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 > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



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 June 11th, 2007, 02:15 AM   #761
CrazyAboutCities
Registered User
 
CrazyAboutCities's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 8,549
Likes (Received): 240

Why do that street has three railways? That street looks awful... It need to be redeveloped asap!
CrazyAboutCities no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 11th, 2007, 02:23 AM   #762
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by sequoias View Post
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
No other city in the United States has light rail trains longer than three cars

Sacramento do. I saw a video of the light rail with 4 cars on the street near downtown Sacramento.
Mea culpa! You are correct. Sacramento operates trains that are four cars in length and the cars are articulated light rail vehicles. The Sacramento light rail vehicles are slightly shorter than the Seattle vehicles at 80 feet versus 95 feet. Seattle will have the longest light rail trains in the United States in terms of feet.

I checked the train schedules in Sacramento and found that the two lines each operate at 15-minute headways during peak periods. The two lines share seven of the fifty-one stations on the system, so service is at 7.5-minute interavals during peak periods at those seven stations and 15-minute intervals at the other forty-four stations. The long headways are needed in part because sections of the system are single-track. The relatively large headway between trains forces the use of long trains.

The Sacramento system was able to take advantage of existing rail corridors. The most recent extension to Folsom cost an impressively low $32 million per mile.

greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2007, 02:36 AM   #763
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
We're getting right of way, and we can make it heavy rail in another sixty or seventy years if we need to.

Remember, we can't expand I-5 in Seattle - WSDOT recently suggested it would cost $25 billion (2005 dollars, as I recall) to add one lane each way from one end of city limits to the other (consider beacon hill, capitol hill, convention center, ship canal bridge). That's in comparison to under $10 billion in capital expenditures (2006) for 50 miles of something between light and heavy rail.

When you call something cost effective, you're comparing to need (which is extremely great - we have the worst traffic in the country by some estimates) and you're comparing to the cost of building the equivalent capacity in another system. LRT will comfortably carry 8000-9000 pphpd (people per hour per direction) - that's a new eight lane highway in the same corridor (2200pph per lane, in 2000 vehicles phpl, max). How much would it cost to build a highway equivalent in the same corridor, with the same direct access to each urban center served? 100 billion capital? How much would it cost to build feeders, expand thoroughfares, and provide parking? What would the economic impact be of all the real estate lost (even if the main corridor were underground, like North Link)?

When you make an apples to apples comparison, the Sound Transit 2 project is basically the only way the region can afford to expand north-south transportation capacity at *all*.
1. I agree with you that rail trainsit is needed.

2. I am a little bit skeptical that the conversion to a heavy rail meto would ever be done. The reconstruction of the platforms for high-floor trains would be costly and would require that the system be closed for a period of time unless special trains with folding steps were ordered that could serve both high-level and low-level platforms while the system is rebuilt one station at a time.

3. The point that I've been trying to make is that Seattle is building light rail in a corridor that really calls for a heavy rail metro and that Seattle might have been able to have a heavy rail metro for a similar amount of money.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2007, 02:46 AM   #764
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by aznichiro115 View Post
a entirely flat floor would require high floor cars, which would not be able to run side by side with buses.

the walking problem is easily solved. have a operator board at Westlake as it is going to the terminus at the end of the car(towards Sea-Tac) so as it switches tracks it can start right away without the operator walking, this is done in hong kong by KCR at East Tsim Sha Tsui, note, KCR trains are 12 cars long.
1. The operation of both buses and light rail in the downtown tunnel is a stop-gap measure that will likely end once Central Link is extended to the University of Washington.

2. Yes, there are ways of choreographing turnarounds to save time. Switching drivers between trains is one method. Another method used on the Washington Metro is to have trains alternate tracks at the terminal stations. Washington also uses turn-back tracks at intermediate points along some of the lines so that not all trains travel to the terminal stations. This might be the reason for the third set of tracks seen in the photo of the Rainier Valley segment in a previous post. The following photo shows a Washington Metro train being reversed on a turn-back track between the inbound and outbound tracks:



The problem with all these methods is that one mistake due to human error can gridlock the whole system.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2007, 05:31 AM   #765
sequoias
Registered User
 
sequoias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest US
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyAboutCities View Post
Why do that street has three railways? That street looks awful... It need to be redeveloped asap!
What's wrong with that street? I'm not sure which you're referring to. This is part of the industrial area between the residential/retail area on way to I-5. The 3 railways is due to the traffic control stuff reasons. A stop between Rainier Valley and Sea-Tac airport. This street is ALREADY re-developed.

There isn't much room to develop because of the hills, so they cannot overtake those businesses that presently are there. I think this is after the last stop in Rainier Valley on the way to Boeing Field to Sea-Tac Airport.
sequoias no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2007, 05:38 AM   #766
CrazyAboutCities
Registered User
 
CrazyAboutCities's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 8,549
Likes (Received): 240

Quote:
Originally Posted by sequoias View Post
What's wrong with that street? I'm not sure which you're referring to. This is part of the industrial area between the residential/retail area on way to I-5. The 3 railways is due to the traffic control stuff reasons. A stop between Rainier Valley and Sea-Tac airport. This street is ALREADY re-developed.

There isn't much room to develop because of the hills, so they cannot overtake those businesses that presently are there. I think this is after the last stop in Rainier Valley on the way to Boeing Field to Sea-Tac Airport.
I know. These existing bulidings along MLK street are serious eyesores. I hope one day developers will purchase their properties for redevelopment with mixed uses to make this street look attractive and look good with hills background. I think it will happens soon once this light rail construction is completed. I expect to see some improvement will occup on that street within few years from now.
CrazyAboutCities no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2007, 06:46 AM   #767
tmaxxfreak11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 339
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyAboutCities View Post
I know. These existing bulidings along MLK street are serious eyesores. I hope one day developers will purchase their properties for redevelopment with mixed uses to make this street look attractive and look good with hills background. I think it will happens soon once this light rail construction is completed. I expect to see some improvement will occup on that street within few years from now.
It would look sooo cool if they did that... Of course, that would take a while and it would only further hurt businesses in the area with more construction...
tmaxxfreak11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2007, 09:44 AM   #768
Jaxom92
Urban Studies Grad
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 0

One of the points of putting the light rail through Rainier Valley was to serve a low-income area. Many of those businesses are locally owned and operated. Redeveloping the area will defeat the purpose of this goal. Granted, it will probably still happen because of the tremendous growth pressure in this region, but Seattle is also a pretty socially conscious city, so it might actually be a long time coming due to political pressure.

The reason for the three sets of tracks is track switching... I'm not sure what else is a problem in that picture.

And in regards to some of the economic points, most of our cost is in right of way purchase, labor costs, rising construction material costs, and the need for grade separation due to topography (mainly, but sometimes politics as well). I believe labor laws keep the need for human operated trains... that is, labor unions. It might also be that automated trains cannot exist on lines that aren't 100% grade separated, which would be federal safety laws. Both of these are uniquely U.S. issues as far as I know. And I'm not positive on these points either.

I do think the point about getting heavy rail for the price of light rail in this case is valid. I'm not convinced that it will be detrimental in the long term though.
__________________
Jax
Jaxom92 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2007, 08:59 PM   #769
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

On the idea of "heavy rail for the price of light rail":

We didn't have the political capital at the time to build heavy rail from scratch. Remember, this region has no existing rail transit.

Had we tried to build heavy rail in the first place, we likely wouldn't have been able to at-grade the Rainier Valley portion, and the whole project would be dead in the water.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2007, 09:02 PM   #770
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxom92 View Post
I do think the point about getting heavy rail for the price of light rail in this case is valid. I'm not convinced that it will be detrimental in the long term though.
One more comment on this issue:

Most like-sized urban areas don't have heavy rail, they have light rail. There *is* a significant cost difference when you can't grade-separate the entire system. Because of Initiative 776 (disallowing use of MVET), the bonding capacity available to the agency here by levying sales taxes on a region of only 1.1 million households is not great enough to afford heavy rapid transit.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2007, 03:49 AM   #771
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
One more comment on this issue:

Most like-sized urban areas don't have heavy rail, they have light rail. There *is* a significant cost difference when you can't grade-separate the entire system. Because of Initiative 776 (disallowing use of MVET), the bonding capacity available to the agency here by levying sales taxes on a region of only 1.1 million households is not great enough to afford heavy rapid transit.
I would agree with the above for just about any other mid-sized city in the United States that is building light rail within the typical cost range of $45 - $70 million per mile. Seattle is building light rail at a cost of $150 million for the initial segment and perhaps $200 million per mile for the ST2 extensions. Seattle is very nearly paying the full cost that would be expected for a heavy rail metro.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2007, 04:03 AM   #772
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

The issue of speed has been raised several times. My understanding is that the following speeds will apply for Central Link:

Maximum Operating Speed: 55 mph
Maximum Operating Speed in Rainier Valley: 35 mph
Average Speed including Station Stops: 26 mph

It has been reported that the trains will be capable of 65 mph but the top speed in service will be limited to 55 mph. Light Rail Now has reported that Central Link will be the fastest light rail line in the world.

Two of the fastest metros that I know of are BART and the Washington Metro. Most sources agree on the top speeds for those two systems. Numbers for the average speeds vary considerably depending on the source. I suppose that the average speed varies depending on the line. The average speeds given below are the lowest numbers that I found on the Internet:

BART
Maximum Operating Speed: 80 mph
Average Speed including Station Stops: 36 mph

Washington Metro
Maximum Operating Speed: 75 mph
Average Speed including Station Stops: 33 mph

A couple of months ago, I rode the Baltimore metro and light rail system (Hunt Valley to Airport). Both parallel highways for parts of their routes. It was a weekend afternoon and highway traffic was flowing freely. Based on the fact that the metro train actually overtook the slower highway traffic, I estimated its peak speed at about 60 mph. The light rail train did not overtake even the slowest highway traffic, which led me to estimate its peak speed at about 50 mph. Based on the end-to-end travel times, I estimated the average travel speeds including station stops to be 30 mph for the metro and 20 mph for the light rail line.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2007, 04:21 AM   #773
BoulderGrad
Registered User
 
BoulderGrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,505
Likes (Received): 1171

Besides the street crossings in Rainier Valley/MLK blvd, what distinguishes Seattle Light Rail from say DC Metro? There are plenty of areas that DC metro runs at grade, it just doesn't have any street crossings. That and the DC metro trains also have flat floors. Whats the technical difference?
__________________
My safety word is "Keep Going."
BoulderGrad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2007, 05:24 AM   #774
tmaxxfreak11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 339
Likes (Received): 0

The expected ridership with just the initial segment and the UW extension would be over 150,000. That would rank it 2nd or 3rd among US light rail systems. With the ST2 extensions ridership is expected to shoot well past 300,000. This would leave any other US light rail system in the dust by well over 100,000 riders. This passengers/mile is similiar to that of the Washington DC subway. Could Seattle support heavy rail? Probably.
tmaxxfreak11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2007, 08:11 AM   #775
JasonB52
Pokémon Master
 
JasonB52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 81
Likes (Received): 21

Here are a few pictures of Sound Transit that I promised:

Tukwila, looking towards downtown


Tukwila, turning west to the airport


Tracks down in the Tukwila segment


Elevated light rail arriving at the airport


A side-view of light rail construction just north of the station
JasonB52 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2007, 02:18 AM   #776
Jaxom92
Urban Studies Grad
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonB52 View Post
Here are a few pictures of Sound Transit that I promised...
Those are some awesome pictures! Thanks for getting/taking them.
__________________
Jax
Jaxom92 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2007, 02:36 AM   #777
CrazyAboutCities
Registered User
 
CrazyAboutCities's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 8,549
Likes (Received): 240

WOW!!! The construction process around the airport is much faster than I would expect. I can't wait to see it when I go there within two weeks from now to fly to California!
CrazyAboutCities no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2007, 05:02 AM   #778
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

For anyone who is interested, the following is a list of project costs as defined in the PDFs on Sound Transit's ST2 webpage < http://www.soundtransit.org/x3951.xml >. A high and low cost estimate is provided for each project. Route lengths in miles are provided for the light rail and streetcar projects. All cost numbers are in millions.


Light Rail Construction
N06 - Link LRT - Univ. of WA to Northgate
$1126.6-$1239.3
4.3 miles
N28 - Link LRT - Northgate to Jackson Park
$280.1-$322.1
2.1 miles
N29 - Link LRT - Jackson Park to Shoreline
$311.2-$357.9
2.4 miles
N30 - Link LRT - Shorline to Mountlake Terrace
$197.7-$227.3
1.4 miles
N31 - Link LRT - Mountlake Terrace to Lynwood TC
$309.5-$355.9
2.3 miles
N32 - Link LRT - Lynwood TC to Alderwood Mall
$191.9-$220.7
1.4 miles
N33 - Link LRT - Alderwood Mall to 164th St./Ash Way
$293.7-$337.8
2.0 miles
E01 - Link LRT - Seattle to Bellevue (Underground Option)
$1875.8-$2157.2
11.4 miles
E02 - Link LRT - Bellevue to Overlake TC (Underground Option)
$701.5-$806.7
3.1 miles
S27 - Link LRT - SeaTac Airport to South 200th Street
$263.1-$302.6
2.0 miles
S28 - Link LRT - South 200th to Kent-Des Moines
$331.8-$381.5
2.3 miles
S29a - Link LRT - Kent-Des Moines to S 272nd Street
$354.6-$407.7
2.5 miles
S30 - Link LRT - S 272nd Street to Federal Way TC
$365-$419.8
2.8 miles
S40 - Link LRT - Federal Way TC to S 348th Street
$302.8-$348.2
2.1 miles
S41 - Link LRT - S 348th Street to Port of Tacoma
$454.1-$522.2
3.9 miles
S42-T6 - Link LRT - Port of Tacoma to Tacoma Dome
$393.8-$452.9
3.4 miles
SYS-LRT Link LRT - Maintenance Bases, Vehicles, and Operations Facilities
$1218.3-$1401.1 0


Alternative Light Rail Construction for Aerial Option through Bellevue
E01 - Link LRT - Seattle to Bellevue (Aerial Option)
$1465.2-$1684.9
11.2 miles
E02 - Link LRT - Bellevue to Overlake TC (Aerial Option)
$678.8-$780.6
3.1 miles


Streetcar Construction
N07a - First Hill Streetcar
$129.7-$149.2
2.2 miles
N07c - First Hill Streetcar Extension to Aloha Street
$21.4-$24.6
0.6 miles


Sounder Construction
N22 - Sounder - Parking Garage at Mulkiteo
$8.8-$9.8
N23a - Sounder - Station at Edmonds Crossing
$27.2-$30.6
S17 - Sounder - Tukwila Station
$24.2-$27.8
S18b - Sounder - Auburn Parking Garage
$26.2-$30.1
S20 - Sounder - Summer Station Parking Garage and Pedestrian Bridge
$32.8-$37.7
S21 - Sounder - Puyallup Parking Garage and Pedestrian Bridge
$46.4-$53.3
S25 - Sounder - Track Upgrades Tacoma Dome to Reservation Junction
$50.8-$58.4


Express Bus Construction
E20 - Express Bus - Bothell Transit Center and Parking Garage
$39.1-$44.9
E25b - Express Bus - Renton Parking Garage
$36-$41.4
S15b - Express Bus - Shared Funding for Burien TC Parking Garage
$12.5-$12.5
SYS-BUS Express Bus Maintenance & Operations Facilities & Fleet Expansion
$153.7-$173.6


Planning Studies & ROW Acquisition
N02 - Link LRT Planning Study - 164th St./Ash Way to Everett
$5-$5
N44 - Link LRT Planning Study - Univ. Dist. to Downtown via Ballard
$5-$5
N45 & N50 - Link LRT Planning Study - Burien to Downtown via West Seattle
$8-$8
N46 HCT Planning Study - BNSF Corridor Renton to Snohomish
$16-$16
E09 - HCT Planning Study on SR 520
$5-$5
E28 - Link LRT - Preilim. Engineering and ROW Acquisition Overlake TC to Redomond
$87.5-$100.6
E30 - HCT Planning Study on I-90 South Bellevue to Issaquah
$3-$3
E31 - Express Bus I-405 BRT Planning from Lynwood to Burien
$1-$1
E32 & N46 - HCT Planning Study of BNSF Corridor Renton to Snohomish
$16-$16
S50 & N45 - Link LRT - Planning Study from Burien to Downtown Seattle via West Seattle
$8-$8
S51 - Link LRT - Planning Study for Burien-Renton Corridor
$4-$4


The following are estimates for the cost per mile for the light rail and streetcar projects. The light rail total is for the underground option through Bellevue. Recent news stories about the line through Bellevue suggest that the underground option is strongly favored by both Sound Transit and public officials and business leaders in Bellevue. The totals include only the actual construction projects and not the planning studies or right-of-way acquisition for future lines. For the purposes of these calculations, streetcar lines are considered distinct from light rail lines.


Totals for Light Rail (Underground Option through Bellevue)
$8971.5-$10260.9 ==> Average = $9616.2
49.4 miles
$9616.2 / 49.4 miles = $194.7 / mile


Totals for Streetcar
$151.1-$173.8 ==> Average = $162.45
2.8 miles
$162.45 / 2.8 miles = $58.0 / mile

Last edited by greg_christine; June 13th, 2007 at 05:40 AM.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2007, 05:07 AM   #779
CrazyAboutCities
Registered User
 
CrazyAboutCities's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 8,549
Likes (Received): 240

That's great information! THanks for sharing!
CrazyAboutCities no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2007, 05:28 AM   #780
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoulderGrad View Post
Besides the street crossings in Rainier Valley/MLK blvd, what distinguishes Seattle Light Rail from say DC Metro? There are plenty of areas that DC metro runs at grade, it just doesn't have any street crossings. That and the DC metro trains also have flat floors. Whats the technical difference?
The following is a brief comparison with the Washington Metro:



Floor/Platform Height above Rails
- Seattle Central Link: 14 inches
- Washington Metro: 40 inches

Length of Rail Cars
- Seattle Central Link: 95 feet
- Washington Metro: 75 feet

Maximum Train Length
- Seattle Central Link: 4 cars (380 feet)
- Washington Metro: 8 cars ((600 feet) - Most trains are 6 cars in length.

Electrical Power Source
- Seattle Central Link: 1500 VDC Overhead Wire
- Washington Metro: 750 VDC Third Rail

Maximum Operating Speed
- Seattle Central Link: 55 mph - Kinkisharyo states that the cars can reach 65 mph .
- Washington Metro: 75 mph

Average Operating Speed including Station Stops
- Seattle Central Link: 26 mph - Fastest light rail line in the U.S. according to Light Rail Now.
- Washington Metro: 33 mph - Depends on the line.

Minimum Headways between Trains
- Seattle Central Link: 3 minutes planned (2 minutes ultimate?)
- Washington Metro: 2 minutes

Fare Payment System
- Seattle Central Link: Traditional light rail “Proof-of-Payment” system? (Tickets purchased on station platforms and held for possible inspection by roving ticket inspectors.)
- Washington Metro: Magnetic strip tickets or proximity cards used at entrance and exit gates to deduct fare dependent on time of day and distance traveled.

Automation
- Seattle Central Link: No automation is planned to the best of my knowledge.
- Washington Metro: Trains normally operate in fully automated mode though drivers are onboard in the cabs to take over the operation of the trains in case of emergency. The Washington Metro briefly experimented with a policy of prohibiting manual operation of the trains due to wheel flats and other problems caused by operator errors. This experiment ended when a train slid through a station and telescoped into another train due to slippery track conditions during a snowstorm.



At present, the only transit lines that operate totally unmanned either have rubber tires or linear induction motor propulsion, both of which avoid the reliance of the adhesion of a steel wheel on a steel rail for train control.

Cost
- Seattle Central Link
Initial Segment: $2.1 billion / 14 miles = $150 million per mile (Some sources state the cost of the initial segment as $2.4 billion.)
SeaTac Airport Extension: ($225 million light rail construction + $75 million road realignment) / 1.7 miles = $176 million per mile
University of Washington Extension: $1.7 billion / 3.15 miles = $540 million per mile
Average for Sound Transit 2 Projects: $9.616 billion / 49.4 miles = $194.7 million per mile
- Washington Metro:
Largo Town Center Extension: $456 million / 3.1 miles = $147 million per mile
Dulles Airport Extension - Critic's Estimate: $5.15 billion / 24 miles = $215 million per mile
Dulles Airport Extension - Official Estimate: $4 billion / 23 miles = $174 million per mile

Last edited by greg_christine; June 14th, 2007 at 01:15 PM.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
king county metro, seattle, sound transit, us light rail

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 06:26 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