Rule #1: Don’t Site A Light Rail Station Next To A Freeway


[ Rendering of the Wallace Vision Line by J. Craig Thorpe ]

Getting the highest return on transit investments hinges on the creation of high-performing transit-oriented communities (TOC) around the stations.   And the easiest way to make sure that doesn’t happen is to site stations next to large freeways. Yet this is exactly what newly elected Bellevue City Councilor Kevin Wallace has just proposed, in his “Vision Line” plan that would move the downtown Bellevue Station from the ideally located existing transit center, over to the edge of I-405, about a quarter mile to the east (more here and here).

Maximizing the social and environmental benefits associated with high-performing TOC (10 meg pdf) is relatively straightforward:  you put stations where there are lots of people, jobs, and services within easy walking distance, or where there is at least a likely future potential for those ingredients.  And the downtown Bellevue transit center fits that bill—there is already a high concentration of jobs, and the area is zoned to allow high housing density.  The convenient connectivity to extensive bus service is also ideal.

When you site a station next to a freeway, right away you’re throwing away half of your walkshed, because (1) the freeway itself obliterates a massive swath of land in the station area, and (2) few people will be willing to walk across the massive pedestrian barrier formed by a freeway like I-405.   Ridership depends on pedestrians and walkable destinations, and a freeway is anethema to both.

The Vision Line proposal would also add significant inconvenience to intermodal trips, as a rider transferring from bus to train would have to make an extra five minute walk.  The simplest way to kill transit ridership is to make it inconvenient.  The Vision Liners’ apparent belief that the covered walkway shown in the rendering would make up for the inconvenience of distance is wishful thinking.

The Vision Line was motivated by perceived problems with the two basic alternatives:  tunneling costs too much, and surface tracks are too disruptive.  Cry me a river.  New light rail service represents an unprecedented opportunity to help transform Bellevue into a city that makes sense for the 21st century, and most of the bill for it is being covered by taxpayers from across the region.   But that awesome opportunity will not just be handed to the City—it will cost money and the required changes won’t be totally painless for everyone.   On the other hand, compromises made now will be paid for a bazillion times over during the lifetime of the light rail line.

Bellevue, you’re a smart, wealthy city.  Step up and make sure this one gets done right.

58 Responses to “Rule #1: Don’t Site A Light Rail Station Next To A Freeway”

  1. Photovatar

    I agree with the points that you are making here, well written. :)

  2. Ellery

    Freeway alignments are cheap and lazy investments indicative of an utter lack of “vision” — making Wallace’s plan as ironic as it is moronic. The greatest opportunity to plan for TOD comes with the station siting. Here’s hoping Bellevue doesn’t let Wallace and others screw this up for them.

  3. Wells

    I do not agree with the points you try to make here, poorly written.

    Light rail and bus systems must creatively integrate because LRT alone cannot serve as the entire transit system. For a light rail route that sensible practicality deems can only come near a busy city center, the simplest bus line that guarantees convenient transfers between the LRT station and city center can be an ideal compromise.

    Transit ridership along such a bus transfer line can be greater than around a preferred LRT station at City Center; sometimes streamlining circuitous LRT routes to increase cross-county speed is justified; development potential can increase and market-driven pricing decrease; brownfield development options can increase, etc etc.

    I praise highly the rebuilding of MLK because it was a deathtrap avoided by pedestrians, and the high density neighborhood and commercial centers benefitted greatly. I don’t see this same potential for a surface alignment through Bellevue.

  4. Beal

    By what measure do the tunnel or surface options defy your supposed “sensible practicality” — let me guess, cost and disruption, respectively? Let me second Dan’s “cry me a river.” Either one would be a fair exchange for ridership numbers four times higher than the freeway alignment. The couple extra minutes saved in travel time doesn’t mean much if your alignment has reduced likely riders by 75%.

  5. Ben Schiendelman

    Wells, your entire argument is based on things that “can” happen. Unfortunately, it’s responding to a well documented argument about what “will” happen.

    Increasing transit speed to serve the exurbs at the cost of the city core is never justified – part of the point of higher density is to allow trips to be shorter overall.

  6. Ben Schiendelman

    Oh, and when a single transfer already drops ridership dramatically, adding a bus connector is one of the worst ideas that could ever grace transit in this region. It’s produced dismal ridership for Link, remember?

  7. John of Humdinger

    Putting this thing on stilts 80 feet up in the air?
    Kinda reminds one of a uhhh… viaduct.

    Wonder how much they spent on Docstoc fancy presentation. (but not fancy enough to resize the drawings)

  8. Wells

    Beal and Ben. You two are the ones who’ve ruined light rail in Seattle. I blame you. Don’t tell me what you think works. You two don’t know what you’re talking about. But you do know how to add costs to light rail projects which make them ‘prohibitively’ expensive and extremely disruptive. Next time you want to slam my viewpoint, try dealing with it substantially. I explained why I support rebuilding MLK and why I don’t support a surface route through Bellevue. No transit system can work without transfers. Building transfers into transit systems increases ridership. Denver operates a bus connector between two light rail lines and created a ‘car-free’ transit-only plaza. Does the magic word ‘car-free’ have any special meaning for potheads like you Ben? You two aren’t interested in perspective other than your own.

  9. Ben Schiendelman

    Wells – I’m twenty-seven. When light rail was voted on, and frankly, the MLK alignment was largely chosen several years before that, I was fourteen. I guess it’s my fault that it’s not perfect – I think I was nine when the county exec and mayor got together and said that needed to happen.

    And calling me a pothead should pretty much end anyone’s consideration of your viewpoint. I live car-free. Wallace’s plan would be a disaster for people like me trying to live or work in Bellevue.

  10. mahanoy

    Wells @3, I totally agree with you that the Vision Line is “an ideal compromise.”

    Who in their right mind would want to be deposited right next to their destination when instead they could experience the pleasure of getting deposited alongside a busy freeway and then have the luxury of spending an extra 15 minutes of waiting for and boarding and riding a lovely bus to their destination?

    This may sound counterintuitive, but people who ride transit do it for the extra time and exercise and overall challenge involved. So actually, you want to make it less convenient for them, not more.

  11. dan cortland

    mahanoy, your grasp of theory is admirable and everything you say is true, but in this case the shuttle bus appears to be taking the light rail riders directly back to Seattle. Stands to reason: what slob who takes the train could afford to shoppe at The Shopppes at The Shoppppes?

  12. Joshua Daniel Franklin

    It’s not like a light rail line has never gone through a downtown before. Here in Seattle the DSTT was a construction mess but now works pretty well. For surface you don’t have to go any farther than Portland, where all businesses survived the Green Line construction, though one “fine dining” establishment reported a much larger drop in business than the average 10-20%. Hmm, maybe certain Bellevue luxury businesses are worried more about that.

  13. Wells

    Mahanoy @10. My post #8 lists the Denver example of a bus connector that crosses 2 light rail lines. The buses run every 2 minutes along a very active, fully developed 1-mile route.

    A light rail station in downtown Bellevue has a walkable distance of 1/4 mile. Beyond that you need a bus. The success of the Denver Shuttle is based on the integration between rail and bus. It’s been in place since 1982 and is still very popular and successful. Light rail cost was kept low and that may have been the make-or-break aspect whether it was built at all.

    Transfers are unavoidable. No transit system can work without them. The key is to make the transfer convenient. A 5-minute interval bus line is sufficiently convenient for connecting a light rail station at I-405 to downtown Bellevue.

    Schiendelman. You don’t know what you’re talking about. An I-405 route a disaster? That’s BS. That’s you talking out of your ass, just like a pothead. And just like a pothead, if I don’t agree with you, that makes my viewpoint beyond your comprehension.

    Portland’s MAX Green Line has 5 stations along I-205 which are little more than park-n-rides. All have bus connections. Over time, I expect 3 stations will develop adjacent properties. The MAX Green Line was set up in the 1970’s as a ‘compromise’ to highway planners who wanted an 8-lane I-205 but settled for a 6-lanes with the route for future light rail.

  14. old timer

    If they ever do build it as drawn, maybe they could use an airport-style moving walkway to connect the two stations/centers.
    It would make the ‘walk’ a lot faster, and for those who have trouble walking, it would be a lot easier.
    We need a good dose of $6.50/gal gasoline to put folks heads on straight.
    If the oil companies don’t give it to us, maybe the taxers in Olympia should.

  15. MikeP

    Wells, one of the major advantages of creating a new mode, such as light rail, is that you don’t have to be near a freeway. Light rail is about serving pedestrians, freeways are about cars and are inherently unfriendly to pedestrians. And the last thing we want to be doing is encouraging development around them as you suggest with your Portland example (I love that you mention the line was built in the 1970’s, yet still expect that “over time” they will encourage development.)

    Freeway air pollution sheds:
    http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=b32124

  16. mahanoy

    You know, I’ve got to come to Wells’s defense again here. Wells @13: “Transfers are unavoidable. No transit system can work without them. The key is to make the transfer convenient.”

    The key element really is to MAKE transfers unavoidable. Why have a light rail station where maybe only 20% of the riders need to transfer when you could have a light rail station where 80% of the riders need to transfer? The more transfers there are, the more efficiently you know a mass transit system is working.

    I’ll tell you what’s truly unavoidable: an arduous transit riding experience. But here’s where you’ve got to go back to understanding the herd mentality of transit riders. That’s why they take it. It’s the sheer arduousness of it that makes them feel alive. So to maximize the value of a transit system, you actually want to make the experience even more arduous, not less.

  17. Wells

    Mike@15. The MAX Green Line Right Of Way (ROW) was put in place in the 70’s. The Green Line began operating in September. The original MAX Blue Line runs along the Banfield freeway and has 4 stations adjacent to I-84. A lot of development has gone up near those stations, more on the way.

    Mahanoy@16. Recheck your figures. Your argument, though clever, is a stretch. You’re trying to make it seem like an LRT subway or surface route through downtown Bellevue is a given, but it’s not that simple. Through MLK, the surface route improved that dangerous boulevard significantly. In Denver, the connecting bus shuttle proved to be a logical arrangement. There’s no herd mentality of transit riders. If anything, the mindset of motorists is closer to a herd mentality because driving can be much easier, except when it’s not.

  18. mahanoy

    Folks, I’ve already voiced my support for the visionary nature of the “Vision Line,” but I think we’re already missing a model for its success that’s sitting right under our nose. And Sound Transit deserves all the credit for it.

    I’m talking about the experience of traveling to the airport on Central Link. Currently, you’re able to take light rail all the way to the Tukwila elevated station, which is very much like the “Vision Line” station. Then you have to schlep down to ground level, board a bus, sit in the bus as it traverses all the lights to get to the airport, and finally disembark yet again. The whole extra procedure adds a good 10+ minutes to the whole trip, plus a nice, little adventure that kinda keeps you on your toes.

    To me, that extra bus leg right at the end of the trip is what makes the entire trip worthwhile. Unfortunately, Sound Transit doesn’t want to leave well enough alone. Now they want to replace their airport shuttle bus and extend Central Link all the way to the airport, thereby shaving that 10+ minutes off the trip and eliminating the most thrilling part of it.

    To me, that attitude is symptomatic of a lot of what’s wrong with our society today. Why do things like faster, simpler, more convenient, smoother and more comfortable–why do these things have to be synonymous with better? I’m thankful that brave leaders like Kevin Wallace are finally standing up to the prejudices of our decadent times.

  19. JohnnyBReal

    Wells, you’re such a crack whore. I’ll take the pot smokers over your dirty crack-pipen ways, anyday.

  20. Marie

    Not to change the topic too much,but I have always wondered why the Sound Transit line stops on Beacon Hill. I love my local station, but we don’t have any job center, no density, very little commercial property to develop and we have a great bus line to downtown. I am completely ignorant about this stuff. Sounds like y’all have some historical knowledge (except maybe for the guy who was only nine when it started, that’s OK we were all kids once).

    I think it cost a lot to build the tunnel too. Why didn’t they take it to First Hill where all the hospitals are or through Dearborn cut? How did we get the amazing station on Beacon Hill when we are such small potatoes and realistically probably always will be given the tiny commercial area up here? Anybody know the history of that decision?

  21. Joshua Daniel Franklin

    @18: don’t forget the part where you wait for the bus outdoors.

    Also, just to clarify, the link I posted in @12 refers to the downtown Portland section of the MAX Green Line (from Union Station to PSU), which is not along a freeway but was constructed at the same time as the I-205 section. It uses existing city-owned street ROW. The older MAX Yellow Line now also uses this routing downtown.

    It’s also worth pointing out again that MAX downtown Portland surface light rail cost significantly less than SoundTransit’s MLK surface light rail because they did not rebuild the whole area. However, MAX is slower because of it.

    I’m not an Eastside taxpayer (except for county money), but personally I’d say go with the tunnel. Faster trains and it would go nicely with those big building I’ve seen from across the water. Who knows, I might even visit and spend some money.

  22. Wells

    Mahanoy@18. Seatac Airfield is not a major destination. It’s a place you go when going somewhere else. Thus, Link must extend further south of 200th to reach (or nearly reach) and serve a major commercial center. The community college seems ideal. Otherwise, Link becomes a 1-direction commute system that enables the growth of commuting beyond rush hour capacity of both Link and I-5.

    Marie@20. My fear has always been that Beacon Hill will eventually be rezoned for high-density, high-rise development within a 3-block radius of the Link station and all along Beacon Ave. -?- The Link on I-90 is routed on that highway all the way into town including along Dearborn. Could the MLK route have also used I-90 along Dearborn instead of the tunnel?

    JDF@21. My point all along has been that sometimes a compromise is necessary as is the need to integrate bus and rail effectively. Portland’s transit mall was designated a light rail corridor since the 1970’s, preferred by many instead of the initial cross-mall route, and included battles over a subway instead. Basicly, subways kill light rail projects.

  23. dan bertolet

    Wells, you seem to have some kind of beef, but I’m finding it difficult to understand what it really is. I guess that makes me a pothead too.

  24. mahanoy

    Wells @22: “Mahanoy@18. Seatac Airfield is not a major destination. It’s a place you go when going somewhere else.”

    Wells, I guess you’re right. Maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on Sound Transit. “Seatac Airfield” is NOT a major destination. Therefore, it isn’t so important for Sound Transit to maximize the amount of time and effort and overall skill level it takes for commuters to get there.

    However, we can all agree that downtown Bellevue IS a major destination. Therefore, it is imperative for Sound Transit to make the trip there involve as much time, exertion, and overall agitation as possible. Hence the genius of the Vision Line.

    Y’know, in retrospect, I think it’s a crying shame that Sound Transit didn’t put Central Link right alongside I-5 through downtown Seattle. Leave the bus tunnel for buses, the way God intended. I mean, there’s a reason they call it the “bus tunnel.” Idiots.

    Oh, don’t get me started.

  25. Marie

    Wells@22 High rise zoning is not recommended so far by the City for Beacon. They are looking for NC-65. But how do we get to the jobs at South Lake Union and First Hill from Beacon? It is sort of downtown or nothing for work and it was already easy to get there. I think they blew it spending so much on that tunnel station. It is pretty though and it feels like Tokyo or something inside. But behold! Its just plain old Beacon Hill! Weird.

  26. NorthSong

    Like your blog, very nice writing…you can check my gripes with Seattle at http://northsong.today.com/2009/11/20/the-soap-box-seattle-parking/

  27. sean

    @ 26: Take your hogwash elsewhere. Free parking really isn’t free. And if you don’t understand that, I don’t see how you can run a “blog.”

  28. Wells

    My beef, Dan, is that some transit activists latch onto one ‘pat’ solution and ignorantly reject others. If the ‘pat’ solution results in an impractical project, so much the better for those who don’t want rail transit, period. My rationale for compromise is reasonable, practical and desirable in the larger picture. I’ve been at this for 15 years following Western states light rail and streetcar projects. IMO, Seattle is the worst. The only logical explanation I can deduce for this is institutionalized obstructionism.

  29. mahanoy

    Wells @28, very well stated. To me the very epitome of a “pat” solution is this very predictable desire among transit planners the world over to want to build mass transit stations close to where the riders want to go. I mean, where’s the creativity?

    Just because all these other button-down, starchy bureaucrats wouldn’t dream of building a mass transit station alongside a busy freeway doesn’t mean we can’t be the first.

    It’s very analogous to these “by the books” army generals who insist on going to war with superior forces and weaponry. Who says you wouldn’t be better off with fewer troops and more primitive weapons?

    Also, I want to commend my friend Wells for one sentence in particular: “My rationale for compromise is reasonable, practical and desirable in the larger picture.”

    I couldn’t have said it better myself. I always say, “If you want to convince people that your plan is reasonable, practical and desirable, just say, ‘My plan is reasonable, practical and desirable.’” If that doesn’t convince people, it just shows how closed-minded THEY are.

  30. Transit Guy

    Downtown Bellevue should be treated like downtown Seattle. When transit and transportation people were deciding where to put future transit service in downtown Seattle, they put it in a tunnel under Third Avenue and Pine Street — right in the center of downtown population.

    If they’d followed the Kevin Wallace model, it would’ve been an elevated facility next to I-5 with a station at 6th and Cherry. And that would’ve served downtown Seattle just about as well as Mr. Wallace’s plan would serve downtown Bellevue.

    BTW, none of the Sound Transit alternatives do anything to serve the retail core of downtown Bellevue, the area centered on Bellevue Way. That area needs a station on Bellevue Way between Old Town and Bell Square. Without it, it’s like downtown Seattle with no station at Westlake.

    Kemper Freeman so powerful nobody wants to risk stepping on toes over there????

  31. eldan

    Wells, I used to like the comments on HAC. You don’t have to sing harmony for the original posters, but could you please stop the ad hominem attacks and gratuitous insults?

  32. Wells

    eldan. So sorry for offending your sensibilities. If anything you post has the least whiff of BS, I will call you on it. Your post qualifies as BS. Read my original post #3. On the contrary, the ad hominem attacks began with other people. No one here has yet indicated the least understanding of the transit design imperatives I insist are a necessary part of the planning process. This is in part why Seattle transit sucks. Its advocates are clueless reactionaries.

  33. Matt the Engineer

    Please don’t feed the troll.

  34. Wells

    Up yours, Matt. You’re no engineer. You’re a fraud.

  35. Joshua Daniel Franklin

    STB just posted Kevin Wallace Responds. His goals include preserving city roads and to “aesthetically compliment the expressway.”

    The logical next step would be to provide special light rail cars that you can drive onto, because clearly cars are the priority.

  36. Matt the Engineer

    Sweet. Just like the ferries.

  37. Editorial: Don’t Build a Train Station Next to a Highway - Seattle Transit Blog

    [...] major mass transit investment next to a ridership-killing highway. The always on-point hugeasscity reminds us of the basics: Ridership vs. Walking Distance, by Robert Cervero. Getting the highest return on transit [...]

  38. Peter Smith

    it’s ok to locate next to a highway — you just have to tear up the highway to make room for more productive uses of the land — a task every community that wants to be ‘livable’ should be concentrating on.

  39. Peter Smith

    mahanoy is my new favorite commenter. i’m coming back to this blog just to watch the smackdowns. and laugh my arse off.

  40. Mike Orr

    “Seatac Airfield is not a major destination.”

    Actually, it’s the biggest destination in the northwest. What other location has so many taxis and shuttles going to it, even all the way from Bellingham and eastern Washington. What other location has so many outlying parking lots? And these are just the passengers and their families. There’s also the tens of thousands of employees

    A rail route to the airport gives a lot of bang for the buck in terms of getting people out of cars. It’s an intermodal transportation center. And visitors rate cities based on whether they have a rail line from the airport to downtown. That’s why I’ve always preferred Chicago, and why I now fly into SFO though I previously would have flown to Oakland (and avoided San Jose).

  41. Chris Stefan

    @28
    Dan, I’ve been trying to figure the guy out too. As best as I can tell he’s one of those cranks you run into from time to time.

    He’s got some sort of thing about tunnels, which he seems to be opposed to for transit, but favor for cars as long as they are cut-and-cover.

  42. Wells

    Mike Orr@40. Compare Seatac Airfield to downtown Seattle or UW campus or even MLK. Those station areas are multi-purpose. Seatac is single-purpose. You may think air travel is basic, but the truth is it’s a luxury that won’t continue indefinitely.

    Chris Stefan@41. Not in your wildest dreams will you ever come even close to doing for the national light rail scene what I have over the years. You’re an amateur. The cut/cover tunnel is simply the far better tunnel option. If you did the simplest comparative analysis you’d realize this, chump.

  43. Wells

    Post #43 was put there by someone other than myself, using my name. Please remove post #43. I don’t know who posted it, but I expect the board monitors can determine that it did not originate from me based on email address required for registration.

    I began advocating for light rail in 1992 and in 1993-94 toured the nation promoting Portland and the MAX system to planning department officials of many cities.

    In 94, I helped persuade the Greenpeace community of San Diego to reverse their opposition to a planned trolley extension through Mission Valley. Some sabateur I suspect led them to believe harm would come to the San Diego Riverbed. Just the opposite proved to be the case as the riverbed today is in fine shape with year-round water flow, lush vegetation and a returning salt marsh on Mission Bay. Greenpeace members were led to believe a lie.

    I returned to Portland in 1995 and found a record of many journalists from cities I’d visited had done stories on Portland. I got involved with Oregon’s premier light rail group AORTA (Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates) originators credited for the MAX system which opposed the MAX South/North proposal. Higher standards were not met with S/N MAX and it was finally rejected late 1998.

    By Spring of 1999, Interstate MAX was introduced as a replacement and the improvement over S/N MAX won renewed support. Interstate MAX eliminated ‘displacements’, took a route supported by the community, rebuilt Interstate Ave similar to Seattle’s MLK, added an extra mile of track and 3 stations, and cost less.

    I did not win many friends within the ‘establishment’ for opposing the S/N MAX. Many environmental groups thought the world would end if S/N were rejected by voters. At the same time, my own work with ‘circulator’ concepts led me to support the Portland streetcar system, though I had to disagree with some members of AORTA. Through these years I kept up my advocacy mostly on Western States cities, most lately Honolulu which should break ground on their light rail next year.

    Winning public support for light rail systems is important, but it doesn’t happen when transit activists take a narrow viewpoint. The opposition to Seattle’s rail transit is not diminished when advocates dismiss credible, though contrary viewpoint. Of the new start light rail systems and those that have expanded in the US, Seattle’s is the worst. Congratulations, losers. Seattle represents the USA quite well. We’re dead last by world standards in other ways as well.

  44. mahanoy

    Wells, very, well, well stated. If your life story isn’t adequate proof that Seattle has the worst new light rail system in the country, I don’t know what is.

    And it’s true. Seattle has the worst new light rail system in all of America. I would have said all of North America, but have you been to Vancouver? The SkyTrain there is just a nightmare. The trains come every two minutes, and out in the suburbs the stations are actually magnets for high-density development. It’s like they built the transit system around the premise that Canadians are a bunch of lazy, impatient troglodytes (which is true, but that’s another story).

    Anyway, at this point I think Sound Transit’s light rail experiment is such a disaster, it’s just a lost cause. What’s the point of having a “Vision Line” when the rest of the line shows a shocking lack of vision?

    Speaking of lost cause, you know what, the same could be said for the Seattle metro area itself. It’s true, several credible metrics place us as the worst place in the world. We are a metropolis of losers.

    Frankly, the only reason I’m even still living here is the regular appointments I have with my probation officer.

  45. Wells

    You’re funny, Mahanoy. Thanks for the humor written into your posts. San Jose had the worst performing West Coast light rail system until its extension north of town guided a lot of TOD-type development.

    Seattle’s Link LRT is now the worst performing light rail on the West Coast and U-Link won’t change that. I’d explain why the Link extensions south and east have more potential than U-Link, but you’ve got still got your blinders are on. You don’t have to believe my contribution to the national light rail movement means much, but I’m certain it’s more than all the posters here put together have accomplished. National advocates look to Seattle for how NOT to build light rail. Keep the humor coming. It’s not a bad thing though it’s all you’ve got.

  46. A Brief Interview With Conrad Lee - Seattle Transit Blog

    [...] in the core has a more practical planning purpose, because you’re helping to maintain a walkshed in all [...]

  47. Editorial: Site ‘Future Downtown’ Bellevue’s Station Right - Seattle Transit Blog

    [...] from Hugeasscity made this point very clear in highlighting the importance of maintaining a strong walkshed around the station.  I-405’s size and use as a major expressway automatically obliterates a [...]

  48. Jeannine Murrell

    woww.. i want to get this post copied into my touch screen phone that way my step fater can see it, but i cant figure out how.. will anyone tell me how please??

  49. LED tunnel light

    Very happy to see your article, I very much to like and agree with your point of view. Thank you for sharing. At the same time,i love
    LED tunnel light very much .Welcome to look at my website and blog articles.Hope we can become good friends, and exchange and to help each other! Thanks!!

    Are pleased to re-visit your blog, from which I learned a lot of knowledge, and totally agree with your point of view, I hope you can be the exhibitions, once again thank you for sharing such a wonderful text. I will wait to see what’s! Thank you!i love
    LED tunnel light very much .

  50. thomas sabo charms

    Thomas Sabo Charms Online Sale, including Cheap Thomas Sabo Charms, Thomes Sabo Charm Carriers and much more, Whole Series at Clearance Price, Thomas Sabo Charms Store, Free Delivery!!!

  51. Matt Tango

    I am really thankful to this topic because it really gives great information `’,

  52. Rogelio Mcclammy

    I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives great information ,*-

  53. Ayesha Southwood

    One thing I’d like to discuss is that weightloss program fast may be possible by the appropriate diet and exercise. A person’s size not simply affects appearance, but also the quality of life. Self-esteem, despression symptoms, health risks, and also physical abilities are affected in fat gain. It is possible to just make everything right but still gain. Should this happen, a problem may be the reason. While a lot of food rather than enough body exercise are usually the culprit, common medical conditions and traditionally used prescriptions can easily greatly enhance size. Many thanks for your post here gywl512.

  54. Beacon Hill

    Beacon Hill…

    [...]Rule #1: Don’t Site A Light Rail Station Next To A Freeway | hugeasscity[...]…

  55. speeding fine

    speeding fine…

    [...]Rule #1: Don’t Site A Light Rail Station Next To A Freeway | hugeasscity[...]…

  56. Blank DVD

    Tumblr article…

    I saw a writer talking about this on Tumblr and it linked to…

  57. Tungsten Rings

    Tungsten Rings…

    [...]Rule #1: Don’t Site A Light Rail Station Next To A Freeway | hugeasscity[...]…

  58. 注目 スタンドカラージャケット 品質合格

    注目 スタンドカラージャケット 品質合格…

    Rule #1: Don’t Site A Light Rail Station Next To A Freeway | hugeasscity…

Leave a Reply