• Advertisement

Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Melbourne / Victoria Transport Discussion

Moderator: MAN 16.242

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby RailwayBus » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:24 pm

system improver wrote:
revenue wrote:Why would the Victorian Government fund 10 minute weekend services on other lines, unless it had been a sucess on the lines that had been improved? Frankly, if there isn't a significant patronage increase from ten minute services to Frankston, Dandenong and Ringwood on weekends during the day - what would be the point of expanding it out to other lines? ...

The service improvements we are seeing are a result of the Metro contract. No additional government funding is being provided.


While it is part of the franchise agreement that Metro were to investigate and plan for "greenfields timetables", the 10 minute service is brand new funding which Metro has only started receiving on commencement of these services. As part of the agreement, initial funding is based on the service level that was in operation on day one of the current franchise. Every additional service still needs to be funded by the government on top of the funding for the base service level.
All views expressed are strictly my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else.
User avatar
RailwayBus
 
Posts: 4356
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 9:40 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 463 times
Been thanked: 327 times
Favourite Vehicle: Train or tram.

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby cal_t » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:12 pm

And I see nothing wrong in govts providing funding for operators to improve service frequencies. After all, the operators are not allowed to set fare prices.

What I would like to see is operators get into ancillary revenue generators, like what Metro is attempting to do by converting interchanges to stop, shop, play, rest areas as well as a transit point.

Ad revenue is another way but you need a serious revenue generator- with a risk borne to the operator. Property development along transport corridors, a model we must emulate and is one such example.
——
Any views expressed are do not represent those of any companies and are personal only. Other user ‘CAL’ & 'cal-creativist’ are not my pseudonyms; I am not associated with their posts.
User avatar
cal_t
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 23 times
Favourite Vehicle: Deckers; LRVs

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby PaxInfo » Tue May 01, 2012 5:11 am

cal_t wrote:Ad revenue is another way but you need a serious revenue generator- with a risk borne to the operator. Property development along transport corridors, a model we must emulate and is one such example.


I'm all for development around stations. And it is very likely that commercial and residential buildings would derive more value than existing car parking would. A worry is that property development isn't necessarily the instant risk-free money spinner some think it is; it is easy to get carried away, especially with borrowed money, inflated valuations and eventually oversupply. Government contracted rail (ie a steady income from a fee for service operation) is a very different animal to volatile and leveraged property development.

Read the Land Boomers by Cannon for how rail and land was intertwined in the 1880s, not always to everyone's advantage. If it goes pear shaped there is a risk of a National Express rerun where the rail operator hands in its keys, not because they deluded themselves over instant patronage gains and cost reductions, but due to being brought down by non-rail sorties into real estate.

On-system advertising is another two-edged sword. Advertising over windows insults the passenger, makes vehicles hard to see out and difficult for others to see in (which indirectly discourages patronage). Ideally it should be phased out once substitutes are found. Station billboards in some spots (eg Pl 2 Mentone) are similarly detrimental as they block passive surveillance and thus perceptions of safety.

On the other hand, the City Loop is grossly underused for advertising compared to metro systems overseas. Some ads (eg Pipeworks, which is nowhere near a station and has now closed) have been there for 10+ years. It may be difficult to get an occupation to change ads but that doesn't seem to deter it elsewhere. Metro has started using in-carriage space eg above the windows very effectively. Another untapped possibility is in the pit at 200+ suburban stations - Transperth use this space for safety messages at least. Even if advertising revenue could fund graffiti removal that might not be such a bad deal.
User avatar
PaxInfo
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby PaxInfo » Tue May 01, 2012 3:53 pm

Returning to topic, 601 received an honourable mention in the 2012-3 State Budget, with it being granted ongoing funding.

http://budget.eyemedia.com.au/hosting/b ... enDocument
User avatar
PaxInfo
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Wed May 02, 2012 11:57 am

:D
Great news! *Insert dance of joy here*
I've really enjoyed working on the 601. Some highlights are:
- More than 10,000 return journeys a week (more than 20,000 per week).
- The number of people travelling by bus from Huntingdale to Monash has doubled.
- Excellent reaction by students and staff.
- Significant number of counter peak travellers.
- Passengers no longer use timetables (eg. they agree the service is turn up and go)
- Reduce overcrowding on 900 and 630
- Really nice looking vehicles that have been well accepted by customers
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby Peter1805 » Wed May 02, 2012 12:36 pm

Excellent work.

Such a service should have come in years ago... and I'm sure it has contributed in a major way to reducing the need for car use by students at the Uni, and accordingly also reduced the pressure on car-parking facilities there.

I'm very impressed with the courtesy shown by 601 drivers to drivers of other buses in the area, too..

Good work, all.
Peter1805
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 250 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Thu May 03, 2012 11:09 am

I wonder if one of the reasons that things don't get done is that when they are people say "well it should have been done years ago".
It's actually a serious point - if that's the reaction that people have to service improvements, then there is no political upside to changes being made. Monash - Huntingdale is a good examples of this. The reason this project happened was that DOT and Monash agreed what the solution should be and how much it would cost - so the question became one of funding. When everyone agreed on the solution is removed the problems that can arise that when service additions are added and key stakeholders say "but we wanted X". Because Monash and DOT were able to agree the solution this risk was avoids.

In summary, my point is that one of the factors that can discourage the provision of additional services is that there isn't actually a positive reaction from the public due to the 'should have happened years ago' attitude.

In the case of Monash, this was avoided because the University and DOT worked together - and then lobbied hard for the 601. But this isn't always possible for other service improvements. How to address this challenge isn't always clear.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby PaxInfo » Fri May 04, 2012 12:03 am

revenue wrote:In the case of Monash, this was avoided because the University and DOT worked together - and then lobbied hard for the 601. But this isn't always possible for other service improvements. How to address this challenge isn't always clear.


University communities do seem to be stronger advocates for public transport than other comparable size trip generators.

Take shopping centres for example. Often off the rail network. Like universities, part of the (often casual) workforce is below driving age/doesn't own cars. Ditto for the customer base. Wage-drawing employees occupy scarce parking spacing to the exclusion of paying customers.

It would be economically rational for shopping centre owners (and the shop assistants union) to support better public transport but they don't see it as their place to do so, and little is heard from them. The constituency in favour of public transport to big shopping centres is probably bigger than that for universities but considerably less vocal. It's almost like the situation with pedestrians - almost everyone walks somewhere yet walking is the least funded, planned for and considered transport mode.

Some overall service improvements can be obtained by redeploying existing service kilometres. These may well be the only type of improvements possible in a tight budgetary environment. However they're tougher to implement than those that come with some dollars attached as they often require trade-offs that leave a minority worse off, despite an overwhelming community benefit and patronage potential.

Without external pressure for improvement there's a bias towards leaving things be. So we tolerate buses overlapping trams or each other, while other areas (even quite dense and growing employment hubs) go un/under served. This risks making the bus network less useful as travel needs change.

The 601 success seems to indicate that the abovementioned external presure should be both focused and achieveable. I'm sure there's other 'no brainer' or 'should have done this years ago' improvements but they lack champions from potential beneficiaries so tend not to be on anyone's agenda. Vague wishlists of dubious quality, such as seen on another thread, are also unlikely to succeed.
User avatar
PaxInfo
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Fri May 04, 2012 9:50 am

I agree with PaxInfo's sentiments.

I think it depends a lot on the institution.

In terms of shopping centres, there are a lot of places who don't give a f**k about public transport and who see the provision of a bus interchange as a bad thing as it means 30 less car parking spaces. I think that shows a lack of knowledge about their customers - I remember some surveys from a few years back that show that public transport passengers spend about the same as car drivers when shopping (apart from expensive heavy things like TVs).

An example of a good shopping centre is Watergardens. Their owners quickly realised the benefit of having a train station there and I understand they have been pretty supportive.

After the success of 601, I recieved a call from another university who essentially said "we want one too". I explained the process that Monash went through, and the work that their senior executives and Vice Chancellor did to raise the issue with a number of cabinet ministers to make the case for the service. At this point, it all became too hard and the person I was speaking to clearly wasn't comfortable with pushing this issue up the line to this university's top people. I think that implies that for this particular institution, it means that public transport isn't considered an issue important enough to go to the top. That's fine - but then you can't really complain when you don't get extra services.

Monash needs to be congratulated for:
- taking the time to understand the issue
- realising that even if a train line was to be provided, it was a decade away
- realising that providing a high quality bus and boosting patronage actually helps the case for a train line
- working with DOT to understand what an appropriate solution could be (and making sure that both organisations agreed on the concept - eg. getting to the point where everyone agreed the solution - the only outstanding issue was money)
- understanding the costs of the proposal (including the fact that Monash needed to fund two lay-over bays at Monash)
- committing to promoting and supporting any new service (eg. if you provide this, then we well do these things to promote it)
- lobbying at a VERY senior level for the service to be provided

Lobbying and politics is for strategic people who understand how to deliver a win-win situation. I do wish more organisations were as professional as Monash have been in this situation. I think there is an important lesson about professionalism here and working to achieving an outcome. Plenty of organisations come out and lobby for a particular change and slam the government for not doing it. That's a nice way to get your name in the papers - but it doesn't really often lead to an outcome. Professional organisations sit down and take the time to undertstand the issue, understand the funding required, agree on a solution, and then lobby in a professional manner for the resources required.

I totally agree about rearranging services. About fifteen years ago I went for a meeting out at Melton with a youth group sponsored by council to talk about public transport, and they were complaining about a gap in service. I had brought along the timetables and pointed out that there was a bit of an anomoly that the last normal route bus from the city departed just before the NightRider service did. I suggested that if they were to lobby for the last bus of the night to be cancelled, with the resource redirected to fill the gap they had identified, then that might be possible. I also made it clear that the government was unlikely to make any changes unless it was driven by the community. They all agreed it was a good idea....and then they were never heard from again. There are all kinds of changes that government can make to improve services (eg. remove X duplication to provide Y service, etc..). This is often only possible at a political level if the community pushes for that change. I'm waiting for the day that a group comes out and says "please cancel bus route X, and put more services onto Y".
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby dbowen » Fri May 04, 2012 12:41 pm

revenue wrote:I remember some surveys from a few years back that show that public transport passengers spend about the same as car drivers when shopping (apart from expensive heavy things like TVs).


Even big TVs get taken home on PT these days (helped by the fact they're getting lighter) http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielbowen/6713880101/

Daniel
dbowen
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Fri May 04, 2012 1:05 pm

Well I lugged my 50 inch Samsung home on the City Circle Tram from Costco. :)
Statistically though, most people who buy big screen TVs get a lift or use a taxi.
Of course, if I had bought a six pack of TVs from CostCost I would have probably gotten a taxi. Luckily I was able to convience them to sell me just one. :lol:
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby PaxInfo » Sat May 05, 2012 9:14 am

revenue wrote:There are all kinds of changes that government can make to improve services (eg. remove X duplication to provide Y service, etc..). This is often only possible at a political level if the community pushes for that change. I'm waiting for the day that a group comes out and says "please cancel bus route X, and put more services onto Y".


This raises the question of (1) who should initiate bus service improvements, and (2) whether the political process can be successfully used to strengthen (rather than weaken) the network.

(if this is too long there's a summary at the end)

1. Who should initiate?

The bolded quote relies on the community to ask for something. If no one asks then the status quo (however inefficient) prevails. Stalemate! But if there is strong and influential enough advocacy and funds are made available, then the transport department will be asked to find a way to add service. The response may be a tacked-on extension to an existing route, or sometimes a new route laid over an existing network (notably some of Sydney's Metro Buses but also part of the Manningham Mover).

Where are some problems of what I'll call campaign-responsive (or reactive) service planning? First is the noisy dog gets the buscuit; other service needs without articulate champions don't happen. Secondly, when there is a change, the solution is narrowly judged against what was asked for by the petitioners (rather than broader network needs). Thirdly almost every letter/email demands more service (rather than more smartly redeploying existing resources).

The third point is most critical when resources are tight. The common response of 'if not happy write to your MP' encourages a 'we want more' type of campaigning. The public is good at expressing a want but aren't professional service planners nor are worried about the resource implications of their demands. There are avenues to engage people to understand trade-offs and come up with an achieveable improvement (eg with Melton) that could be better exploited. I'll elaborate later.

What happens if we have a transport department that relies on public pressure for ideas and generally just says no when resources are tight? We get a bus network that remains stuck in the past. It was not purely a resourcing issue; old routes sometimes over-serviced and duplicated one another while new areas don't get service. This was notoriously the case in Melbourne for much of the 1990s up to the mid 2000s when there were only weak processes for bus service planning and doing nothing was a default. Even if one doesn't particuarly care for public transport this was poor financial policy due to stagnant patronage and reduced revenue.

Let's consider a thought experiment involving the same number of resources but with a transport department that emphasised review and planning including a fiendish dislike of service duplication and inefficiency without good reason. Its goal could be to maximise patronage and optimise coverage within a set annual service kilometres budget and minimum service obligations. It would spend time on reviewing patronage, initiating proposals of its own for improvement and consulting. We saw exactly this starting to happen from the mid 2000s with the bus reviews. But for years up to that the potential for the bureacracy to make a difference and initiate change was undertapped (which affects its ability to retain creative people and see the network as a whole).

There's another reason for transport departments to break public apathy stalemates and initiate service changes it thinks will boost patronage. Their own survival and the continued funding of the programs it administers. It's easier to justify the survival of a bus route that attracts 20 people per bus than one supported by only two. One just needs to look at a map to see that some existing routes are difficult to defend to the layperson (or curious treasury) while coverage may be warranted nearby. A busy, efficient and legible network is also that most financially and environmentally sustainable but won't sprout without planning (and occasional pruning).

The Victorian Auditor - General recently found that bus patronage rose but so did service km at about the same amount. Whereas one can find figures from Transperth that have bus patronage rising by about 50% more than service additions. The latter has had a strong ethos of efficient service planing for 20 years. We're newer to the concept, indicating that future patronage > service km gains should be easier here.

First priority could be those network improvements that could be done at near zero cost. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch and some will lose despite a greater good. So as a quid pro quo for stronger service reform you're going to need stronger public engagement processes. Which gets us onto the next point.

2. The political process

If you responded to every demand for more service you'd run out of money. So there needs to be a mechanism to pick the best, with selectivity depending on available budgets.

The common response of 'write to your MP' gets people to think about what they want. But what they demand may not necessarily be the solution that is of bigger general benefit. Also demand-based lobbying doesn't discipline people to think about trade-offs and what is possible from existing resources.

The latter is properly the expertise of the bureaucrats, but the thinking needs to be spread to the public as well. If only to better explain the reasons for decisions taken and if not of their liking to satisfy the public that the process was fair (eg based on evidence like patronage).

We can perhaps learn from the North Americans who seem to be more open with patronage figures. We can explain changes in terms of frequent corridors we want to build. I am attracted to an idea from Jarrett Walker of public workshops where the participants were given certain service kilometres for their area to teach the trade-offs between coverage and frequency. Again building acceptance for decisions made and more educational than a 'no' letter.

The above is more for large network changes. There are numerous other smaller cost-neutral changes that may produce overall public benefits but for whatever reason (not enough letters) haven't been done. And the risk of losses may mean an unwillingness to touch them.

Take bus route 366 as an example http://ptv.vic.gov.au/route/view/781

Interestingly it has buses that run until after 11pm on weeknights (standard for local buses is 9pm), but on Sundays service is only every 2 hours (compared to 60 min local route standard). We know that Sunday patronage has been a big success story where the service has been provided and many would welcome higher frequency.

So after surveying patronage data and consulting the operator, one might postulate that overall patronage would be higher if later weeknight trips were cut back but Sunday service boosted to hourly.

One might consult local groups, put the word out on social media, notices in buses etc (including facts like patronage numbers) etc. Show them two timetables, existing versus one with an earlier weeknights/better Sunday service. Then take a vote and make a decision. We actually had this style of decision making regarding Route 626 in Brighton East (which resulted in a change) though the impetus came from residents more than passengers. Why not a similar process for those service changes without cost implications?

This style of democratic engagement, handled at a middle level, means a robust and defensible process that should result in decisions more people accept (even if grudgingly) and lessen the political temperature of controversial changes.

Repeat for other small and apparently 'no brainer' changes to get a pattern of success. Well used public engagement broadens the art of the possible in bus service planning, allowing more to be get done.

TO SUMMARISE

Transport departments can't just rely on lobbying from others because by itself this won't deliver a modern network. Instead they need a strong capability to review routes, develop ideas and propose them for consultation. Wider public engagement is essential for acceptance and success. The result should be a stronger and better used network.
User avatar
PaxInfo
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:38 am

*bump*

Well the 601 is coming up on its sixth birthday...so I thought it might be a good time to look back. It was fascinating to read the comments in this thread (in particular some of the naysayers) and see what was correctly predicted and what people got wrong.

It's really interesting to think that pretty much every student at Monash today started after 601 was implemented (and so for them, a high frequency bus service is just normal - rather than something new).

New interchange is coming to Huntingdale soon which is another piece of the puzzle.

The service was introduced based on the knowledge that ten minute services were coming (e.g. 12 trains per hour stopping at the station) and seems to be working well.

At the start of semester one, each of the four buses carries around two thousand passengers per day - which I think makes them the busiest buses in Australia in terms of passenger boardings (albeit over a very short route).

Anyone want to share any personal experience or anecdotes about the service? Always good to look back and evaluate.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby burrumbus » Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:08 pm

Nice to see you back on this forum revenue.Your views are very interesting and quite different from many others on this forum.
The 601 has been an absolute success,much like its cousin ,the 401.It prooves that form of short ultra frequent shuttle service in the right circumstances,and operated well, will certaintly attract great patronage.
Could you tell us which is the busiest service-401 or 601 ??
burrumbus
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:12 pm
Has thanked: 731 times
Been thanked: 307 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:49 pm

I haven't seen the figures for 401 recently, but last time I looked a few years back they had pretty similar patronage. However, twice as many buses are required to operate 401 due to the longer travel times. So the number of passengers carried per bus on 601 is around double that of 401 - as each bus can complete twice as many trips (hence my comment about them possibly being the busiest buses in Australia).

If anyone has any bright ideas for any major attractors located near a train line that would benefit from a 401/601 style shuttle feel free to suggest them. :)
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby crakening » Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:21 pm

Extending the 401 (or another perhaps less frequent shuttle) to Clifton Hill or Victoria Park from Melbourne Uni has been talked about for a long time, it doesn't look anything will happen on that front. It would be good not just for access to the university, but also as providing a decent cross town service in the very inner north which is missing. The 200/7 buses help to connect, but very slow travel time, poor reliability and chronic overcrowding mean they often aren't as fast as just taking the train all the way into the CBD.
crakening
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby burrumbus » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:20 pm

I 'd agree with crackening.Royal Melbourne Hospital(commence it at corner Wreckyn Street/Arden Street roundabout,Wreckyn Street,continue Grattan Street,left Rathdowne Street,Right Princes Street,continue Alexandria Parade,left Queens Parade,Right Hoddle Street to terminate at Clifton Hill Station.
Return Hoddle Street,Right North Terrace,Right Gold Street,left Queens Parade,then as for outward trip.Call this route 500.
I reckon you could do that trip in around 15-20 minutes depending on the time of the day.Start it at a 15 minute frequency ,and you'd need 3 buses to operate it.I reckon that patronage would build rapidly and you could slot in extra buses at 10 minute or 5 minute frequencies over a period of time.
You'd replace the 546 from Melbourne Uni to Clifton Hill,saving 2 buses which you'd reallocate to route 500.I'd leave 546 as a Clifton Hill-Heidelberg service on an hourly coverage frequency with one small bus(even a Hiace).With that frequency and a slower timetable you could operate that reliably for the very low number of pax using it.
burrumbus
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:12 pm
Has thanked: 731 times
Been thanked: 307 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby MAN 16.242 » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:22 pm

Seem 601 patronage keeps growing. A few months ago CDC made facebook post that extra bus in AM. Now CDC undertaking a trial with some seats removed to create more standing room.
http://www.cdcvictoria.com.au/services/601-trial
User avatar
MAN 16.242
Moderator
 
Posts: 3491
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:12 pm
Location: The People's Republic of Darebin
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 200 times
Favourite Vehicle: M.A.N SL200

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby V981 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:38 am

MAN 16.242 wrote:Seem 601 patronage keeps growing. A few months ago CDC made facebook post that extra bus in AM. Now CDC undertaking a trial with some seats removed to create more standing room.
http://www.cdcvictoria.com.au/services/601-trial


Might be time to bring on the Double Deckers for the 601. :lol:
The views expressed by me are mine and mine only. They do not neccesarily fall in line with the views of my friends, family, collegues or my employer.
V981
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:14 pm
Location: Dandenong Victoria
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Favourite Vehicle: Anything Volvo

Previous


  • Advertisement

Return to Discussion - Melbourne / VIC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests