Transit in St. Louis
Nicholas Beaudrot asks:
Without citing Portland, OR as a model, what is a reasonable goal for transit adoption and transit-oriented development in cities who haven’t had serious rail or streetcar investment in 50 years? Clearly we’re not going to turn St. Louis (popn density ~5500 people/sq.mi.) into Manhattan (60,000), but can we even turn it into DC (10,000) or Baltimore (8,000) within fifteen years?
I’m not really sure why I should be prohibited from citing Portland as a model. We have a somewhat unfortunate situation in this country where the main example people are familiar with of a transit-oriented city is New York, which is one of the very biggest in the world, while obviously most of our cities are much smaller than that. So it’s worth saying that the developed world is full of examples that are neither New York nor sprawl. That’s not just Portland, Europe is full of decently walkable medium-sized cities.
On to St Louis. It’s hard to talk in too much detail about places I’m not very familiar with. But the pace at which things can change is going to be dictated, in part, but the extent to which there’s actual interest in building anything in the metro area. At the moment, clearly, nobody is going to undertake large new building projects—dense or otherwise—in St. Louis or anywhere else. And a small city in the midwest is under no particular obligation to turn itself into a particularly dense metropolis. But what you want is to avoid a situation where you’re preventing density. St Louis has a couple of decent rail transit lines and it’s important to allow dense projects to be built near those stations and along the corridors that are served by rail. These things are expensive to build, and once they’re there it’s important to utilize the served areas in the most efficient way possible. That doesn’t mean forcing people to build extremely tall projects near them, but it does mean letting such projects go through without demanding vast fields of parking to be placed around everything.
In general, I would also just note that it can get misleading to look at citywide density averages. The relevant issue for a city that (like St. Louis) has some transit is whether or not you’re achieving density at your transit nodes. Additional consideration that are important is that ideally the stations will be close enough together to create not just pockets of density but whole corridors of density, even if the corridors are surrounded by pretty traditional suburbs. The stretch of Arlington County running from Rosslyn to the Metro stations at Court House, Clarendon, Virginia Square, and Ballston are a great example of how this can look.
52 Responses to “Transit in St. Louis”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
1st Post! It’s only fitting too, as I am St. Louis, right now in college. Of note, to this post is that the state just cut funding as of Nov. 4th for the St. Louis Metro rail system. So now service shuts off earlier, I think.
So also something to consider in the projects is it’s all well in good if we build the systems(good points with comparison Matt) ….but if when hard times (or fiscal conservatives) dominate, will we still be giving them the necessary funds?
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
St. Louis is a problematic example. The light rail system is underbuilt, and hence underused, but there’s potential. Or rather, there would be if the funding situation there weren’t so screwy. Missouri gives almost nothing in the way of subsidy — the Illinois counties (and the state) in the Metro consortium are much more generous. Metro tried to increase sales taxes in the ares to close a budget gap, but the initiative failed. I reported on it for PBS’s Blueprint America in collaboration with American Public Media.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I’m also currently living in the ‘Lou. Just moved from NYC. I have never lived anywhere but NYC save for a few months I lived in Jersey city. I have to admit I don’t really understand what MY is talking about here. It seems that St Louis city county has suffered from serious White Flight. The city is transit system is used most efficiently. The question I think is how do we get people back to the city from the county. A much lower crime rate would certainly be a big help. But also I think there has been too much MetroLink (the lightrail) expansion into the county. Most neighborhoods in StL city county don’t have in rail. That’s a mistake. If there was more rail in the city proper I think the MetroLink would be much more efficient & prosperous. Instead they have spent all this time building out into the county. Which while important seems to have gotten ahead of itself. They should be building for the people that need it & will use it most. Instead we have lines heading a decent length into the county where most people say they never use it.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
You’re right. Local zoning codes do prevent new building without big parking lots.
There’s not really much need to find room to build huge new projects. Saint Louis has actually been rehabbing a lot of space downtown, which had emptied out over the last several decades. Unfortunately, that has slowed down over the last year, what with developers going bankrupt.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Also Rick, it should be pointed out that it was StL county residents that failed to pass the HALF CENT sales tax increase. StL city county residents already passed their increase years ago but for some dumb reason the law was written so that neither tax goes into effect unless both the county & the city pass it.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
The Metro initiative to raise county sales taxes was a massive FAIL. Very weak campaign that spent way too much time on long lists of reasons why it was a good thing instead of succinct persuasive talking points. Plus, part of the funding problem is that the Metro bonds recently reset, costing Metro millions more when they already have funding issues.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
It’s quite depressing that Proposition M (funding for transit) failed last November.
St. Louis is a city that could really benefit from better transit options, especially right now. The city’s major east-west artery, highway 64/40, is in the middle of a 2-year construction project, and major sections of it are completely closed for the rest of the year. It’s a definite disruption, but for most people, driving is still the only option. There just aren’t very many people who both live and work near a metrolink station, and the bus system has real problems.
I’d be very excited to see St. Louis adopt some Bus Rapid Transit ideas in its future transit projects. I think an overhaul of our bus system—especially one that focused on getting rid of the stigma that taking the bus seems to carry—would do way more good than another metrolink expansion.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Wow. That’s stupid. Considering city residents are the least likely to drive in the area. There is no need for that kind of zoning. People could easily get around with increased public transportation. We have lived here almost 5 months w/o a car. It would be nice to have a car sure, but it would also be nice to have more rail.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I’m not sure I would call it massive. It failed by only 8000 votes. I consider anyone who voted against it to be shortsighted in the extreme. It was half a cent for Pete’s sake.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I’ve lived in St. Louis for nearly six years now, after four years in Boston and an earlier stint in Stockholm. The public transportation system in St. Louis is clearly light-years behind both the East Coast and mainstream Europe, but progress is being made. Until only a year or two ago, there was only one light-rail line, connecting the airport to downtown. The second light-rail line has greatly expanded the ability of residents of several major St. Louis suburbs to park-and-ride to work. Also, major kudos to Washington University, both campuses of which are now served by light rail, for providing free Metro (bus and rail) passes to its students and employees! I hope more employers have similar programs! As mentioned by Acrobat (above), there was a bit of a setback in November when voters in St. Louis county (the county of suburbs and exurbs that surrounds the county of St. Louis City) voted against extra funds for the Metro system, which has lead Metro to discontinue many bus lines that serve the county.
The Metro Light Rail system is heavily used, which is great! Unfortunately, I don’t see a lot of initiative or enthusiasm for more programs like this from the public at large, especially now that gas prices are down again. People are too set in their ways (i.e. driving everywhere; this is the Show-Me State, after all), and many residents of St. Louis have never lived in a city with extensive public transportation. But I think this new second Metro line has begun to change some people’s minds.
Anyway, Matt, if you ever want to make St. Louis a little case-study of sorts, let me know! You’re welcome to come visit anytime.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
looks like you got all of the readers from the ‘lou to write in.
two main reasons for metrolink to exist – 1) to get people from the suburbs and from illinois into the city to work. 2)get people to cardinals games (or rams or blues but mostly cardinals games). if you have ever seen it after a cardinals game the train is busting at the seams. other than that people don’t use it to commute around town because it takes 15 minutes to get from any part of the city to go anywhere else in a car.
it’s hard to get population density up in a place that is
surrounded by farm land that can be bought up and turned into houses. the other thing is that there has to be jobs in the city for people to want to live there. st louis has a high unemployment rate
That being said st. louis has had some success (like other cities across the country) turning old buildings and warehouses into lofts and apartments for younger people.
this is one city where an extra train or two is not going to create a great urban environment.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Sacramento’s system has spurred some high-density infill development, but not a whopping great amount of it. It’s clearly a very slow process that I’d advise putting any aggressive time targets on. Don’t know how it compares to St Louis, but it’s flat and sprawly and not especially densly populated, if that helps (quite different than Portland to be sure).
One positive is the system is downtown-centric and because downtown is anchored by a large state government workforce unlikely to decamp to tbe burbs, there’s the stability of a built-in ridership.
Difficulties include a vast number of crossings at grade and a city both bordered and bisected by rivers, making system expansion even more expensive than merely acquiring rights of way and fending off NIMBY concerns. Extending a line to the airport, for example, may take another decade and there’s no current plan to extend it to adjacent Yolo County.
Naturally, the worse the freeway traffic becomes and the more gasoline costs (ahem) the more interest light rail receives from folks who never previously considered it.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
That’s not just Portland, Europe is full of decently walkable medium-sized cities.
Maybe because most European cities are much, much older than their American counterparts? Yes, we can take some lessons from Europe, but I’m not sure how useful the comparison is.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Matt,
Portland is banned from this discussion for the same reason that Seattle is: the granola per square mile is far too high to be acceptable to the media for purposes of comparisons.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I claim that Portland’s political climate cannot be easily replicated in most medium-sized cities in the U.S. There are only so many birkenstock-wearers to go around.
But a good answer! My home town of Atlanta, Georgia suffers horribly from disuse of its transit stops. The new shopping center/apartments in midtown are a start, but there’s obviously huge room for improvement in the rest of the city.
It’s also worth pointing out that many medium-sized cities in europe have densities on par with Baltimore or Seattle (7000) and yet still have plenty of transit.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
About the walking — that’s another problem. People in St. Louis don’t walk anywhere, ever. The whole point with public transportation, especially light rail, is that the station is within walking distance of lots of things. Since most St. Louis residents (even in the city) consider anything more than one block to be farther than “walkable,” most people who use the MetroLink (the light rail system here) do it because their destination is literally across the street from the platform. So in car-bound cities like St. Louis, there has to be a culture change where people WALK! Walking requires two things: (1) physical fitness, which is not a local strength but can be changed (there’s some local campaign called the Ten Toe Express that’s supposed to promote walking in conjunction with use of public transit); and (2) safe streets, which isn’t the case in many areas of St. Louis. But if there were more pedestrian traffic, the neighborhoods would become safer, so it’s all connected. . .
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The key to increasing density is to 1) focus on transit corridors and 2) enact land use policies on these corridors to allow for higher-density development. This is the approach that Charlotte, NC is taking.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
St. Louis’ biggest problem, and what I think contributes greatly to the public transit issue, it that it doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up. The white flight didn’t help, but neither do the prohibitive zoning laws (as a previous commenter pointed out) and the lack of any sort of significant investment risk-taking that could compel smaller fish to jump in. Joe Williams, who has been building up the Loop area for the past couple of decades, comes to mind, but we need a bigger and more immediate injection soon. Ballpark Village could have been a home run for the city (sorry) had it been ready in time for the All-Star Game, but even with such incentive, the city still couldn’t get it together.
I see the St. Louis problem as one between an aging conservative population that only comes to the city for Cardinals games and the handful of well-educated, upper-middle-class Gen Xers who seem to like lofts, nightclubs and tapas. Until they move away, of course, which they always seem to do. It’s like a fluffer town, readying you for something bigger and better. (And I say this as someone who is happy to live there, for now.)
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Reading the comments, I just wanted to note that Land Use and Zoning are not quite the same thing.
While there isn’t consistency on these terms, it is important to think about Land Use as a conceptualization of how some place should look and Zoning as one (but not the only) instrument to achieve that. Furthermore, Land Use and Transportation planning need to be done in tandem, to attempt one without attending to the other is not effective.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Out at the end of the Portland lines–Gresham, Hillsboro, Clackamas (well, in September anyway)–the Birkenstock and granola quotient is probably comparable to other American suburbs. That’s true in my suburban neighborhood as well, though I picked the apartment explicitly because it was close to the light rail line (oh, and it had a dishwasher).
Portland’s a tricky example for a couple of reasons, though. One is that walking is more common here (bicycling, too), and that may be due to the downtown block size to some extent. They’re barely 200 feet square; the city founders figured more corner lots meant more dough for them. Places just seem closer than they were in many other downtowns, and walking “eight blocks” just doesn’t take long–maybe 10 minutes. Of course, there’s a flipside to this; addresses get very high quickly. I’m six miles out of downtown and have a five-digit address.
The other reason may be the urban growth boundary which keeps sprawl from expanding ever outward, forcing more development infill and often, that’s close to the rail line. Parts of the light rail corridor in the western suburbs blend together and have higher density development much like Matt’s example, which might not happen if people could build 30 miles out.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Yeah, I’ll definitely attest to the benefits of that. And also, kind of what Rachel said, I think students in general aren’t hung up about crime and things; we just follow the food/alcohol/happenings.
STL it would seem definitely has the money and power concentrated in county suburbs/exurbs, while the urban environments of the city are underserved. Maybe a generational shift and broader attractions could enhance the rail system, perhaps like IL has w/ funding.
BTW, has Obama signaled any thing like this in the infrastructure package. Transportation and infrastructure go together in my mind, but it gets tough to build stuff people actually use.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Note that the Google view of Arlington is several years out of date. The density has increased significantly and those large parking lots are now occupied by apartments and office buildings.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Rachel–that’s probably true of several midwestern cities. It makes it hard to make alternative forms of transit work, even if you want to on an individual level. I remember a newspaper story about someone with roots in Cincinnati who moved back there after college and would live near downtown and bicycle to work and kept having people wonder why she did so and got yelled at by drivers to bicycle on the sidewalk and get out of the way of traffic. (It was in the context of a discussion of the book “The Big Sort”.) She finally gave up and moved to Portland about a year ago.
There’s a flipside to that; if you’ve learned to get around on public transit or bicycle in a place like St. Louis or–eek–Buffalo, where my wife and I shared a car and used a bus more often than other folks, it becomes much easier once you move to a transit-oriented city. Maybe St. Louis would keep more of the young folks with better transportation options–but will they ever find out?
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
As a resident of that Arlington corridor, I absolutely love my neighborhood. Really, everyone should be so lucky…
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
If you want to know anything and everything about urbanism and mass transit in St. Louis, you have to visit my friend Steve Patterson’s blog:
A really informative blog.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I live in St. Louis too. Happy to see fellow denizens here.
Sure, the *narrow* (not massive failure) defeat of Prop M was a big setback, but I think that can be overcome. Mass transit in town is in a catch 22 where it’s not expansive enough for many people to use it regularly, which then provides enough fodder for the anti-mass transit crowd (”See! Not many people are using it!”) In reality, plenty of people use it and would use it even more if service was more plentiful, connected north-south as well as east-west routes, etc.
Oh, and the anti-mass transit trolls in town are intolerable with their “why isn’t this self-sufficient” bullshit. As if the highway system is self-funded. This is also one of their favorite racially coded complaints as well, as if tax money only goes to subsidize “those people.”
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Another St. Louis resident; I was riding the train when I read this.
My addition to this conversation is this: It’s all well and good to have density around transit nodes, but it still doesn’t work very well if those nodes are miles and miles apart. Right now, the problem with St. Louis is that the downtown development is separated from the inner ring suburbs by a wide band of blight. The highways and trains both basically skip over this area, which just perpetuates the problem. The end result is that every downtown commuter in St. Louis spends an extra 5-10 minutes every day traveling through dead space. It’s a huge waste of time and carbon.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
A bit of history on the St. Louis Metro System: the only way they could afford to build it was by using existing tunnels under the city that dated back to the turn of the century. I recall working downtown during Metrolink construction when part of Washington Avenue caved in when one of the old brick tunnels collapsed. Today when you go downtown on the train, you can see the original hundred year old (I’m guessing) brick tunnels as you zoom through. Pretty cool.
By using the existing tunnels and existing old rail and trolley throughways, they were able to build the initial stages of the system and took it from East St. Louis all the way to the airport out west.
Unfortunately, the residential areas of the city do not adapt easily to adding north/south tracks for getting around town easily. You would have to either tear up miles of busy avenues and neighborhoods for tunnels or block off miles of neighborhoods and business districts to build elevated tracks.
So we have to rely on buses, which most residents only use when all else fails. We’ve grown up driving everywhere, and waiting for buses to arrive every hour takes too long for most of us.
Someone mentioned earlier that St. Louis is a small midwestern city. It’s considered that because years ago the county refused to merge with the city, after the white flight, and so the metropolitan area is divided between city and counties. If you took the whole mass, it’s probably the same size as Kansas City and others. Unfortunately it’s also very politically and racially divided. One big fear early on was “the poor black people in east side will travel to the west county to rob us and carry our TV’s home on the metrolink!”
Until the metropolitan community comes together it’s going to be an ongoing struggle.
Oh yeah, and just a note from a long time resident: who actually refers to St. Louis as “The Lou”?
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
What is a reasonable goal? I can name several but the goal that stands out the most – to free this country from foreign oil dependancy. Our first light rail line here in Phoenix just opened, and there are many days during the week when it’s standing room only. Clearly people want this form of mass transit.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
why on earth does it make sense to talk about Manhattan for anything? at least use the entire city. the entire city, after all, is where the functional level of government happens.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Not sure why anyone would want to emulate Baltimore’s transit. It’s poor, at best. One subway line (that doesn’t go anywhere particularly popular) and one light rail line that is forever breaking down. A second light rail is planned that actually would go to useful destinations, but there’s also been a huge NIMBY outcry against it.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
How about Vancouver? In Canada obviously, but hey, close enough.
The skytrain built in the 80s has been slowly expanding ever since and with it urban density has increased. It’s also been sited as one of the most livable cities in the world (for what it’s worth).
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Dallas is not a granola eating city, but about 15 years or so ago, the city began a light rail system. The nay sayers were plentiful. Some of the major suburbs opted out of the mass transit plan.
Today DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit “light rail”) system is exceeding expectations. Suburbs are clamoring to be included in the light rail line. For a southern, western automobile city, Dallas has proven that public transit can really succeed.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 am
Knockout Ed, I agree that white flight and generally the 70% or so decline in population in STL City since the ’50s peak is a big problem, but I’m not sure that it’s reasonable to say “city first, then we’ll worry about the county” for Metrolink. For example, the stuff around the Metrolink station at Brentwood/I-64 is very useful stuff; people need to get there, and they’ll get there by car if they can’t get there by train. There might be some neighborhoods in St. Louis proper that have higher utility as sites for Metrolink stops than the Brentwood/I-64 stop which aren’t being served, but I doubt there are many (and I say this not as a denigration of the city, but as a tribute to the good stuff of the Brentwood area, even if it does have far too much parking). Similar logic might apply to the Clayton stop. I can’t vouch for the utility of every stop all the way to Shrewsbury, but overall I don’t see the rationale for automatically putting potential county stops on lower priority than potential city stops regardless of whether dense local development makes them logical places for transit nodes and such. Reversing white flight would be nice, but creating a self-contained STL city only metro system which kept the transit users isolated from the county would be unlikely to help in my view, even if some neighborhoods would benefit. Or am I missing something of your argument?
Rachel — do you mean Joe Edwards, or is there some figure named Joe Williams of whom I’m unaware who has been involved in the Loop a lot lately?
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 am
Speaking as a resident, the Metrolink system has been undercut by poor layout, poor management, lack of percieved security, and a noted lack of support at the state level, and recently by a failed sales tax proposition. As stated, many residents only experience with the system is usage to sporting events. At these times, the system cannot handle the capacity. Also, a coworker noted the last time he rode to a sporting event, they had to deal with drunkards and standing vomit on the train. In another instance in 2004, the city threw a new years celebration at Forest Park. Friends and I took the train to the area, which worked beautifully, but we then had to get on a shuttle to get to the event area since the planners lack the foresight/funds to run the line under Forest Park so we ended up stuck in traffic for an hour until we gave up and walked the remainder of the way. One central mall, the Galleria, felt it had to supercharge it’s security profile during the weekends/holidays due to a recent expansion into this area. Next, as noted, we are currently rebuilding the interstate in the area to West County, but neither added any mass transit to the line or provisions to add later. St. Charles (the county to the West of St. Louis County) rejected an extension percieved in part due to the racial divide of the area. The city, while greatly improved in the past decade, still is not a hub of the area, and many buisnesses make great effort to avoid locating downtown with the 1% income levy. The system doesn’t reach into West County or South City/ County. Needless to say, it is a work in progress, and ridership improved greatly during the $4 gas timeframe, but these gains will likely be limited due to the proposed service cutbacks due to funding issues. It will take some time to resolve these issues here.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:23 am
Lots of good stuff here. I live in St. Louis, so I want to chime in too!
There’s a lot of issues with Metro (link and bus), but there is still demand for the system. Specifically, the city is attracting more young people who desire a more urban lifestyle, and a metro system is part of that. Still, the system could use upgrades: more buses and trains running, real time info, stuff like that. It seems like a stimulus infusion of cash would be a good idea.
Then there are the problems with the lines. A large amount of St. Louis is horribly infected with NIMBYism, and this goes beyond Metro. Even the highway system suffers (why doesn’t 170 go south of 64/40?). And so, the Metrolink just recently got an expansion that serves Washington University–a place where a lot of people would use it–and further south. Also, it annoyingly stops at the airport, short of Westport (a place with a lot of nightclubs and restaurants), the Casinos, and St. Charles (large suburb with a lot of people who come into the city, and places for city people to go). The last one is almost certainly fear of a Black Planet. So, people are attached to their cars, and demand their parking.
I’m not sure how things will go in the future. On the one hand, a lot of people like the system and want more of it. We also just recently got a car sharing service, and people are warming up to that. So the city is starting to loosen it’s vice-like grip on its cars, albeit slowly.
But looking at the Metro stops, I really don’t see the dense development Matt advocates, here or in the future. Most stops are surrounded by large open areas; some next to low density suburbs, some next to shops with large spanses of parking. The CWE stop is probably the best developed, and it’s only okay. Crime is a problem. Someone else mentioned citizen’s reluctance to walk, which makes this worse. Look at the Grand stop–it comes out on a large road bridge, and you have to walk a block just to get to buildings–and then you’re either at the edge of a University or a Hospital. You have to go a lot further to the awesome shops/restaurants on S. Grand, and that requires a bus, which most people avoid. So, people don’t take the Metro to eat on Grand, which is sad.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:22 am
As a sometimes visitor to St Louis, I think Leo (#27) makes a very important point. Between downtown and the suburbs (including those within the city limits), there is a huge blighted area. I don’t this is relevant in any single huge way, but it is perhaps relevant in a lot of little ways: it depresses the desirability of downtown as a corporate HQ (and thus as a commuter destination), it means that rail commuters have to look at a lot of ugliness (without the distraction that driving provides), and it reminds people that there are other things government needs to be doing.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 am
Point to Denver then, remember that city from the Convention, the one Dems were pushing as an in-road into red territory? The city which can’t seem to build new light-rail lines fast enough, and is even working on heavy rail to Boulder (Granola land.)
Its a spread out city, but somehow they’re figuring out how to do mass-transit (hub and rail method.)
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
These threads aren’t any fun any more without Mixner.
BTW, did anyone notice exactly when he vanished? It would be interesting to see if any of the purveyors of Wingnut Welfare announced layoffs around that date.
February 15th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Backlash against Tom Sullivan, main spokesman against Prop M.
groveguys.com
News & Events page
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:46 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:26 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:15 am
Great site, Good info viagra