will they allow you to ride your bike on the boat? so you can do both ride your bike and the boat to and from best Seattle?
Aaron
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:56 am
Joined: 25 Jul 2005Posts: 4645
The water taxi pisses me off. Every politician uses it as a feel-good-look-at-me-I-support-alternative-transportation.
News flash! The West Seattle bridge is still clogged during rush hour with cars! Even the busses get stuck in the mess.
It is only 4 miles by bike and there is a bike lane (a shitty gravel strewn, pot holed bike land) all the way down town. It takes 20 minutes to ride there. It takes 20 minutes to wait, take the boat and unload the water taxi.
Also, we need less boat traffic, not more if we care about Orcas. Boat motor sound is causing sleep problems for the whales. So much so that they are dying.
derrickito
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:26 am
now with 50 percent more EVILJoined: 22 Jul 2005Posts: 10566
i don't think we have a big orca population in the bay that is having trouble napping.
i probably wouldnt use it on a bike, as aaron said, it doesnt take long to get around by bike, probably quicker even... but for tourists, walking commuters, and people just wanting to go from downtown to west seattle easy, it's a good and cheap solution.
Aaron
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:17 pm
Joined: 25 Jul 2005Posts: 4645
Water Taxi $3
Metro Bus $1.25
The bus takes 15 minutes from down town!
The water taxi is bull shit.
It goes to Salty's on Alki. Then you have to get on a bus to get anywhere. Granted, the shuttle is free, but the bus is faster and cheaper.
Seattle spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the monorail, we are spending billions on lightrail and we just spent 60 MILLION DOLLARS discussing viaduct options that the voters rejected. AND, we are going to spen $5 million dollars to repair the viaduct and then tear it down in 2012. Should I mention the 10 million dollars we spent on the Kindome roof/ceiling and then imploded it?
Point is, we spend so much money and then everyone just keeps driving.
Someone is making a living and getting rich off of our indecision.
Yay for the Seattle Way!
coupdegrace
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:35 am
Joined: 01 Nov 2006Posts: 168
Aaron wrote:
The bus takes 15 minutes from down town!
...the bus is faster...
Point is, we spend so much money and then everyone just keeps driving.
The Water Taxi takes 12 minutes!
I for one very much enjoy the option of walking a mile (even though the free shuttle goes very near my house) from my N.Admiral home to the Water Taxi and ferrying to the Seattle waterfront and then walking to Safeco Field to watch the Mariners play on Sunday summer afternoons.
Sure the Water Taxi is more expensive than the bus, but it is cheaper than parking, and much more pleasant than the bus! Have you ever ridden a bus after a sporting event? Crowded, noisy, drunks!
Effective useful transportation is providing options that people will actually use. The Water Taxi's ridership increases every year! This would suggest that is is an option that people want.
Alki Beach is a premier Seattle destination and providing an alternative for downtown Seattle residents to get to it so they will not have to drive or ride the bus is good for Seattle.
But Aaron you can still ride the bus if you want.
Choices for everyone because we are not all the same.
Ride On, Peace.
Aaron
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:42 pm
Joined: 25 Jul 2005Posts: 4645
The water taxi is not real transportation.
It is a polluting feel-good political stunt that the mayor, city council members and others use to show that they support alternative, multi-modal "choices" in transportation. They put it in their portfolio while they do nothing to address the real situation.
5 years ago, I met with the Mayor, and all of the city council (Jan Drago never returned my calls).
I gave them this book:
It outlines what we need to do and is very important for everyone to read.
Every politician should read it.
Lester Brown has a follow up book as well. It is even more timely.
I advocated for bike lanes and a bus mall (similar to PDX) and for them to close certian downtown streets to private vehicle traffic. 2nd and 4th for 3rd and 5th for example. Fund busses, support the monorail, light rail and any form of mass transit at all.
5 years later, what does West Seattle have? A water taxi? Even if it is at full capacity and running as fast as it can it doe not make a dent on the real problem. And that is people driving everywhere by themselves several times a day!
The car is not evil. Bikes are not the only solution (but a big one). Not everyone can take the bus, but most of us can! I guess it boils down to status quo and people not making changes until force to.
Yeah for $4 gas this summer!
jeff
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:59 pm
SOC pussyJoined: 05 May 2006Posts: 4501
I am visualizing Aaron standing in his yard in his bathrobe shaking his fists at some unruly teenagers.
henry
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:09 pm
somewhat piggishJoined: 05 Aug 2005Posts: 5415Location: on porch with shotgun
jeff wrote:
I am visualizing Aaron standing in his yard in his bathrobe shaking his fists at some unruly teenagers.
I just lost my $5.99 Taco del Mar special all over my keyboard.
The water taxi is not real transportation.
It is a polluting feel-good political stunt...
Yeah for $4 gas this summer!
What is real transportation? The water taxi transported 118,000 passengers last year. I agree that this is probably not a serious dent in the overall # of short distance trips that are taken by Seattleites, but it is a significant # of trips that otherwise would have been made in a car or bus.
Busses don't pollute? When was the last time you rode behind a bus?
$4/gal gas will probably not change the short distance driving habits of motorists it will however probably prevent many from taking their great American vacation - road trip! The short distance every day trips (0-15 miles) are the trips that can be done on public transportation, walking or biking almost as quickly as in an automobile. These short distance trips are the trips that can be reduced if enough transportation choices are available.
Busses are not hip. slick and cool! Therefore a significant number of people are not willing to ride them. I don't know why Metro even bothers to publish a schedule, what a horrible waste of trees. Has a Metro Bus ever arrived on time according to the schedule?
jeff
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:44 pm
SOC pussyJoined: 05 May 2006Posts: 4501
Real transportation?
I was in Boise, Idaho last weekend, yes Boise that thriving metropolis has buses.
Most buses there run once an hour, others run once a day. They do not have transfers and it costs $1 per ride. there are no designated bus stops. They will pick you up anywhere on the route as long as you flag them down.
I rode the bus 2-3 times over the weekend and even at peak rush-hour times there were maybe 5-6 people riding. None of the buses have bike racks.
People in Boise are pissed that tax-payers are footing the bill for the bus program.
henry
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:48 pm
somewhat piggishJoined: 05 Aug 2005Posts: 5415Location: on porch with shotgun
jeff wrote:
People in Boise are generally rednecks and KKK sympathizers.
People in Boise are generally rednecks and KKK sympathizers.
true, true.
Sadly, this is true.
coupdegrace
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:31 am
Joined: 01 Nov 2006Posts: 168
I am sorry if I have implied that riding a bus is not cool. I certainly do not believe that although I think that there are a lot of people who do think riding a bus is beneath them. I rode the bus from Alki to Interbay for several years before the light went on in my head and I realized I could ride my bike for transportation instead of just for recreation.
I do think that an efficient and timely bus system is a key component of any urban public transportation system, however it should not be the only component. That portion of society that believes that riding the bus is for losers and derelicts needs to be encouraged to overcome their elitest stigmatism. Metro however is it's own worst enemy with service that is rarely on time resulting in missed transfers. I once flew from Chico, CA to SF to PDX to Seatac in less time than it took for me to ride the bus from Seatac to downtown to Alaska Junction to my N.Admiral home.
I expect that whatever decision is made about replacing the viaduct, tunnel, rebuild, or no replacement, each of these decisions will result in increased ridership on the Water Taxi.
More Choices!
Aaron, thank you for the reading recommendations. Are these books available to check out from the ABR library?
the dreaded ben
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:51 am
Grumpy GreebJoined: 20 Aug 2005Posts: 5329Location: flavor country
jeff wrote:
henry wrote:
jeff wrote:
People in Boise are generally rednecks and KKK sympathizers.
true, true.
Sadly, this is true.
i would like to point out that there is no reason to go to boise, ever, period.
anything that can be done in there, surely can be done better somewhere else.
come to think of it i'm not even sure if boise exists.
lantius
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:59 am
1337Joined: 22 Jul 2005Posts: 6705Location: right over
the dreaded ben wrote:
come to think of it i'm not even sure if boise exists.
boise exists in all of the dark places of the hearts of men, the place where the boredom that leads to madness is birthed.
joeball
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:32 am
Joined: 24 Jul 2005Posts: 6037Location: Ether
I'm really not trying to make any correlation here, just recalling something but wasn't a certain Mr. Ryder from Boise?
the dreaded ben
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:38 am
Grumpy GreebJoined: 20 Aug 2005Posts: 5329Location: flavor country
lantius wrote:
the dreaded ben wrote:
come to think of it i'm not even sure if boise exists.
boise exists in all of the dark places of the hearts of men, the place where the boredom that leads to madness is birthed.
the horror, the horror
TrikerTrev
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:12 pm
Joined: 23 Oct 2006Posts: 2303Location: FOCO, MOFO!!!
lantius wrote:
the dreaded ben wrote:
come to think of it i'm not even sure if boise exists.
boise exists in all of the dark places of the hearts of men, the place where the boredom that leads to madness is birthed.
110,000 cars per DAY use the Viaduct and West Seattle bridge.
110,000 cars per DAY use the Viaduct, the West Seattle Bridge, and my driveway.
Or do you really mean to tell me the traffic count on the West Seattle Bridge is exactly the same as the (well-publicized 110,000/day traffic count for the) viaduct? I doubt it.
Not to mention your claim here implies that 110,000 cars drive over the West Seattle Bridge and then use the viaduct (or vice versa), which would mean that exactly 0 cars use the viaduct to go to/arrive from the north or 99 south of the West Seattle Bridge.
_________________ I have always thought in the back of my mind: Cheese and Onions
Aaron
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:05 pm
Joined: 25 Jul 2005Posts: 4645
you idiots (that don't seem to be riding on Thursday, remember this is a forum for those that actually come out and ride on Thursday to argue!)!
It doesn't matter if 50K or 200K use the WS bridge per day, Point is way more use the bridge and viaduct DAILY than will ever use the fucking water taxi in a year, or what ever. The water taxi is a panacea for our traffic woes. It is a distraction from the real problem.
How about we change this stuid discussion to the topic of banning private automobiles from our city core like many cities around the globe are doing? I don't think our mayor has the balls!
gsbarnes
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:33 pm
Joined: 15 Aug 2006Posts: 2666Location: No Fun Town, USA
Aaron wrote:
you idiots (that don't seem to be riding on Thursday, remember this is a forum for those that actually come out and ride on Thursday to argue!)!
It doesn't matter if 50K or 200K use the WS bridge per day, Point is way more use the bridge and viaduct DAILY than will ever use the fucking water taxi in a year, or what ever. The water taxi is a panacea for our traffic woes. It is a distraction from the real problem.
My point, Aaron, is that you shouldn't try to use statistical arguments if you don't understand them. It makes one look like a, uh, idiot.
Case in point, your second paragraph. Your point is made with 'the ratio of water taxi passengers to the total number of cars driving the route the taxi is meant to duplicate is miniscule'. Dragging out bogus stats doesn't bolster your argument, it hurts it.
_________________ I have always thought in the back of my mind: Cheese and Onions
SeditiousCanary
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:49 pm
sorry, can't make it!Joined: 26 Jan 2006Posts: 2315Location: Fremont Troll
gsbarnes wrote:
Dragging out bogus stats doesn't bolster your argument, it hurts it.
Haven't you learned that using logic on Aaron is a fruitless endeavor?
lantius
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:59 am
1337Joined: 22 Jul 2005Posts: 6705Location: right over
Aaron wrote:
It doesn't matter if 50K or 200K use the WS bridge per day, Point is way more use the bridge and viaduct DAILY than will ever use the fucking water taxi in a year, or what ever. The water taxi is a panacea for our traffic woes. It is a distraction from the real problem.
aaron, more people probably use the bridge and viaduct daily than ride bicycles on that same commute in a year as well, but i'm not going to give up on trying to get people to ride 'em.
Alex
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:25 am
Joined: 18 May 2006Posts: 3128Location: Roosevelt
coupdegrace wrote:
Has a Metro Bus ever arrived on time according to the schedule?
I take the bus about 500 times per year. It is on time about 95% of the time for me (where on time means arriving within 3 minutes of the schedule).
The normal exception is the 545 which has to deal with 520 traffic, but it isn't a big deal since they come at 10 minute intervals. So I don't really have a good way of measuring when the 545 isn't on time.
alex
coupdegrace
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:54 am
Joined: 01 Nov 2006Posts: 168
Alex wrote:
coupdegrace wrote:
Has a Metro Bus ever arrived on time according to the schedule?
I take the bus about 500 times per year. It is on time about 95% of the time for me (where on time means arriving within 3 minutes of the schedule).
No doubt I have certainly been over-critical of Metro's abilty to keep and adhere to their published schedules. The bad experiences are of course the ones that are indelibly marked in my mind. These are the experiences that Metro cannot continue to provide to a new, emerging ridership or they will revert back to their SOVs.
I quit riding Metro when I realized that I could ride my bike to where I wanted to go in the same amount of time or quicker and without the waiting for a bus. I also became healthier and not subjected to epidemics of public illness.
I do think that not enough time is allowed in Metro schedules for it's passengers to make important transfers, resulting in missed connections and waiting for the next bus which can be as little as 15 minutes but as much as 50 minutes away. Some sort of baton system should be instituited to where a bus cannot leave until the connecting bus has arrived and the baton is passed.
Time is not a renewable resource!
Ride On More Choices.
gsbarnes
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:37 pm
Joined: 15 Aug 2006Posts: 2666Location: No Fun Town, USA
SeditiousCanary wrote:
gsbarnes wrote:
Dragging out bogus stats doesn't bolster your argument, it hurts it.
Haven't you learned that using logic on Aaron is a fruitless endeavor?
Not yet. Should I?
_________________ I have always thought in the back of my mind: Cheese and Onions
Alex
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:47 pm
Joined: 18 May 2006Posts: 3128Location: Roosevelt
coupdegrace wrote:
I quit riding Metro when I realized that I could ride my bike to where I wanted to go in the same amount of time or quicker and without the waiting for a bus. I also became healthier and not subjected to epidemics of public illness.
I'd do the same if the 520 bridge wasn't in the middle of my commute. There is no faster option for me than the bus (including driving a SOV) unless I feel like getting a motorcycle. I don't.
Quote:
I do think that not enough time is allowed in Metro schedules for it's passengers to make important transfers, resulting in missed connections and waiting for the next bus which can be as little as 15 minutes but as much as 50 minutes away. Some sort of baton system should be instituited to where a bus cannot leave until the connecting bus has arrived and the baton is passed.
That is easy if there is one transfer point in a bus route. That is rarely the case. Often the connections aren't directly visible either. For instance I can take the 545 and 48 home. The 545 runs on 520 and the 48 is on top of the Montlake bridge. You can't see one from the other (and if the driver on the 545 lingers at the Montlake Flyer stop then there will a backup there with the other dozen routes that stop at it).
I never take the 48 for the reason that you list. Anyone can bike faster than it. This is just an example.
Getting rid of traffic is the only way to get truely on time mass transit. That means subways or elevated trains. I'm not holding my breath.
alex
Aaron
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:38 pm
Joined: 25 Jul 2005Posts: 4645
gsbarnes wrote:
Aaron wrote:
you idiots (that don't seem to be riding on Thursday, remember this is a forum for those that actually come out and ride on Thursday to argue!)!
It doesn't matter if 50K or 200K use the WS bridge per day, Point is way more use the bridge and viaduct DAILY than will ever use the fucking water taxi in a year, or what ever. The water taxi is a panacea for our traffic woes. It is a distraction from the real problem.
My point, Aaron, is that you shouldn't try to use statistical arguments if you don't understand them. It makes one look like a, uh, idiot.
Case in point, your second paragraph. Your point is made with 'the ratio of water taxi passengers to the total number of cars driving the route the taxi is meant to duplicate is miniscule'. Dragging out bogus stats doesn't bolster your argument, it hurts it.
Hey, Greg, You can't argue here unless you ride with us, motherbitch!
The water taxi is bougus. I live here in West Seattle. I ride a bike downtown, I take the bus (which, I might add is usually on time and only 10 to 15 minutes downtown, it takes 25 to 35 to ride, plus you often get stuck by the lower bridge opening or a train.), and I sometimes drive. Driving is ALWAYS faster, the bus is second, and the bike is third fastest. Even condsidering parking because I just use a garage. Still 99% of the time I choose a bike.
I will give this to the water taxi, it is cute. Everyone wants to take a boat around here. We don't want to look at the possible damage our boat travel does. I stand by my argument that the WT does not make a dent on traffic volumes. Neither does bike use, but maybe both help. In reality the only thing that will ever change it is money. Gas prices are going up.
Oh, and who says my statistics are bougus?
Why don't you check your stats before you call my stats bogus?
I read that map several years ago at a monorail planning meeting. I was quoting from MEMORY!
365 days times 108,900 average vehicle trips per day, miminum one person per vehicle (vehicle does not include bicycles) equals 39,748,500
The water taxi = .3% of trips. Bicycles probably even less.
If you use the 105,800 trips per day from the latest 2005 statistics for the actual viaduct, the number is similar. There is no way to know how many folks use the WS Bridge AND the Viaduct, but the number is great.
The water taxi is bullshit.
We had a chance at a monorail and we blew it. So now we grapple for some sence of public transit for West Seattle and the best we can come up with is a tiny boat? WTF?
Let's spend money on busses and public education so we can get some smart folks in office (in 25 years).
lantius
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:59 pm
1337Joined: 22 Jul 2005Posts: 6705Location: right over
aaron, stop being retarded.
i think the water taxi is a great idea. i'm really excited about the idea of putting in a similar route from the uw to kirkland, especially when we have to deal with the whole 520 reconstruction debacle.
what is your actual argument against the water taxi? that it costs too much for something that serves so few people? that it causes too much pollution? that politicians are using that as an excuse to not build a monorail or proper bicycle lanes to west seattle?
or are you just talking out your ass because you don't ride it?
BTW had a great time yesterday walked to the Water Taxi rode it to the waterfront walked to Safeco watched a great baseball game and returned home via walking and WT. Gorgeous Day!
We have in the past ridden our bikes to the ballpark but find the return experience riding in all the traffic leaving the stadium very unpleasant. A brisk (3.5-3.8mph) walk down and up California provides a very nice cardio workout.
Ped-Peave: Why do the vast majority of pedestrains not take advantage of the healthful activity to walk briskly? Instead they putz along as if they have a full load in their pants. In Japan they climb escalators, they don't ride them.
gsbarnes
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:26 am
Joined: 15 Aug 2006Posts: 2666Location: No Fun Town, USA
Aaron wrote:
gsbarnes wrote:
Aaron wrote:
you idiots (that don't seem to be riding on Thursday, remember this is a forum for those that actually come out and ride on Thursday to argue!)!
It doesn't matter if 50K or 200K use the WS bridge per day, Point is way more use the bridge and viaduct DAILY than will ever use the fucking water taxi in a year, or what ever. The water taxi is a panacea for our traffic woes. It is a distraction from the real problem.
My point, Aaron, is that you shouldn't try to use statistical arguments if you don't understand them. It makes one look like a, uh, idiot.
Case in point, your second paragraph. Your point is made with 'the ratio of water taxi passengers to the total number of cars driving the route the taxi is meant to duplicate is miniscule'. Dragging out bogus stats doesn't bolster your argument, it hurts it.
Hey, Greg, You can't argue here unless you ride with us, motherbitch!
Is your memory that bad?
Aaron wrote:
Oh, and who says my statistics are bougus?
Why don't you check your stats before you call my stats bogus?
You clearly said 50K was > 118K. It's not my job in the face of this nonsense to go digging up numbers to support your argument; it's your job to supply them in the first place. Good on you that they're mostly right now that you finally have
Unfortunately for your math, if you look at the rest of the maps, you can see that the traffic on the AWV just north of the West Seattle Bridge is 82800. Ergo, we know that that is an upper bound on the number of cars that take both.
Traffic volumes on the other directions leading from that intersection (81500 east on the West Seattle 'Freeway', 60,500 south on 99) would lead me to believe that at least half those 82800 trips do not include both segments. So your 108K number is at most 82,800, and more likely half that.
Aaron wrote:
365 days times 108,900 average vehicle trips per day, miminum one person per vehicle (vehicle does not include bicycles) equals 39,748,500
The water taxi = .3% of trips. Bicycles probably even less.
The water taxi doesn't run year round, does it? Let's say half the year. So when it's running, the water taxi would seem to absorb between 1 and 2% of the traffic in question.
However, one would have to wonder whether the taxi really transports car commuters (since those are usually what people are concerned about). Maybe it's people who would take the bus or bike anyway. Maybe it mostly takes tourists. Maybe it sees most of its traffic on weekends. Obviously I can't tell from the information given.
Still, given the whole viaduct debate, even 1% is nothing to ignore. Suppose there were 3 water taxis? Would you get a 3-6% reduction? Do they substantially decrease traffic during sporting events (which, as I understand it, is one of the worst times for the AWV)? Should we run a whole fleet before and after Mariners and Seahawks games? Would adding more taxis be a cost-effective way to reduce traffic on this vital corridor? Remember the idea of the surface-transit alternative is a thousand little solutions, not one big supposed panacea (like a tunnel, or a new monster viaduct).
And as you mention, there are the negatives: possible environmental damage to the shore and from the exhaust. The piers at either end are probably not that great and would need to be upgraded, and maybe that isn't worth the effort. The shuttle bus service could also be problematic.
Its apparent to me that there is no one solution to get people from West Seattle to downtown. I don't expect the water taxi to solve all the problems, anymore than I would expect better bike facilities to. But I don't see the point in scoffing at a solution that actually appears to be doing some good.
_________________ I have always thought in the back of my mind: Cheese and Onions
jeff
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:37 am
SOC pussyJoined: 05 May 2006Posts: 4501
It's just a boat that ferrys people to and fro.
Hug it out bitches!
Happy Stick Person
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:53 am
Joined: 20 Sep 2006Posts: 1168Location: Leschi
transit that rocks! i spent all week playing on it...
but I bet people in SF bitch about it too...
pete jr
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:05 pm
Joined: 13 Dec 2005Posts: 1930Location: balls deepx
Happy Stick Person wrote:
but I bet people in SF bitch about it too...
it is impossible to get from SF to berkeley/oakland late at night after the BART stops running without a very expensive cab. though i guess that's like people in bellevue bitching about the same thing.
also, god damn that's a big image link.
Happy Stick Person
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:17 pm
Joined: 20 Sep 2006Posts: 1168Location: Leschi
MUNI runs 24 hours BART runs til like 2am to SFO and the east bay.
my only complaint was that MUNI and BART fares are not interchangeable like metro and sound transit are.
pete jr
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:00 pm
Joined: 13 Dec 2005Posts: 1930Location: balls deepx
Happy Stick Person wrote:
BART runs til like 2am to SFO and the east bay.
2am east bay -> sfo IIRC but not the other way around.. went down to visit some folk in sfo a while ago and had to cut an evening early because we were staying in oakland
All times are GMT - 8 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 12, 2023 9:13 am
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
now with 50 percent more EVIL
Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 10566
Grumpy Greeb
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 5329
Location: flavor country
1337
Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 6705
Location: right over
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 6037
Location: Ether
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 2303
Location: FOCO, MOFO!!!
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2666
Location: No Fun Town, USA
sorry, can't make it!
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 2315
Location: Fremont Troll
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 3128
Location: Roosevelt
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 1168
Location: Leschi
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 1930
Location: balls deepx
