Trip to Kentlands — Intriguing but Not Definitive

Four Stafford County planning commissioners took a trip to the Kentlands development in Gaithersburg, Md., last month to inspect what New Urbanism planning concepts look like in practice, and Kafia Hosh with the Free Lance-Star went along with them to describe what they observed. “We see all of these plans, and we read all of the theories,” said commission member Steve Pitzel. “We really just wanted to go see what these things look like after they’ve been developed.”

Kentlands is the most established New Urbanism development in the Mid-Atlantic; enough time has passed since construction for the paint to start peeling and the asphalt to crack. By and large, the project delivered the goods — it has a mix of uses, pedestrian-friendly streets, service alleys in the back of houses, and fairly small lot sizes. On the other hand, Kentlands is located several miles from a Metro stop and residents still rely on automobiles for much of their travel.

What’s not clear from the story — probably because no one has compiled the information — are two critical datapoints: (1) Even though Kentlands residents still need their automobiles to function in suburban Maryland, do they drive fewer, shorter trips, as predicted by New Urbanism theory, thus reducing the number of Vehicle Miles Driven on state roads? And (2) Is the compact, moderate-density development more economical to serve with other public services?

Smart Growthers and Traditional Growthers can argue until they’re blue in the face about which development patterns are more transportation efficient, but there is not enough hard data to settle the issue definitively. Planning commissioners can visit Kentlands and get a better “feel” for New Urbanism, but such visits provide only anecdotal impressions, not factual proof, that one pattern of development costs less to serve and maintain than others.

The debate is not likely to advance very far in Virginia without more conclusive data. That’s why it’s high time to start gathering solid information. The task is easily and relatively inexpensively accomplished.

Step one: When automobile owners take their cars to a garage for state inspections, the inspectors take the odometer readings and report them to the Department of Motor Vehicles. That way, the state gains an accurate count of Vehicle Miles Driven every year. (If this duplicates some process already in effect, and we already have precise data, then so much the better.)

Step two: Break down the entire state by census tracts. Characterize each census tract by key variables — zoning, density, housing type, prevalence of retail, commercial and other land uses, access to Metro, bus or other mass transit, types of streets and roads, etc.

Step Three: Hand the data to scholars at Virginia Tech, Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia, the University of Virginia, or wherever, to start crunching numbers and establishing relationships between Vehicle Miles Driven and different human settlement patterns. Let the professors ascertain which patterns are the most transportation efficient, and let their studies inform public policy at the state and local level.

Right now, Virginia is largely flying blind on land use. People make all kinds of claims and there is no definitive way to sort through them. For a couple million dollars per year to administer a program like this, we could potentially save ourselves billions in transportation expenditures. The only people who could possibly oppose this is those who make their living bamboozling the public.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


24 responses to “Trip to Kentlands — Intriguing but Not Definitive”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    very excellent commentary! Thank you!

    Not only do we not have standards for the different types of multi-use – in terms of infrastructure impacts…

    but in not having them, we allow
    developers AND local government planners- to CONTINUE to claim unsubstantiated “benefits” for “smart growth”, “green”, TND, etc

    Further – even the Smart Growth folks themselves say something to the effect ..that “smart” development should be located near EXISTING transportation infrastructure.

    Well.. what happens when I-95/I-495 and VRE and WAMATA are already MAXED? Bloggers, TMT and Groveton ask this question over and over:

    what kind of development is “good” development when the transportation infrastructure in a given area are already maxed?

    and that’s the issue in the Fredericksburg area – as well.

    So.. when a developer comes to Stafford and proclaims that they are going to build a ‘smart” TND that will dump a thousand additional autos on already maxed local roads and an already-maxed I-95 at rush hour.. why is that characterized as a BENEFIT?

    Citizens.. have got this figured out and are not buying the TND on a “trust me” basis but rather a “trust but verify” basis.

    The developers and the local planners are all flying by the seat of their pants with TND.

    It’s just the next evolving nomenclature for “trust us.. this is GOOD development”….

    Basically, they’re desperately looking for some path that will avoid citizen opposition.

    Some citizens believe that the gov planners are actually working to assist and enable the developers rather than protect the citizens quality of life and levels of service.

    so of course.. neither the planners nor the developers are THAT interested in standards… because that might kill proposals that don’t truly “deliver”.

    So I totally support what Jim is calling for… and sooner or later some developer is going to step up to the plate on this.. and we need to make sure he/she gets ‘attaboys”.

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    I think the benefits you see with Kentlands aren’t so much in transportation, but that it creates a more desirable community to live in. The biggest thing I’ve read and heard about Kentlands is that through the design neighbors know each other much better and this creates a more vibrant neighborhood that people enjoy living in. It’s close to what you see in older neighborhoods pre-WW2. From what I’ve seen there is a pretty significant price premium over similar homes in other nearby developments.

    As far as transportation in TND I would imagine it would cut down intra-neighborhood driving, but I agree that it’s unlikely to cut down on commuters during rush hour and probably won’t help much on local roads. The advantage is that since you have a center point that’s easily accessible by numerous homes it’s easier to set up commuter bus and shuttle routes than with traditional cul-de-sac neighborhoods.

    The other major advantage is that by utilizing a denser development, look at Kentlands on Google satellites you’ll see what I mean, there is an opportunity to serve that development with smaller commercial areas. In your traditional development there isn’t usually enough density to support commercial shops so the county ends up with centralized big-box districts that overloads local roads to serve all the spread out developments.


  3. Interesting that you mention state inspection odometer reading. I’ve always thought that if we ever went to taxing users for transportation, we at least already have the rudiments of system in place to track miles.

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Falstaff, quite right — annual odometer readings could provide the basis for administering a Vehicle Miles Driven tax, assuming people don’t take to the idea of having a chip embedded in their car and tracking their VMD through GPS.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    … or dispute the miles they are being charged for that were spent out of state?

    or sell their car just before it needs to have the high mileage on it’s odometer paid for.

    This idea.. introduces WAY TOO MUCH government in the equation IMHO.

    I prefer to pay tolls and preferably to private enterprise who can directly receive customer feedback for poor service.

    Having the government looking over my shoulder at my odometer while he handles my billfold.. and then my money disappears into such politically-manipulated road slush fund…

    no. no. I’m surprised at you Bacon!

    I thought you too wanted the government out of your knickers…?

  6. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Larry, The government already collects a lot more sensitive information about me than how many miles I drive each year, and I don’t worry about it. As for collecting Vehicle Miles Driven, I don’t see how the government can misuse the information in any way. To the contrary, if we can use the data to make more intelligent land use decisions, it’s a no brainer.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    JB – not privacy… in my knickers…

    folks who move here.. will have to go “register” their cars odometers…

    folks who are in the military.. just won’t pay.. they’ll just skip when they get transferred…

    people who buy/sell cars.. will have to be somehow forced to check-in/check-out for odometer registrations..

    all of this adds up to a whole bunch of government…

    and THEN the money… goes where?

    if a car is operated in Roanoke for 10,000 miles and then sold to someone in NoVa… who uses it for 12,000 miles.. how do you keep track of who gets that money and what they spend it on?

    does Roanoke get it .. or NoVa or do they “split” it, etc, etc.??

    just massive.. massive bureaucracy.

    I’m betting that the more you think about this.. the less you’re gonna like it…

  8. I think the odometer reading approach is a fine idea. Sales tax is already part of a car sale transaction. Making the seller pay the untaxed portion of the milage tax is also simple.

    VA state auto safety inspectors already collect VIN number and milage each time there is a safety inspection. That information is “already in the system”. You could pay your milage tax at the point of inspection.

    The “tax by tolls alone” plan is unfair. Some roads will not have tolls. Indeed, in some areas there will be almost no toll roads. However, the people who live in these areas and drive on the roads use roads that have been bought with taxpayer money and are maintained and expanded with taxpayer money.

    The “tax by tolls alone” approach does not serve to reduce miles driven. Let’s say I commute 20 miles each way to/from work each day. As part of that commute I drive 3 miles each way on a toll road. Now, consider my collegue who lives much closer to work. She commutes 10 miles to and from work each day. She also uses 3 miles each way on the same toll road I use.

    Who is consuming more “road resources”? In daily commutes, I am consuming twice the “road resources”.

    Who is paying more? We are paying the same – at least through the tolls.

    Doesn’t the gasoline tax make everything equal? Not always. My collegue and I both drive Cadillac Escalades to/from work. However, my SUV is the new hybrid version and burns less gas. In fact, Cadillac says it burns 1/2 the gas in city driving.

    Having tolls and a milage tax might work if the state legislature could ever scrape up enough honesty to allocate costs (all costs) properly. Until then, a mile is a mile and an abusive driver is an abusive driver – regardless of where he lives.

  9. This whole ‘mixed-use’ concept escapes me. As someone who lives around an area that the planners keep trying to force mixed-use and compact development, I look around and don’t get it. I know the concept, I just don’t see it working as it is/was conceived.

    Who or what can fit in the “bottom” shop places in a mixed use design (typically the upper floors are for people to live, the lower ones for business). Here is what I see in my area. LOTS of nail shops and hair salons. TONS of art galleries. The occasional insurance guy or real estate guy. Some restaurants and a few places where a large grocery store has taken over much of the space. Now let’s look at the people who work there – the same ones who are suppose to ‘live’ in these upper floors of mixed use, typically rather expensive upper floors. Take the typical upper townhouse floors to cost (in this area) $225,000 and up. So can the folks working in a nails salon, a hair salon, a pizza place, an art gallery, a restaurant or a grocery store afford those kinds of prices? If you don’t own the business, the answer is probably no.

    My wife is a bookkeeper, she has some big time clients – doctors and lawyers. On the one hand those folks (especially the lawyers) might be a good target for someone who mixed-use might work for. Guess what? They don’t WANT to live above their business. They make some large dollars and they want some really nice property with a really nice home AWAY from their business. Given the choice between a $500,000 penthouse (heck, make it a 7,000 square foot penthouse) and a 5,000 square foot home on 5 acres (or more), located 10 miles from the city; 90% of the professionals will choose the SFH with the land.

    Maybe it’s changing, but I don’t see it here.

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    You could pay your milage tax at the point of inspection

    not unless you require a new inspection every time a car is bought/sold or brought into Va.

    More than likely DMV will also get involved and we all know how much we like to stand in line at the DMV…

    Right now.. many DMV transactions are available online and mileage given is voluntary/unverifiable.

    You folks that say you are Conservative needs to think this through in terms of having the government bureacracy involved.

    The other part of this is that because it would be such a mess when cars change jurisdictions.. the tax likely would be set direct to the state – to allocate back out and we all know what happens in THAT scenario. You’re gonna be putting VDOT back in charge of deciding new roads – not on need – as tolls would by their very existence prove – but by subjective and arbitrary criteria that will lead right back to unfundable wish lists… to satisfy political interests.

    Tolls are not totally fair in every scenario but tolls ARE voluntary also.

    You can decide if you want to take a different path – or not just as you decide whether or not you want a Cadillac SUV or limo…. or a hybrid.. or you take a bike, metro, etc, etc..

    I would also support cordon tolls where some congested areas charge electronic/video tolls also.

    and let the locality..contract with private enterprise to assess the tolls and also collect the money to plow the money right back into locally-needed infrastructure instead of letting VDOT fondle that money.

  11. Larry:

    So, I pay a gas tax because I live in Virginia. And I pay state sales tax because I live in Virginia. And I pay state income tax because I live in Virginia. All those taxes (and many more) are gobbled up by Richmond and then dispensed back to localities for various things. One of those things is to build roads.

    You want tolls. What is undsaid is that the tolls will only be built in “congested” areas. Those of us who live in urban / urbanizing areas (i.e. “congested
    ” areas) already pay far, far more in taxes than we receive back in the value of services. Now, we are going to pay for our roads but those living in rural / uncongested areas are not going to pay for their roads. And here is where the intellectual sleight of hand comes in – the rural roads are free!

    Your proposal, as I understand it, is that I keep paying all the taxes I currently pay. However, VDOT only spends money in my jurisdiction based on the tolls that are paid in my jurisdiction. Meanwhile, areas without toll roads continue to get money from the state (much of which is coming from me throgh the gas tax, etc) to pay for their roads.

    If you want tolls to pay for roads in “congested” areas – fine. Then eliminate the gas tax and all other transportation related taxes in those areas. Make all road expenditures contingent on locally raised taxes.

    After that, we should start the discussion about education. No jurisdiction should be able to get state money for their education system (beyond that raised in their jurisdiction) in order to lower their real estate tax rate. So, no subsidy money for education for any jurisdiction that does not have a real estate tax rate equal to the average rate for all jurisdictions in Virginia. People who want to cut their own tax rates should plan on cutting their local education budgets as well.

    On a side note – regarding the buying and selling of cars – you already have to transfer title with the state. You have to write the cost of the sale, the mileage of the car, etc. on the form or enter it online. I guess both seller and buyer could lie. However, if the milage was under-reported then the seller would be paying more mileage tax when he/she next got the car inspected.

    Also – the mileage tax is voulntary in all the same ways you cite for the tolls.

    However, the tolls don’t have as much of an impact on settlement patterns as a mileage tax. No? If you look at where tolls have been implemented – say, the Dulles Greenway, the level of low density development has increased.

    Finally, tolls are regressive. The toll taking technology does not know how much money I make. But the state income tax form does. If I pay my mileage tax at the same time as I pay my state taxes then the state can graduate the mileage tax.

    So, why would conservatives oppose tolls:

    1. They will not result in an equitable distribution of costs. Only those living in toll areas will pay tolls. There is no accountinng of revenues raised vs. money spent in Virginia. The toll debate is conducted without accurate, public information. This violates the conservative value of transparent government.

    2. Tolls will increase the overall jurisdictiona subsidy in Virginia. The areas being subjected to tolls will receive less state funding for transportation while still paying all the non-toll taxes for transportation. This violates the conservative value of self-sufficiency. It also accelerates the “welfare county” whereby certain jurisdictions are protected from making hard economic and social decisions based on spending some else’s money. This violates the conservative value of accountability for decisions.

    3. The use of “private enterprise” to run the toll system is illusory at best and dishonest at worst. Private enterprise is used as a surrogate for competition. However, the roads were acquired through eminent domain and that power is only available to government. Until there are multiple “private enterprises” able to practice “eminent domain” and provide for consumer choice and real competition the use of “private enterprise” is a red herring. The term “government contractors” should be used instead. This is in keeping with the conservative value of honesty between government and voter – taxpayers.

  12. Correction:

    I wrote:

    However, if the milage was under-reported then the seller would be paying more mileage tax when he/she next got the car inspected.

    I meant:

    However, if the milage was under-reported then the buyer would be paying more mileage tax when he/she next got the car inspected.

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Thank you, Jim.

    One of my main beefs here is that no one has collected data that we can believe.

    It really should not be that hard or that costly.


  14. Anonymous Avatar

    “Further – even the Smart Growth folks themselves say something to the effect ..that “smart” development should be located near EXISTING transportation infrastructure.

    Well.. what happens when I-95/I-495 and VRE and WAMATA are already MAXED? Bloggers, TMT and Groveton ask this question over and over:

    what kind of development is “good” development when the transportation infrastructure in a given area are already maxed?”

    Groveton hit the nail on the head – again. The tolls will only apply in urban areas. They won’t fix the problem of redistribution of revenue. They will probably add to the redistribution of revenue because there is virtually no likeliehood that that more roads will be built in the most densly populated areas (or transit either).

    We really don’t know where the toll money will go, other than to profits of the operators.

    But Larry’s comment about what do you do when youare maxed out plays into a comment ZI have frequently made about “User Pays”. “User Pays” is too narrowly defined. If we reconsider it as “beneficiary pays” then things look differently.

    Existing areas that are paying more, as Groveton notes, are paying more to develop new places which benefit the existing places by making them less congested tahn they might be otherwise.

    We simply cannot expect to land all of our societal costs on the newcomers as if they are the only source of increasing costs. Putting more of a load on a amaller segment of society can only drag that portion down in order to benefit others. But if we fairly consider the benefits of growth as well as the costs then it becomes a bit more clear as to who should pay for what.

    Growth has externalized costs, but it also has externalized benefits.


  15. Anonymous Avatar

    Here’s an example of an external benefit:

    “A good place to start solving problems of population growth, longer commutes and higher energy consumption, Raney says, is so commonsense you have to wonder why it’s not already a reality: building mixed-use housing and retail above and around all those huge parking lots serving large Bay Area business parks. It’s what Raney terms an “efficient human settlement pattern”: work, home and activities grouped within easy reach of each other.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency obviously thinks the concept has value; it awarded Raney a grant last year to conduct a study on the Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton titled “Transforming Office Parks Into Transit Villages.” The list of study partners is a who’s who of serious regional players: Oracle, BART, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the City of Pleasanton and a number of other organizations.

    While Raney is a fan of the transit villages (mixed-use developments combining parking, housing, retail and office space) being built around BART and Caltrain stations, he says these are too small to have a discernible effect on Bay Area housing, environmental and transportation problems. That’s why he turned his attention to business parks that bring tens of thousands of workers into relatively small areas.

    Raney is not alone, of course, in seeing the potential of turning mega office parks into mega transit villages. While “suburban office parks are the main cause of U.S. sprawl and congestion for the past 30 years,” he says, “there’s a growing consensus to fix these places” by turning them into efficient and sustainable supersize transit villages. “

    “More Places”


  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    what about the locational variable costs of living somewhere but needing airlines to get to where you work?

    How is that any different than doing a similiar thing with a different transportation mode?

    It appears to be.. that what we’re saying sometimes is that we need to find a way to have local businesses that don’t need airlines.

    Telling a Federal Agency to re-locate from Alexandria to Fredericksburg won’t result in fewer location variable cost for employees who choose the reverse commute instead of moving…


  17. Anonymous Avatar

    “Telling a Federal Agency to re-locate from Alexandria to Fredericksburg won’t result in fewer location variable cost for employees who choose the reverse commute instead of moving…”

    Part of their location variable cost is the “external” cost of congestion they cause others, if you believe the car haters. I prefer to to think that congestion costs are symmetric: you congest me exactly as much as I congest you.

    Nevertheless, congestion does have costs. If those reverse commuters encounter less congestion because they are traveling on the normally unused half of the road, then I’d say their locational costs decreased. If they are able to trvel in more or less free flow, their pollution will decrease as well.

    And it probably costs a boatload less than building a new railway.


  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    somewhere out of the locatinal variable costs condundrum I perceive driving distance to be one of the variables deemed at issue.

    I was pointing out that those that drive 50 miles in a reverse commute direction are driving the same number of miles as those that that commute but not reverse.

    If I understand the balanced community thesis – 50 mile reverse commutes are just as undesireable as 50 mile standard commutes.


  19. Anonymous Avatar

    “50 mile reverse commutes are just as undesireable as 50 mile standard commutes.”

    I agree they are undesireable, but not as undesireable as the standard commute. The reason beng that the congestion and pollution generated are both likely to be less, much less in fact. We shouldn’t let the perfect get in the way of the good.

    Look at it this way. If you have multiple city centers, then each city center can be reached from multiple directions, resulting in shorter average commutes.

    If some people are not located optimally (which they probably won’t be, due to job changes and two income households) then some of them will be commuting the “wrong” direction and farther than they might otherwise. But, they will be using the “wrong” (underutilized) side of the road which will result in higher utilization of existing infrastructure, and thus a better ROI, lower congestion and less pollution, than we have now.

    In other words, you can balance buckets on a pole over your shoulder close in or far out. Close in is better in some ways, but it is also harder to do, so you have to ask if you want efficiency, or success.

    One economist who has studied this has come to the conclusion that we need to do four things concurrently. Decentralize our job situation, charge tolls for roads, stop building and operating mass transit and charge full price for it, and de-regulate taxies and jitneys.


  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    why would someone live in NoVa in 1/2 the house with twice the taxes to commute to Fredericksburg – a reverse commute?

    If there jobs was in Fredericksburg – more than likely their commute would be to a place where housing was commensurate with the salary they make – right?

    Indeed, teachers and deputies who work in the Fredericksburg area live “out in the country” while teacher and deputies that work in NoVa .. live in Fredericksubrg.


  21. Anonymous Avatar

    Why would someone do that?

    The cost of moving, for one. Maybe they have a spouse that works the other direction. Because they want to keep their job options maximized while minimizing congestion. Better schools. They like the neighborhood they are in. They think the upside on the housing market has less risk.

    etc etc etc.

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    Tracking Vehicle Miles for Kentlands New Urbanism residents

    As a former Virginia resident, now living in Montgomery Village, MD, a few miles from Kentlands, I can offer a perspective on the “annual mileage data” proposed on this thread –

    In Maryland we do not have annual vehicle inspections, so you cannot have annual odometer data points from that.

    We do have biannual emission testing in this area, and odometer readings are collected then, so you can get the data at a coarser level. You’d have to decide how to identify a car as belonging to a “new urbanism” vs “old suburbanism” resident – or you might want to use several potentially relevant variables for your analysis.

    As far as taxing someone for the miles they drive – right now, if you use gasoline or diesel, the fuel you’re getting has taxes included. In the future, alternative sources of energy (your electric car recharges its batteries when you’re home at night, and your solar energy roof is your source of electrons) may require changes – but let’s see what develops there.

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    We need to keep in mind that there are two parts to the highway funding issue.

    1. Maintenance of existing roads
    2. funding new roads

    Right now – the gas tax in most states more or less covers maintenance but no longer generates adequate revenues for new roads and this is even before you get to the fact that new roads are ungodly expensive compared to new roads years ago.

    Now.. we have more efficient cars and possibly plug-in electrics coming online along with more expensive gas and that will further reduce the amount of gasoline purchased – and in turn reduce the tax revenues.

    So – one part of the solution is perhaps to have tolls on new roads – that are easily “tollable”. For instance, tolling new surface streets may not be as practical, although cordon tolls are becoming more common.

    Perhaps a mileage tax is a potential path for other funding but it does have lots of logistical problems if implemented at the State level rather than the Fed level.

    Everytime a car changes owners, you’d have to have an accounting and private buyers of used cars would not really know the true cost of the car..until they could verify the mileage on it.

    For instance, a car might have 30K of unpaid miles on it – that could amount to a substantial amount – that would effectively reduce the value/worth of that car.

    But you still have a problem WHERE and WHEN the car is driven in addition to the differences in fuel efficiency between cars.

    You can have two cars – with 20K miles and one was driven everyday on crowded, expensive urban roads at rush hour – and the other car was driven 20K miles NEVER on crowded roads at rush hour yet both of them would pay the same amount and the likelihood high that the non-rush driver fees paid – would be diverted to improving the infrastructure for the rush hour driver.

    This is the essence why the revenues no longer cover expenses – new highways for urban areas are very expensive. The Springfield Interchange was almost 700 million dollars. The ICC in Md, an 18 mile road is slated to cost 2 or 3 Billion dollars and even though tolled will still require a state subsidy to be financially viable.

    Think about this. Folks who never use the road (or else they pay tolls like everyone else) or going to have to help pay for that road.

    Trying to build and maintain rush hour urban road infrastructure is 10 times more expensive than the same deal with rural roads.

    There’s just not any way to get around this fact.

    A brand new, modern, 2 lane rural road can be built for a million or two dollars. One LANE of new urban road can cost 100 million – and that lane can only handle a max of 2000 vehicles per hour so there is no way with the current gas tax – that that lane can be paid for just by the folks who use it – as they have found out with the ICC funding.

    And this is what is going on in Virginia’s urban areas – as well as nationwide. It’s not just a unique Va-only rural vs urban issue.

    Okay so my point.. you build a toll road.. and it is so expensive that tolls alone cannot maintain it – so we have a mileage tax on cars to replace the gas tax – and what happens?

    well.. folks will get charged for their mileage – and instead of that money going to improve the roads they drive on, some of it may well have to be diverted to pay for an urban toll road..that they will never use.

    So.. the problem is that a mileage tax to replace the gas tax – does not “fix” the basic problem…

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    In your Kentlands piece you talked about doing a study of transportation mileage using DMV inspection data. My company, CARFAX, already collects that data. You could probably combine it with data from our parent company, Polk, to locate the car in a census tract. That would create the database to have the researchers analyze. Let me know if you want to discuss.

Leave a Reply