84°Clear

McDonnell: “Looking At” Hybrid HOV Exemption

by ARLnow.com December 21, 2010 at 11:48 am 4,423 99 Comments

On WTOP’s Ask the Governor program this morning, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was asked about the state law that allows vehicles with clean fuel license plates (like hybrids) to travel on HOV lanes without occupancy restrictions.

“Is there any point at which that will formally and permanently be canceled?” a caller asked the governor, adding that single-occupant hybrids “clog up” the HOV lanes during rush hour.

McDonnell, who signed a one-year extension of the law in March, noted that the law was “put in place in previous administrations… to create an incentive for using fuel-efficient cars.”

McDonnell said the exemption, which expires on June 30, 2011, will be examined as part of his administration’s transportation effort.

“The overall idea behind these… high occupancy lanes is to reduce congestion, and one person in a car doesn’t do that,” McDonnell said. “It’s part of one of the overall things that we’re looking at in the Department of Transportation in order to get people moving faster. Being able to have more people in one vehicle, or in rail or other modalities, is part of the solution.”

  • mehoo

    No, HOV lanes were designed to reduce air pollution, not congestion (though reducing congestion can reduce air pollution). That’s why hybrids and motorcycles and buses were allowed on the HOV lanes in the first place.

    • Mark Kinzler

      Mark Kinzler: What does HOV stand for?

      Mehoo: I don’t know, but whatever it is, it means that we’re cutting POLLUTION not CONGESTION.

      Mark Kinzler: Actually, it stands for HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE. If the purpose of a HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE lane was to cut pollution, then they would have called it an LEV (Low Emmissions Vehicle) lane. As the article stated, the purpose of allowing hybrids was to incentivize fuel efficient cars. What it does NOT incentivize is for people to carpool in a hybrid. In fact, if in 10 years 50 percent of the cars on the road are hybrids, how will that aid congestion? It won’t. At some point, the exemption on hybrids will be cancelled for single occupancy drivers. Buses, motorcycles, and cars with 2 people cut congestion and incentivize people to ride together. Maybe they should change to HOV-3 instead of HOV-2 and then you’ll really have plenty to complain about…

      Mehoo: I have no idea what I’m talking about.

      • Chad

        You should try to be less condescending when you are wrong.

        HOV lanes were initially introduced to keep emissions down from idling cars, but since it’s introduction some 30 years ago, the problem has evolved and needs to readdressed. They need new incentives for people to carpool or use public transportation. The eventual metro stops in the Tysons area is going to help some, but just lifting a restriction on hybrids being solo is not going to solve the problem.

        • Mark Kinzler

          @Chad

          “The overall idea behind these… high occupancy lanes is to reduce congestion, and one person in a car doesn’t do that,” McDonnell said. “It’s part of one of the overall things that we’re looking at in the Department of Transportation in order to get people moving faster. Being able to have more people in one vehicle, or in rail or other modalities, is part of the solution.”

          Lifting the restriction on hybrids will VASTLY REDUCE CONGESTION, thus serving the fundamental purpose of why the roads were constructed in the first place. So, I’ll be condescending whenever I want to be, but especially when I’m right, you rube.

          • mehoo

            McDonnell is just as wrong and ignorant as you are. Quoting him doesn’t help your case.

            You gonna quote from his thesis next?

            Again, you’re welcome to argue that hybrids don’t belong on HOV lanes, but don’t claim they weren’t designed primarily to reduce air pollution, because you’d be wrong, and that sneer will suddenly disappear from your face.

          • mehoo

            Mark sure is quiet. Maybe he went and looked up the Clean Air Act section 176(c), the part that requires states to conform to air quality standards to qualify for federal transportation funds and caused Virginia to include HOV lanes in its transportation plan.

          • mehoo

            “So, I’ll be condescending whenever I want to be, but especially when I’m right, you rube.”

            I see your problem – you accept without question whatever comes out of a Republican’s mouth.

            Bad idea.

          • Lou

            I believe Section 176(c) was part of the CAA amendments of 1990.

          • mehoo

            I think it is a section that was in the original, but was amended in 1990.

          • Lou

            It expanded on the 1977 conformity requirements added to the CAA. You may be thinking about the 1970 Federal Highway Act, but the requirement to conform to local SIP’s was never formally and legislatively tied to federal funding until 1990.

            Either way, Section 176(c) is not the smoking gun you were looking for.

      • mehoo

        Mark Kinzler: I argue from ignorance. If I don’t know something, it must not be true. Since HOV stands for “High Occupancy Vehicle” it must mean it has nothing to do with pollution.

        Mehoo: HOV is simply one way to reduce pollution by reducing the emissions per person. Until hybrids came along, there was no way to specify that only vehicles with certain levels of emission could use a lane. But it’s still true that HOV lanes were designed to reduce pollution. You can argue that hybrids on HOV lanes don’t accomplish that, but that doesn’t change the fact that HOV lanes were originally built with air quality as their first purpose, as part of the effort to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act, which would cut off federal funding for non-attaining cities.

        Mark Kinzler: So I’m just being a jerk for no good reason?

        Mehoo: …

        • Mark Kinzler

          @Mehoo

          Read the bleeding article first…

          “The overall idea behind these… high occupancy lanes is to reduce congestion, and one person in a car doesn’t do that,” McDonnell said. “It’s part of one of the overall things that we’re looking at in the Department of Transportation in order to get people moving faster. Being able to have more people in one vehicle, or in rail or other modalities, is part of the solution.”

          Lifting the restriction on hybrids will VASTLY REDUCE CONGESTION, thus serving the fundamental purpose of why the roads were constructed in the first place. REDUCING POLLUTION is a secondary, but NOT fundamental benefit. So, I’ll be condescending whenever I want to be, but especially when I’m right, you rube.

          • mehoo

            MK: Read the bleeding article first…

            mehoo: The article, or the governor, doesn’t contradict what I said, which is that the original purpose of HOV lanes was to reduce pollution. Get over it.

          • R.Griffon

            McDonnell obviously has his own OPINIONS on the issue, but he’s far from the ultimate authority on the topic. Is it that hard to see that HOV lanes were created as a dual-purpose solution to ease congestion while also providing elements of the State Improvement Plan in accordance with the Clean Air Act? Heck, even VDOT’s own site says “VDOT does strive to encourage carpooling to reduce congestion and pollution on our highways…”

            It’s clearly both.

      • BoredHouseWife

        Actually you are incorrect. HOV was designed to cut down on pollution, not congestion. It was an incentive for those who went out their way to carpool.

        Being smug only works if you are correct.

        • Arlington, Northside

          Actually it was intended to do both.

    • TGEoA

      You are just making shit up now.

      • mehoo

        Me? No. Mark is making shit up. I know what I’m talking about.

        It’s amazing to me that people cling to ignorant ideas simply because they learned them through “common knowledge” or assumed them. I’ve got news for you – lots of things you think you know are wrong.

        • Lou

          If everybody drove a zero-emissions car, would we still need HOV lanes?

          • mehoo

            Yes, of course.

            Still doesn’t change the fact that the original primary purpose of HOV lanes was air quality. Doesn’t mean that it’s the only purpose, doesn’t mean the purpose hasn’t evolved, it just means the original primary purpose of HOV lanes was air quality. Let’s all say it together: the original primary purpose of HOV lanes was air quality. Again: the original primary purpose of HOV lanes was air quality.

            Really not a big deal, folks. Some of you learned something new today, something you’re surprised to learn. A few of you can’t handle that kind of cognitive dissonance, apparently.

          • Lou

            It’s actually #5 on some lists. Here, read up:

            http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Shirley_Busway.html

          • mehoo

            Again, like looking at an interview with a governor, looking at a historical description on the Internet isn’t definitive.

            Great history though. I didn’t know the HOV on 395 was first conceived primarily as bus lanes.

          • The Pope of South Arlington

            @ meehoo

            HOV was introduced in the 60’s, when Detroit was turning out un-restricted no-catalytic converter big-block muscle cars by the 1000’s. It was to reduce congestion.

            The whole idea of it being a way of adding highway capacity without compromising air quality didnt come about until the 80’s.

          • mehoo

            Pope: read the thread.

          • mehoo

            Highway congestion wasn’t an issue in the 1960s. The 1960s was when highways were considered the ANSWER to congestion, not the source of it.

          • The Pope of South Arlington

            @ mehoo

            First automobile mass produced in the United States – 1901

            Passage of the Interstate Highway Act – 1956

            HOV – 1967

          • mehoo

            HOV lanes may have been around since 1967, but Interstate Highway System was still far short of even being completely designed, let alone built, until the 1970s.

            Look up I-66.

          • The Pope of South Arlington

            @ mehoo

            HOV was a solution for congestion, pollution was an afterthought. Suck it up, admit you were wrong and youll sleep better at night.

          • mehoo

            No, I was right. HOV lanes were part of the way that Virginia qualified for federal transportation funds that have air quality as a condition.

            You can keep flailing all you want though.

            What really amazes me is how much anger you and Mark have over such a small detail. Maybe it’s from sitting in all that traffic.

          • Mark Kinzler

            Mehoo is about as wrong as it gets….on just about every thread on this site. It’s a fun pattern of internet traffic to watch. Unfortunately for the rest of us, Mehoorhetoric counts as both congestion AND pollution.

          • mehoo

            Keep saying it, Lou, and soon it will be true.

        • BoredHouseWife

          You are correct. The argument for congestion has been created to get agreement for the HOT lanes. I remember what was said and discussed decades ago. I assure Mark and the Pope that congestion was not the reason. The HOV lanes were created to reward those who carpooled.

    • JamesE

      Hybrids at highway speeds aren’t very efficient, I think my car in 6th gear getting 30 mpg should be exempt as well.

      • mehoo

        Isn’t the point of a hybrid to switch to the most efficient mode, gas or electric, depending on the conditions? So a hybrid would switch to the same kind of gas engine your car has on the highway. I don’t see how that makes it less efficient.

      • R.Griffon

        Well, they aren’t any LESS efficient at highway speeds than other cars. And in practice, they actually tend to be MORE efficient than other cars at highway speeds because they are engineered to appeal to consumers who are energy conscious. This might include things like using lighter materials, aerodynamic improvements, or shutting off a couple of cylinders when cruising at highway speeds.

        The 2010 Prius, for example, gets nearly 50 MPG on the highway. Far more than your 30.

        • JamesE

          What if I get that 30 mpg at a vastly higher speed than the prius can achieve so I get to my destination twice as fast therefore improving congestion all while avoiding a reckless ticket?

          • mehoo

            That’s why I drive home at 110 mph for safety – I’m on the road only half the time, so my odds of having an accident are cut by 50%.

        • Tesla NO!
    • Westover

      http://www.hovworld.com/page6/page6.htm
      The original purpose of the HOV Lanes was to reduce congestion that added to the polution problem. So it is a chicken or egg sort of question. The fact is that the addition of so many hybrids carrying solo drivers is causeing congestion in the HOV Lanes and causing ideling and increased emmissions from the conventional vehicles that are carrying multiple passangers. There is going to be a time when the HOV exemption is going to have to be done away with for hybrids. It might be an HOV-2 for Hybrids and HOV-3 for conventionals, but it is going to have to change.

      • FrenchyB

        +1

        • Mark Kinzler

          +50, Mehoo are you paying attention?

        • Michael

          ++2

  • NorthAdams

    the hybrid exemption is ok.
    they need to remove counting babies and those not allowed to drive (under 16).
    adults who can’t/don’t drive should be counted.

    • david

      That makes zero sense. What are you going to have cops pull over cars and start checking occupants age? There are much bigger issues than this.

      • Mark Kinzler

        Agreed David. While getting more strict about HOV rules will help in the long run, it must be done in an efficient manner. For a cop to guess someone’s age is idiotic. However, I believe they could make something like this a secondary offense, like seatbelt laws used to be. For those that don’t know what that means, it means that if you were pulled over in HOV for doing something else, such as speeding or not using a turn signal, you could be fined for counting babies or young children as your HOV occupants. They shouldn’t count toward HOV because they’re not taking any additional cars off the road.

        • NorthAdams

          everyone gets so jumpy…

          Having children counted as HOV passengers does nothing to reduce anything. It helps parents, sure. It would be absurd to try and enforce. And it is a slippery slope.

    • Burger

      Really? please work through your hypocricy

  • Greg

    I don’t know how bad the HOV/hybrid congestion problem is because I don’t take those roads at rush hour. But I will say that the hybrid policy appears to have been effective. If you ever travel outside of DC, you will see noticeably less hybrids in most other cities. Probably Arlington’s car tax treatment of hybrids is a significant local contributor as well.

  • Drop the exemption. It was done originally to incentivize people to buy Hybrids, back when they were fairly rare. There are enough economic reasons now to buy them irregardless of whether they can use the HOV lanes. HOV should be used to incentivize people to carpool. 3 people in a 25MPG car is far better than just me in my 50MPG car (since we really should be looking at MPGPP (Miles Per Gallon Per Person), and in this case it would be 75MPGPP vs my 50 MPGPP.
    And I have owned a Prius for 6 years now so it’s not like I am advocating against a group I am not part of….

    • Westover

      6 people in a 12mpg Suburban is better than one person in a Volt.

      • mehoo

        Next time you see 6 people in a Suburban, let us know.

        Or are you suggesting HOV-6?

        • Westover

          There is a Suburban that has all three rows filled and an Osborne Park HS sticker in the back window on I-395 every morning.

        • Mark Kinzler

          What are you, some all-seeing traffic camera that tabulates the trends of the HOV lanes? I see fully-loaded SUV’s all the time.

  • R.Griffon

    IMHO they should let it expire for roads where the HOV lanes have become too clogged and no longer provide any benefit (like 66 outside the beltway), and allow it to remain on HOV lanes that continue to be under utilized (like 66 INSIDE the beltway, and 395).

    And while they’re at it, maybe repeal it for “inefficient” hybrids like SUVs. I’d personally like to see the exemption made for 40MPG+, low-emission cars only (regardless of engine type).

    • JamesE

      This would make most sense, especially for some diesels getting very high mpg.

      • Pat Goss

        Bingo! The highest mileage vehicle sold is a diesel, NOT a hybrid. Although, I guess the Volt likely changes that. Good luck to you if you spin that roulette wheel.

        • Lou

          Love your show BTW.

        • Arlington, Northside

          Don’t add consumption to the arguement! The debate is if HOV is to cut down on congestion or emmissions! Not, does it decrease our energy dependence?!?!?! 😉

      • Tesla NO!
    • mehoo

      Well, the answer to that problem, according to Virginia, is HOT lanes.

    • G

      Completely agree about the hybrid SUVs. My honda fit gets 40+ highway if I really make the effort.

    • Westover

      An inefficient hybrid HOV with solo driver might not get the MPG advantage that you want, but it will have the emmissions per person advantage against a conventional Honda Civic that is hauling three bodys. There are so many veriables to consider. IF it was easy, it would not be a problem.

      • mehoo

        Maybe, but the point is that we invented this hybrid thing, and then instead of using it to save gas, we use it to add useless weight to our vehicles. Kinda defeats the purpose.

        • Westover

          Not really, it takes a desirable vehicle that provides the preferred ride hight and interior space with a drive-train that cuts consumption a little and emissions a lot. Don’t see why anyone would be opposed. Wish I could get a hybrid Wrangler!

          • mehoo

            Right – and it completely wastes the potential for real gas savings. It puts us back where we started.

            SUVs may be “desirable” but so are alot of wasteful, pointless things.

          • Westover

            Everytime you open the refrigerator door to see what is available to eat you are wasting potential energy savings. It is about time we take a look at how we try to tell each other to live our lives and allow folks the freedom to choose what they like. The fact some do that while looking for what savings is available within those constants should be commended, not looked down at.

          • mehoo

            But I NEED to open the fridge. I don’t NEED an extra 1,000 pounds of metal on an SUV, I can get around just fine in a smaller car. See?

          • The Pope of South Arlington

            “But I NEED to open the fridge”

            One day at a time sweetheart, we can beat this!

          • Westover

            And some folks NEED the extra room and desire the safety of a higher vantage point to see.

          • Pat Goss

            Let’s not forget you are less likely to die having an accident in a vehicle with more mass around you. Physics. I’ll take the SUV in the SUV/Prius collision.

          • R.Griffon

            Posted a reply, but it seems to have got lost. The upshot is that no – SUV’s are NOT safer. This is a myth.

            In fact it is quite the opposite.

        • Pat Goss

          Not much data to cite, Griffon. Physics dictates this opinion.

          • R.Griffon

            There is plenty of data showing that SUV’s are demonstrably LESS safe than passenger cars. I’m trying to post some examples, but every time I include a link it bombs out. I see other posts with links … is there a trick to it on this forum?

            The short answer is that despite being larger, SUVs are NOT safer. Not for you as a driver, and especially not for the rest of the motoring public. SUVs aren’t subject to the same stringent crash standards as passenger cars, and survivability suffers as a direct result. They also have a nasty habit of rolling over and crushing their soft, squishy inhabitants.

            And the data backs me up. The notion that SUVs are somehow safer is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by the industry that wants to sell more high-margin vehicles, and people who want to justify their vehicle choices.

            The only valid reason to “NEED” an SUV is if you need to transport 6 or more people regularly and live in a climate or terrain where you must contend with snow and/or unimproved roads on a regular basis (read: NOT NOVA). Otherwise, you only have an SUV because you want it and you don’t particularly care about the environment or the safety of others (or even your own, as seen above).

          • R.Griffon
          • R.Griffon

            bit.ly/hO0w0o

          • R.Griffon

            (Apparently it didn’t like the second one, and even a bit.ly link didn’t work with a full http header.)

            What these reports show is that you’re MUCH safer driving a minivan, or a mid-to-large sized passenger car (particularly if it’s a foreign luxury variety) than an SUV or pickup. One of them even shows the survival rate for SUV drivers to be barely any higher than that of Honda Civics!

            Apparently that smug sense of security around SUVs and their drivers only lasts until impact.

  • mehoo

    A hybrid SUV is like having a diet Coke with a triple cheeseburger.

  • NorthAdams

    HOV LANES were originally:
    HOV-4 and from 6 to 930 on I-66.
    Now:
    HOV-2 and from 6:30 to 9.
    let’s jack it back up some.

    • Westover

      How about electrics exempt, HOV-2 for hybrids, HOV-3 for others.

      • Tesla NO!

        Fully electric cars that plug in will be using electricity generated primarly from coal, a dirty form of power generation. Until solar or clean nukes (or clean coal) comes about affordably, a plug-in car as “green” is a scam. Go diesel instead to get good mileage. Diesel is now “clean” compared to the image portrayed from previous generations.

        • R.Griffon

          Plug-in cars are far from a “scam.” If you think that any mode of transportation that generates greenhouse gasses is out of the question, then yes – perhaps it doesn’t qualify. But by that definition the only “green” mode of transport is to grow all of your own food in your back yard and walk. (But wait … what about all that carbon dioxide you’ll exhale in the process? And what if your beans and cabbage give you gas and you start expelling methane? D’oh!)

          Is it perfect? No. Is it measurably better than petroleum-based solutions? Almost certainly. If you’re going to compare the two, you also have to take into account all of the energy required the entire way up the supply chain in order to get that gallon of gas into your tank . And it is significant.

          Plug-in cars (or any similar non-petrol option) are just one piece of the puzzle along with more and better renewable energy sources on a massive scale. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, nuke … even stuff we haven’t dreamed up yet; we need ’em all. It’s all part of a multi-pronged approach to wean ourselves off of crude, coal, natural gas, and other polluting non-renewables.

          • Pat Goss

            Yeah, the strip mining and mountain top removal is very clean. It only changes the natural terrain and destroys species and ecosystems. Oh, and coal has to be transported to the power plants (just as gas has to be transported to it’s destination). Oh, and the power plants pollute the air from lack of emission controls. Yeah, plug-ins are so much more clean running on coal fired electricity. Not.

          • Pat Goss

            I will agree that wind, solar, hydro, and even wave energy is something we should be expanding and is MUCH cleaner than coal or any other fossil fuel. If I had to chose a fossil fuel, I’d chose diesel to get the mileage rather than hybrid or plug-in. A diesel engine will last much longer and be much cheaper to operate in the long run than anything else.

          • R.Griffon

            Who said coal mining was clean? Because I sure didn’t. If you re-read my post, you’ll see that I’m the one saying that we need to get rid of such things because they’re abominations.

            But if you’re trying to say that plug-in cars are somehow WORSE than the internal combustion variety (Seriously? Could you really believe that?) based on the fact that strip mining is bad, this too is a fallacy because coal doesn’t even provide half of our energy production, and of the coal that IS used, it doesn’t all come from strip mining. I have no love for coal (in fact I hate it), but it’s hardly a reason to say that plug-in’s are somehow WORSE for the environment than drilling, transporting, refining, transporting again, and finally burning petroleum in a car.

  • The Answer

    The real problem is there are too many damn people. Politicians continue to approve more and more developement. More housing developments are constructed in the outer burbs. More higher density housing is constructed in the inner burbs. The politicians are greedily adding to their tax base by making new residences, but they are not providing improved roads or public transportation to keep up. They let the builders get away with murder too, all in the name of tax money that goes to God knows what. We should pack up some of these politicians into a couple of buses, drive them down the “bus lane” of I395 at six miles per hour, and drop them right into the drink off of the 14th Street Bridge.

    • Westover

      That is the most populist BS I have heard in days. Unless you are just trolling, in which case, well played.

    • mehoo

      Yeah, you’re right – let’s put all those people in the outer suburbs, so they can drive and Metro through the county instead! Yeah, that will solve our transportation problems.

      Dolt.

      • The Answer

        @ Westover & mehoo. I don’t think you get it. I’m saying all of the local politicians, whether from Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William, Loudoun, or Alexandria have contributed to the traffic issues around here. All of them. I’m not suggesting we all move to the outer burbs. I’m suggesting all of these politicians begin to govern in a responsible manner of smart growth that includes transportation infrastructure.

        I will say the decision to bring rail through Tysons and out the Toll Road was a good one for transportation. But, it is going to create a log jam coming into the city. Plus, there are a lot of suburb to suburb commuters now because job centers are now spread thoughout Northern VA and not just in close to the city. Where is the wheel to the metrorail spokes? Just ask someone what it is like commuting from Springfield to Tysons (where there is a ton of business). Nightmare, and it doesn’t even touch Arlington.

        • Westover

          Yes, the politicians have, the builders have, the home oweners have, the parents have, those who don’t have kids have. Trying to blaim it on any of them is BS. It is what it is, populations grow. Some “solutions” have worked, some have not. Reston works, but it also adds to the drivers on I-66 coming in to town. Arlington works, but the refusal to add lanes within the county has cause congestion. Fairfax in general, well….McLean works when Herndon folks are not trying to use Georgetown Pike as a cut through to Chain Bridge, and Arlington folks are not using it as a cut through to Tysons or Vienna. Trying to say ship the politicians off is just populist BS that worked for Obama two years ago and worked for the Teaparty this year, it is not a long term solution.

          • The Answer

            I don’t want to ship them out as much as I want to recognize the blame where it is warranted. Dropping them figuratively from the 14th Street Bridge is meant as a symbolic hanging of guilt.

            How easy is it to get on a train at rush hour at the Clarendon Metro station? Smart growth? Maybe that’s just not possible…. NYC seems to have a functional MTA coupled with various commuter rails that is so much better than Metrorail, VRE, and MARC have to offer.

        • Westover

          I have to agree that the Metro should have looped around with the Beltway and come in via I-95 in MD and VA as well as I-270(Red Line sort of does) and I-66 (Orange does but should have gone further out with more capacity. If they had done that 30 years ago, today we would be debateing the outer outer loop between Dulles, Leesburg, Columbia and MtVernon.

          • The Answer

            Thank you. These HOT lanes being built around the beltway could have surely been rail.

        • mehoo

          Okay.

      • Mark Kinzler

        “Yeah, you’re right – let’s put all those people in the outer suburbs, so they can drive and Metro through the county instead! Yeah, that will solve our transportation problems.
        Dolt.”

        So which government authority would all someone to just simply “put all those people” somewhere? Don’t you have some chili fries waiting to be gobbled down Mehoo?

        • Pat Goss

          His comment was specific to “the county” rather than taking a regional perspective. I guess that is appropriate for an Arlington internet board, but certainly is a view with blinders on.

  • MC

    Everyone seems to be missing the real story here: Bob McDonnell has said that congestion is the problem, that low occupancy vehicles are bad, and therefore HOT lanes are evil and shouldn’t be built on 395.

  • gman

    wow..lot of co2 going into the enviro on this blog!

    • mehoo

      True, and the more belligerent and condescending, the more CO2 produced.

  • MWC

    Sheesh – reading these comments makes me really glad I don’t live in Arlington. Is there a Prozac shortage in the County?

×

Subscribe to our mailing list