they would be applying the revenue to PT and roads. Nothing like this in SE Qld?

  19. @Crispin Bennett

    and Fran,

    I intended to imply “and increased capacity to whatever level demanded by increased usage” in there as well.

    Brisbane did a trial about ten years ago where all bus fares were a flat $1 during December and January. Congestion was markedly decreased – even accounting for school holidays – and the buses were jam-packed.

    The responsible Councillor was Maureen Hayes from memory and the results were never released AFAIK.

    I maintain that free public transport, with required capacity increase, would solve traffic congestion.

  20. PS,

    In SEQ anyone who has a ticket for a major sporting event can use that ticket for free public transport to the venue from anywhere in SEQ – buses, trains, ferries.

    Of course it’s a subsidy for those events but it also is designed to reduce traffic and parking issues around the venues – and it works.

  21. @kevin1

    Yep, parking levies are a politically acceptable and administratively expedient, yet highly imperfect, alternative to congestion charging.

    Nope, they don’t exist in Brisbane (although maximum parking rates do exist in the city centre and frame). My understanding is that there’s not much prospect of them being introduced while Campbell Newman is around.

  22. @Megan: You won’t find me arguing against heavy PT subsidies. Entirely free is possibly wasteful. But it should be cheaper than driving. Zero chance of that here, though.

    @kevin1: I don’t have enough knowledge of (or interest in) transport policy to add more than anecdote. On reflection, my anecdote probably isn’t representative anyway: what commuting I’ve done has always been by bike, so the trips I’ve priced have been atypical re times, parking availability and price, etc. I certainly know people here who would far prefer a PT commute, but reluctantly drive because of PT’s patchy availability and exorbitant cost.

    Anti-PT / pro-fossil-fuel values amongst the Queensland elite (probably reasonably representative of the population, though the two groups’ motivations differ) inevitably trump detailed policy considerations here anyway, so transport economics, as it relates to Queensland, is just a word game. Values are more important than the detail, as so often.

  23. One development that could greatly reduce congestion is the use of mobile phones apps, or alternatively specialized devices, that allows everyone who desires it to let their car function like a taxi. You tell your mobile phone where you are going and it guides you to passengers going in the same direction that you pick up on the way. I presume there would be a rating system that would give people who are uncouth low scores and make them less likely to be picked up by drivers or less likely to be used by passengers. Of course organised opposition will make such systems hard to implement.

  24. @Crispin Bennett

    I’d very much like to see the question thoroughly and independently assessed.

    If PT was totally free to use, some things on the ‘plus’ side are:

    – no ticketing, enforcement, money handling, no time spent ‘swiping’ cards or buying tickets to get on and off;
    – less traffic congestion and road building/maintenance;
    – faster travel time for PT and others;
    – less GHG;
    – increased economic activity via tourism, worker utility, customer convenience and amenity in CBD and other centres.

    About the only thing on the ‘minus’ side is how much extra it would cost net of the savings.

  25. @Megan It would be interesting. But ’till all the redneck burghers are replaced with something better, it’s no more than entertainment.

  26. @Crispin Bennett

    I quite take your point. If there is indeed spare PT capacity during periods when there is congestion, along parallel corridors then in theory substitution would be some of the answer. Also, if pricing is as you say a serious barrier, then you’d have an argument for pricing roads and parking and underwriting public transport more heavily. Part of that underwriting should be the capital expenditures on new capacity and also new urban housing.

    I still would say though that more fundamental changes would be needed in the design of cities.

  27. @Luke Elford
    Could I ask for a comment on why parking levies at destination rather than journey levies are a highly imperfect substitute for congestion pricing? Is it because of exclusion of through traffic, although this might be included by camera tolling?

  28. Public transport that is entirely free has several benefits: it encourages people to make use of it; so long as the services are managed so as to provide appropriate capacity, it would reduce car traffic, all other things being equal; the entire ticket/smartcard machinery can be dispensed with; the ticket inspectors are unnecessary; in the case of buses, the bus driver’s job has a little less risk, as they no longer need to carry cash from direct ticket sales with them; there are no zones to worry about; the system is trivial to understand; car park spaces in the city areas can be freed up for other uses; the higher density of people to vehicle helps reduce overall pollution, including GHG emissions; fewer raw resources (metals, plastics, rubber, etc.) are required for people-shifting; quite probably a reduction in car accidents and the associated costs; etc. There are some obvious costs as well, and it doesn’t play nice with capitalists I suppose, as it has the obvious effect of reducing car sales, among other things. Councils that are locked onto car park revenue and traffic / parking violations probably won’t like it at first, either.

    It would be interesting to see how a totally free system—with appropriate extra capacity to cope comfortably—stacks up against our current mix of private and paying public transport system, with car park fees and all those other costs taken into consideration. Obviously from city to city there will be substantial differences, at least potentially, given geography, urban layout, demographic factors, and so on.

  29. And yes, there could be some bounce-back as a few souls decide to drive, once free public transport has de-cluttered the road system. On the other hand, if free public transport has adequate capacity and frequency of service to satisfy the vast majority of people, any bounce-back that occurs is likely to be quite limited.

  30. kevin1, Yes the conventional argument against using parking charges is that they are only an imperfect substitute for congestion charges. The usual reason is that they impact only on terminating traffic and by doing this and making the roads less congested on this account encourage more through traffic. In addition they don’t reflect congestion costs. A car travelling a short distance pays the same charge as one travelling a long distance. Finally its hard to figure out exactly how to use them as a surrogate. You don’t want people to drive during the peak. So “early bird” offers might make sense – you pay a low charge if you arrive before 7-00am and leave after 6-00pm for example. Generally the charge you would want to levy should depend on when you arrive and when you depart.

    There are however huge advantages in using parking charges. They have high community acceptability – people see paying for a space as paying for something tangible unlike congestion charging. There is a long history of using parking charges. They are also relatively low transaction cost.

    Transport economics nerds like me got a lot from Donald Shoup’s “The High Cost of Free Parking”. Its the best reference I have seen on parking economics and enjoyable though long reading. Strongly recommended for city administrators trying to improve city congestion and parking issues.

  31. About the objection to congestion pricing on the ground that some have rail alternatives and some do not. Surely, until congestion pricing revenue generates an income stream to cover the financing of new rail where needed, and until that rail is constructed, congestion pricing will enable uncongested bus services to serve those priced off the roads.

  32. In relation to an earlier post on this blog, I’ll just mention that congestion charges, electronic car pooling, and free public transport are all things that are apparently worse than the collapse of civilisation.

  33. @Donald Oats

    One of the other advantages of free public transport is that people who aren’t using it (eg: trades with utes full of tools) also win by getting all the rest of us off the roads and out of their way so they can get about their business.

  34. Megan :
    Like AGW nothing will be done unless people make it happen. Or at least try.

    Point taken. But what kind of “try” generates how much useful effect? And at what opportunity costs to other efforts? Clive Hamilton hit the nail on the head re AGW in this AGW piece. The crux of it is:

    If the science challenges the values, the values will win.

    It’s clear with AGW politics that scientific findings are a small and diminishing influence on what actually happens. I’d venture that the same may be true with rational transport policy. The corpulent Brisbane Club geezers who run Queensland have a picture of how things are to be. Prominently included in that picture would be: concrete, utes, 4WDs, block-filling houses, dogs, coal, yuccas. Barely visible in that picture: the Great Barrier Reef, single-parent mothers, solar power, buses, native shrubs, dugong. The picture acts as a filter. No matter how many reports come in advocating sensible policies for urban design or efficient energy use, the filter excludes them from honest consideration.

    When the mental picture of the world held by leaders (or those shopping for leaders) alters to include the things we might consider of value, then detail (of science, of policy) becomes relevant. Until then: how to change the picture, that’s the thing.

  35. Megan :
    Like AGW nothing will be done unless people make it happen. Or at least try.

    Point taken. But what kind of “try” generates how much useful effect? And at what opportunity costs to other efforts? Clive Hamilton has just hit the nail on the head re AGW in a RenewEconomy piece entitled “IPCC report will make no difference in culture of denial” (can’t link because doing so enforces moderation). The crux of it is:

    If the science challenges the values, the values will win.

    It’s clear with AGW politics that scientific findings are a small and diminishing influence on what actually happens. I’d venture that the same may be true with rational transport policy. The corpulent Brisbane Club geezers who run Queensland have a picture of how things are to be. Prominently included in that picture would be: concrete, utes, 4WDs, block-filling houses, dogs, coal, yuccas. Barely visible in that picture: the Great Barrier Reef, single-parent mothers, solar power, buses, native shrubs, dugong. The picture acts as a filter. No matter how many reports come in advocating sensible policies for urban design or efficient energy use, the filter excludes them from serious consideration.

    When the mental picture of the world held by leaders (or those shopping for leaders) alters to include the things we might consider of value, then detail (of science, of policy) becomes relevant. Until then: how to change the picture, that’s the thing.

  36. @hc
    Thanks for ref. to Shoup hc, lots of insights there.

    John Q, I have tried to track down your 1993 sub to IC Inquiry into Urban Transport “External Costs of Private Vehicles – Harm to Other Road Users” without success. Not on PC site, nor on your UQ site under submissions, and can’t find at CAEPR. Would be interested to read it if available somewhere. Thank you.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s