Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Canberra insurance broker
of choice since 1985

Tramway, Shamway, Light Rail is the Right Rail

By John Hargreaves - 3 November 2014 60

I’m back form my overseas hols and am an even more ardent supporter of light rail than I was before I left.

Being a very parochially Tuggeranonite, I always wanted the Tuggers to Woden route to be the second leg of the rollout. I reckon that Athllon Drive is a made for purpose thoroughfare and that picking it as the second route would go down well with the Mexicans.

Even so, my mindset was from an experience as a kid in Melbourne where the tram is ubiquitous. To consider Melbourne without trams would be heretical. It is part of the ambience of that most cultural of cities.

I really didn’t give much thought to the relationship between buses and trams until I went to Barcelona. Here the light rail connects with buses and rail to take people anywhere they like in a most picturesque city. Getting around Barcelona is not a challenge, it is an enjoyable experience. And it is quick.

For the one ticket, I could go by tram from my hotel to the junction, get on a metro and do the specified stations, just like London, New York, Paris, or get a bus and go meandering around the suburbs on my way to my destination.

Now, there are some who don’t like the idea of a tram up the median of Northbourne. Well I was one of them once. Then I saw how you can do it.

In Barcelona, the rail lines go up the centre of the road, with a walkway/cycle path up its centre. The walkway is flanked by trees and it is a place to go and just chill out.

I’ve posted a picture of the tramway for you to gaze on. I saw mums with kids in prams, guys on skateboards, kids on roller skates, couples walking hand in hand (ah!) and I saw commuters rushing for their trams.

barcelona-jh

barcelona-jh-a

I saw bikes in their bike lanes, out of reach of traffic (and indulged myself in a bit of cycling) and never felt safer. On road cycle lanes are none thing but this stuff is amazing.

How about we cut the whingeing, think about how we can exploit this idea and get behind Capital Metro. If Barcelona can do it, we can!

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
60 Responses to
Tramway, Shamway, Light Rail is the Right Rail
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
MarkE 11:37 pm 16 Sep 16

How many people are going to die on the level crossings all along Northbourne Ave?
So many people die on level crossings in NSW trying to beat the train.
Level crossings are DEATH TRAPS.

rubaiyat 10:30 am 14 Sep 15

Rotten_berry said :

The Productivity Commission had this to say about the ACT light rail last year (page 95). Lots of copy-pasta but it’s worthy of quoting in full.
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/137280/infrastructure-volume1.pdf

In a submission to Infrastructure Australia in 2012, the ACT Government analysed a number of options including bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail rapid transit (LRT). The analysis estimated that the upfront capital costs for the BRT and LRT would be $276 million and $614 million respectively (on an undiscounted basis) (ACT Government 2012).

In its economic appraisal (which is essentially a cost–benefit analysis), the ACT Government found net present values of $243.3 million for BRT and $10.8 million for LRT. The benefit–cost ratio for BRT was estimated at 1.98, with 1.02 for LRT. In the assessment, the benefits of BRT and LRT were similar ($491.8 million against $534.9 million respectively), but the cost of BRT was less than half that of LRT ($248.5 million against $524.1 million, when discounted by 7 per cent). The cost–benefit analysis took into account a range of factors including journey times, and avoided environmental impacts and accidents (ACT Government 2012).

The ACT Government submission concluded that:
“Of the transport options, BRT is projected to deliver higher economic returns. On the other hand, the economic returns that can be delivered through LRT investment alone are likely to be economically marginal and the net economic outcome for LRT under even minor adverse circumstances is likely to result in negative economic returns. (2012, p. 29)”

Subsequently the ACT Government announced that it would proceed with LRT (Corbell 2013). In explaining the choice of light rail, reference was made to an earlier report by URS Corporation that found:
“A triple bottom line evaluation undertaken of these options [BRT and LRT], comparing their social, economic and environmental impacts to the ‘do-nothing’ scenario has shown LRT to provide higher benefits due to its higher social benefits. (URS 2012, p. 54)”

This ‘triple bottom line evaluation’ does not appear to provide a sound basis for determining the merits of the LRT and BRT options. First, it was conducted before the cost–benefit analysis discussed above, and accordingly appears to use less up-to-date information. Second, it employed a much less reliable form of analysis than cost?benefit analysis.

The triple bottom line evaluation used a qualitative rating system that involved assigning between one and five stars to a range of criteria, such as ‘reduction in car trips’, ‘upfront capital expenditure’ and ‘fit with planning and policy strategies’ (this is a type of multi-criteria analysis). For example, for upfront capital expenditure LRT was assigned five negative stars and BRT four negative stars. The number of stars for negative criteria were then subtracted from the stars for positive criteria to give an overall score. The reliability of these scores appears to be low because there seems no basis for supposing that each star is of equivalent importance.

In summary, a cost–benefit analysis showed BRT to be a greatly superior option than LRT. That a less reliable form of analysis based on less up-to-date information showed LRT to be slightly superior (the overall difference was one ‘star’), would not appear to provide a sound basis for overlooking this and deciding to proceed with light rail.

lol at the qualitative “triple bottom line” analysis.
In summary, vanity project.

I too am impressed with how bad a case the ACT Government has made.

They didn’t hire me to put the report together, probably because I have been fairly open in my opinion of the competence of the ACT Public Service.

I am also very unimpressed by the “The Productivity Commission” which seems to be a sock puppet for whatever the current Federal Government wants, just working out what shade the lipstick should be on the pig. I have noticed that their choice seems to heavily lean to petrochemical bitumen on the imported 4WD pig, with a heavy leaning to coal dust eye shadow.

All rather dark, gloomy and alarmingly shortsighted for my taste.

rubaiyat 10:12 am 14 Sep 15

OpenYourMind said :

rubaiyat, are you on the tram payroll?

Please understand that the majority (so long as you don’t exclude Lib voters) are opposed to the tram. It’s a crap proposal for Canberra in so many ways it’s ridiculous. Arguing that a lot is spent on roads is beside the point, that money will still be spent – especially as the majority of Canberrans choose to drive a car. Replacing a busline with a crappy tram aint gonna dramatically change how Canberrans commute. How many commuters will drive to a tram station, then catch a tram and then potentially change to a bus in the city? Never mind that those living along the Southern end of Northbourne will find it quicker and easier to simply walk to the City than walk to a tram stop. The project has expensive failure written all over it. As people have constantly pointed out, technology is changing so rapidly in this space, the timing of a tram now is terrible. Let’s not send this city into greater debt and drive our rates up – let us have a proper go at deciding on this screwed up idea in the next election.

Are you on the payroll of the Liberals (ACT branch) not the Gold Coast LNP?

I am impressed by your well researched, insightful and analytical “majority”, “crap proposal”, “ridiculous”, “beside the point”, “crappy”, “ain’t gonna”, “expensive failure”, “technology is constantly changing”, “timing is terrible”, “proper go”…

Unfortunately I have also done research and laid it out here at length. It seems to be at variance with your “facts”. I can’t quite figure out why as you have so clearly done your homework and brilliantly laid out the results.

JC 9:57 am 14 Sep 15

OpenYourMind said :

rubaiyat, are you on the tram payroll?

Please understand that the majority (so long as you don’t exclude Lib voters) are opposed to the tram. I

Evidence? All polls etc point to majority support. Not by much, which is not a surprise as many only think about themselves and not the territory as a whole.

Ironically just an hour or so ago I was listening to Tony Abbot going on about a new 15.5km road in Adelaide and how the main benefit to the road was the jobs it would create and the subsequent economic benefit those jobs would bring. Don’t see much of that being discussed here, even though the cost was roughly the same as Capital Metro. But here everything is about me me me and what I will get, not how many jobs it will create and the economic benefit to the territory as a whole.

OpenYourMind 6:25 am 14 Sep 15

rubaiyat, are you on the tram payroll? Please understand that the majority (so long as you don’t exclude Lib voters) are opposed to the tram. It’s a crap proposal for Canberra in so many ways it’s ridiculous. Arguing that a lot is spent on roads is beside the point, that money will still be spent – especially as the majority of Canberrans choose to drive a car. Replacing a busline with a crappy tram aint gonna dramatically change how Canberrans commute. How many commuters will drive to a tram station, then catch a tram and then potentially change to a bus in the city? Never mind that those living along the Southern end of Northbourne will find it quicker and easier to simply walk to the City than walk to a tram stop. The project has expensive failure written all over it. As people have constantly pointed out, technology is changing so rapidly in this space, the timing of a tram now is terrible. Let’s not send this city into greater debt and drive our rates up – let us have a proper go at deciding on this screwed up idea in the next election.

Rotten_berry 4:20 pm 13 Sep 15

The Productivity Commission had this to say about the ACT light rail last year (page 95). Lots of copy-pasta but it’s worthy of quoting in full.
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/137280/infrastructure-volume1.pdf

In a submission to Infrastructure Australia in 2012, the ACT Government analysed a number of options including bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail rapid transit (LRT). The analysis estimated that the upfront capital costs for the BRT and LRT would be $276 million and $614 million respectively (on an undiscounted basis) (ACT Government 2012).

In its economic appraisal (which is essentially a cost–benefit analysis), the ACT Government found net present values of $243.3 million for BRT and $10.8 million for LRT. The benefit–cost ratio for BRT was estimated at 1.98, with 1.02 for LRT. In the assessment, the benefits of BRT and LRT were similar ($491.8 million against $534.9 million respectively), but the cost of BRT was less than half that of LRT ($248.5 million against $524.1 million, when discounted by 7 per cent). The cost–benefit analysis took into account a range of factors including journey times, and avoided environmental impacts and accidents (ACT Government 2012).

The ACT Government submission concluded that:
“Of the transport options, BRT is projected to deliver higher economic returns. On the other hand, the economic returns that can be delivered through LRT investment alone are likely to be economically marginal and the net economic outcome for LRT under even minor adverse circumstances is likely to result in negative economic returns. (2012, p. 29)”

Subsequently the ACT Government announced that it would proceed with LRT (Corbell 2013). In explaining the choice of light rail, reference was made to an earlier report by URS Corporation that found:
“A triple bottom line evaluation undertaken of these options [BRT and LRT], comparing their social, economic and environmental impacts to the ‘do-nothing’ scenario has shown LRT to provide higher benefits due to its higher social benefits. (URS 2012, p. 54)”

This ‘triple bottom line evaluation’ does not appear to provide a sound basis for determining the merits of the LRT and BRT options. First, it was conducted before the cost–benefit analysis discussed above, and accordingly appears to use less up-to-date information. Second, it employed a much less reliable form of analysis than cost?benefit analysis.

The triple bottom line evaluation used a qualitative rating system that involved assigning between one and five stars to a range of criteria, such as ‘reduction in car trips’, ‘upfront capital expenditure’ and ‘fit with planning and policy strategies’ (this is a type of multi-criteria analysis). For example, for upfront capital expenditure LRT was assigned five negative stars and BRT four negative stars. The number of stars for negative criteria were then subtracted from the stars for positive criteria to give an overall score. The reliability of these scores appears to be low because there seems no basis for supposing that each star is of equivalent importance.

In summary, a cost–benefit analysis showed BRT to be a greatly superior option than LRT. That a less reliable form of analysis based on less up-to-date information showed LRT to be slightly superior (the overall difference was one ‘star’), would not appear to provide a sound basis for overlooking this and deciding to proceed with light rail.

lol at the qualitative “triple bottom line” analysis.
In summary, vanity project.

Rotten_berry 3:18 pm 13 Sep 15

JC said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

Then apply a toll to repay the bond, because at the moment it is a free ride at the public expense. Then see how many people use it when they have to pay instead of shift it onto everyone else.

The Light Rail passengers will be paying fares. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, but hey hypocrisy and incoherent spleen venting rules!

Fuel excise, registration, insurance, GST, stamp duty….yes, drivers get a free ride don’t they. For me it costs all up around $2000 a year to drive on the roads. I think your statement has a large flaw in it.

And how much of that money actually goes directly to roads? And even if it did would it be sufficient to cover the costs of building and maintaining the roads?

Latest data I can find is here: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/AI%20Road%20 graph%202.jpg

Older more detailed data here: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/files/is_040.pdf

The roads do pretty much pay for themselves. The tax take has levelled off due to removal of fuel tax indexation which should be fixed, and some of the recent major road projects have been pork barrels. Engineering labour costs also shot up during the mining boom years.

It doesn’t cover externalities but all transport modes have externalities which can’t be considered in isolation from the benefits. E.g. cars allow us to not live on top of each other like Barcelonians. Apartment dwellers often impose negative externalities on their neighbours through noise, smoking and firing up BBQs on balconies, etc; soundproofing is unfortunately often poorly done. According to some here roads have “no return” so let’s get rid of them all and live like this! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1_rocinha_favela_closeup.JPG Of course I’m being silly here, but there are also externalities to taking away all the roads and cars.

My main beef with the anti-sprawl crusaders is that many of them want to keep their nice ¼ acre blocks, which apparently are not part of the “sprawl problem”, while banning further “sprawl” and pushing everyone else into the vibrant utopia of tower blocks and trains. The inevitable continuing inflation of land prices from such policies is an extra bonus for the comfortable champagne socialists, as long as nobody proposes an apartment block in their back yard; then we get to hear all about the evils of profit-seeking developers concreting over the landscape.

That being said I wouldn’t mind seeing fuel tax increased towards European levels (over several years and with targeted assistance to low-income outer suburbanites stuck with old guzzling commodores etc. The yuppies with huge Audi SUVs don’t need any assistance.). The oil won’t last forever and these days there is no need for cars to be using upwards of 10 litres/100km. Half that is perfectly doable (as in Europe) and in another 10 years EVs using 20 kWh/100 km should be practical. This would drive much greater energy savings than a small mode shift to light rail, and unlike light rail will contribute to govt coffers rather than draining them.

It would also push more people towards city living but I think many people would rather downsize their cars than their homes. Densification of inner areas and transport corridors is all well and good for those who want such things, but it’s not cheap to build good-quality apartments, and the rates + strata levies are usually more than the rates on a suburban house. That’s why those “spacious, high-quality, family-friendly, well-located, well-soundproofed, 3-4 bedroom apartments with plenty of storage” that everybody wants never actually get build for an affordable price. It just costs a lot more per sqm than building detached houses.

rubaiyat 11:18 am 13 Sep 15

The Light Rail is good for a hundred years or more, going by other networks.

At the current cost of JUST the polluting internal combustion engine vehicles, not accounting for all the infrastructure and maintenance to keep them operational, ACT cars will cost well over $400 billion over the next century (as if nothing will change)

The light rail looks excellent value!

rubaiyat 11:06 am 13 Sep 15

wildturkeycanoe said :

Fuel excise, registration, insurance, GST, stamp duty….yes, drivers get a free ride don’t they. For me it costs all up around $2000 a year to drive on the roads. I think your statement has a large flaw in it.

No it doesn’t it costs you PERSONALLY $11,000/yr to run your car, you just pretend it away, like all the other consequences in pollution, deaths, hospitalisations, lack of exercise of your choice.

http://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a-car/car-running-costs

THEN add on the costs to the taxpayer and everyone else who has to breath the air, listen to the incessant traffic noise, suffer the “accidents” and the environmental damage caused by excessive car use.

rubaiyat 10:46 am 13 Sep 15

rubaiyat said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

….yes, drivers get a free ride don’t they.

You keep claiming that it is public transport users who get the free ride, using ACTION with MyWay costs a full fare paying adult $2793.60 per year. Less than a quarter of what it costs you to run a car for the year. A sensible choice, but not a free ride. What have you paid in tolls to use the freeways?

Correction, this is MyWAY so that should actually be $1348.80.

No parking, cleaner and safer. We have had yet another death on the roads, in how many weeks?

rubaiyat 10:33 am 13 Sep 15

wildturkeycanoe said :

….yes, drivers get a free ride don’t they.

You keep claiming that it is public transport users who get the free ride, using ACTION with MyWay costs a full fare paying adult $2793.60 per year. Less than a quarter of what it costs you to run a car for the year. A sensible choice, but not a free ride. What have you paid in tolls to use the freeways?

JC 10:14 am 13 Sep 15

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

Then apply a toll to repay the bond, because at the moment it is a free ride at the public expense. Then see how many people use it when they have to pay instead of shift it onto everyone else.

The Light Rail passengers will be paying fares. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, but hey hypocrisy and incoherent spleen venting rules!

Fuel excise, registration, insurance, GST, stamp duty….yes, drivers get a free ride don’t they. For me it costs all up around $2000 a year to drive on the roads. I think your statement has a large flaw in it.

And how much of that money actually goes directly to roads? And even if it did would it be sufficient to cover the costs of building and maintaining the roads?

Take Majura parkway for example, if the cost of that road is recovered over 10 years, then the cost per vehicle of using that road is over $3.50 per trip, based on the expected daily usage. Now I am not complaining saying we don’t need it, we do, I just get the irrits when different standards are applied to roads and ANY public transport options. If roads had to genuinely pay for themselves you and everyone would get a shock. But as a society we accept we need roads, but not public transport. And this isn’t just here in Canberra, same the world over sadly.

So I think your statement has a large flaw in it.

wildturkeycanoe 8:25 am 13 Sep 15

rubaiyat said :

Then apply a toll to repay the bond, because at the moment it is a free ride at the public expense. Then see how many people use it when they have to pay instead of shift it onto everyone else.

The Light Rail passengers will be paying fares. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, but hey hypocrisy and incoherent spleen venting rules!

Fuel excise, registration, insurance, GST, stamp duty….yes, drivers get a free ride don’t they. For me it costs all up around $2000 a year to drive on the roads. I think your statement has a large flaw in it.

rubaiyat 8:18 am 13 Sep 15

But John would we have to get out of our cars!?!

And what is that I can just make out above, a tiny thin overhead cable, and is that grass between the tracks?

Where is the bitumen, the lovely parked cars and broken up concrete, the meters, the signs, the smell of stale gasoline? Will I have to sniff it from a bottle?

rubaiyat 8:09 am 13 Sep 15

aussie2 said :

John-I have another idea. Seeing as Mr Barr is convinced we are all in favour of trams, let’s prove it! Start canvassing for a Light Rail bond! If those in favour support it to the right funding level, we go ahead with the project, ALL SYSTEMS GO.
If not enough money is invested, as I believe will be the case, BIG STOP! oR YOU COULD ALWAYS ASK ACT LABOR AND GREENS paid up members to pay for it-if they are so keen.

The same applies to roads. Demand a government bond for every single overpriced stretch of road and see what up take you get. Then apply a toll to repay the bond, because at the moment it is a free ride at the public expense. Then see how many people use it when they have to pay instead of shift it onto everyone else.

The Light Rail passengers will be paying fares. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, but hey hypocrisy and incoherent spleen venting rules!

aussie2 4:04 pm 12 Sep 15

John-I have another idea. Seeing as Mr Barr is convinced we are all in favour of trams, let’s prove it! Start canvassing for a Light Rail bond! If those in favour support it to the right funding level, we go ahead with the project, ALL SYSTEMS GO.
If not enough money is invested, as I believe will be the case, BIG STOP! oR YOU COULD ALWAYS ASK ACT LABOR AND GREENS paid up members to pay for it-if they are so keen.

aussie2 4:01 pm 12 Sep 15

John-all governments since self government started have never been able to CONVINCE Canberrans to MODE SHIFT and leave the car behind. We have a history of less than 7% patronage for commuters. The FACTS speak for themselves. There are two bus services in Oxford UK, and one of them has 45% patronage on a user pays basis. No businessman would seriously consider building a tram based on our history. So, how about we be a bit practical: We want better public transport but with huge patronage improvements-the past 27 years experience has been pathetic at best!

We want 2000+ homeless given a place to call home,

We want an education system that protects and encourages our kids to their fullest potential-the cage story reflects the government’s lack of funding, damning our Government’s spin!

We want to reduce the prison population-train and qualify prisoners externally with real qualifications so they stay out of prison,

We want a legal system that stops excessively speeding drivers and domestic offenders given no bail and thus protecting the innocent of our city,

We want to repurpose unoccupied buildings to provide a place to call home,

We want sports fields, community halls and indoor sporting facilities including pools.

There’s more, but above all, we want to vote on the tram CLEARLY and DEFINITELY BEFORE ANY CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED.”
Got the message!

MarkE 2:59 pm 10 Sep 15

Before talking about more routes have you costed Phase 1 to each and every household in the ACT? According to the Canberra Times Phase 1 will cost $870M and there are 151,000 households in the ACT so the cost per household will be $5,166 plus interest plus the ongoing operating losses.

Does your family really want to pay $5,166 for a rail line you may never use? You will pay, look at rising rates and parking charges.

Even in the government’s own calculations the return on investment is only half as effective as widening roads for new bus lanes.

rommeldog56 6:25 pm 05 Nov 14

JC said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

Instead of the “build it & they will come” approach, why not “declare it and they will come” ?

ie. Declare what all the transit corridores will be through Canberra – not just Gunners to Civic.

State that in 7-10 years, there will be some sort of yet to be defined mass/rapid transport system along those corridores.

Population densities along those corridores will then increase substantially.

In 7-10 years, assess all options for a mass/rapid transit system – who knows what technology will be available then. There has to be something more viable and more flexible than already 90+ year old tram technology !

That is exactly what they have done along this route. It was first declared in the early 90’s, Flemmington Road was built wide enough to accommodate it and was built with higher density housing along the route. We could also go back to the original plans for Canberra too for Northborne Ave which 100 years ago was planned as a tram corridor. So really what your saying is true but now is the time to deliver. Or do you want to wait another 20 years when people, probably the same opposing light rail will be asking why nothing was done.

I agree. JC. your comments have sound reasoning not just the lazy “knock it for its own sake” approach. My comments about Athllon Drive are that it is currently (at least from Woden to Drakeford Drive) a two-way road with provision for duplication later. why not use the duplication provision for a tramway, which could accommodate the commuter cyclists as well?

The “lazy, knock it for its own sake” sector is concerned about funding the shortfall.
A lot of us are on self-funded, fixed retirement incomes, the purchasing power of which is being whittled away by increasing rates and fees without a commensurate increase in useful services.
You may be enjoying your fat, ratepayer funded pension John but we are all as fortunate as you.
By the way, forget current, 100 year old technology trams using Athlon Drive as the gradients are too steep. It would be impossible to get traction on a frosty morning, for example.

But of course you are happy to chip in your bit for an endless supply of roads.

We all already do chip in for roads and associated maintenance – its called vehicle registration, probably a proportion of the rapidly increasing Annual Rates, parking fees and revenues from all other ACT Gov’t chatges. I have no problem with that because roads extend across all of the ACT and bring tourists, trade, commerce, workers, etc. The tram on the other hand……..

rommeldog56 6:21 pm 05 Nov 14

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

Instead of the “build it & they will come” approach, why not “declare it and they will come” ?

ie. Declare what all the transit corridores will be through Canberra – not just Gunners to Civic.

State that in 7-10 years, there will be some sort of yet to be defined mass/rapid transport system along those corridores.

Population densities along those corridores will then increase substantially.

In 7-10 years, assess all options for a mass/rapid transit system – who knows what technology will be available then. There has to be something more viable and more flexible than already 90+ year old tram technology !

That is exactly what they have done along this route. It was first declared in the early 90’s, Flemmington Road was built wide enough to accommodate it and was built with higher density housing along the route. We could also go back to the original plans for Canberra too for Northborne Ave which 100 years ago was planned as a tram corridor. So really what your saying is true but now is the time to deliver. Or do you want to wait another 20 years when people, probably the same opposing light rail will be asking why nothing was done.

Did u read what I said ? I said it will achieve much the same result re increasing denisty along the corridors if the Gov’t says it WILL build a rapid mass transit system along the corridors in 7-10 years. 100 years ago, nor any time since, has the ACT Gov’t committed to a timeframe – without that, no one will believe it so they will not come.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site