daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which is the busiest Freeway
401-Toronto 170 57.43%
Santa Monica Freeway-LA 96 32.43%
Southwest Freeway-Houston 14 4.73%
I-85-Atlanta 16 5.41%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 24th, 2010, 08:12 PM   #581
Grey Towers
Registered User
 
Grey Towers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,024
Likes (Received): 45

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
I've been looking up AADT volumes for years and I haven't seen any road being busier than the 401. Besides that, I also haven't seen any freeways that have this potential, because you need like 18 lanes, which very few freeways outside North America have.

It's safe to say the 401 is the busiest, followed by the I-405 near Seal Beach, California, and then several freeways in greater Los Angeles, followed by I-45 and US 59 in Houston.

In general, freeways that carry more than 300,000 vehicles per day are very rare. To my knowledge, there is only one in Europe (M-30 Madrid, 312,000 AADT) and one in South America (Marginal Tietê, São Paulo). Other freeways noted for being notoriously busy (MKAD, M25, A4 Paris etc) simply do not have the lane count for a 300,000 + traffic volume.
According to this (page 54), Toronto's 427 also has AADTs of well over 300,000 between 401 and QEW, a 6 km stretch, and apparently even the hated 407 ETR in the north, the 401 bypass, has a 300,000+/day volume, but I could only find this old NYT article to back up that claim.
Grey Towers no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 25th, 2010, 05:32 AM   #582
ditto
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 150
Likes (Received): 0

In regards to that study stating Toronto's commute time is one of the worst in the world, the following article questions the source of the data. Mind you this article comes from a canadian national news service that has right of centre political views; it does raise some legitimate arguments.


The Great Gridlock Joke

Comment: Why is so much of our tax money going to transit?

By Terence Corcoran, Canwest News Service
April 19, 2010


Toronto’s commute times are the “glaring downfall” in the city’s economic picture — even worse than the notorious traffic snarls in Los Angeles, a new report shows.


Gridlock is allegedly killing our cities. Toronto, by the latest reckonings of the Board of Trade and other pied pipers of traffic doom, might as well be dead.

"Worse than L.A.," said a headline about a recent ranking that showed the average Toronto commuter spends 80 minutes bogged down in congestion going to and from work.

And the costs? Another killer. That 80-minute commute is a $5-billion annual burden to the Canadian economy, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris. Citing the number -- if the OECD says it, it must be true -- the Board of Trade called for "increased investment in public transit and policies that encourage Torontonians to leave their cars behind."

There were no shortages of people taking up these instant talking points.

We need tolls on roads, said Mississauga's Hazel McCallion, to pay for public transit. Toronto Mayor David Miller favours some form of road tolling, too. Everywhere there's talk of parking taxes, more transit subsidies, congestion charges, HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes.

But now let us turn to what the congestion numbers really show, which is not what they say they show. Let's also look at where the numbers came from and why, in truth, they are all really just fabricated fodder from the transit-industrial complex that hovers over urban transportation policy around the world and has all but seized control of Toronto.

Torontonians are getting conned. There is no OECD study on Toronto congestion showing $5-billion in economic losses. It is also certain that the famed 80-minute commute that supposedly gives Toronto the worst gridlock in the developed world is at best statistically indefensible. It distorts Toronto commute times and misrepresents the true nature of urban travel.

What the real numbers suggest is that if the implied solutions to gridlock -- more public transit, taxes on cars and less use of the automobile -- were imposed, actual commute times would increase, not decrease. The costs of urban transportation, including losses attributed to gridlock and time spent commuting, will also increase.

Not that anybody really knows what the costs are now. The $5-billion OECD figure now imbedded as authoritative in the Toronto psyche is not an OECD number, even though it does appear in the OECD's recent "territorial review" of Toronto, published in January. But the OECD did no research.

A big clue as to where the number comes from appears in the opening sentences of the OECD report on Toronto: "The OECD would like to thank the Mayor of Toronto, David Miller, as well as city, provincial and federal officials" who provided the imformation, data and context for the OECD analysis.

Regarding the $5-billion congestion cost, it is actually a U.S. dollar number -- converted from Canadian dollars (at an outdated exchange rate) -- based on Canadian dollar numbers provided to the OECD by Metrolinx, the Ontario government's transit agency for the GTA.

The authoritative $5-billion OECD number, in other words, is the product of the Toronto-Ontario transit-industrial compex's massive economic propaganda machine. In Canadian dollars, the actual Metrolinx claim is that "High car-usage rates have led to traffic congestion, with annual costs for commuters in 2006 estimated at around $3.3-billion per year and the annual economic costs at $2.7-billion for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area."

Metrolinx produced these numbers back in 2008, although the actual source is HDR Corp., an international engineering and economics outfit that seems to specialize in producing massive studies that promote the economic benefits of massive government spending. Metrolinx turned to HDR after it produced similar congestion reports on Chicago and New York. The common thread is that gridlock costs billions, but billions can be added to the economy by spending even more billions on public transit.

To arrive at its estimates, HDR performed an oft-used technique. It estimated the time car drivers would experience if the roads allowed cars to move at certain predetermined optimum speeds.

Assuming roads were clearer than they are now, the "economically optimal speed" in Toronto would be 69 kilometres an hour. But the current actual average speed is 42 km/h, creating a difference of 27 km/h.

That's a 40% reduction in optimality, which if calculated across the GTA can be massaged into a big number. HDR comes up with excess travel delays worth $2.2-billion in lost commuter time. Emissions costs, vehicle operating costs, accident costs and a few other items bring the total cost of congestion to $3.3-billion.

In another series of calculations and speculations, HDR figures that overall auto congestion on the roads of Toronto causes businesses to be less efficient and incur more costs.

That adds another $2.7-billion to the imputed cost of automobile gridlock, bringing the total to $6-billion. How realistic this number is remains unknown and untested, mainly because nobody really cares what the real number is -- so long as it's a big number that in the end can be marshalled to justify the Transit City light-rail spending extravaganza.

The objective is to get cars off the road and put people on mass transit LRT trains and subway cars.

The HDR/Metrolinx report performs its greatest economic feat via a giant macro-economic number-crunching game that produced a public spending miracle. By spending $31-billion (in 2006 dollars) over the next couple of decades on LRT, subway and other transit projects, the Toronto economy would receive total benefits of $46-billion, for a net present value gain of $15-billion and "an internal rate of return of 19%."

How will this actually work? All the calculations are based on assumptions, not the least of which is the idea that massive public transit benefits will overcome the automobile in efficiency, speed and reliability. To make sure that happens, cars must be taken off the road, and those left must be taxed to death. The mayor of Paris once captured the essence of such policies: "It is only by making it hell for car drivers that we will force them to give up their damned cars."

What the statistics on travel times in Toronto and other cities in North America actually show, however, is that public transit is slow and auto travel is much faster. A good portion of the alleged gridlock and auto congestion implied in the congestion numbers can be attributed to the inherent inability of public transit to get people where they want to go quickly.

The now-famous Toronto Board of Trade commute time of 80 minutes, allegedly slower than other major North American cities, is a good example of the private car versus public transit divide. The 80 minutes is an average for Toronto of all commuters using all forms of transport to get to work. It's from a 2005 Statistics Canada report, The Time It Takes to Get to Work and Back. But as the StatsCan report says, the most important factor in how long it takes to get to work and back is whether commuters use public transit. "All things being equal," says StatsCan, "commuters who use public transit to work ... spend an average of 41 minutes more on their daily commute than those using an automobile."

That 41 minutes more in public transit travel time brings the total commute time for TTC and GO transit users to 113 minutes (see tables). The average car driver spends much less, 72 minutes. Now I ask you: Is 72 minutes in a two-way commute to work an indicator of massive gridlock and congestion? Since when is a 36-minute drive to work an indicator of driving hell?

The Toronto congestion story is all story, myth and statistical illusion.

Toronto gets congested on some key roads and arteries for some periods of time during the average weekday. But getting around by car, and commuting to work, is mostly easy and efficient. Compared with public transit, it's a no-brainer. As StatsCan put in its report: "It is therefore not surprising that despite higher fuel costs and increased environmental concerns, most workers continue to use mainly their automobile to get to work."

Will spending $31-billion on new public transit change the situation? It is hard to see why or how.

As for the comparison with U.S. cities, the first point is that experts say the U.S. commute numbers are likely severely out of date, since they are based on an obsolete 2000 U.S. definition of major metropolitan areas. As a result, the U.S. travel times -- which are also based on different survey techniques--are likely not strictly comparable. That likely explains why Toronto and Montreal are at the bottom of the list.

Still, it is interesting to see that the cities with the least volume of public transit use -- Dallas, Los Angeles, Seattle -- are the cities with the fastest commute times. Could it be that's because they build more and better roads instead of massive public transit operations that are costly to build, expensive to operate --and slow?


http://www.driving.ca/great+gridlock...126/story.html
ditto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2010, 10:32 AM   #583
TheCat
IsraCanadian :)
 
TheCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,358
Likes (Received): 6

Thanks for that, certainly an interesting article.

My only problem with the article is that it is completely against building any forms of public transit, whereas I still believe that we need a much more extensive subway system to carry people within the denser parts of the city.

However, my main problem with the whole anti-car mindset today is that instead of focusing on improving public transit where it is needed (for which we of course have no money), the focus is often on "making it hell for car drivers" (quoting the article here).

Many people advocate for construction projects that deliberately make the road network less efficient, which is just craziness in my opinion. I'm talking about things like demolishing parts of the Gardiner (which needs reconstruction, but not demolishing), deliberately reducing the number of traffic lanes on certain streets, and designating existing lanes as HOV lanes that end up being very sparsely used (they are needed in some places, but where they are not, they are wasted capacity). I'm actually not aware of the latter being done in Toronto yet, except on some non-freeway roads.

The road network in Toronto, in general, needs a lot of work, as many streets today have pavement standards similar to third world countries. I actually believe that the economic damage to TTC buses departing north on Yonge from Finch station is probably also quite sizeable, due to the horrendous pavement quality (when I'm on the 60 bus, the bus often sounds like it's going to fall apart when driving on that section).

And finally, some of the stuff in the article (like PT commutes being included in that study) is quite interesting if it is indeed true. I still believe that going downtown during peak rush hour is somewhat faster and safer using the subway, provided that one lives within access to the TTC (parking at the subway station is a good solution to this IMO), and in general, when I am downtown I prefer getting around via PT. It also allows me to drink on those Friday nights without having to drive home (though, this is where I wish for a much better PT system).

Though, to be honest, there is something to the fact that driving is faster in many cases if you count the whole "getting to stations/stops" time, waiting, delays on the subway (which at certain times seem quite frequent). I think being stuck in a traffic jam makes people psychologically think that it takes very long to get somewhere, although to be honest, I think I can still get downtown faster using my car (i.e. point to point - from my house to wherever I am going), even during or very close to rush hour. However, here you need to count the time and cost to find parking downtown, and it often makes driving still less economical.

But in conclusion (of my opinion, of course):
  1. Expanding the PT system where it is needed and doing it right (subways) =
  2. Improving the road network where it is needed = (and is a higher priority IMO, simply because it seems money for PT will never come - at least then fix the substandard streets)
  3. "making it hell for car drivers" =
__________________
Check out my driving videos on Youtube | Please visit the Highways & Autobahns forum

Last edited by TheCat; April 25th, 2010 at 10:37 AM.
TheCat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2010, 11:37 AM   #584
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

This article shows exactly why you shouldn't just take such figures for granted. You need to know their relevance, context and how to read them. Just like those botched-up figures from TomTom claiming the worst commutes in Europe. Always ask yourself if such figures can also be expressed in other terms. It could make a huge difference in the conclusion.

In commute times, you don't need to just factor in roads and public transport, but also city size, urban structure, amount of freeways vs artery's with traffic lights, distances, geographical issues like water bodies and mountain ranges that affect commuting times and patterns. There is not just one easy comparison.

For example the water bodies of New York City, and the mountain ranges of Los Angeles give a fairly different traffic pattern than say; a Midwest city like Chicago, Dallas or Houston. These can influence travel times significantly, regardless of the amount of public transport.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2010, 07:10 AM   #585
ditto
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 150
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Quote:
This article shows exactly why you shouldn't just take such figures for granted. You need to know their relevance, context and how to read them
I'm comforted by the fact there is reasonable debate that still exist within Toronto about balancing funding between public transit and road infrastructure.

I personally support funding for public transit but I also realize that a growing metropolis needs a sufficient road network as well. We should not allow special interests from either side of the argument to cloud facts and reasonable debate.

Quote:
you don't need to just factor in roads and public transport, but also city size, urban structure, amount of freeways vs artery's with traffic lights, distances, geographical issues like water bodies and mountain ranges that affect commuting times and patterns
Bingo, city size and urban structure have special relevance for Toronto (i.e. the majority of the Toronto land mass consists of Atlanta/Detroit style sprawl) Yes, I realize the build it and they will come theory where mass transit will increase urban densities, but I'm not totally convinced this WILL happen.

I would also include social attitudes towards driving as another factor. I hate to use personal examples and assume it's representative of public opinion, but i know a few friends who despise using public transit and would never use it no matter how convenient or extensive the network may be. I don't think this sentiment is isolated, especially in a car-centric North American society.
ditto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2010, 09:05 AM   #586
Haljackey
Registered User
 
Haljackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 703
Likes (Received): 107

I have to agree with this report, but it relies too much on numbers. Stick to the fundamentals.
-A good highway network will reduce commute times
-A good mass transit system will reduce commute times, as well as reducing traffic congestion, further reducing commute times.

Any way you put it, Toronto's highway and mass transit networks are small compared to other cities and expanding them will help reduce commute times. I doubt a new highway will ever get built in the city, so expand the subway/mass transit and keep good upkeep of the existing highway network, widening and reconstructing it when necessary.

Does anyone have a source stating the 401 as the busiest road on earth?
Haljackey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2010, 12:35 AM   #587
J.Paulo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 685
Likes (Received): 427

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Paulo View Post
It has 20 lanes now for all it's distance and on most of it - i guess 80% - it has 22 lanes.

The 6 outer lanes have for sure substandards interchanges, but they are seggregated from the other lanes now.

In fact, each way of marginal tietê now has 3 different sections seggregated from each other, the first has a 90 km/h limit, the intermediate has a 80 km/h limit and the outer one - know as "via local" - has a 70 km/h limit with those substandards exits and entrances.

JP
To ilustrate, this is how the marginal tietê looks now (April, 27th):

On this sections of one direction i counted 12 lanes, so apparently it has 24 lanes for this part.





JP
J.Paulo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2010, 02:34 AM   #588
mwadswor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tempe
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 0

Since it seems pretty well recognized that the 401 in Toronto is the "busiest" road on earth, aka most total number of cars moved per day, perhaps a more interesting topic of discussion would be what is the most congested road on earth? On average, what road that moves at least 100k vehicles per day (just an arbitrary number to eliminate smaller roads) utilizes the highest percentage of it's actual capatcity over a 24 hour period? Meaning, if a road has a capacity of 100k vehicles a day and it moves 90k vehicles a day, it is using 90% of its capacity. Does that make sense?

When discussing how busy a road is to the person using it, I think the average road user is more interested in how congested a road is than just the total number of vehicles that use the road.
mwadswor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2010, 06:07 AM   #589
ddki39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 0

I think most congested is very interesting and there would be a lot of candidates from all over the world for most congested.
ddki39 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2010, 08:02 AM   #590
Haljackey
Registered User
 
Haljackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 703
Likes (Received): 107

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Paulo View Post
To ilustrate, this is how the marginal tietê looks now (April, 27th):

JP
I wouldn't count the most outer lanes because they are frontage roads... you can clearly see properties connect with that road in the picture.

Still, that's an impressive picture!
Haljackey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2010, 09:52 AM   #591
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwadswor View Post
Since it seems pretty well recognized that the 401 in Toronto is the "busiest" road on earth, aka most total number of cars moved per day, perhaps a more interesting topic of discussion would be what is the most congested road on earth? On average, what road that moves at least 100k vehicles per day (just an arbitrary number to eliminate smaller roads) utilizes the highest percentage of it's actual capatcity over a 24 hour period? Meaning, if a road has a capacity of 100k vehicles a day and it moves 90k vehicles a day, it is using 90% of its capacity. Does that make sense?

When discussing how busy a road is to the person using it, I think the average
road user is more interested in how congested a road is than just the total number of vehicles that use the road.
Road capacity is influenced by several factors, such as alignment, sight lines, grades, exit density, truck share, speed limit, toll gates, speed limit enforcement and even the quality of the signage. It is therefore quite hard to compare such roads one-on-one.

There is also a difference between free-flow capacity and congested capacity. Technically, a 2x2 freeway is capable (2,200 vehicles per hour * 4 lanes *24 hrs) = 211,200 vehicles per day. However, field practice shows 2x2 freeways carrying more than 100,000 vehicles per day are rare.

Above 60,000 AADT, a 2x2 freeway will suffer some loss of flow, such as frequent slowdowns to 70% of the speed limit, above 70,000 you'll see congestion appearing during rush hours. Above 80,000 the freeway will be congested during extended rush hours. Approaching 90,000 AADT, the flow is bad throughout the day, and over 100,000 AADT congestion is possible at any time of the day.

2x2 freeways can top out at 120,000 AADT. Congestion will occur throughout the day at such roads, even in late evening hours. Theoretically, a throughput of 3,000 vehicles per lane, per hour is not possible, but it has been recorded on the Amsterdam ring road for example.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2010, 05:29 PM   #592
kicksilver
Registered User
 
kicksilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Niterói, Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 559
Likes (Received): 2

Well, as for the most congested roads in Rio de Janeiro, my city I can name a few.

Rio-Niteroi Bridge - Connects Rio de Janeiro to it's eastern metro area, with more than 2 million inhabitants. Anyone who passes by the bridge in the morning or in the evening knows its a nightmare. I particularly go through it everyday in the morning, and it's a pain. It's 13km long, and sometimes it takes more than an hour to go past it.

At 6pm and forth it's even worse, and everyone who needs to take the bridge avoids going on it after 5-6pm because it's the time for certain congestion. Most days, the cars actually stop for some minutes, and that in the whole bridge, the 13km.

Brasil Avenue - Brasil's longest urban freeway, it connects Rio to it's north zone and greater metro area with more than 5 million people. Everyone says it's the worst in Rio to go through, altough I've never taken it at peak time.

Yellow Line freeway - Connects Barra da Tijuca neighbourhood to the city center, through the Red Line. It's pure nightmare at peak time, and receives incredible traffic at any time of the day, of course, freezing at peak time in both sides.

There are others, but these are the worst.
kicksilver no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2010, 05:29 PM   #593
kicksilver
Registered User
 
kicksilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Niterói, Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 559
Likes (Received): 2

Actually, Lagoa-Barra freeway is really bad too, causing people to take almost 2 hours daily to get to Barra da Tijuca from the downtown, which is more or less 20km apart.
kicksilver no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2010, 11:54 PM   #594
alikerem
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 56
Likes (Received): 1

my favoriete road from Istanbul
image hosted on flickr
alikerem no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2010, 12:35 AM   #595
kicksilver
Registered User
 
kicksilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Niterói, Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 559
Likes (Received): 2

Reminds me of São Paulo...

kicksilver no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2010, 01:55 AM   #596
sonysnob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 963
Likes (Received): 860

^ Here's a thought ... all electronic road tolling.

__________________
Asphaltplanet.ca
sonysnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2010, 04:12 AM   #597
Paddington
Registered User
 
Paddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Southland
Posts: 4,665
Likes (Received): 1261

Despite one 14 lane expressway, Toronto's expressway network is pretty weak overall if you compare it to Detroit for example.
Paddington no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2010, 04:47 AM   #598
Bartolo
Registered User
 
Bartolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hamilton (Dundas), ON
Posts: 387
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
Despite one 14 lane expressway, Toronto's expressway network is pretty weak overall if you compare it to Detroit for example.
But who wants to be in Detroit
Bartolo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2010, 06:36 AM   #599
Paddington
Registered User
 
Paddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Southland
Posts: 4,665
Likes (Received): 1261

I dunno, black people? Actually, a large number of Canadians commute to my workplace each day to take jobs that the Michigan locals don't want. A crappy American job still pays better than a good Canadian one, enough at least to put up with the border delays each way.
Paddington no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2010, 11:33 AM   #600
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonysnob View Post
^ Here's a thought ... all electronic road tolling
If you look at those pictures, the toll plaza itself doesn't seem to be the problem. Maybe an accident downstream. Usually the traffic jam is before the toll plaza, not after it unless there's something else going on downstream.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium