Home » Downtown »Transportation » Currently Reading:

Local traffic can avoid the depressed lanes of I-70

January 14, 2010 Downtown, Transportation 28 Comments

Tuesday’s post was about removing a mile section of interstate highway (currently marked as I-70) after the new Mississippi River Bridge opens in 2014.  The main objection many people have is the loss of a primary North-South route if the depressed lanes are removed.  For the benefit of own of town readers let me explain the depressing depressed lanes:

Memorial Drive, depressed lanes in ditch to the right of railing
Memorial Drive, depressed lanes in channel to the right of railing

Just North of the above the highway comes up to create an above grade barrier.  We have the opportunity to connect what remains of the downtown street grid to the East until it hits either the Arch grounds or, North of Washington Ave, the grid of Laclede’s Landing.  East-West traffic following I-70 will cross the Mississippi River North of the Arch rather than the South currently. An example is driving from Louisville, KY to Kansas City, MO:

Default: I-64 W and I-70 W 507 mi 7 hours 50 mins

As you can see from the current map drivers do an extra little jog to the South to cross on the Poplar Street Bridge. The new span will correct this so their route is more direct.  Drivers going from Memphis, TN to Kansas City, MO can go via I-70 through downtown:

532 mi – about 8 hours 13 mins Via I-44 E/I-55 N

But the route through downtown is not the best route for through drivers.  The suggested route on Google Maps takes motorists around the edge of the metro area:

517 mi – about 8 hours 2 mins Via I-55 N

This route is shorter in both distance and time.  Through traffic will be handled via the new bridge and existing alternate routes. This leaves local traffic as primary users of the existing North-South route separating downtown from the Arch, Mississippi River and Laclede’s Landing.  More than those passing through, locals know alternate routes to take to avoid the depressed lanes downtown.

I looked at two scenarios: 1) driving from I-55 & Bates (map) to Lambert Airport and 2) from Lemay Ferry & Reavis Barracks Rd (map) to Lambert Airport.

Scenario #1: 55 & Bates to airport:

  • I-70 through downtown: 20.2 miles,  21 minutes (30 in traffic)
  • 44/Maplewood/I-170: 23.3 miles, 30 min (40 in traffic)
  • 55/Truman/Market/Jefferson/70: 20.3 mi, about 31 mins
  • River des Peres to I-170: 20.6 mi, about 34 mins

Scenerio #2: Lemay Ferry & Revis to airport:

  • I-55 N and I-70 W: 25.3 mi, 26 mins (35 mins in traffic)
  • I-55 S to 270 N to I-70: 27.1 mi, 32 mins (40 mins in traffic)

As we saw with two years of construction on I-64, motorists are resilient. Between a more friendly grade-level Memorial Drive, 4th, Broadway, Jefferson and a rebuilt Tucker (North of Washington) we will have numerous North-South routes to handle our local traffic.

– Steve Patterson

 

Currently there are "28 comments" on this Article:

  1. rick_bonasch says:

    Steve,

    Can you run the same drill for travelers connecting from 270 and 55 to Goodfellow and 70 and Broadway and St. Louis Avenue? The north riverfront is an important commercial and industrial base for St. Louis and maintaining good access there is key.

     
    • JZ71 says:

      Option One, freeway only – I-55 north across PSB, I-70 west over new bridge, exit at Goodfellow.

      Option Two, surface streets – I-55 north, exit at 7th St/Park Ave, right/east one block to Broadway, left/north on Broadway, NB Broadway splits onto 4th, continue north on 4th to Lumiere Place, either stay on Broadway or get on I-70.

       
      • rick_bonasch says:

        Thanks Jim,

        It looks like Steve can run a timer on the routes based on his I-Phone ap. The difference in travel times is key.

        In the future when the new bridge is built, it might seem like criss-crossing the bridges would be a huge inconvenience, but it would probably only add about 5 minutes to the trip.

         
        • I used Google Maps on the web to calculate these alternates. My point is to show we have numerous options that add very little to the travel time. Crossing the river twice seems excessive to me given the other choices.

           
      • Herbie says:

        Option one is not possible. There won't be any connection from I-55 north to I-70 west or vice-versa.

         
        • JZ71 says:

          I didn't know that – that's truly stupid! (I know money is tight, but it'll end up being the same situation as I-170 and I-64 used to be, and having to be rebuilt at great expense on down the road.)

           
  2. JZ71 says:

    It all boils down to how directionally-challenged a driver is. If you're a local and good with maps and/or trust and know how to work your GPS, you usually have an evolving range of multiple options. If you're not a local, and just passing through, the tendency is to stay on the route with the fewest changes (less chance to screw up and get lost), even if it is slightly longer.

    Speaking from experience, having made the Louisville-Denver run many times before moving here, I've tried all the alternates, including the northern option, I-270 over the Chain of Rocks bridge, mostly out of curiosity. When you're making a multi-hour drive, 10 or 15 minutes one way or the other makes little difference. A bigger challenge was always Kansas City, where I-70 does a weird jog downtown, where multiple lane changes, with both right and left “exits” are required.

    And for a local example of a freeway ending and becoming a surface steet with stoplights, we have the Page Avenue extension. It seems to work OK on the east end since demand drops of as congestion increases. It works less well on the west end, in St. Charles County, where lanes currently drop off while demand remains constant. We'll have to see what the number crunchers come up with when they run their scenarios down by the arch . . .

     
  3. aerosmith says:

    Jefferson doesn't meet I-70. The six lane portion of the road becomes Parnell where Jefferson forks to the north; Jefferson's northern terminus is at Palm. Parnell ends at Natural Bridge where Salisbury continues on in a two-lane configuration. And you're telling me that after I would get off I-55N at 18th St, go west on Market, north on Jefferson/Parnell, east on Salisbury, north on the I-70 Frontage Road, to I-70W would be about the same as travelling I-55N/I-70W at 55-60 mph without stopping? LOL!

    Good luck with this.

     
    • rick_bonasch says:

      The better liklihood is you'd simply stay on the at grade boulevard at the end of 44/55 in front of the Arch, continue north on the boulevard past Washington Avenue and Laclede's Landing, and then rejoin 70 at the new Mississippi River Bridge. Total extra time maybe five minutes. We're talking one mile, so you only have to average 12 miles per hour on the boulevard to make it through in five minutes. So more likely we're talking less than five minutes. Does that work for you, aero?

       
      • aerosmith says:

        No, it does not. My average speed through the depressed section is 55 mph and I don't have to stop.

        I'm from here and I work in downtown everyday so I don't see the need to force motorists onto a boulevard with multiple traffic signals just on the premise that they “might” stop to see the sights. But, I'm a weird sort of person who likes the variety of transportation infrastructure downtown. Likewise, I don't understand why this is such a big deal as I can “see past” the depressed/elevated sections of interstate downtown.

        Propose an interstate bypass that does not include two Mississippi River crossings in the immediate downtown area and then I'll be open to suggestions.

         
        • rick_bonasch says:

          The premise is not that they “might” stop to see the sights. It's to better connect the neighborhoods in the downtown area including Laclede's Landing, Chouteau's Landing, downtown, and the very near north side.

           
          • aerosmith says:

            That's not the impression that I've been under. Again, why can't people just walk across/under an overpass to get to the east side of I-70? Besides, pedestrians are technically required to cross at intersections or designated crossings if there is too much distance between intersections. Thus, the pedestrian crossings, especially over the depressed section, will remain in the same places.

             
        • Adam says:

          “I'm from here and I work in downtown everyday so I don't see the need to force motorists onto a boulevard with multiple traffic signals just on the premise that they “might” stop to see the sights.”

          where exactly is “from here”? so because you drive in for work every day and the current configuration saves you at most 5 minutes, everyone else be damned? nope. what about the people who live downtown? what about tourists who come to see the arch and spend money in our fair city? by the way, your premise is disingenuous – the actual premise is to reconnect DT and the riverfront for people on foot.

          “But, I'm a weird sort of person who likes the variety of transportation infrastructure downtown.”

          so one mile of depressed highway = variety in your mind? what about the variety of routes that used to exist before the highways came through and chopped up the city? i guess that doesn't count because it doesn't make “driving in” more convenient for you.

          “Likewise, I don't understand why this is such a big deal as I can “see past” the depressed/elevated sections of interstate downtown.”

          i can see across the grand canyon too; that doesn't mean i can get to the other side easily. unfortunately the highway is not nearly as beautiful as the grand canyon.

           
          • aerosmith says:

            “where exactly is “from here”?”

            The City of St. Louis, Missouri. Approximately 1.5 miles south of Soulard.

            “so because you drive in for work every day and the current configuration saves you at most 5 minutes, everyone else be damned?”

            Actually, I work on the south side of downtown and live south so I never encounter the depressed section of I-70 during the peak travel times. I’m not the only one that desires to travel through downtown on I-55N/I-70W. I have never seen traffic counts displayed on this site.

            “nope.”

            Compare the number of people who want this to the number of people who simply don’t care. Spend tax dollars more wisely, not to make the City “more beautiful.”

            “what about the people who live downtown?”

            What about them?

            “what about tourists who come to see the arch and spend money in our fair city?”

            They’d have to cross a boulevard under the proposal. What’s the difference?

            “by the way, your premise is disingenuous – the actual premise is to reconnect DT and the riverfront for people on foot.”

            What’s the difference between walking over/under an overpass as opposed to crossing a boulevard in a legal manner?

            “so one mile of depressed highway = variety in your mind?”

            Yes; as well as all of the overpasses/elevated sections around downtown. Think I-64 and all of the unique on-ramps. Where else can one climb three-four stories around a sweeping right hander around a building at/near wide open throttle in order to gain enough speed to merge onto an interstate?

            “what about the variety of routes that used to exist before the highways came through and chopped up the city?”

            A city grid made up of squares/rectangles that’s, for all intents and purposes, flat? Not to mention the traffic signals and having to deal with pedestrians/bicyclists.

            “i guess that doesn't count because it doesn't make “driving in” more convenient for you.”

            Your assumption is incorrect. I typically use City streets on my way in as the drivers on I-55N are ignorant or just not awake yet.

            “i can see across the grand canyon too; that doesn't mean i can get to the other side easily.”

            I like apples and oranges too; but that doesn’t mean that I can compare/contrast them and make a valid argument out of it.

            “unfortunately the highway is not nearly as beautiful as the grand canyon.”

            As “they” say, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

             
          • Adam says:

            “The City of St. Louis, Missouri. Approximately 1.5 miles south of Soulard.”

            I apologize for doubting your residency.

            “My average speed through the depressed section is 55 mph and I don't have to stop.”

            “Actually, I work on the south side of downtown and live south so I never encounter the depressed section of I-70 during the peak travel times.”

            how often do you actually use it then? you can see why i assumed that you do.

            “Compare the number of people who want this to the number of people who simply don’t care.”

            then compare the sum of those two groups to the number of people who don't want it to happen.

            “What about them?”

            “They’d have to cross a boulevard under the proposal. What’s the difference?”

            “What’s the difference between walking over/under an overpass as opposed to crossing a boulevard in a legal manner?”

            the difference is perception. a tree-lined, decorated, at-grade boulevard is much less imposing than a concrete trench. throw in some restaurants and street-level retail along the boulevard and you have life where there is currently a hole. as for crossing legally, at least i would have the option.

            “Yes; as well as all of the overpasses/elevated sections around downtown. Think I-64 and all of the unique on-ramps. Where else can one climb three-four stories around a sweeping right hander around a building at/near wide open throttle in order to gain enough speed to merge onto an interstate?”

            you get more joy out of highways than i do. i prefer the city that the highways destroyed.

            “A city grid made up of squares/rectangles that’s, for all intents and purposes, flat? Not to mention the traffic signals and having to deal with pedestrians/bicyclists.”

            the grid offers many more route alternatives than a highway. the traffic signals keep people from driving like a**holes so that pedestrians and cyclists can use the routes as well.

            “Your assumption is incorrect.”

            again, my apologies.

            “I like apples and oranges too; but that doesn’t mean that I can compare/contrast them and make a valid argument out of it.”

            or you could just acknowledge the hyperbole and not pretend like i'm literally comparing the grand canyon to the highway. both are barriers.

            “As “they” say, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.””

            true. i wonder how many people think the depressed section is beautiful…

             
          • aerosmith says:

            “how often do you actually use it then? you can see why i assumed that you do.”

            It’s not about me, it’s about the number of people who do. If you must know, I use the depressed section everytime I need to travel in that direction which averages once a day; there is no faster way to travel north-south through downtown.

            “then compare the sum of those two groups to the number of people who don't want it to happen.”

            I’m not the one wanting to change the status quo.

            “the difference is perception.”

            Granted, some people are dumb and some lack perception.

            “a tree-lined, decorated, at-grade boulevard is much less imposing than a concrete trench.”

            Not in my mind. A “tree-lined, decorated, at-grade boulevard” will cost a hell of a lot more to build AND MAINTAIN than a virtually maintenance free and ALREADY BUILT “concrete trench.” Again, pedestrians are required to cross at certain points and they would not change over the depressed section; likewise, minimal changes to the pedestrian crosssings around the elevated section would happen.

            “you get more joy out of highways than i do. i prefer the city that the highways destroyed.”

            I get joy out of driving in general as long as I am getting the level of service that I am paying for. The variety of roadway infrastructure in the immediate downtown area is appealing when compared to the roadway infrastructure encountered anywhere else on this side of the state. Are you old enough to REALLY remember this City before the interstate highway invasion? Where would our City be without the interstate highways?

            “the grid offers many more route alternatives than a highway.”

            That’s still slow as ****.

            “the traffic signals keep people from driving like a**holes so that pedestrians and cyclists can use the routes as well.”

            You mean the pedestrians who like to slowly jaywalk across the street, the pedestrians who cross against the signals, and the bicyclists who completely ignore the traffic signals while I wait patiently for the red signal to change to a green signal?

            “or you could just acknowledge the hyperbole and not pretend like i'm literally comparing the grand canyon to the highway. both are barriers.”

            Oh really? Let’s see how http://dictionary.reference.com defines a barrier: “–noun
            1. anything built or serving to bar passage, as a railing, fence, or the like: People may pass through the barrier only when their train is announced.
            2. any natural bar or obstacle: a mountain barrier.
            3. anything that restrains or obstructs progress, access, etc.: a trade barrier.”

            I can still cross over/under the depressed/elevated sections of I-70 with ease.

            “true. i wonder how many people think the depressed section is beautiful…”

            It’s beautiful in the way that it enables commerce and an easy unimpeded passage north-south through downtown while giving access to a very important Mississippi River crossing while also achieving minimum cost.

             
          • Adam says:

            “It’s not about me, it’s about the number of people who do…there is no faster way to travel north-south through downtown.”

            “I’m not the one wanting to change the status quo.”

            it's actually about the number of people who support the removal of the depressed section vs the number who oppose. as discussed earlier, the boulevard plan would probably add about 5 minutes to your trip at most.

            “Granted, some people are dumb and some lack perception.”

            yawn. are you going to take my milk money now? in case you hadn't heard, perception effects behavior. kingshighway carries a lot of traffic, but i see a hell of a lot more activity on its edges than i do along the edges of the depressed section.

            “Not in my mind. A “tree-lined, decorated, at-grade boulevard” will cost a hell of a lot more to build AND MAINTAIN than a virtually maintenance free and ALREADY BUILT “concrete trench.” “

            can you quantify “virtually maintenance free”? why would the boulevard cost any more to maintain once it is built? it might even cost less as there would be no retaining walls or bridge support structures to worry about. yes it will cost money to build; so did the recent fattening of I-64. it will also free up street-front parcels for sale and development and likely increase DT patronage and revenue. the national park service seems to think so. perhaps a study and puplic poll are in order.

            “Are you old enough to REALLY remember this City before the interstate highway invasion?”

            i am 32 years old, so no. but from what i've read, the population was much higher, and saint louis was much healthier than it is now. “invasion” is suitable word.

            “Where would our City be without the interstate highways?”

            it would probably have a population close to 1 million and much less sprawl. highways are very convenient for moving between cities and going around cities. they are not necessary within city limits except to cut 5 minutes off of your travel time at the expense of severed or razed neighborhoods, displaced citizens, noise pollution, air pollution, decreased walkability, etc.)

            “That’s still slow as ****.”

            what's your rush? you only live a couple of miles from work. maybe leave the house 5 minutes earlier.

            “You mean the pedestrians who like to slowly jaywalk across the street, the pedestrians who cross against the signals, and the bicyclists who completely ignore the traffic signals while I wait patiently for the red signal to change to a green signal?”

            yes. and let's not forget about the drivers who run stop signs and red lights, who drive 50 in a 30, who park on top of crosswalks and in front of disabled access ramps. let's also not forget about the pedestrians who wait patiently for the crosswalk only to be nearly killed by someone making a right turn and not yielding to the pedestrian. and let's not forget about the drivers who blare horns, pass dangerously close, and throw trash at cyclists who have the right to take the road when there is no bike lane. the difference is you are driving 2+ tons of steel and they are not. when was the last time you heard about a pedestrian or cyclist killing a driver?

            i'm sure you've never j-walked in your life.

            “Oh really? Let’s see how http://dictionary.reference.com defines a barrier: “–noun
            1. anything built or serving to bar passage, as a railing, fence, or the like: People may pass through the barrier only when their train is announced.
            2. any natural bar or obstacle: a mountain barrier.
            3. anything that restrains or obstructs progress, access, etc.: a trade barrier.””

            you left out the rest of dictionary.com's definition, which includes:

            4. a limit or boundary of any kind: the barriers of caste.

            perhaps i should have said: i can see across the grand canyon too; crossing it is not so appealing. in any case, the depressed section is, indeed, a physical barrier and the boulevard is not (jay-walking laws notwithstanding). moreover, the elevated sections are visual barriers.

            “It’s beautiful in the way that it enables commerce…”

            as would the boulevard.

            “…and an easy unimpeded passage north-south through downtown…”

            5 minutes.

            “…while giving access to a very important Mississippi River crossing…”

            the boulevard would provide the same access, and the rerouting of I-70 with the construction of the new bridge makes it irrelevant.

            “…while also achieving minimum cost.”

            which does nothing to make downtown more attractive to residents, businesses, and tourists.

             
        • JZ71 says:

          Actually, the real challenge/barrier is where I-70 transitions from above grade to below grade, both north and south of the arch grounds. The below-grade part can be bridged or covered completely; the transition areas probably need to remain open and ugly.

           
  4. M. Harms says:

    I would love, love, love to see the city and/or state sink the lanes of I-70 underground in the downtown area. Whether it's part of the new bridge to Illinois or part of re-designing the Arch grounds, I hate the barrier that the highway has become downtown. Spend the extra money to sink the highway underground as much as possible so we can hopefully restore the fluidity between downtown and the Arch grounds/riverfront.

     
    • Peter says:

      Only problem is at one point the highway tunnel would slam into metrolink

       
      • Or go below the MetroLink line but that would get unnecessarily complicated and costly quickly.

         
        • meddarnell says:

          Cost is beside the point as I decussed earlier in other blogs. The metroline can be bypassed quite easily, with the best of all worlds as the result. Pay the money-New York and Boston and the like do.

           
        • How?

          There appears to be sufficent space to bring the neccessary grade transition, and that eliminates the whole elvetaed segment, replacing it with a Fort Washington Way sytle stagable cut and cover tunnel with new parkland and developable parcels.

           
  5. brickshire2000 says:

    Not surprisingly, nobody (on this blog, at least) is even considering the massive infrastructural undertaking that this new bridge will require in East St. Louis, a city that should be trying to dismantle the oppressive interstate infrastructure that currently exists, not building a new “Tri-Level Interchange.”

    The “jog” that Steve notes in his post is a result of the decision to build the PSB at its current location against the wishes of East St. Louis. The I-55/70 entrance into the St. Louis metro area, formerly known as the East St. Louis Expressway, preceded the PSB's opening by nearly ten years. Drive the road today and you'll see the signs that read “Part of The Eisenhower Interstate System, A Symbol of Freedom.” The expressway connected to the Veterans Memorial Bridge (currently MLK bridge), a toll bridge owned and operated by the city of ESL. As many as 750,000 cars and tens of thousands of trucks passed over the VMB monthly.

    Then came the PSB. As the Arch began to rise on the St. Louis riverfront, Raymond Tucker thought it would be a good idea to provide better access to the monument, which was supposed to stimulate downtown commercial activity. He went to Rex Whitton, chief highway engineer for Missouri's highway department and president of the American Association of State Highway Officials, with his request. Whitton liked the idea because, as he saw it, if they built the PSB at the proposed location one mile south of VMB it would connect directly to U.S. 40 and if both were billed as part of a new interstate (what became I-64), then the federal government would pay for 90% of the construction costs. Two years after discussions began between Tucker, Whitton, and administrator of the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, B.D. Tallamy, a St. Louis official publicly announced the state's intention to build the PSB where it currently stands.

    Immediately, East St. Louis vehemently opposed. ESL maintained that such a location would divert traffic from the tolled Veterans' Memorial Bridge. ESL was powerless to stop the process, however. When Illinois state officials wanted federal interstate money just as much as Missouri did, the city's opposition became moot, nay muted.

    The result of this skewed political process is the elevated interstate in ESL–a disorienting monstrosity of bad design, but “good” engineering–that only makes it easier to overlook the desperate situation beneath and bypass ESL. For commuters it is an annoying “jog.” For ESL, it is one piece of the city's tragic story. The interstate's permanence is something we must consider.

    The ESL story has many more details, but these are the basics of the battle to build the PSB and the resultant infrastructure. My hope is that we seek ways to discuss this historical situation in light of the current and future developments in ESL. We need to have more metropolitan discussions. We need to have less oppressive architecture and more smart design. A “Tri-Level Interchange” does not sound like a good idea for the city of East St. Louis.

     
    • You are so correct, the new bridge means more highways for East St. Louis. A few years ago when funding for the bridge was being debated I questioned the need. Once it was clear the bridge was going to happen anyway I switched to making the best of it. More attention should be paid to East St. Louis.

       
    • meddarnell says:

      That's just the point. The developers use East St. Louis for their infrastructural crisscross projects, just for the same reason they rape Africa of its minerals, etc. Because they can and no one gives two cents about the result. I dare them to have that entangled highway mishmash on the St. Louis side.

       
  6. meddarnell says:

    Well, it seems that Steve and others haven't learned a thing and have ignored the root cause of the highway debacle in downtown St. Louis via the depressed lanes. The local traffic that you adhere to completely ignores the 'commercial trucking/vehicular' nightmare that is the cause of this debacle to begin with. You act as though this traffic category doesn't exist. Unless you address this issue, any and all solutions are vain attempts in futility and the only answer is a split level multi lane tunnel from I-44/Soulard to the new highway. This topside 'parkway' fantasy is an illusion in ineptitude. Imagine the traffic insane nightmare that the commercial traffic flow would create outside of a highway thoroughfare. How about backed up to Shrewsbury via I-44. The commercial traffic, especially from the South and Southwest must go through downtown via a throughput of some type. To add to this insanity is the aspect of the Poplar Street bridge throughputting into regular street grid once the traffic is in St. Louis. More insanity. The commercial traffic flow again would be a nightmare of 'epic' proportions. It is also entirely possible that any attempt to bypass the stretch of existing highway from the new bridge to the Poplar Street bridge via Illinois would no doubt have an eventual backup all the way around this loop fromm St. Louis/Poplar Street bridge through Illinois and back across the new bridge to St. Louis. I was in just such a backup a few months agofrom the Illinois side to S. Louis via the Poplar Street bridge [approx. 1 1/2 miles]-almost 1 hr. to cover that stretch. Can anyone imagine what the new bridge alternate coupled with the existing Illinois traffic would entail trying to get to the southbound lanes of I 55 with no access through the 'depressed lane' throughput. Let your mind wonder-epic nightmares. EPIC.

     
  7. ed hardy clothing says:

    We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
    of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
    ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
    ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
    ed hardy board shorts , don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
    ed hardy swimwearand more,
    ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
    cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.

    our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



FACEBOOK POSTS

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe