Thursday, August 6, 2009

America 2050's Rail Plans

I have yet to see a forward-thinking and possibly pie-in-the-sky rail plan for the United States that I didn't feel like posting here, and this plan from America 2050 is no exception. They have a passenger rail plan map which includes megaregions, which points up the usefulness of rail in integrating the country's magalopoli:

America 2050 passenger rail plan

They also have a plan for a freight network:

America 2050 freight rail plan

You can read their policy brief here (pdf), though it's pretty much your standard pro-rail boilerplate. Which is to say: I heartily endorse it!

39 comments:

Diego said...

Chachy,

I recently watched a Big Bang Theory episode where the characters took an old, slow train to San Francisco. One of them said something like: "We are in the 21st century! People move around by plane!".

I couldn't help but smile. In countries with advanced transportation infrastructure, people move around by high-speed train (which is faster in mid-range trips and much more comfortable, though expensive).

The character should have said instead: "This is America! We are still living in the late 20th century for transportation purposes!".

Andrew said...

These maps are a bit silly, in that they were clearly drawn up by people with a 35,000 ft. view of the activities they are attempting to depict.

On the freight map, they don't seem to recognize that different rail lines in the corridors they depict are owned by different companies not interested in cooperating with each other.

On the passenger map, its Amtrak of today with some high speed rail corridor fill-in. The fill-in is comedic too. Why aren't Phoenix and Tuscon connected, or Roanoke and Knoxville? Why no passenger service along the I90/Northern Pacific corridor? Why no service across Tennessee, or between Tennessee and North Carolina or Ohio and Indiana and North Carolina? Why no service between the Philly/Washington and Upstate New York?

More disheartening about the map is the lack of understanding it shows of American's actual travel patterns. NARP published a chart some time ago from the DOT showing travel demand over 100 miles in endpoint pairs with at least 300,000 annual trips. Most of this was between the major cities, and it worked out to about 220 different pairs. However, this only accounted for 21% of travel American's undertook, because the other 79% was either in smaller travel lanes either between small towns, from large metros to small towns, or between large metros in numbers under 820 per day. All the planes and high speed rail in the world are not going to provide direct service for 80% of the travel American's actually do.

I think of my own long trips I take every year from Philadelphia. I go for leisure to a small village in upstate New York, to a small town north of Pittsburgh, to a minor city on the Florida coast, and to Raleigh, NC. For business, I go periodically to Chicago and New York and sometimes elsewhere. In 1950, every one of those trips could have been made reasonably by rail (not merely metro-to-metro, but metro to within 10 miles of actual destination), and only the one to upstate New York required a single change of trains. Right now, only two can - to Raleigh and to New York City.

Rail's biggest advantage over airplanes is being to serve numerous intermediate small demand lanes by making way stops between major destinations. Rail's biggest advantage over the auto is being able to run overnight without having to stop and rest. The map shows no comprehension of how to exploit those strengths to provide a service to the public. I wonder if the creators have ever actually been on an intercity train?

Diego said...

Andrew,

Rail's biggest advantage over airplanes is being to serve numerous intermediate small demand lanes by making way stops between major destinations. Rail's biggest advantage over the auto is being able to run overnight without having to stop and rest.

I disagree. High-speed rail's biggest advantage is its being faster than planes for door-to-door trips up to 300 miles (2 hours) in areas with advanced public transportation. There is absolutely no justification now for longer high-speed rail trips [though that figure will probably increase to around "500 miles (2 hours)" by 2050].

With a deep public transportation network (including dense tram, commuting rail and underground networks reaching into the suburbs), both the car and the plane would stop making sense but for longer trips/stays. Rail would just be faster and more convenient.

This is the case for some European metro areas, but I think the US is too different, both culturally and due to its urban structure, to support any more than a few high-speed lines in the North-East-Great Lakes area and California.

Gus Snarp said...

Diego - I challenge the 2 hour mark for rail's superiority. I have to get to the airport at least 2 hours before a flight thanks to current security procedures, which means any flight is going to consume about 3 hours of my day one way, not counting travel time to the airport. Rail also has the advantage of being able to deposit passenger right in the heart of a city, meaning that I can save a second trip on at least one end of my journey. I can get to the station about ten minutes prior to departure, buy a ticket, and get on the train. So a train trip is superior if it is anywhere under 3 hours, maybe 4 or even five depending on local transportation issues.

Diego said...

Gus Snarp,

I challenge the 2 hour mark for rail's superiority.

So a train trip is superior if it is anywhere under 3 hours, maybe 4 or even five depending on local transportation issues.

For trips below 2 hours into metro areas with advanced public transportation (including suburbs), high-speed rail is *always* faster. That was my point.

Under some circumstances, as you point out, high-speed rail may still beat the airplane (e.g. international connections, or city centre to city centre) for trips below 3 hours, and maybe 3:30h; not necessarily because of speed, but because of higher reliability, comfort, proximity to train station, etc. But that's not *always* the case.

And the empirical law, discovered by Spain's RENFE, among others, is that passenger volumes drop dramatically when trip times exceed the 2:30-2:45h mark.

So let's say if your best trip time on a planned high-speed line exceeds 2:15h, the airplane will retain a big market share; if it exceeds 2:45h, rail loses its most important customers (business commuters); and if it exceeds 3:15h, just don't build it.

Andrew said...

You guys do make me wonder sometimes.

"There is absolutely no justification now for longer high-speed rail trips"

Sure there is, for overnight trips between major markets. Anyone from the northeast, for example, who has ever had a 9 am meeting in the midwest or south and is travelling from the east has experienced the "get up at 3 am to catch the early plane" phenomenon. This unpleasantness wouldn't be necessary with speedy and reliable overnight train service (like used to exist prior to Amtrak).

"I disagree. High-speed rail's biggest advantage is its being faster than planes for door-to-door trips up to 300 miles"

In the northeast, its biggest advantage is suburban way-stops like BWI, Wilmington, Trenton, Metropark, Stamford, and Rt. 128, that allow the trains to pick up people near where they actually live before delivering them to a downtown business area. Too many high speed rail advocates do not understand the importance of stops like these to develop ridership. This is why Amtrak keeps trying and failing with non-stop and one stop NYC-DC service. Its also why Amtrak has never really dented the La Guardia-National shuttle business - NYC-DC Metroliners, and now Acela's, do not stop in Manassass and Alexandria or New Rochelle and Stamford, so they miss enormous amounts of potential business from northern Virginia and Westchester/Fairfield because they refuse to pick travellers up near where they live, and they fail to drop many travellers near their actual destinations (the Pentagon, the Greenwich financial enclave, etc.). Yes some Acela's now travel through NYC, but only after a significant delay, and then at low speed. Through ridership is minimal because the trains are not geared to capture it.

"With a deep public transportation network ... the car and the plane would stop making sense but for longer trips/stays"

Not true on two counts - one if more than one person is travelling together (train travel makes no financial sense for anyone travelling with kids) the car makes more sense; and two, the car is almost always faster for nearly every trip, because of the low speed of local public transit and the time delay of changing trains.

Philly-NYC is the fastest train ride in the country, between the two cities with the best public transit systems. But the car is faster door to door for every trip between regions that does not have a downtown endpoint. I've made the trip hundreds of times by both modes over many years. I think I speak from experience here.

You can drive Manhattan to almost anywhere in metro Boston in 3 hours flat without going more than 80 mph. Due to the afforementioned time delays of local transit and changing trains, Acela would need a sub-2 hour travel time to beat the time achievable by driving.

As to flying, short-distance flying has never made time sense - its all about convenience. The disruptions of current security practice simply make this worse. When I lived in Boston, I used to drive to Pittsburgh several times a year - it took about 8 1/2 hours. One time, pre-9/11, I decided to fly. It took 5 1/2 hours door to door, and I had no car when I got there, and I did a sub 1 hour check-in, like you used to be able to do. It would be a 7 hour trip by plane now. Boston to Pittsburgh is not exactly short-distance, but the car almost beats the plane flying 8 times its speed.

High speed rail is not about competing against the auto except in very limited markets. Its market is against the plane. If it is to compete against the auto, it needs to stop in the suburbs to make boarding convenient to where people live.

Diego said...

Andrew,

I was assuming high-speed rail and an advanced public transportation network reaching into the suburbs. The US lacks both of them (but for New York), so your experience is not as relevant as you might think.

Let me explain myself:

Sure there is [demand], for overnight trips between major markets. Anyone from the northeast, for example, who has ever had a 9 am meeting in the midwest or south and is travelling from the east has experienced the "get up at 3 am to catch the early plane" phenomenon.

There is an extensive European overnight train network, but it doesn't run on high-speed rail, since it would be really expensive. A West Coast-East Coast rail trip (around 3000mi) would take full 24 hours even with the latest technology, costing over $1,000 per traveller.

So this is not feasible. A New York-Chicago overnight line? OK, but you won't build that line only for the overnight service. If you can only think of an overnight service for a specific line, don't build it; there is no justification for it.

Too many high speed rail advocates do not understand the importance of stops like these to develop ridership. This is why Amtrak keeps trying and failing with non-stop and one stop NYC-DC service.

Amtrak is *not* a true high-speed service. As I said before, ridership drops dramatically past the 2:30h mark. The 230mi non-stop Amtrak trip takes (took) twice the time it would with Spain's AVE (and Amtrak tickets cost far, far more).

Put Washington 1:30h away from New York for 110$ return ticket, and you'll see rail take the whole airline market, plus far more people travelling between both cities than ever. *That* is high speed.

Not true on two counts - one if more than one person is travelling together (train travel makes no financial sense for anyone travelling with kids) the car makes more sense; and two, the car is almost always faster for nearly every trip, because of the low speed of local public transit and the time delay of changing trains.

That's why children get a free or heavily discounted ticket (paid for through single tickets) in advanced nations, including Spain, France or Germany.

And the car may be faster than rail in the US, but that's because there is *no* high-speed rail there and the only city with an advanced public transportation system (as per European highest standards) is New York.

E.g. Philly-New York would take 45min with high-speed technology. If Philly (which I have never visited) had a decent (dense, safe, clean and fast) commuting rail to its outer ring, I can't imagine what may make it slower or more inconvenient than car (which surely takes over 2 hours).

And that's a fringe example, since those cities are close to each other. Take a more distant city pair, and you'll see high-speed rail would beat the car by far in areas with advanced infrastructure.

Andrew said...

I was assuming high-speed rail and an advanced public transportation network reaching into the suburbs.

The rail networks around Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, and Chicago are all as advanced as anything in Europe.

There is an extensive European overnight train network, but it doesn't run on high-speed rail, since it would be really expensive. A West Coast-East Coast rail trip (around 3000mi) would take full 24 hours.

That's silly. I'd be more interested in improving the overnight network of the 1950's, when Chicago to New York/Philly, New Orleans, Denver, DC, Tulsa, Oklahoma City; DC-Atlanta, Philly/DC-Jacksonville, St. Louis to Buffalo, Dallas and Houston, New York/Philly-Indianapolis, among other long routes all had reliable overnight service. These routes could all benefit from 110+ mph track. If I can drive from northeast to Florida in 16 hours, the train should certainly be able to do at least as good.

So this is not feasible. A New York-Chicago overnight line? OK, but you won't build that line only for the overnight service. If you can only think of an overnight service for a specific line, don't build it; there is no justification for it.

New York-Chicago is a 1M trips/year travel lane - 2800/day. Philadelphia-Chicago is another 500K (1400/day). That's plenty. This is obviously not a stand-alone route, but a long-distance leap of the Chicago-Fort Wayne-Cleveland high speed route and the NY-Philly-Pittsburgh route. The Pennsy ran the Broadway in 15 1/2 hours on this route. Surely with all the intermediate markets to be served, a very dense service could be supported including "high" speed overnight service. And its not a matter of building a line from NY-Chicago, but making shorter upgrades for linked corridors that an overnight train can then take advantage of.

Amtrak is *not* a true high-speed service. As I said before, ridership drops dramatically past the 2:30h mark.

Amtrak has taken much of the airline market from DC to NYC, and even Boston to NYC. The drop in ridership at 2:30 might have more to do with the distance of natural economic markets and family journeys rather than anything inherent in 220 mph high speed rail.

And the car may be faster than rail in the US

The car is also faster in Europe. Having driven many thousands of miles from all points between Berlin and Rome I can assure you of this.

E.g. Philly-New York would take 45min with high-speed technology.

Except for congestion on the line around Newark, this is nearly possible today. 70 of the 90 mile distance is good for 110-135 mph, making a sub-1 hour timing eminently feasible.

Andrew said...

If Philly had a decent commuting rail to its outer ring, I can't imagine what may make it slower or more inconvenient than car (which surely takes over 2 hours).

Here's an example. Jenkintown-Philadelphia-New York-Jamaica. All legs have reasonably fast and frequent service. Travel time is 30 min. from Jenkintown to 30th St., then a delay for changing trains, 70 min. to NYC, then a delay for changing trains, 20 min. to Jamaica. OTOH, the route PA309-PA Turnpike-NJ Turnpike, I278/Verrazanno Bridge-Bay Parkway-I678 takes just about 2 hours door to door, even driven at rush hour. The train loses on speed because of the delay time changing trains, and the 5 minute walk from the station on each end.

those cities are close to each other. Take a more distant city pair, and you'll see high-speed rail would beat the car by far

I drive Philly-Pittsburgh alot. Its 300 miles exactly on the Turnpike, and I have 5 miles to the Turnpike on the Philly end and 10 miles on the Pittsburgh end. @ 75 mph, the trip takes around 4:15 to 4:30. If the PA Turnpike were to return to no speed limit as when it was built, I could do this trip in about 3:30 to 3:45. Assuming high speed rail linked the cities in 2:30, I'd have 5 minute walk to the station, 30 minutes on the local train, delay time changing trains, 2:30 to Pittsburgh, and a 40 minute cab ride from Pittsburgh to my final destination. Once you account for the delay time, the car ties the high speed train, and would beat it if freed from the shackles of the artificial turnpike speed limit.

The car’s door to door convenience is why it holds 80-90% of all trips, even in Europe, and why it was already at that level in the US around WWII, before the Interstates.

The train is competing for trips where people have already concluded they do not need their own car along.

Diego said...

Andrew,

thank you for your interesting comments. I am afraid I still have to disagree with you, as I'll explain below:

The rail networks around Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, and Chicago are all as advanced as anything in Europe.

They are as advanced as some European cities, but not so advanced as top ones like, say, London, Madrid or smaller cities such as Munich.

Both Europeans in the US and US people using these top public transportation networks acknowledge this fact at first sight. The US (including its top cities) has underfunded public transportation for half a century now, and consequences are easy to see.

E.g. on Philadelphia's commuter rail: "Many of the cars used on the lines range in age from 30 to 45 years of age [12]. New cars have been ordered [13] but delivery dates remain uncertain [14] due to production delays."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPTA#Commuter_rail

Now visit Madrid. You'll have a hard time finding any trainset older than 5 years. Tracks and stations are continuously upgraded and expanded, etc. (The same goes for light rail, the underground network [which reaches densely into most suburbs], bus, etc.).

Something as basic as articulated trainsets (which are common even in some developing countries) have yet to reach any US city, including New York.

This has important consequences for speed, safety (including crime), cleanliness/coolness, comfort and density. That's why more people use public transportation than car in Madrid.

These routes could all benefit from 110+ mph track. If I can drive from northeast to Florida in 16 hours, the train should certainly be able to do at least as good.

Don't misunderstand me. I think high-speed rail in the Northeast/Great Lakes area is a good idea; though, as I said before, the US is too different from Europe to ever have more than a few lines.

But a medium-speed rail from, say, NY to Florida for overnight service... well, I can't see many people paying 500$ for a 16-hour train-hotel ride. So if there's no other justification, just don't build it.

Anyway, 110+ mph is not high-speed rail, but standard intercity rail in most advanced nations.

Diego said...

Andrew,

The car is also faster in Europe. Having driven many thousands of miles from all points between Berlin and Rome I can assure you of this.

Mind you, there's no high-speed rail between Berlin and Rome.

Where you've got high-speed rail, i.e. Madrid-Barcelona, Paris-Lyon, Paris-London, etc. you arrive much faster by rail than either by car or on airplane. That's not a matter of discussion; a high-speed trip (city center to city center) generally takes *half* the time you'd need by car, even if you were driving like a crazy criminal.

Here's an example. Jenkintown-Philadelphia-New York-Jamaica. All legs have reasonably fast and frequent service. Travel time is 30 min. from Jenkintown to 30th St., then a delay for changing trains, 70 min. to NYC, then a delay for changing trains, 20 min. to Jamaica. OTOH, the route PA309-PA Turnpike-NJ Turnpike,
I278/Verrazanno Bridge-Bay Parkway-I678 takes just about 2 hours door to door, even driven at rush hour.

The train loses on speed because of the delay time changing trains, and the 5 minute walk from the station on each end.


Let's see how this example would work out under Madrid-like conditions:

Walk: 5 min
Jenkintown-30th St.: 25 min (max.)
Train change: 5 min
To NY: 45 min
Train change: 5 min
To Jamaica: 20 min
Walk: 5 min

So you still get there earlier than by car, and this was the borderline example. Moreover, you can be at *any* point in Madrid metro area in 45 min (including final walk) from Madrid central station (Atocha), so this is no exceptional trip.

*That* is a dense and fast network.

I drive Philly-Pittsburgh alot. Its 300 miles exactly on the Turnpike, and I have 5 miles to the
Turnpike on the Philly end and 10 miles on the Pittsburgh end. @ 75 mph, the trip takes around 4:15 to
4:30. If the PA Turnpike were to return to no speed limit as when it was built, I could do this trip in about 3:30 to 3:45. Assuming high speed rail linked the cities in 2:30, I'd have 5 minute walk to the station, 30 minutes on the local train, delay time changing trains, 2:30 to Pittsburgh, and a 40 minute cab ride from Pittsburgh to my final destination. Once you account for the delay time, the car ties the high speed train, and would beat it if freed from the shackles of the artificial turnpike speed limit.


(Speed limits are not artificial. Take care when driving.)

Imagine Madrid-like conditions both in Philly and Pittsburgh. You'd typically go to a well-connected business center.

Home to Philadelphia station: 45min max.
To Pittsburgh: 2h15min max.
And either inside Pittsburgh...: 20min max.
...or to anywhere on Pittsburgh's outer ring: 45min max.

That makes 3h20min (max.) for a well-connected business center, or 3h45min (max.) for a badly-connected destination in the suburbs.

Now add other factors (rush hour, higher safety and reliability, no tiredness after a 4h drive, time to get ready for your business meeting, etc.). It's not unfrequent for businesspeople to work/make business meetings *right on* the Madrid-Barcelona train.

So the time-saving factor is water-clear, *assuming* high-speed service and an advanced public
transportation network; both of which the US lacks.

Diego said...

Except for congestion on the line around Newark, this is nearly possible today. 70 of the 90 mile distance is good for 110-135 mph, making a sub-1 hour timing eminently feasible.

I think here's the reason why we are not understanding each other. Just to put this in context: 110-135mph top speed is not high speed, but standard speed for regional trains across Europe.

In order to get a high average speed (140mph) on that line, you need a much more powerful trainset, with much better acceleration, braking systems and signalization, running on a specifically designed, dedicated high-speed track with a far more advanced overhead catenary and state-of-the-art signalling systems; i.e. a rail service with at least 210mph as its top commercial speed, just like in France or Spain.

*That* is true high speed, and a Philadelphia-NY high-speed track alone would cost around 6 billion dollars (BOE calculation) plus 35m for each individual trainset. So high-speed rail has really nothing to do with current Acela Express.

Black said...

After going through this article I have decided to bookmark this site found this really interesting & thanks a lot for keeping the blog Lively with such interesting blogs.
-----------------------------------
Journney2Thai

Andrew said...

Imagine Madrid-like conditions both in Philly and Pittsburgh. You'd typically go to a well-connected business center.

Not to visit my in-laws!

To Pittsburgh: 2h15min max.

That's a fantasy world that doesn't account for something the eastern US has in abundance - topography! Harrisburg to Pittsburgh (200+ miles) is a bunch of mountains and valleys all running the wrong way.

*That* is true high speed, and a Philadelphia-NY high-speed track alone would cost around 6 billion dollars

It could never be built without demolition of perhaps 50,000 dwellings. We are talking about a near continuous urban-suburban area.

The current route is pretty much straight for its middle 72 miles, and is currently run at an average of 102 mph for that stretch. The 20 miles on either side of that are in the middle of the city of Philadelphia and the city of Newark, or passing through the tunnels under the Hudson. Very little can be done economically to change those parts, and they consume 25 minutes of the 67 minute trip. Lets assume somehow you convince New Jersey to allow you to build a high speed bypass that skips Trenton and Newark by following the NJ Turnpike, a distance of about 75 miles and a very likely political impossibility. If you average 180 mph on that section, that's 25 minutes. Then its 9 minutes from NYC to the turnpike, and 9 minutes from the Delaware River to Philadelphia. Add in another 9 minutes from the river to the Turnpike in the Jersey suburbs, and you are at 52 minutes, just 15 minutes saved! You could save 40% of that time just raising the train's speed limit on the existing raceway between Metuchen and Trenton.

Diego said...

A couple of last comments:

you maybe go to Pittsburgh to visit your in-laws (as I proved above, you'd go faster by rail than by car, assuming Madrid-like conditions that, admittedly, will never exist in Pittsburgh mostly for political/cultural reasons), but the average traveller is a business(wo)man going to a meeting in a well-connected business center.

You say Pittsburgh is surrounded by mountains. Well, so are most Japanese and Spanish cities (unknown to most, Spain is the second most mountainous country in Europe, just after Switzerland). So 2h15min is perfectly feasible.

On the Philadelphia-NY line, there's no need to demolish anything. You can tunnel track under the cities, as was done in Barcelona. Anyway, let's say you upgrade the line cheaply to high-speed standards and the trip takes 50min. All my previous points hold true.

So can I say we've reached an agreement? Namely, on the fact that high-speed rail is faster than both car and airplane on trips up to 300mi on areas with advanced public transportation?

Diego said...

One last comment: when deciding between building a new, expensive high-speed line (i.e. Philly-NY on a new route) or upgrading an old one, you also have to take future improvements into account.

High-speed rail is an emerging, fast innovating technology. Just 15 years ago, the highest commercial rail speed was 185mph, compared to 225mph now; in the Madrid-Zaragoza line, unmodified commercial trainsets have already reached over 250mph, so commercial speeds over 250mph are just a matter of developing better brakes and signalling cheaply.

This must be taken into account, since those tracks will still be there in 50 years' time. E.g. in the Madrid-Valladolid line, the track was designed to allow for speeds up to 312mph, once the technology exists. Long-term planning at its best.

While these higher speeds will not reduce Philly-NY trips below 30 minutes, that may mean a huge improvement for longer-distance trips with no stop on Philly or NY, i.e. Washington-NY or Philly-Boston. So, though expensive, a new high-speed line is worth considering.

Answerityall said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a Rail Europe website that pretty much covers the rails in Europe! I would appreciate it if you would exchange your backlink with me, Thanks

Trinidad Shipping said...

Thanks for the effort you took to expand upon this post so thoroughly. I look forward to future posts.
There are various sea vessels involved in shipping to jamaica. It may include box boats or container ships, bulk carriers, tankers, ferries, cable layers, dredgers and barges.

tn requin said...

sleeping bag
tablecloth
travel luggage
car gps
car parts
GPS navigation
portable GPS
lcd tv
flat tv
digital picture frames
unlocked cell phones
wedding dresses
wedding jewelry
chaussures mode
chaussures Femmes
women's shoes
round tablecloth
discount handbags
chaussures sport
chaussures pas cher
fashion bedding
id lanyard
lanyard
creative gadgets
gift ideas
kids wall stickers
wall stickers
bath curtains
kitchen faucet
bathroom faucet

dfadf said...

Microsoft Office
Office 2010
Microsoft Office 2010
Office 2010 key
Office 2010 download
Office 2010 Professional
Microsoft outlook
Outlook 2010
Windows 7
Microsoft outlook 2010

berita terbaru said...

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon
point blank
Biro Jodoh Online Gratis
Ramalan Bintang Zodiak Terbaru
Ramalan Shio Zodiak Tionghoa
Kumpulan Contoh Naskah Pidato
Cara daftar point blank
Point Blank Online Indonesia
Kata-kata Bijak dan Motivasi
Koleksi Status Keren Facebook
mobile phone
my cupu
Harga Spesifikasi HP
Kumpulan berita terbaru

Height Increasing Tips - Get Your Optimum Results said...

thanks for sharing..

How To Get A Taller - Get You Optimum Results in Weeks
Exercises To Get Taller – Grow Taller Fast
Natural Ways To Get Taller - 100% Naturally
How To Look Tall - Tips On How You Can look Tall 2-3 inches Now!

Penis Enlargement Pills said...

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I think I will leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
http://www.factspenisenlargement.com

justin bieber said...

Admirable work and much success in your business dealings! Please excuse my poor English as it is not my first tongue.

online essays free said...

I always know that this network is big. But that is SO huge....amazing. Very ipressive

Viagra Generico said...

Thanks for the information!

muebles madrid said...

Pretty helpful data, thanks so much for this article.

felicity said...

Interesting discussion..I really like it.
stop pre ejaculation
home treatments for hemorrhoids
easy online business
No.1 Natural Cure From Japan
Proven Natural Cure For Eyes

album foto said...

I think people fear idea management and innovation because there's a significant number of ideas that simply won't plan out.......Nice statement.....keep posting

asuransi pendidikan said...

this day I've been searching for information on various issues, this I found very good and I would like to congratulate you for your work.

design interior jakarta said...

I think that this post is one of the best that i have read in my life, congrats you did a great job,.

perusahaan security said...

the difference between the content spammers and most corporate innovators is that the smaller

jual wine said...

I'm writing to you because I just came across a business that I think has great potential. It lets you save money on almost everything. Make money from almost everything,

coklat valentine said...

If growth is important to a firm, and if growth is dependent on offering existing products and services to new customers

belajar internet marketing said...

innovation is very natural and happens in the "real world" as new plants and animals colonize new ecological niches.

konsultan perusahaan said...

I wonder how you got so good. This is really a fascinating blog, lots of stuff that I can get into. One thing I just want to say is that your Blog is so perfect

kuliner bandung said...

We generally think most specifically about the risk associated with a new product introduction

how to stay erect said...

I would be aware that as somebody who really doesn’t comment to blogs a lot (in actual fact, this may be my first put up), I don’t think the time period “lurker” is very flattering to a non-posting reader.

site said...

The writer is totally right, and there is no skepticism.