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 September 9th, 2013, 08:44 PM   #2221
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,595
Likes (Received): 19389

Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Peasant View Post
The roundabout is only(!) 60m below sea level.
It's circa 120 meters below ground level though. The island underneath it is located is a bit hilly.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 9th, 2013, 09:13 PM   #2222
B. Peasant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Karmøy
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
It's circa 120 meters below ground level though. The island underneath it is located is a bit hilly.
The point where the roundabout is has 130 metres of rock above it, yeah. But the tunnel opening is only about 10 to 20m above sea level so you're not climbing that far to get out.
B. Peasant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2013, 11:22 AM   #2223
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,595
Likes (Received): 19389

Ryfylke Tunnel

The beginning of the 14.3 km twin-tube Ryfylke Tunnel is there

__________________

my clinched highways / travel mapping • highway photography @ Flickr and Youtube

devo liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 12:17 AM   #2224
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

I imagine this being the southwest arm of an expressway across Hardangervidda from Oslo. The northern arm going to Bergen obviously, and E 39 in between to serve Haugesund. All motorway, off course, this will have to be adjusted at Hundvaag where crazy people think two lanes are enough between this tunnel and the next one.

It's like: "These annoying rules about there having to be two tubes, and four lanes... we'll show them!"
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 08:44 PM   #2225
Gsus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
I imagine this being the southwest arm of an expressway across Hardangervidda from Oslo. The northern arm going to Bergen obviously, and E 39 in between to serve Haugesund. All motorway, off course, this will have to be adjusted at Hundvaag where crazy people think two lanes are enough between this tunnel and the next one.

It's like: "These annoying rules about there having to be two tubes, and four lanes... we'll show them!"
First thing:

Probably not gonna happen before both you and me are at a nursing home.

Second thing

I imagine you you're taking about the part of the Hundvaag tunnel from the roundabout at Hundvaag north, to where the arms from Hundvaag south merges? These where planned as two single laned tubes until Hundvaag south. I would be careful to call the people at Vegdirektoratet who decided it "crazy people", but the Hb017 that is currently under revision, said that lanes should not start, or end in tunnels. The reason was of less changing of lanes, and thus an security issue.

Anyway, for the Hundvaag tunnel there will not be any single lane tubes, as they got an exception from the 017 of no starting or ending lanes in tunnel. Thus, the whole tunnel will have two lanes in each direction, and merging acceleration lanes, and splitting retardation lanes. This also goes for the part of the Eiganes tunnel under Stavanger, who also was planned with single lane tubes between where the Hundvaag tunnel ramps of, and where the arms from central Stavanger merges. This was changes during the projecting phase.

Don't know if this has been in any public documents, as projecting documents are not public, and there has not been the focus of anyone other than those working on the project I guess. It's not a secret tho.
__________________

devo liked this post

Last edited by Gsus; September 12th, 2013 at 09:54 PM.
Gsus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2013, 04:17 AM   #2226
dexter26
BANNED
 
dexter26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,039
Likes (Received): 611

Sorry that this video is only in Norwegian, but this video claims to explain why Norways road politics have failed:



Norsk veibygging - Hva gikk galt?
AksjonRettE18

Last edited by dexter26; September 13th, 2013 at 04:27 AM.
dexter26 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2013, 01:06 PM   #2227
javimix19
Registered User
 
javimix19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Donostia-San Sebastián
Posts: 749
Likes (Received): 1328

And why had failed?
I don't know anything about Norway, I recognised, but I know that Norway is the richest country in the world and your politicians are the least corrupt in the world too. Norway is the leader in HDI, so what did the politicians bad in road planning? I want to know only to learn more.
javimix19 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2013, 02:27 PM   #2228
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,595
Likes (Received): 19389

The narration is hard to follow for me, but Norwegian road politics always appeared to be very fragmented with high investment in local infrastructure with low usage and lack of corridor approach and lack of investment in high-volume areas. Oslo has the poorest road network of any large Scandinavian city. Many expressways are heavily substandard while having to handle high traffic volumes, leading to very high I/C values compared to many other European cities.

I don't think the overall investment in roads is low per se, but the lack of a corridor-wide approach causes investment to act like patches of band-aid, instead of facilitating fast and efficient travel between the key mainports and economic centers. They do appear to improving that though, but the low population density in much of Norway hinders the improvement of long-distance routes in rural areas. A motorway could dramatically cut travel times between Bergen and Oslo, but volumes are too low to justify a road with 100 km/h or higher design speed.
__________________

my clinched highways / travel mapping • highway photography @ Flickr and Youtube

javimix19, devo liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2013, 05:47 PM   #2229
metasmurf
Registered User
 
metasmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Umeå, Sweden
Posts: 374
Likes (Received): 555

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
The narration is hard to follow for me, but Norwegian road politics always appeared to be very fragmented with high investment in local infrastructure with low usage and lack of corridor approach and lack of investment in high-volume areas. Oslo has the poorest road network of any large Scandinavian city. Many expressways are heavily substandard while having to handle high traffic volumes, leading to very high I/C values compared to many other European cities.
Except for the newly built tunnels I agree. Ring 3 partly looks really substandard ( http://goo.gl/maps/oE47d ). Without knowing anything about Oslo traffic, this roundabout solution must be notorious for traffic jams.
metasmurf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2013, 07:10 PM   #2230
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,354
Likes (Received): 10047

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
The narration is hard to follow for me, but Norwegian road politics always appeared to be very fragmented with high investment in local infrastructure with low usage and lack of corridor approach and lack of investment in high-volume areas. Oslo has the poorest road network of any large Scandinavian city. Many expressways are heavily substandard while having to handle high traffic volumes, leading to very high I/C values compared to many other European cities.

I don't think the overall investment in roads is low per se, but the lack of a corridor-wide approach causes investment to act like patches of band-aid, instead of facilitating fast and efficient travel between the key mainports and economic centers. They do appear to improving that though, but the low population density in much of Norway hinders the improvement of long-distance routes in rural areas. A motorway could dramatically cut travel times between Bergen and Oslo, but volumes are too low to justify a road with 100 km/h or higher design speed.
Ideas about decentralization, farming and keeping rural towns/the countryside alive are very central parts in the Norwegian psyche. Norway see investments in infrastructure as just another measure available to keep those ideals alive. Generally speaking, the more people and more need there are for new infrastructure, the harder it will be to get the government to pay for it. People rather see the need for upgrading infrastructure as a sign that the city have become too big and therefore should not get further beneficial treatment by government to grow on behalf of rural towns.
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2013, 10:42 PM   #2231
Heico-M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Flensburg, DE
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
Ideas about decentralization, farming and keeping rural towns/the countryside alive are very central parts in the Norwegian psyche. Norway see investments in infrastructure as just another measure available to keep those ideals alive. Generally speaking, the more people and more need there are for new infrastructure, the harder it will be to get the government to pay for it. People rather see the need for upgrading infrastructure as a sign that the city have become too big and therefore should not get further beneficial treatment by government to grow on behalf of rural towns.
While I understand the idea to keep the remote regions alive, I wonder whether it is really necessary to spend millions and millions for a bridge that will be used by 45 cars a day? Or a tunnel for 5 millions for a village with 13 inhabitants like Olatunnelen in the video?

I once heard a Norwegian guy from Finnmark say. Everytime they built a road to one of our villages, the residents used it to move away.

And on the other hand side, there is a big discussion going on that existing roads are not being repaired.

That does not fit together in my opinion.
Heico-M no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2013, 02:46 AM   #2232
Kjello0
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 394
Likes (Received): 70

Quote:
Originally Posted by dexter26 View Post
Sorry that this video is only in Norwegian, but this video claims to explain why Norways road politics have failed:
Summary of his points
1. It's been used way to little money on roads over time.
Where he shows a report from Norges Bank that shows public investments has been a steady 5 % of GDP since the 70s. While public spendings has grown from 17 % to 28 % of GDP in the same period.

2. Most projects are to short
He then uses E 18 through Vestfold as an example. The 93 km through Vestfold is being upgraded to motorway in 8 different projects. If it was built in one project it would have been done in 1998. While the last stretch past Larvik isn't expected to open before 2017. That's 19 years and the society could have saved 7 billions by building it in one piece he claims.
He then uses Riksvei 4 through Hadeland as yet an example. Where he claims that between Oslo and Gjøvik, there will be no less than 7 different road standards on only 30 km of road.

3. The investment model we use is to strict
To calculate Net present value of a project, Norway uses a time span of 25 years, and a discount rate of 4,5 %. The longer the time span is, and the lower the discount rate is, the more profitable a project will be. He then compares with Sweden, Great Britain and EUs recommendations. EU and Sweden uses a time span of 40 years. And Great Britain 60 years. Sweden and Great Britain uses a discount rate of 3,5 %. And EU 3 %.
He then use a hypothetical project costing 1 billion as an example. The project will save the society 50 million a year. With the Norwegian model you'll get a negative profit. While the three others will have a positive value. He then use an example where they consider a motorway on the same stretch. With double the cost (2 billion) and the society will save twice as much (100 million a year). Using the Norwegian model, building a motorway instead of a regular road will have twice the negative value. While in the other countries it will have twice the positive value. The result ends up being that Norway choose to build a regular road because it gives the least negative result. While the other countries end up building a motorway because it gives the most positive result.
He then uses E 39 between Sandnes and Flekkefjord as an example. It's been suggested to build a new motorway closer to the coast and the populated areas of Bryne, Nærbø, Varhaug, Vigrestad and Egersund. But because it gives a negative value using the Norwegian model, we end up building an expressway along the existing road inland because it has a less negative value than the outer route.

4. Using rough terrain as an excuse
People keep blaming rough terrain in Norway for bad roads. And that stop people from getting to the real problem which is the Norwegian investment model. He then refers to the global Global Competitiveness Report by the World Economic Forum. Where other mountain countries like Portugal, Switzerland and Austria is all among top 10 on the Infrastructure ranking. With Norway being number 84. He also names several other mountain countries that's in front of Norway. Among them Albania, Ecuador and Rwanda. However, what he fails to inform. Is that the report is not a report of actual standards. But a report on the general view on the country's infrastructure asking business leaders in that country. So in reality it's a "How happy are you about your country's roads" report. And it's quite normal for Norwegians, living in the richest country in the worlds, to have higher expectations than lets say the people of Rwanda. In Norway they're not happy until a main road is a motorway. In Rwanda they're probably happy if the road got asphalt.

5. The lack of a national road plan
Norway has no plan that says how the future highway network should look like in 50 years.
He then uses E 39 Kvivsvegen as an example. Between Ålesund and Skei the future route of E 39 hasn't been decided yet. Still they've decided to use 1 billion on building Kvivsveien between Volda and Hornindal to replace the Volda - Folkestad ferry. However, because of the detour via Hornindal, it takes less time to use the existing route and ferry. And as it's still unknown where the future E 39 will go in that area. We have no idea how useful Kvivsvegen will be in the future. There are three suggestions for the future E 39 in the area. An inner route via Hellesylt in Geirangerfjorden. In that case Kvivsvegen will work as an access road between E 39 and Volda/Ørsta.
A middle route along Kvivsvegen between Volda and Hornindal. But then a new route from Hornindal and towards Skei. In that case Kvivsvegen will obviously be very important.
While the third option is an outer route using the existing E 39 between Volda and Skei. In that case Kvivsvegen will mainly be a road for locals. A road for 1 billion that is.
My personal view is that the future E 39 between Ålesund and Bergen (not Skei), should go even further out by the coast. And that Kvivsvegen is totally useless.

He then use the Hardanger bridge as a second example. Between Bergen and Oslo there's still no primary route. Should Riksvei 7 across Hardangervidda become the future main road. The Hardanger bridge will obviously be important. However, should E 134 across Haukelifjell become the future main road. It would serve no important role and it would have been better to build a bridge at Jondal.

6. Mixture with environmental politics
The Ulven-Sinsen project on Ring 3 in Oslo had a total cost of 4,1 billion NOK. The target of the project was not to increase road capacity in the area. But to reduce noise and pollution. He then brings up the junction on Carl Berners Plass. Where they used 286 millions to make the junction less attractive for car users and more attractive for those using the tram.
He then goes on about it being untrue that you can't build out of queues. He brings up Houston in Texas as an example. Where a former 16 lane road with lots of queues where upgraded to a 22 lane road and the queues went away. And that it's possible to build out of queues here as well. Though it most places would be enough with only 4-8 lanes according to him.

7. Mixture with district politics
Here he starts of with the election system. Where Finnmark with it's 74 500 inhabitants has 5 mandates on Stortinget. While Oslo with it's 624 000 inhabitants has 17 mandates. That's 14 900 inhabitants per mandate in Finnmark. And 36 700 inhabitants per mandate in Oslo. And then claims a vote in Finnmark is 2,5 times as much worth as a vote in Oslo. Though he in principle is correct with a vote in Finnmark being more worth than in Oslo, his maths are wrong. The correct number is that a vote in Finnmark is worth 1,72 times a vote in Oslo. He then claims that this has created a group of people on Stortinget favouring distribution politics. And how these people control the transport committee. This has then led to investments in rural areas rather than in the populated areas. And he claims investments that between 1960 and 2000 has been 103 000 NOK per inhabitant in Finnmark. But only 16 000 NOK per inhabitant in Oslo.

He then list a number of bridge projects in rural areas where they've used several millions per inhabitant benefiting from the project. And how pretty much none of the projects has stopped depopulation. He also mention the village of Otterdal with its 13 inhabitants who lost their road after hurricane Dagmar a couple of years ago. The demand from the locals was then a tunnel at a cost of 230 million. Or 18 millions per inhabitant. However, the county couldn't afford it, and the state didn't want to help them. The end solution was widening the former road and install landslide protection for 47 million. Or 3,6 million per inhabitant. FrP actually proposed that the state should buy out the locals and pay them 10 million NOK each to move, instead of spending 18 millions a head on a tunnel. That's in my opinion an interesting question.

8. Too complicated planning process
Every road plan in Norway has to be approved by the local municipality.
After Statens Vegvesen had used 9 years to plan E 18 through Akershus county. Everything went back to scratch when Ås municipality said no to the plans. Tough it eventually got solved, it shows how a single municipality may stop a whole project of national importance.
A lot of projects also becomes delayed because pretty much every project gets objections by landowners, or other departments. And brings up several nature protection cases that have ended up delaying projects, and making them more expensive. Among them he mentions the Dolmøysund bridge on Hitra. Where two owls stopped the plans. The extra cost of changing the plans ended up being 240 millions. He states that Norway is obliged to protect red listed species. But does question whether the politicians have found the right balance between environmental politics on one side, and environmental hysteria on the other when they end up spending 240 million on two owls.

The last part of the video is about why E 18 through Bamble municipality shouldn't be built as planed, but in a more straight line from Porsgrunn/Skien and to the county border between Telemark and Aust-Agder.

He's not wrong on either point. But the major problems is point 3 and 5. Both these lead to wrong spending of government money. With number 2 and 8 being secondary points. Making most projects much more expensive and time consuming than necessary.

Point 1 is a point. But what he use as evidence isn't good. It shows that investments hasn't been a large priority. However, as far as I know, roads are treated as public spending in the state budget. So I wouldn't be to sure that it goes under investments in that report either. And what he should have shown, is Norwegian numbers compared to Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland etc.
Point 4 isn't a direct point. But an indirect point.
Point 6 isn't a good one either. But perhaps such projects should have a different funding. Read city development funds or environmental funds. And not road funds through toll roads. But still these projects serve a function. And even tough it's possible to build out of queues, it's not necessary wished. I agree that a certain level of ring roads and connection roads is needed. But most city traffic should be done by public transport systems.
Point 7 isn't a good one either in my opinion. The problem isn't in which county investments has been made. But on what kind of road. Road investments in Norway has gone to any kind of road, rather than the main roads between the big cities.
__________________
Kjello0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2013, 02:34 PM   #2233
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by metasmurf View Post
Except for the newly built tunnels I agree. Ring 3 partly looks really substandard ( http://goo.gl/maps/oE47d ). Without knowing anything about Oslo traffic, this roundabout solution must be notorious for traffic jams.
Well, yes it is substandard, since it started out life as a four-lane road with traffic lights and roundabouts. It has been upgraded, though, and it's now grade-separated. The biggest problems with it are lack of proper on- and off-ramps, too many interchanges and - for the eastern bit - capacity issues. The Ryen roundabout is busy and there are jams every day, but it sort of works anyway. Not good enough, of course...
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2013, 09:06 PM   #2234
dexter26
BANNED
 
dexter26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,039
Likes (Received): 611

Another thing, in the video I posted, it showed that the huge freeway intersection in the U.S. that was upgraded to 22 lanes, pretty much took up the space of the entire Trondheim city center, which at least has between 50 and 100 small streets.

I wonder if we Norwegians simply haven't been used to thinking large when it comes to both city and road development. This is of course mirrored in how strongly local and countryside interests have been emphasized, and in how political representatives - including transport ministers - often work primarily for their own small village or local area.

That this has been so prevalent and even encouraged, has led to a (certain somewhat) lack of "holistic" thinking when it comes to transport and road development.
dexter26 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2013, 09:09 PM   #2235
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,595
Likes (Received): 19389

No road in Norway would need 22 lanes. 22 lanes can carry over 500 000 vehicles per day, while I doubt there is any road in Norway that carries over 100 000 vehicles per day. I do think they should have made the new tunnels of Ring 3 with space for 3 through lanes each way. Right now there are 3 lanes, but the right lane is just a long merging lane between two exits. Oslo is not a huge city, but it is large enough to generate some serious traffic volumes where 2x2 lanes are not sufficient.
__________________

my clinched highways / travel mapping • highway photography @ Flickr and Youtube

Registered_User liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2013, 09:14 PM   #2236
dexter26
BANNED
 
dexter26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,039
Likes (Received): 611

I wasn't saying we need to build that huuge freeways or anything, but in Norway a road like that wouldn't be possible to build even, because of all the small local interests that always must be heard, it seems like. I don't have the answer, but IMO we have a slight "struggle" ahead of us with the fact that our entire country was designed in completely different times and with less people in mind. Even though the upgrade pace has admittedly improved over the last 5-6 years or so, so I'm not saying it's only a dark picture..

In part, arguments about terribly bad road building in Norway is also talking about something that HAS BEEN the reality for years. Recently, the pace of road building has improved slightly.
dexter26 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2013, 09:25 PM   #2237
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,595
Likes (Received): 19389

I think tolling has to do with it as well. With a large toll component of the total funding, it's easier to reach an agreement between political parties and move a project forward.

I do think there are too many toll projects. I don't mind them for remote projects that serve only a fraction of population, but important corridors should be toll free due to their national significance. I mean, it's totally accepted to fund schools, hospitals and public transport with taxes, why not important roads?
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2013, 11:03 PM   #2238
Heico-M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Flensburg, DE
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
I think tolling has to do with it as well. With a large toll component of the total funding, it's easier to reach an agreement between political parties and move a project forward.

I do think there are too many toll projects. I don't mind them for remote projects that serve only a fraction of population, but important corridors should be toll free due to their national significance. I mean, it's totally accepted to fund schools, hospitals and public transport with taxes, why not important roads?
Laerdalstunnelen has been toll free ever since it was opened. Because of its national significance. So this thought is alive, at least.
Heico-M no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2013, 03:34 PM   #2239
MattiG
Registered User
 
MattiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Espoo FI
Posts: 1,801
Likes (Received): 615

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heico-M View Post
Laerdalstunnelen has been toll free ever since it was opened. Because of its national significance. So this thought is alive, at least.
Not because of that. The cost of the tunnel was astronomical. If the standard principles of toll determination were used, the toll would have become very high, several hundred crowns. Nobody would have paid that sum but looked for alternative routes. That is why the tunnel was built on 100% public financing. There is always the behavioural aspect at pricing.

Last edited by MattiG; September 15th, 2013 at 03:34 PM. Reason: Typo
MattiG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2013, 03:21 PM   #2240
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,354
Likes (Received): 10047

The fire chief in Karmøy did not approve of the fire safety in the newly built Karmøy Tunnel (part of the T-Forbindelsen) and wanted to prohibit heavy trucks from using it.

http://www.bygg.no/2013/09/112490.0

However the road authorities decided to rebuilt/refit the new tunnel in accordance with the fire chiefs safety requirements and it will now be open for all after all.
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
norway

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 08:23 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