Special Report: Parking

Hamilton Health Sciences Can Do More to Reduce Parking Demand

It's not surprising no one is taking the bus or carpooling when you can park for a month at the General for $60 and an HSR bus pass is almost 60 percent more expensive!

By Nicholas Kevlahan
Published March 23, 2016

Hamilton Health Sciences Barton Street parking lot (RTH file photo)
Hamilton Health Sciences Barton Street parking lot (RTH file photo)

Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS) is raising its monthly parking rates [PDF]. Over three years, premium parking lots will increase to $110 per month, while standard parking lots will increase to $90 per month. You can see the schedule of increases in the following table.

Hamilton Health Sciences Monthly Parking Cost Increase Schedule
Type Location Current Rate Year 1 (May 2016) Year 2 (April 2017) Year 3 (April 2018)
Premium MUMC, Underground $96.99 $100.00 $105.00 $110.00
JHCC, Concession/Poplar $96.99 $100.00 $105.00 $110.00
General, Victoria $96.99 $100.00 $105.00 $110.00
MUMC South Garage $76.57 $86.00 $96.00 $110.00
Standard General, Wellington $70.00 $77.00 $83.00 $90.00
General, Barton $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00
JHCC, Big Bee $75.00 $80.00 $85.00 $90.00
Chedoke, St Peters, Urgent Care $54.10 $66.00 $78.00 $90.00
West Lincoln WLMH $25.00 $40.00 $45.00 $50.00
Off-Site MUMC, Ward $50.00 $57.00 $64.00 $71.00
RJCHC-Dofasco This lot is utilized and leased for RJCHC staff on a temporary basis only (until August 2016) and as such there will be no rate increase implemented at this time

The current prices are amazingly low. It's not surprising no one is taking the bus or carpooling when you can park for a month at the General for $60 and a HSR pass is almost 60 percent more expensive!

It is a straightforward economic argument that pricing something lower, especially when it is more convenient and socially acceptable, than the alternative is going to encourage its consumption. And this pricing structure is a form of subsidy.

Combined with an apparent policy of trying to provide parking for everyone who wants it - e.g. the Dofasco parking and the recent attempt to create a new surface parking lot in Beasley Neighbourhood - this is clearly a policy to encourage everyone to drive.

The highest "premium" parking passes, at $96.99, are roughly the same as a bus pass at $94.60. Even with the increases, most parking will still be much cheaper than a bus pass.

Parking Demand Management

McMaster University's parking rates on the main campus are higher overall ($88 to $101) but they are still very cheap at the distant lots on the other side of Cootes Drive ($48 to $70).

But McMaster also has a student HSR pass program and a carpool program. It has actually reduced the number of parking spaces it provides by re-naturalising parts of the Cootes parking lots.

McMaster has only 4,400 parking spots for about 30,000 students and 7,000 staff. (The McMaster Students Union (MSU) will also hold a referendum on a Hamilton Bike Share pass program in the Fall.)

As a result, the vast majority of the McMaster community does not drive alone to campus.

At the first Big Ideas, Better Cities talk at the Downtown Health Centre last fall, Stephen Huddart, President and CEO of the McConnell foundation, emphasized that big publicly-funded institutions - e.g. hospitals, universities, school boards - have a special responsibility to use their power, influence and spending to benefit the local community.

If HHS pushed for better cycling, walking and transit options near the General, it would also provide big benefits for the residents of this relatively poor and vulnerable community.

Universities and Hospitals are not such dissimilar institutions. In fact, there are often hospitals on university campuses and hospitals often use a "campus" model.

I would have hoped that as a progressive employer and community member, HHS would ensure that its cheapest monthly parking passes are at least as expensive as a monthly bus pass or provide subsidized bus passes for employees.

Opportunities to Shift Modes

I'm not suggesting that every employee should or even can commute to an HHS facility via walking, cycling, carpooling or transit. However, I expect a large percentage of employees fall into one of the following categories:

McMaster surveyed its employees and students on these criteria in order to gauge the potential for reducing single-car commutes. There is surely huge potential at HHS for people in these categories to drive less.

The parking system can also provide flexibility. For example, instead of a monthly pass HHS could provide reduced parking rates for a certain number of days a month to deal with specific circumstances when driving is the only reasonable option.

If HHS put the time, effort and money into tackling demand for parking that they put into shuttling employees from a lot at Dofasco and trying to force a new surface parking lot into Beasley, they could achieve real gains in these areas.

'There Are No Alternatives'

I just don't accept the argument that for the General and McMaster transit, carpooling, or cycling is not an option for most employees. (I can certainly believe that most employees like to drive and would rather not take the bus, but that's quite different.)

The whole "there are no alternatives" argument really irks me in urban contexts like McMaster, the General and St Joe's. All of these facilities are situated in dense urban areas and are well-served by transit.

This argument comes up all the time and is a form of concern trolling: I support transit in principle, but until it's a credible alternative for most people we have to keep catering to drivers.

What is really meant: I'm not going to take the bus because the bus is for other people who have no alternative. I like to drive and commuting by car is what normal successful people do.

There is also the higher-order argument that people used to cycling, walking and transit will choose where they live based on how good the cycling, walking and transit infrastructure is, and people who only drive won't take those things into account when choosing where to live. I certainly considered transit and cycling and walking when deciding to live in Durand Neighbourhood.

There are over 22 million HSR trips in Hamilton each year. Clearly it's not some Utopian dream to take the bus. And McMaster has already demonstrated that big institutions don't need to provide a parking spot for most of their constituents.

Sociological Component

There is also an interesting sociological component. If you grow up taking transit, as I did, then it seems normal and not strange or unpleasant. But if you grew up in a family where everyone drove everywhere, taking transit seems foreign and you don't think of it as an alternative for yourself - only for other people.

These social conventions are real, but they are not inevitable and people can change. Pricing is one way to make it both easier to switch and fairer to those who really do have no alternative: those who cannot drive or cannot afford a vehicle.

Another strange sociological fact is that I have to admit that professors are generally much more willing to walk, cycle or take transit than medical doctors and nurses, or business people - or even than the non-academic administrative staff. I often see my colleagues biking or on the HSR.

This extends internationally, where Paul Krugman talks about the efficiency of being able to work on the train (rather than driving) or to newspaper articles about scientific discoveries sparked by discussions on the line B RER between central Paris and the labs in the suburbs south of Paris.

I remember visiting the engineering department at the University of Cambridge and my host, a professor, pointed out a fancy Morgan sports car among all the bikes. The sports car was driven by an administrative staff member; the professors all rode bikes! I'm not sure why this is, but it could simply be a self-reinforcing trend.

Another example: primary and secondary school teachers almost all drive and schools provide abundant free parking. In fact, abundant free parking was one of the top ranked factors in the "decision matrix" that led to locating the new Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board office on the mountain.

I've never understood this: shouldn't school teachers have a similar attitude to professors regarding cycling, transit and so on?

In any case, it's clear that the social standards of your colleagues clearly play a role as well, which makes it harder socially for, say, a top lawyer, to take the bus than a professor.

Nicholas Kevlahan was born and raised in Vancouver, and then spent eight years in England and France before returning to Canada in 1998. He has been a Hamiltonian since then, and is a strong believer in the potential of this city. Although he spends most of his time as a mathematician, he is also a passionate amateur urbanist and a fan of good design. You can often spot him strolling the streets of the downtown, shopping at the Market. Nicholas is the spokesperson for Hamilton Light Rail.

27 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 10:39:44

This is a very interesting sociological phenomenon. There is a protected alley system all the way from downtown to HGH. Other cities are spending vast sums of money to expropriate the real estate for a transportation route that we've already got right now. But, as I will show on my May 7th Jane's Ride this transportation route is not respected with parts of it unpaved and neglected.

I write "interesting sociological phenomenon" because fixing the alley is far cheaper than the proposals to build car infrastructure. And travel from downtown by bicycle is about a 10 minute ride. By far the fastest mode of transportation. Many car drivers spend longer walking from the car parking lot to the hospital.

When people choose irrational, sub-optimal outcomes, there probably is a cultural sociological fixation at work.

Permalink | Context

By Md22 (anonymous) | Posted April 09, 2016 at 07:48:22 in reply to Comment 117179

Yes, "a strange sociological fact" is that Doctors and nurses work, on average, 12-24 hour shifts. This work is physically and emotionally exhausting. The last thing you want to do is wait an additional half an hour for your bus to arrive, which is often the case. Thank you for sharing your idealistic perspective. The reality is that medicine and nursing are not 9-5 jobs; comparing our medical work to that of a professor is irrelevant and accounts for this strange sociological fact.

Permalink | Context

By Really (anonymous) | Posted April 09, 2016 at 08:23:24 in reply to Comment 117557

The reality is that hospital workers are not 9 to 5 employees. 24/7/365. Hospitals never close. Nurses and doctors are never unavailable. The point was valid

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 11:18:07

I have to admit something. I have a cottage. (I know, I am going to hell.) My cottage is over three hours away and if I took a bus it would literally take me 7 hours to get there. So I have a car.

Another admission I have to make is that I need my car for work.

Another admission is, that I had young children (four boys) who played hockey. I had a car for that.

I could have passed on the cottage and the work and the hockey,(and the kids for that matter) but I chose to do that. My bad.

A car cost me about $10,000.00 a year all in.

I don't have a bus pass because I have a lot invested in my car. The cost of a bus pass bears no relation at all to the cost of parking for me because every dollar extra I spend on parking is just extra expense because I have a car.

From my perspective, because I have a car, forcing higher parking rates for social purposes is just a tax and serves no purpose for me and so is unnecessary.

The very vast majority of people own cars. Some use them a lot less than others but I bet the vast majority of people think like I do along the lines of the reasoning set out above. So they would think like me that raising parking rates unless market driven is unnecessary and is a tax.

I hate unnecessary taxes.

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2016-03-23 11:20:48

Permalink | Context

By DavidColacci (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 19:38:51 in reply to Comment 117181

"Market Driven"

More cars than parking spots equal higher parking rates. Seems simple enough at HGH?

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted March 24, 2016 at 09:28:23 in reply to Comment 117204

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2016-03-24 09:29:13

Permalink | Context

By Mandatory Minimum Parking (anonymous) | Posted March 24, 2016 at 09:43:32 in reply to Comment 117209

Exactly! (provided supply is not artificially maximized or mandated)

Fixed that for you.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted March 24, 2016 at 10:27:59 in reply to Comment 117211

Exactly! (provided supply is not artificially maximized at the expense of the economic vitality and quality of life of the surrounding community, or mandated in direct contravention of secondary planning documents)

Fixed that for you. ;-)

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 25, 2016 at 17:38:55 in reply to Comment 117214

Love your comment!

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 13:12:45 in reply to Comment 117181

I forgive you Charles.

Permalink | Context

By Suburbanite (anonymous) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:31:25 in reply to Comment 117181

Just like you Charles, I have a cottage over 3 hours away, I have to use my car for work, and I had kids in hockey. But unlike you, I do not begrudge paying for parking in parking lot, or those parking rates increasing. I view them as user fees for the drivers of motor vehicles. Not unlike bus passes for transit users, monthly passes for people using our rec centres, and so on. Those parking fees are used to clear the snow in the lots, purchase meters, and annual maintenance of the painting. Those fees are also the cost to motorists for the convenience of keeping the lands as parking lots when prime land could be used differently and generate much more tax revenue. I must not be in the vast majority of people who think like you do. I believe increasing parking fees is a necessary tax.

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:45:02 in reply to Comment 117188

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 13:04:04 in reply to Comment 117191

I'm talking about large public institutions that because of their public funding and mission have different responsibilities (and special rights like not paying property taxes) than a private business.

These institutions include: hospitals, municipalities (e.g. municipal parking lots), schools, colleges and universities. And these corporations typically provide parking for free or at below cost/below market rates. They don't provide the same subsidies and encouragement, by and large, to other modes of transport.

With respect to private businesses I would suggest removing requirements for minimum parking (which kills many business proposals downtown) and tax surface parking at a higher rate since the low rates discourage more productive uses (and encourage owners to demolish buildings and replace them by parking). For example, Hamilton could start charging surface parking lot owners for the rainwater that is channelled into the sewer system. Other municipalities do this, but the proposal has been rejected each time staff bring it up.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2016-03-23 13:07:36

Permalink | Context

By Suburbanite (anonymous) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:50:52 in reply to Comment 117191

Hospital Parking Lots are private goods?

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:17:25 in reply to Comment 117181

Shorter CharlesBall: Services I use should be subsidized so they're as cheap and convenient as possible, while services I don't use should not.

Comment edited by z jones on 2016-03-23 12:18:28

Permalink | Context

By JohnnyHamont (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 11:31:00 in reply to Comment 117181

Charles, it may feel like an "unnecessary tax" from a market driven perspective, yes. But it is an example of one of the many kinds of things (call it "tax" if you will) which is absolutely necessary for making sure that our civilization is sustainable (for the reasons kevlahan just listed).

Comment edited by JohnnyHamont on 2016-03-23 11:32:12

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 11:30:50 in reply to Comment 117181

I own a car too and use it where it is the most appropriate option (especially for long trips or journeys, like to the YMCA in Flamborough or transporting gardening supplies where there really is no other option).

But I don't think that society should be subsidizing driving the way it does, especially compared to other modes.

I would be quite happy by and large with a market-driven solution to transportation: but motorists don't like paying tolls to private operators (like the 407) and they like free (subsidized) parking and free (taxpayer funded) roads.

Why does transit have a direct user fee, but driving on municipal roads (which are paid for by property taxes) does not? The goal is to reduce the subsidies for driving which is a very reasonable efficient economy goal. Other subsidies include mandating minimum parking and providing free parking as a "perk" (e.g. shopping malls where non-drivers subsidize the free parking of drivers) and, of course, all the taxpayer money going into road construction and maintenance.

The parking charges for employees at the hospitals are definitely not market-driven. There are huge waiting lists and if the pricing were market driven the costs would be raised until there were no waiting lists. Right now the costs for hospital and municipal parking are more expensive than similar private lots!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2016-03-23 11:31:59

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:41:35 in reply to Comment 117183

I meant the monthly rates at hospitals and municipal lots are cheaper than private lots (50% cheaper in the case of the municipal lots).

My article is about trying to achieve a better balance by reducing the price incentives (and subsidies, direct and hidden) that favour driving and its negative externalities.

We are very far from parking rates being set by market forces at a price such that demand matches supply and cover the full costs, especially when you consider the opportunity costs of keeping vast areas of land downtown as surface parking instead of tax generating economically dynamic developments.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2016-03-23 12:44:10

Permalink | Context

By Subsidy (anonymous) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 11:38:15 in reply to Comment 117183

Not to mention that all of the on street parking in Durand within walking distance of St. Joe's is taken by their staff all day every weekday.

I don't think it's fair that a homeowner paying around $6K in property tax should not have use of the parking on their own street so that St. Joe's staff can have access to "free" parking.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JohnnyHamont (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 11:26:28

Great thoughts. I hope the broader conversation about this issue includes pressure on the City to reduce HSR monthly pass prices (rather than accepting this "as long as we're better than average in Ontario, that's good enough" mindset).
It's unfortunate that parking passes are cheaper than transit passes, and pressure to change that (like, for example, this article) is good, so let's make sure we pressure both sides of the issue.

Permalink | Context

By StephenBarath (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:40:50 in reply to Comment 117182

Since your council just last year approved a series of annual fare increases well in excess of anyone’s forecast of inflation, it seems unlikely that they will entertain any kind of fare decrease any time soon.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highasageorgiapine (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 13:10:49

i thought we had run this argument into the ground in the blog post about that parking lot last week lol. i agree with you that more people should use public transit to get to work at this location, but at this point i highly doubt that increasing the parking price will change behaviours for a number of reasons i had already mentioned:

  1. bus services to this location are poor. the 2 is often late and overcrowded. taking a bus to main and walking would be okay to me, but people who don't use transit now are not going to be convinced to do so if it involves an extra km of walking from the bus stop to get to the destination. could you use a sobi to make that shorter? sure. but that adds a step that shouldn't be necessary and is a huge disincentive given how awful our bike infrastructure is. we have articles on here that argue if people don't feel safe or comfortable they wont use cycling as an option. the public transit options are not acceptable if we want behaviour change.

  2. the timing of shifts make using the hsr even more difficult. the shift times and weekend work mean longer times between buses. if you stay a few minutes late (which happens very often) you may miss a bus and end up waiting a significant amount of time for the next one. if you have a single connecting bus you may end up waiting a significant amount of time again.

  3. the bike infrastructure is not good. it could certainly be worse, but like much of hamilton there is not a ton of safe biking routes that would help get people out of their cars and on a bike to this location. nestled between 2 high speed one way streets running north and south that accommodate significant heavy traffic from the port lands, and a fast stretch of barton that has no traffic calming measures, this site is not very accomodating for direct cycling. it isn't awful if you can take cannon then ferguson and just walk it the block to work. getting there will likely involve taking a road that isn't perceived as safe for cycling preventing people from even trying. it wouldnt be hard to make a separated lane on wellington or victoria but this would upset the councilor of some ward who may have driven down that road once and would be upset if it was .5 seconds slower. there are alleyways but there isn't a chance people would feel safe riding down them in the middle of the night. really, walking to parking there is often perceived as unsafe and thus staff working late often get security/other staff to walk with them. there is some validity to that argument though i never had many issues there.

these are easily fixable problems. i disagree that these problems should be addressed by HHS. despite being a healthcare org their job is not advocacy for what would be public health issues. we have city staff who do that, and politicians who don't listen.

Additionally, HHS makes money from parking. this is the latest way our hospitals are shoring up their finances, which is awful and stupid, but the reality of running these businesses. getting rid of parking and supplementing it with bus passes would cost them money and at this point would be very unpopular. i don't like the argument that HHS has more of a commitment to do this for the community than anyone else. if they are expected to do so, all businesses should be held to a similar standard. (business taxes and developer charges for transit improvement would be nice, no?)

i don't think the comparison to mcmaster is quite fair because students rely on public transit so advocating for service is in their best interest financially. a ton of people get to mcmaster driving and not parking on campus also, there are numerous areas for street parking and these are generally packed most days with people. i remember most of the lots actually on the campus and not in cootes having waiting lists when i worked there, so hhs isnt an exception in this regard. mcmaster does do a good job of trying to reduce cars on or around campus though. it's important for maintaining safety for the hordes of walking students and the atmosphere of the campus, which isn't quite equivalent to the situation at the gen.

as someone who worked at this location, and also next door, i would have loved better transit options to work. i am a person who generally uses active transit and did so when i worked here. it was not enjoyable or convenient at all. i am sure many people would love to have better access not only to the general, but along the barton corridor itself. i think a divided bike lane down wellington/victoria and an express bus down barton in addition to the current service would be a simple but massive improvement

edit: i feel the constant need to defend myself by saying i definitely do not support additional parking lots here. i can simultaneously hold the viewpoint that taking public transit here is awful and hhs has no incentive to get their staff to do so while also advocating for giving them a reason to change their point of view.

Comment edited by highasageorgiapine on 2016-03-23 13:15:22

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 13:43:44 in reply to Comment 117195

I understand what you're saying and I can appreciate that under current conditions driving is more convenient and pleasant than taking transit.

But I agree with the McMaster-sponsored "Big Ideas Better Cities" talk at the downtown health centre that public institutions (like hospitals, schools and universities) do have a duty to use their resources and influence to benefit the communities where they are based. McMaster is finally trying to do this in various ways since the President has made it a priority.

HHS certainly didn't mind using their influence and resources to try to force a parking lot in Beasley, to the extent of taking the City to the OMB. Why can't they do the same thing for transit or cycling?

Also, there are no areas near the University where students or staff can park all day for free: all street parking is limited to 3 hours (largely at the request of the neighbourhoods) which is not very useful if you study or work at McMaster. The McMaster transportation survey confirmed the vast majority of students and staff do not drive alone to the University.

And, to make a obvious point, if students could all easily drive and park on campus we would have worse transit service and no demand for a transit pass. Ensuring everyone can drive is a good way to remove any pressure to improve transit service.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2016-03-23 13:49:59

Permalink | Context

By highasageorgiapine (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 15:50:28 in reply to Comment 117198

in principle i agree with you, as a healthcare organization HHS should use it's institutional knowledge and visibility in the community to advocate for building healthier and safer places to live, work, and play.

unfortunately there are competing political and economic issues that make this difficult. i can understanding the reasoning behind taking the city to the OMB, it's a relatively simple legal argument which can impact a revenue making item. advocacy in transit becomes a huge grey area that often doesn't produce results in this city, and is hard to justify spending money on when your organization is trying to figure out how to adequately staff it's medical units. mcmaster can put their money where their mouth is, as it's fairly evident that they are doing very well financially. our healthcare system is not quite in that position.

from an actual health perspective, advocating for public transit serves to benefit the health of the community as a whole by promoting active transportation and reducing pollution, both impacting chronic disease rates. the issue is that healthcare isn't a cohesive unit of people advocating for the same thing. hhs advocates for increased funding for primary care to address the urgent needs they have in managing those who seek their services. public health advocates for more resources for health promotion and protection measures. nurses want this, doctors that etc. there is a limited pool of money so you entrench yourself and miss the big picture.

suffice to say, i don't disagree with you. just being a devils advocate. additionally, if public institutions have a duty to use their influence and resources for the community, why don't we hold the same standards for private businesses and developers?

i used to park on the street before i moved to hamilton. 3 hours is fine if you are there for a class or two, and you could come out and move somewhere else for another 3. it isn't useful if you are working there, correct. it's interesting that most people carpooled, that is very surprising to me.

i would also like to point out that the transit pass used to be a mandatory fee on your MSU dues but they must have voted that down in the past few years since now it's optional. they took a step back :p

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 18:11:33 in reply to Comment 117201

According to the website all students still pay the fee.

McMaster Student U-Pass: Full-time students who are part of the MSU pay a fee of $138.65 (as of September 2015) on their tuition which entitles them an HRS bus pass that is good from September through August.

http://www.mcmaster.ca/sustainability/at...

(Note the information about walking, cycling, carpooling etc on this sustainability website. McMaster realized it couldn't provide any more parking long ago and decide to focus on demand management.)

Some businesses do successfully lobby for better transit. Airport logistic businesses successfully lobbied for the a line to be extended to the airport a few years ago ... but many of their employees are poorly paid and need transit, unlike HHS.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2016-03-23 18:19:14

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By NortheastWind (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 14:49:45

I would take the bus if it was more reliable. For example, the last time I took the bus it showed up 5 minutes before the scheduled time. I said to the driver "good thing I didn't follow the schedule. She responded when we were further down the line, with a stop at Tim Horton's. She said, "since I'm running early I better stop". Early buses have happened more than once out of the few times I have taken the Upper Sherman downtown.

Permalink | Context

By highasageorgiapine (registered) | Posted March 23, 2016 at 15:53:01 in reply to Comment 117199

the mountain buses have always been awful for me in terms of timing, probably has something to do with the long routes

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds