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.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 21st, 2012, 05:16 PM   #21
tbh444
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 66
Likes (Received): 0

The other thing I'd say is I find the sheer number of empty seats travelling down motorways / other big urban commuter routes twice a day a very ugly sight - regardless of environmental arguments it represents vast inefficiency, which can hopefully be addressed by future more intelligent forms of transport
tbh444 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 21st, 2012, 05:17 PM   #22
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,199
Likes (Received): 766

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Moreover, the argument is pretty much non-sequitur: there are physical limitations on how much traffic a transportation infrastructure can carry, be it a subway or a highway or whatever.
That's why road transport is always inefficient, even if sometimes faster.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 05:27 PM   #23
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
Likes (Received): 2154

Yes, only a new merged public/private form of transport will be able to solve these problems, taking the best from each other and mittigating the disadvantages of both.
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 05:28 PM   #24
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,573
Likes (Received): 19366

Actually the average occupancy rate for a train is similar, or lower, than an average car on the motorway. About 30%. Of course it's different during rush hour, but the average commuter doesn't care about the collective efficiency, only his or her own. Few people are willing to accept a travel time that's twice as long "because it's statistically more efficient for the network" instead of his own individual transportation needs.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 05:38 PM   #25
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

IMO in an urban environment, it's pointless and actually impossible to significantly improve road infrastructure beyond a certain minimum standard requirement. London is probably still below that minimum standard but I think Paris is above that now. The sheer size of travel demand completely dwarfs anything roads alone can offer, and investments in public transport is just so much more effective.

I don't actually agree with the recent UK-approach of creating congestion to deter travelling. What you need is consistent 2x2 or 3x2 roads with continuous bus lanes so that there is at least one road-based mode of transport that's semi-guaranteed to be fast and reliable. There are so many roads in London perfectly capable to be consistently 2x2 that are artificially narrowed in places it's just ridiculous. The A23 however is a prime example of how a consistent road with continuous bus lanes does work wonders - it's a royal shame not many more roads are like this.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 06:13 PM   #26
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Actually the average occupancy rate for a train is similar, or lower, than an average car on the motorway. About 30%. Of course it's different during rush hour, but the average commuter doesn't care about the collective efficiency, only his or her own. Few people are willing to accept a travel time that's twice as long "because it's statistically more efficient for the network" instead of his own individual transportation needs.
If average occupancy is measured against maximum capacity then what you are saying is technically correct, but per metre of road/track space the train wins hands down. It only matters when the respective system is saturated, i.e. in the peaks.

A car journey will always be faster than a bus journey stupid. What the car driver is forgetting is that if all the bus passengers took out their cars then all their journeys would take twice as long, and this car driver's journey would be more like 3 times as long. They need to thank the bus passengers for making their car journeys as fast as they are.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 06:18 PM   #27
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,199
Likes (Received): 766

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Actually the average occupancy rate for a train is similar, or lower, than an average car on the motorway. About 30%. Of course it's different during rush hour...
Occupancy rate of cars is always 30%, even in rush hours, and that's optimistic. Most cars have an occupancy of 20%,that is, the driver alone in a 5 seats car.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 06:34 PM   #28
sirfreelancealot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gateshead
Posts: 398
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
I don't actually agree with the recent UK-approach of creating congestion to deter travelling. What you need is consistent 2x2 or 3x2 roads with continuous bus lanes so that there is at least one road-based mode of transport that's semi-guaranteed to be fast and reliable. There are so many roads in London perfectly capable to be consistently 2x2 that are artificially narrowed in places it's just ridiculous. The A23 however is a prime example of how a consistent road with continuous bus lanes does work wonders - it's a royal shame not many more roads are like this.
Thats's exactly the point i'm getting at. Most urban highways now have some form of artificial restriction which clearly have an anti-car bias but are dressed up as politically correctly named "Sustainable Transport Measures". Unfortunately these so called measures usually involve badly concieved and implemented patchworks of bus lanes and cyclists which do anything but make it easier or more attractive to use buses or tocycle. It also creates acres of dead unattractive tarmac, usually with acres of hathcing which are never painted straight - meandering left to right on a straight piece of road. And don't forget the millions of bollards, humps, artificial, chicanes, traffic lights and other obstacles.

All together, these types of obstacles...erm "Sustainable Transport Measures" make for a vandalised streetscene in a way that turn every street into some sort of "Total Wipeout" assault course. They make streets very ugly and less, not more attractive for people to use.


Team Valley Gateshead: Bodged with an overkill of white lining - note how the centre line suddenly kinks along an otherwise straight piece of road, the 'token' cycle lanes aren't used at all. The road is wide enough for cyclists and drivers to use the same lane without being dictated how to by some engineer with too much time on his hands.



Durham Road Gateshead: Straight road, wide enough to carry 4 lanes (as the joins in the four lanes of laid tarmac surface clearly show), but pointless kerb build outs and unused pedestrian islands artificially narrow the road to three wide lanes which meander left and right with sudden kinks, and no gentle curves. The white lining looks like its been carried out by a five-year-old who attended the Stevie Wonder school of white lining. The effect is a street that has been vandalised with too many cheap engineering measures.



Deliberate meddling, this time by New Realists in South Tyneside, where a dual carriageway has been reduced from 2 lanes to one with a cycle lane and parking bays. The parking bays are completely unecessary, as each house has a large drive capable of parking at least two cars. Empty parking bays and a central cycling lane hardly makes cycling along this route feel safe, especially when there's the potential to widen and share the footpath, or simply mark a cycle lane to the left of the road. - This is deliberate engineering bodge to reduce roadspace, which has turned an attrcative avenue into a route dominated by ugly engineering measures, with excessive lining, and kerb build-outs.
sirfreelancealot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 06:36 PM   #29
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,573
Likes (Received): 19366

It's a common misconception that each bus passenger (or other transit passenger for that matter) would have otherwise been one more car on the road. Except for some routes into urban cores, most routes carry 80 - 90% passengers who could not make the same journey with a car. A large proportion of transit travelers do not have a driver's license, such as students, the elderly, or the ability to afford a car, parking and fuel, such as low income groups. For instance in the Netherlands, only 3 percent of the people who have both a car available and a driver's license use public transport on a frequent basis.

Hence, public transport does not relieve the road network of traffic congestion as much as is often assumed. It's the common overstating of the effect of public transport on traffic congestion. Sure, it has some impact, but the effect is pretty marginal, especially outside specific urban locations. For instance in the very unlikely event 50% of all public transport users in the Netherlands would switch to cars, the number of passenger kilometers by car would increase by only 5%, which is comparable to 2 or 3 years of autonomous traffic growth.

Also note that motor vehicle transport and public transport cater to very different ways of travel, mainly because they cater to a very different audience with different transportation needs. Most traffic on motorways does not have an origin or destination of areas close to railway stations in or near historic city centers, as a matter of fact the busiest roads are usually in suburban areas.

That's also the reason why there is hardly any competition between car driving and public transport; diffent audience, different travel needs, different socio-economic demographics. Sure, car drivers could switch to public transport, but it hardly communicates back, few public transport travelers would switch to cars because they either have no choice or made a very well-considered decision to travel by train or bus. This doesn't make a public transport network any less necessary, but it's also no excuse for the current low levels of investment in road networks in some countries.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 06:58 PM   #30
g.spinoza
Lord Kelvin
 
g.spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Torino
Posts: 9,475
Likes (Received): 2090

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
It's a common misconception that each bus passenger (or other transit passenger for that matter) would have otherwise been one more car on the road. Except for some routes into urban cores, most routes carry 80 - 90% passengers who could not make the same journey with a car. A large proportion of transit travelers do not have a driver's license, such as students, the elderly, or the ability to afford a car, parking and fuel, such as low income groups. For instance in the Netherlands, only 3 percent of the people who have both a car available and a driver's license use public transport on a frequent basis.
Don't you see it's the other way around? Poeple do not have a car or a license because they can make the trip to work with public transport. If public transport were not there, people would be forced to take a license and buy a private means of transport, whether this is a car or a motorcycle. I mean, people need to go to work anyway.
g.spinoza está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:01 PM   #31
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,199
Likes (Received): 766

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
It's a common misconception that each bus passenger (or other transit passenger for that matter) would have otherwise been one more car on the road. Except for some routes into urban cores, most routes carry 80 - 90% passengers who could not make the same journey with a car. A large proportion of transit travellers do not have a driver's license, such as students, the elderly, or the ability to afford a car, parking and fuel, such as low income groups. For instance in the Netherlands, only 3 percent of the people who have both a car available and a driver's license use public transport on a frequent basis.
I doubt that two thirds of Basel citizens are too poor or too young to own a car.

(Basel car ownership rate is around 320 cars every 1000 inhabitants, in Zürich it's around 410)
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:03 PM   #32
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
It's a common misconception that each bus passenger (or other transit passenger for that matter) would have otherwise been one more car on the road. Except for some routes into urban cores, most routes carry 80 - 90% passengers who could not make the same journey with a car. A large proportion of transit travelers do not have a driver's license, such as students, the elderly, or the ability to afford a car, parking and fuel, such as low income groups. For instance in the Netherlands, only 3 percent of the people who have both a car available and a driver's license use public transport on a frequent basis.

Hence, public transport does not relieve the road network of traffic congestion as much as is often assumed. It's the common overstating of the effect of public transport on traffic congestion. Sure, it has some impact, but the effect is pretty marginal, especially outside specific urban locations. For instance in the very unlikely event 50% of all public transport users in the Netherlands would switch to cars, the number of passenger kilometers by car would increase by only 5%, which is comparable to 2 or 3 years of autonomous traffic growth.

Also note that motor vehicle transport and public transport cater to very different ways of travel, mainly because they cater to a very different audience with different transportation needs. Most traffic on motorways does not have an origin or destination of areas close to railway stations in or near historic city centers, as a matter of fact the busiest roads are usually in suburban areas.

That's also the reason why there is hardly any competition between car driving and public transport; diffent audience, different travel needs, different socio-economic demographics. Sure, car drivers could switch to public transport, but it hardly communicates back, few public transport travelers would switch to cars because they either have no choice or made a very well-considered decision to travel by train or bus. This doesn't make a public transport network any less necessary, but it's also no excuse for the current low levels of investment in road networks in some countries.
Well I was talking specifically about trunk routes in urban cores, as these are where a lot of the congestion actually occurs, sorry for not making that clear. I agree non-urban personal journeys should be accommodated where alternatives are not suitable.

In the Netherlands I don't think most public transport users are poor or dependent, I think a lot actually choose not to learn to drive because they deem it unecessary. It could be that the Dutch already use public transport 'correctly'. In some other areas though there are simply too many unecessary car journeys. Take central London on a Sunday for example - no congestion charge and road-side car parking allowed. The result is roads turned into absolute hell and journeys taking far longer than during the week. Given a bit of choie the public really can be twats when it comes to transport.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:17 PM   #33
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
Likes (Received): 2154

Well, the only way how you can increase traffic capacity in the cities during the peak hours is to organize the traffic better. This can be only done by making the traffic semi automatic. Putting all the components at max efficiency. Thus using maximum capacity of the transportation veheicle for given routes. It is possible to solve such a problem, where there are several constants and few dynamic variables.

constants:

capacity of the veheicles (which would be able to switch between roads and rails and which would be of different capacties to utilize the capacity/occupancy of platform capacity)
capacity of the transportation platforms (e.g. roads, rails, etc)
points of modal or vehecile switch

dynamic variables:
wished routes in the system
amount of travellers on given routes sections


=> the object of such a system would be to minimize the total transportation time for every passanger...

quite not trivial problem, given the fact that somene´s shorter travelling time could mean longer traveling time for someone else... furthermore there would be lots of possible variation. Thus not trivial both computationaly and analytically.


Such system could possibly work through setting certain starting criteria as

a) limiting maximum capacity of certain route/platform in often used sections
b) lmiting maximum time that certain travel routes should take

If anyone has come across some studies on this problem. Post me a link. I would appreciate that.


An alternative to this "planned" sounding future is making the limits quite natural. The increasing costs of delays, infrastructure maintanance, construction, will create prohibitivly high costs associated with the use of cars.

Last edited by Surel; January 21st, 2012 at 07:24 PM.
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:22 PM   #34
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

The problem with this kind of debates is that most people come from either extremes of the spectrum. Either public transport is 'communist' and we should all go to out-of-town shopping parks, or all travelling should be discouraged and we must all be strolling aimlessly in our medieval town centre sipping the occational coffee.

The fact is transport systems can be improved by just employing some common sense. Continous lanes, sensible traffic light phasing aided by censors, sensible bus stop distances and locations etc, it's not hard.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:23 PM   #35
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,526
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
That's why road transport is always inefficient, even if sometimes faster.
Speed, readiness, availability, reach and expected (theoretical or practical) frequency are also measures of efficiency in transportation. Space taken or energy spent are just another two among many others (comfort, ability to protect accompanied property, safety, costs etc.)

And then you have the whole discussion of optimum scale: one person can operate a car and take car of her/his own mobility, whereas other systems require more people travelling in the same patterns. As I believe transportation should follow housing, store-shopping and industrial and office placement preferred patterns, not the other way around, in many instances car will be faster, and often cheaper if the DIRECT OPERATIONAL costs of transportation are not subsidized (and don't claim "oil wars in Iraq" are a subsidy for cars, please).
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:25 PM   #36
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,526
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.spinoza View Post
Don't you see it's the other way around? Poeple do not have a car or a license because they can make the trip to work with public transport. If public transport were not there, people would be forced to take a license and buy a private means of transport, whether this is a car or a motorcycle. I mean, people need to go to work anyway.
In The Netherlands, not having a driver's license is a reasonably factor to make you less employable in many circumstances (much more than not having a car, it must be said) beyond blue-collar or entry-level jobs.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:29 PM   #37
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,573
Likes (Received): 19366

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
I doubt that two thirds of Basel citizens are too poor or too young to own a car.

(Basel car ownership rate is around 320 cars every 1000 inhabitants, in Zürich it's around 410)
The rate is never near 1000 cars for every 1000 inhabitants, usually it's around 400 - 500 for most OECD countries, up to 600 - 800 for some statistical outliers (such as Luxembourg, Iceland and the United States).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
In The Netherlands, not having a driver's license is a reasonably factor to make you less employable in many circumstances (much more than not having a car, it must be said) beyond blue-collar or entry-level jobs.
Actually a lot of blue-collar jobs are located on places least accessible by public transport, especially in industrial and rural areas.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:42 PM   #38
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,526
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
In the Netherlands I don't think most public transport users are poor or dependent, I think a lot actually choose not to learn to drive because they deem it unecessary. It could be that the Dutch already use public transport 'correctly'.
The car share on ground-passenger transportation (doesn't include domestic air travel but that is irrelevant) in Netherlands is 71% of total passenger-kilometers. Trains, trams and subways take 13%, buses 6%, bicycle 5%, other modes (motorbikes, walking, ferries) take the rest.

That you can reach some place by public transportation (valid for any village with population above 200 in this country, except for some "remote" islands) doesn't mean it is convenient, especially if it involves commuting in non-radial patterns.

I, for instance, live 200m from a local train station with 84-115 daily trains. If I'm travelling to other place that is within 200m of another train station in one of the 3 mainlines that are easily reachable from my city, the train will be reasonable competitive, time-wise, with driving a car. So if I'm going to one of the high-rises in Rotterdam central area close to the station, yes, train is faster.

However, throw in any, I mean any tram ride of more than 10 minutes, or a subway ride for more than 3 or 4 stations, or need to walk more than 500m on my destination (let alone take a bus for an "outskirt" neighborhood), and the car starts beating the train on time, considering an underground parking situation.

Cheaper? Probably no, because they use parking as effective taxes. Fater? For sure. And, I remember you, that is because I live 200m from a train station with medium traffic. If I had to take a bus to a train station, or walk 20min to get there, the competitiveness of trains would be much lower for me in terms of time.

As Netherlands is not a poor country, most people are eager to trade 1h30-2h extra hour/day at their homes for a couple hundred euros of extra expenses every month. Those who can't afford that, like students (who get free national transportation cards), end up travelling by train anywhere, as they usually have free time to do so.

Quote:
In some other areas though there are simply too many unecessary car journeys. Take central London on a Sunday for example - no congestion charge and road-side car parking allowed. The result is roads turned into absolute hell and journeys taking far longer than during the week. Given a bit of choie the public really can be twats when it comes to transport.
In London, and some other big cities, the anti-car bias is so high it forces people to commute by transit by imposing unreasonable costs on motoring and not investing on new infrastructure (like a Thames Urban Freeway, or the egregious "Congestion Charge" that is not used to improve the mobility of cars). On Sundays, people go to Central London for other reasons, like special shopping, visiting a museum or hitting a restaurant. How romantic is to get your girlfriend for a movie and a nice dinner in a dirty tube, dealing with drunkards or other people that just kill any mood between you both?

I bet many people driving to Central London are not regular weekday commuters, but those going there on occasion - so the extra costs and traffic are not a hassle to them.

Also, London Tube carries much maintenance work on weekends, disrupting the network.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:53 PM   #39
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
Likes (Received): 2154

and therefore the solution would be instead of going to the station jumping the train and coming to Rotterdam just to find yourself waiting for a tram as follwoing:

jumping in your car (whatever it means) that would log into the grid, the system would find the fastest way to the nearest high speed corridor from your side of country to Rotterdam, slowly snawballing other units, there your train would join all other units going same way, warp 9 engaged, splitting in Rotterdam and docking yourself by your office parking slot.

And this is the future, directing our systems to anything else is throwing money away. Possibly current rail and motorways corridors might be converted in the future if we are lucky.

There might be another chance, we either learn how to beam people up, or in nearer future invent some anti-gravitational based means of transports in a automaticly supervised grid. Those two being the only real change in the modes of transport since 1930.
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2012, 08:04 PM   #40
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
In London, and some other big cities, the anti-car bias is so high it forces people to commute by transit by imposing unreasonable costs on motoring and not investing on new infrastructure (like a Thames Urban Freeway, or the egregious "Congestion Charge" that is not used to improve the mobility of cars). On Sundays, people go to Central London for other reasons, like special shopping, visiting a museum or hitting a restaurant. How romantic is to get your girlfriend for a movie and a nice dinner in a dirty tube, dealing with drunkards or other people that just kill any mood between you both?

I bet many people driving to Central London are not regular weekday commuters, but those going there on occasion - so the extra costs and traffic are not a hassle to them.

Also, London Tube carries much maintenance work on weekends, disrupting the network.
It's much more pleasant being crammed in a tube carriage than being stuck in traffic I'll have you know. That public transport is dirty and full of unsavoury people is just in the imagination of the public transport-shy. Plently of people do use public transport for weekend trips save for certain.

Imposing unreasonable costs - land is at a premium in large cities and underground road options are expensive due to ventilation and fire regulations. Catering for the car is one of the least efficient use of resources so other choices are favoured. I thought you libertarian types would call this supply and demand and market forces, but apparently only when it suits you. And no, congestion charging isn't to improve the mobility of cars - it's to improve the mobility of people.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT 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 12:01 PM.


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