There’s been a lot of talk over the years about a bike route along Cornwall and Point Grey Road.
Former NPA councillor Peter Ladner was an early proponent. The city’s current map of future bike-route plans identifies it as a key connecting route from the already bike-ified Burrard Bridge out to the west side.
Now, for once, locals are getting solidly behind the idea. Or, well, maybe not quite, but in their quest to reduce the 13,000-strong daily car volume on that stretch of road, that might be the solution.
90 responses so far ↓
1 Joe Just Joe // Oct 4, 2012 at 1:41 pm
On Dunsmuir there are additional thru lanes though, if you attempt to do that on a one laned street then all traffic behind the bus stops with the bus.
2 teririch // Oct 4, 2012 at 1:56 pm
@ Tessa #31:
I fully understand how it ‘works’ But if you only have two lanes traveling in one direction and you take one away – that leaves one, for all traffic flowing in that direction to use
This is what will happen on Cornwall.
There are 2 lanes each direction. During rush hour, parking restrictions are in play so the buses flow freely,
If you take away one of the lanes in either direction that means traffic shares one lane (either west-east or east – west)
And this is Vancouver – not Europe, Portland, Montreal etc.
We are unique unto our own.
3 waltyss // Oct 4, 2012 at 3:05 pm
@teririch:
And this is Vancouver – not Europe, Portland, Montreal etc.
We are unique unto our own.
What does that mean? We can’t look at what works elsewhere because we are so unique? Really? Based on what?
4 Richard // Oct 4, 2012 at 3:21 pm
@teririch
During evenings and weekends, there is parking along Cornwall. One lane each direction seems to work fine. Commercial Drive north of 1st is the same. Vehicles will go slower which is safer for everyone including drivers, walkers, transit users and cyclists. Crashes down by 19% on Hornby after separated bike lanes installed.
5 Richard // Oct 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Businesses can also take advantage of bike lanes. This jewelry shop on Hornby has a matching beautiful bike parked out front. Great advertising.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A4ZPwW1CQAAFk3_.jpg
6 MB // Oct 4, 2012 at 3:48 pm
The thought of the month.
All people who live near and travel on Point Grey Road by whatever mode of transport obviously value being near the water. In my opinion, the waterfront should be accessible to the public as a general principle, but the property owners on the north side of PG Rd started building their expensive houses to the high water mark seemingly eons ago and beat the public and their elected representatives to the punch.
With the resulting exorbitant prices, it’s no wonder the Park Board has only been able to afford purchase one lot at a time (at street ends) and to punch only six small parks through to the bluff in the 1.5 km stretch between Trafalgar and Alma so far.
John Geddes (27) proposed a viable alternative route for cyclists on 1st Ave. It’s already partially there on the Vancouver Cycling Map, but limited to the stretch between Fir and Cypress. This route should be extended to McDonald where it intersects with PG Rd.
A better route (albeit farther from the waterfront) is Third Ave, which offers a straight-line from Granville Island to Jericho. Again, it’s only a partial route (Trafalgar to Jericho) and should be extended east to Granville Island with all the attendant cyclist-pedestrian activated lights, traffic circles, signs, etc.
But it’s debatable that either route will attract cyclists away from PG Rd and address the conflicts with cars and pedestrians.
The Case for the Kitsilano Pier
Just recently the issue of building a seawall on the shore below the gazillionaire’s houses came up and was controversial from day one. Even though there may not be red-listed plant or marine life on the rocky beach there, I believe a Stanley Park-like seawall structure would be an inappropriate alteration to the beach itself, which should be left in its natural state.
However, if a pier was built out in the water parallel to the beach, with its two ends connecting to the foot of Balsam and Alma, and if it was wide enough to accommodate both bikes and pedestrians (8-10m? raised pedestrian platform for separation from bikes?), then I’d bet tomorrow’s morning Canadiano that thousands of people on foot and on bikes would vacate PG Rd. for the opportunity to actually get out over the water on a major pier. If the pier ran in a straight line, it would be about 1.8km long and about 230 meters out in the ocean from inside curve of the shoreline at Volunteer Park just west of McDonald. And I’d bet tomorrow’s second cup that it would offer a faster route for people on foot and bikes from the Kits Beach to Hastings Mill Park + Jericho than the road.
Some will argue that a pier parallel to the shore would be a visual intrusion, especially for the mega-rich. Well, it would essentially appear as a thin horizontal line on stilts … quite light on the land /water … and be far less intrusive than a heavy seawall. Jacqui Cohen’s opinion is only one of thousands in the neighbourhood anyway.
On the other hand, some, like me, would suggest the pier idea should be expanded with another adjoining pier that would extend perpendicular from the shore (from Balsam?) and a lot further into the ocean (200-300m?) and be wide enough (12-15m?) to accommodate hundreds of pedestrians with seating, shade / rain shelters, food carts, a small performance stage, educational signs, power and water, etc.
I’ve been on the Santa Cruz, Ca., pier and was blown away at what an amazing and popular public amenity it is. It’s always packed. There are even railed off cutouts in the decking to allow people to observe sea lions sleeping on the timbers just below. There is new evidence that piers using inert (i.e. concrete or steel) piles and decking offering substantial shade creates habitat for herring to deposit their roe. Herring are an important food source for a lot of our marine life, including salmon, whales and seals.
Anyway, with the great possibility that pedestrian and bike traffic could be drawn off the road by an attractive major pier project (that also happens to protect the intregrity of the natural beach), then Point Grey Rd. could be modified to allow more pedestrian crossings – but beef them up, add signals and raise them into level “speed bumps” to literally slow the traffic down with something more effective than just signs.
7 Silly Season // Oct 4, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Oooh, @MB. That is a cool idea.
Engineers, is it viable?
Who “owns” that waterway? Prov? Feds? City?
8 MB // Oct 4, 2012 at 4:42 pm
@ Silly, judging from my one and only sailing boat experience in English Bay, the water is quite shallow even 500m out (consistently ~30 ft deep way out to the edge of the sand bank) so depth shouldn’t be a huge issue.
The parallel-to-shore pier could be kinked to follow the shoreline more closely if there are deep bottom pockets, but having drawn a 1.8km line connecting Hastings Mill Park @ Alma to Kits Beach Park @ Balsam on Google Earth, it’s obvious a straight line would be very dramatic as the shoreline curves away over 200m to the south at the middle. People would get a true sense of being over the water, and I’d bet storms would attract lots of people to the pier as the structure gets pounded.
So yes, sound engineering is necessary. The Santa Cruz and San Diego piers both extend into the pounding surf of the open Pacific. I loved feeling the SD pier rock with each 15-foot roller crashing below it. There might be 6-footers in English Bay by comparison.
This is ultimately federal jurisdiction (DFO has laws …) and an environmental assessment wil have to be conducted with perhaops some habitat compensation negotiated elsewhere. The province accepts applications for water leases for private docks all the time.
There’s a certain delight in pile drivers operating offshore from the play houses of the rich for a few weeks.
The environmental impact of a pier is more than likely orders of magnitude less than a concrete and fill seawall, so the primary issue may get down to cost. My guess it will be in the low tens of millions, but then so will a seawall.
Perhaps Jacqui would willingly make a large enough donation to get her name on the pier — and the riff raff away from her driveway.
9 Higgins // Oct 4, 2012 at 6:29 pm
MB #56 Isn’t Jacqui the Vancouver Hilton socialite that ordered 3-4 dozens of trees to be cut in front of her property… to recapture “views”?
What did she get for that… if I remember correctly … nothing. Now these “civic leaders” get their own private road… WOW!
10 Informed // Oct 4, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Most interesting reading my fellow residents’ ponderings, concerns and suggestions for solving the Point Grey Road traffic conundrum. Might I offer though that attending one or more of the numerous on-going public meetings on the subject would prevent many of the fears and misstatements that I have read above from you. You would be kept up-to-date on the planning and proposal procedure and would be involved in the input that would generate decision-making. In particular, your personal stories about incidents on Point Grey Road and Cornwall are invaluable to the solution process, and I encourage you to attend meetings and send your stories to City Hall and the Transportation Plan 2040 Committee.
11 Informed // Oct 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Not everyone living on Point Grey Road is a Gazillionaire — far from it, in fact. There is a Grand Canyon divide in assets between those living on the South versus the North side of Point Grey Road. Further, from attending meetings, I can tell you that the primary concern of residents living on BOTH sides of Point Grey Road is SAFETY of pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, pets, and vehicles that use this secondary arterial. The ancient designation of this road as a main thoroughfare has ultimately reached its critical mass of contending users, resulting in maiming, vehicular damage and deaths. An entirely residential area with parks and beach foreshore is incongruous with a major thoroughfare. The City has now acknowledged their awareness of this reality, so the City (the taxpayers) will be on the hook for multi-million dollar personal injury lawsuits until the problem of Point Grey Road is rectified. If you are a taxpayer, I recommend that you get on board to support a viable solution.
12 Chris Keam // Oct 4, 2012 at 9:21 pm
You know Higgins, I don’t agree with Ms Cohen’s actions, but honestly, it takes a few seconds to do some due diligence to learn the exact number of trees cut down and how much of a fine she paid. So, instead of relying on the hope you remember ‘correctly’ why not actually do the legwork to provide relatively accurate information instead of sharing incorrect junk opinions?
13 Chris Keam // Oct 4, 2012 at 9:25 pm
oh yeah, 35 trees, $50,000 fine. Wrong times two Higgins. Took me about a minute to highlight your slapdash approach to other people’s poor choices. You should have checked your facts before you posted. You wouldn’t have to apologize for spreading bad information. Cause you are going to grace us all with a mea culpa right? 🙂
14 Informed // Oct 4, 2012 at 9:50 pm
MB: Point Grey Road is a designated emergency vehicle route (St. Paul’s Hospital on Burrard Street, just across the bridge) — speed bumps aren’t a viable option, and packing people onto a pier means only more traffic; ummm, SAFETY is the issue here, people.
15 Glissando Remmy // Oct 4, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Thought of The Night
” Aren’t they… Vision Vancouver & Mayor Gregor the COPY/PASTE darlings of the day? Someone’s Eco Density is Someone’s Vision Shmensity!”
Waltyss, you say #28:
“@Glissy. you are starting to repeat. No, that’s nto true; you started to repeat a long time ago. Same old, same old.”
Thanks for that. Fair enough.
So, watzzuup!?
Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability Report… stop the presses!
Enter the… Eco Density Prince, followed by his Vision Shmensity Mistress …
All I see is a revamping of the old Eco Density plans, under a new headline.
Ten months of minuet, curtsies and classical ballet, and now they bring in a Maurice Bejart choreography, oh please!
Look around you. Please, do it for me.
Go back and forth on Kingsway, Broadway, Arbutus… and tell me what you see.
Yes, buildings just like those proposed in the new Report. Gee, how did they think of that?
Perhaps because some Developers were already ahead of the pack on that, hmmm, go figure.
Thing is, it was happening already, at a normal pace, and it will go at the same pace in the future, just wait. We are not China, to build a hotel in 9 days… for the record.
Anyways.
All is well when it Endswell… right?
I am glad that they colored the Vancouver map in assorted shades of Crayola crayons but nowhere in that report I found any reference what-so-ever, on how are all this goodies going to affect or solve… AFFORDABILITY!
Wasn’t that, what the Task Force was charged with “solving”… Housing Affordability?
‘Cause I still don’t see it.
I know that the Rental Assistance Program (a Vision baby) makes sure the Landlord gets… PAID on time…
Now, I see that… The Developers are taken care of, and they can breath at ease now, with so much more parcels to develop, and ain’t that, what matters after all… ?
“Same old, same old”, your words, not mine!
Chris K #59
Allow me to provide a link to the story:
“In 2005, businesswoman and socialite Jacqui Cohen agreed to pay $50,000 plus court costs to the Greater Vancouver Regional District to settle a lawsuit filed over 34 trees cut without a permit in front of her family’s former mansion in 1997.”
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=f36145b1-9f28-40fb-9c47-84c68936c3e6
LOL, did you read this?
“At the time, Cohen said she had no knowledge of or involvement in the destruction of the trees, but agreed to take responsibility.”
Which reminds me of a great dialogue from the “Shawshank Redemption” movie:
“Red: You’re gonna fit right in. Everyone in here is innocent, you know that? Heywood, what you in here for?
Heywood: Didn’t do it. Lawyer f%#&*ed me.”
Great movie!
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
16 gasp // Oct 5, 2012 at 2:15 am
Glissy – thank you very much; you made my night with your view on EcoDensity squared (or is it cubed?). I thought it was just EcoDensity on steroids!
Anyway, I notice that real estate sales are crashing while listings are ballooning, so it’s perfect timing for an “affordable housing strategy”. I think its effect will be to accelerate the bursting of this bubble by encouraging more retiring boomers to pack up and leave the City sooner rather than later, as they’ve been doing since EcoDensity effectively gave the developers the opportunity to ruin the character of every neighbourhood in this City without any meaningful public consultation or “fair” public rezoning hearings.
And, of course, the net result of a housing crash will be … “affordable housing”. Vision’s goal accomplished, just in time for the next election!
17 Tessa // Oct 5, 2012 at 2:34 am
“There are 2 lanes each direction. During rush hour, parking restrictions are in play so the buses flow freely,
If you take away one of the lanes in either direction that means traffic shares one lane (either west-east or east – west)”
So…like Commercial Drive north of 1st Avenue. Like Pender Street in Chinatown. These streets and many others work fine. If cars have to wait 10 seconds for people to board then cars have to wait. It’s a five-block section with two bus stops after all, and maybe bus pull-outs could even be accommodated with some creativity.
“And this is Vancouver – not Europe, Portland, Montreal etc.
We are unique unto our own.”
Trust me – mediocre planning isn’t unique to Vancouver.
But I really don’t know what you mean by this. If you’re saying Vancouver can never learn from other jurisdictions, that’s horribly wrong. That kind of provincial approach that says we can’t ever try anything that is proven to work without any trouble in other countries does no good for the city.
18 Chris Keam // Oct 5, 2012 at 8:03 am
GR:
Don’t give a fig what Cohen said. It’s anonymous jackasses that throw out vitriolic comments that are erroneous that chap my hide, esp. when the facts are easily obtained. But I can understand why you wouldn’t want online accountability to become a trend given the tone and nature of most of your ‘contributions’. 🙂
CK
19 Glissando Remmy // Oct 5, 2012 at 9:48 am
CK #66,
All I did there was to provide a link to the original story, which you didn’t, just like Higgins.
BTW, that was simply a FWIW info. kind of thing.
Off topic anyways.
I liked your “anonymous jackasses” … expression! Not bad. Very smart.
I don’t provide ‘contributions’ Chris, I say it how I see it, more like personal ‘views’.
(Got glasses?)
My ‘views’ don’t affect parking fee increases, real estate prices, development or housing affordability, but the people I’m ‘viewing’… do!
Just trying to keep them honest, that’s all.
To my chagrin, I’m failing at that.
I feel your pain… Chris, there is something you should know about me… my ‘views’ seem to make some people happy, that’s all I’m about, and… I understand!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QK9_Jzq0wA
Hey, here’s what I propose, if they change the name from ‘Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability” to “Mayor’s Task Force on More Subtle Development” I’d give up.
I couldn’t possibly fight against a group of honest folks, just couldn’t!
GR
20 Richard // Oct 5, 2012 at 10:30 am
More on how bikes help business and the economy:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680611/bikes-arent-just-good-for-you-theyre-good-for-the-economy-too
21 Paul T. // Oct 5, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Frances, I take issue with you pronouncing this council as “bike-lane-friendly”… This council has not made nearly as much headway in building bikelanes as any council before them. Call a spade a spade.. This council is “anti-car”. Gregor and his merry band won’t consider a bike lane unless it involves taking away either parking or a travel lane. The turfing of the plan to expand the sea wall is a perfect example. It’s unused land that could be enjoyed by thousands. But they won’t touch it because it doesn’t involve inconveniencing drivers.
And as for the comment about the lack of effect on business by the Hornby Street bike track, clearly you haven’t taken a walk down Hornby Street. The only new business that has arrived has been the Royal Bank at Hornby and Nelson. And they’re only there temporarily while the current branch at Howe and Nelson is demolished.
22 spartikus // Oct 5, 2012 at 4:44 pm
–Brent Toderian.
23 Richard // Oct 5, 2012 at 5:38 pm
@69Paul T.
Might want to take another look on Hornby. Sciué is opening soon in the HSBC building, glowbal has opened a cafe next to the Salt development, the food court next to Vancity has renovated and reopened, there is the jewelry shop across from the Wall Centre who have a matching bike outside, Musette Cafe, a new hair salon and, the lemonade stand run by two girls across from the Wall Centre. Also two condo developments going up. Only one for lease sign. All and all, it certainly seems like a healthy street where businesses are starting to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the bike lanes.
When life gives you bike lanes, make lemonade or coffee and baked goods.
24 Ned // Oct 6, 2012 at 1:57 pm
“When life gives you bike lanes, make lemonade or coffee and baked goods.”
No Richard,
Life didn’t give us bike lanes, some were there already (since immemorial NPA times)! No Richard, life shoved separated bike lanes down our throats, and I’d likely make vodka lemonades with them instead.
A Paul T. said previously
“This council is “anti-car”. Gregor and his merry band won’t consider a bike lane unless it involves taking away either parking or a travel lane. ”
Quite right!
25 jenables // Oct 6, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Richard, my point actually was that the residents already had places to park their unused cars. The block in question is mostly apartments, no new developments, and the apartments already have secure underground or behind the building parking. Apparently this isn’t enough, because most of the street is now for residents as well. So you can see why I might think they have more than one vehicle per household, or else this is an uncalled for and spiteful decision, right?
26 Richard // Oct 6, 2012 at 10:45 pm
@Ned
Bike lanes on Cornwall and Point Grey have been planned “since immemorial NPA times”. Or specifically, the 1997 Transportation Plan as we’re lanes on Burrard, Granville and Cambie Bridges.
Unfortunately, the painted bike lanes on Hornby and Burrard “since immemorial NPA times” were not that safe. Burrard had pretty much the highest levels of bicycle collisions in the city. All collisions including cars and peds are down 19% on Hornby after the separated lanes were installed. I’m sure you will agree that safety is more important than parking or lanes of traffic, right? Especially where there is tons of underground parking on Hornby and the impact on traffic is minimal.
27 Richard // Oct 6, 2012 at 10:51 pm
@jenables
People with money buy stuff. That does not mean they use it all the time. Around 60% of people in Vancouver own bikes. Obviously though, 60% of trips are not by bike. Same with cars. Many people bike to work a lot of the time and use their cars only on the weekends are for shopping.
The Netherlands has one of the highest rates of car ownership in Europe yet between 30 and 40% of trips cities are by bike.
28 jenables // Oct 7, 2012 at 12:30 am
Ok, I’m aware of the not using everything you own at every moment way of life, i think most people who don’t have all their worldly possesions in a bindle know what you mean. But we are digressing, no? I was wondering why such avid cyclists as those in kits would need the street parking in addition to the parking already provided to them. Maybe they felt like spending money…on a residential permit? Just because they can?
29 teririch // Oct 7, 2012 at 2:47 pm
@jenables #76
Kits is very much a place of shared accomodation due to university being close and the lifestyle it offers to people of all ages. Many of the houses are mulit-person/family dwellings. It is typical that one house may have 3 – 4 living units – but more than likely parking for one or two vehicles, max.
So if there is only one parking spot alloted to one unit – it makes sense that any other vehicles are parked ont he street.
My apartment building has one parking spot per unit. One of my neighbors – a couple, have two vehicles. He was parking on the street. As I don’t currently own a car, I offered my space to him.
If you walk around the neighborhood, you will see many of the side streets are residential permit parking. Cornwall is one of the few street that is still open to all and note metred. It all also serves those local eateries like ‘Local’ that has minimal parking on its lot.
30 jenables // Oct 7, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Ps -people use cars for shopping? I was told eliminating parking was BETTER for business because cyclists spend more money! Maybe they meant cyclists, when they drive spent more money. Huh.
31 jenables // Oct 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Teririch- i know what you mean, the block I’m referring to is 2100 west fifth, they have made it mostly residential and the rest is 2 hour, and you can see that it wasn’t needed judging by the emptiness of the permit parking. The two hour parking is often full, this pushes traffic up towards the school, i have seen numerous accidents involving cars crossing arbutus, I’ve even seen a pedestrian killed a few years ago. Given that cars will not be vanishing from west forth anytime soon, unless everyone goes out of business, you can expect the surrounding blocks to have more vehicular traffic. Fact of life, right? So why is it that the residents feel it is their God given right to park however many vehicles on The street in addition to the parking they already have, at the expense of the safety of others and the businesses who have all had a HUGE property tax increase? Is it that awful to have to walk a block or two when its a multiple vehicle household and the other car has the good spot?
32 David // Oct 7, 2012 at 5:34 pm
I lived in a 1912 era house on 7th Ave in Kits for almost two decades. 7 units, similar houses on either side. Very little parking (my building had one spot), and this part of Kitsilano doesn’t have rear lanes. Driveways accessed from the street.
Constantly occupied on street parking probably was a ‘good thing’ safety wise, there was only one lane for travel, when two cars met one had to yield in a curb cut . Speeds? Low. Even 30km/h seemed ‘too fast’ .
33 jenables // Oct 7, 2012 at 10:26 pm
yes, there are no alleys, but in this particular case, there are only two or three houses, and every other building has the parking built in. The area you were in David, I think is also where the bike route is, right? I agree, more traffic in that area is not desirable… but that’s where people end up if they can’t park close to where they are going, right? Anyways, I don’t mean to go off about fourth and fifth when the original post was about… point grey!!
34 Creeker // Oct 8, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Bike lane on Point Grey road? Yes!
Turning Point Grey road (a major commuter arterial) into a gated community? Hell no!
When most owners on Point Grey bought, they knew it was a very busy street. There is no justifiable reason for closing this major traffic artery.
35 David W. // Oct 11, 2012 at 4:51 pm
I’m a late arrival to this topic, but west 4th is already a virtual parking lot during peak times. There are times when it’s actually faster to take the #22 bus and stop every block along Cornwall for a bus stop, red light or both, than it is to take the #44 express along 4th. Shifting even more traffic to 4th would be a disaster for everyone: residents, merchants and anyone trying to get somewhere.
I remember when the playground signs went up along Pt. Grey Road. To this day the explanation I give visitors is: “it’s a playground for the rich”.
Now I’m not advocating we go back to Tom Terrific’s plans to tear down everything along Pt. Grey Road to make way for a 6-lane, high speed, Chicago style “parkway”, but surely anyone with an IQ above their shoe size can see it’s the logical route for a lot of Point Grey/Dunbar/Kits traffic to get downtown. If you bought property there expecting the traffic to go away then you’re an idiot.
36 teririch // Oct 13, 2012 at 11:09 am
Funny, just read that for a second year in a row, Vancouver has been voted most conjested when it comes to traffic.
We stand behind…Los Angeles.
The average ‘rush’ hour commute time has increased by 69%.
But hey, more separated bike lanes and removing the viaducts will help that number….increase. Maybe we can take that number #1 spot yet!
37 Frances Bula // Oct 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm
@Teri. You seem to know the city pretty well. So you must realize that the vast majority of the congestion in the region (which is what the traffic study looked at) is not in Vancouver, but in the outlying areas. Anyone who lives in Vancouver knows that it’s actually pretty easy to get around in, except for about 30 minutes in the morning and evening on a handful of streets. Almost none of which have bike lanes.
38 teririch // Oct 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm
@Frances”
Fair point.
I can only speak to the line-ups I see merging south onto the Burrard Bridge and Hornby Street during rush.
Right now with construction of the youth home on Burrard, things aren’t great along there for nothbound traffic during rush, either.
But, the removal of the viaducts are going to bring new commute issues for a lot of people that use that route to come into the city for work.
39 Catch22 // Oct 20, 2012 at 8:13 am
Point Grey Road is dangerous to ride on a bike. I’ve done it many times. It is also a natural cycling route to UBC. Therefore I support making Point Grey road “one way” for cars and using the other lane for bicycles. It is far more sensible than putting lanes on Fourth Ave, which is an important commercial hub that needs its parking spots.
40 Higgins // Oct 20, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Catch 22 #89
Actually I like your idea.
How can I put it … it’s catchy! 🙂