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 August 6th, 2010, 02:19 AM   #81
Sky Harbor
Green + Maroon = Blue. :D
 
Sky Harbor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Warsaw/Quezon City/Marinduque/Pittsburgh
Posts: 7,908
Likes (Received): 59

If we're solely taking about expressways, Manila wins hands-down. The entire metropolitan area of around 12 million people is served only by two expressways (one northbound, the other southbound), with a third running on top of an existing expressway.

But we do have several multi-lane roads.
__________________
Help me get to Open Source Bridge 2014: donate today! :D
http://www.gofundme.com/wikimagic
Sky Harbor no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 6th, 2010, 10:03 AM   #82
Revenant
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 24
Likes (Received): 0

Sydney has a small network for its population of ~4.5million. Basically they have the ring road and another east-west freeway to the outer western suburbs. There are two other freeways heading north towards newcastle and one southwards, but these are not joined to the ring road. Both Brisbane and Melbourne have bigger freeway networks. IIRC The entire freeway network in Sydney totals about 190km.
Revenant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 10:04 AM   #83
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19363

Australia isn't exactly known for it's extensive motorway/freeway systems. But it has to be noted the large cities are all coastal and coastal cities tend to have fewer motorways anyway due to their geography.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 10:06 AM   #84
Revenant
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 24
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Australia isn't exactly known for it's extensive motorway/freeway systems. But it has to be noted the large cities are all coastal and coastal cities tend to have fewer motorways anyway due to their geography.
true. Melbourne seems to have the biggest network from what I've seen. But it's also a consequence of having 20 million people to a landmass the size of the USA, so funding is hard to get.
Revenant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 11:08 AM   #85
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankD View Post
Bogota, Colombia about 7 million people and virtually no expressways, the city is completely oriented towards mass transport systems, it implemented one; if not the most successful BRT system in the world and it also has the largest network of bicycle-only roads. Keep in mind that the bicycle lanes are completely segregated from the main roads to protect the cyclists.
I have 2 Colombian friends (indeed three, two from Bogota and other from Cali) living here, and both insist that the populist Mayor of Bogota made the city a hell for traffic, because the national gov't constructed a lot of new freeways but the mayor refused to collaborate and improve traffic within the city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smelser View Post
To some Vancouverites this absence of freeways is a mark of pride. In reality, it's a function of the fact that in Canada there was no federal funding for freeway building as in the US, except for the Trans-Canada, plust the fact that the Vancouver City Charter Act puts the responsibility for highways onto the City within the City boundaries. That meant that the city's home owners would have had to pay for freeways through their yearly property taxes, and in the 1960s they simply said "No", because they did not want to bear the cost of building expensive freeways which would primarily benefit suburban commuters. The BC Govt has been reluctant to spend on a general freeway network without local cooperation, and without cooperation from the key municipality of Vancouver, that wasn't really there.
Urban freeways are never a local matter. If you don't get at least a regional highway authority, you'll see dysfunctional situations like the one you just described: people living within the limits of the city feel "unfair" to pay for construction that will cater most for outsider needs. However, this puts pressures on the real estate market and clog their local roads on the long-term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dhlennon View Post
Building big roads into the centre of a city makes no sense anymore. Where do they all go when they get there. Long distance routes and ringroads do though definately.
The problem is that many European cities did only half of the job of dismantling outdated city plans to accommodate the needs of modern life. American cities usually did a far better job, demolishing buildings, constructing massive and über-cool parking garages and so, guaranteeing a place for cars in Downtown.

Of course there were reasons for this, some cities were interested in preserving medieval cores, other European countries didn't have much money to push the bulldozers and couldn't afford losing housing units in the post-War period and so on, while America was at the height of its economic might.

Hence, we can see Europe focused on ring roads more than America. There, usually freeways cut straight into downtown, and later ring roads were built. In Europe, they first built ring-roads and left more expensive urban approaches for later - many of them to never be completed.

But I keep imagining how cool would be to have a stacked freeway pouring cars straight at the limits of the Amsterdam Canal Beltway, for instance, or until the old ring formed by Rome's antique walls. You don't have to build a freeway to the Colosseum, but one cutting through anything built after 1850 would be nice and would help a lot.

Freeways are a synonymy for progress and avant-grade mentality, with the mighty of cranes, tractors and earth movers bringing mobility to the town Within 100 years, our "revivalist" and "retrofitted" buildings will be dull and marked for demolition, while our stack interchanges will be celebrate as much as we now celebrate things like the Tower of London or the Parthenon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry View Post
I shudder to think of the destruction that would have been inflicted on central London had the Ringways plan been implemented in its entirety. I agree that certain aspects of it would have been helpful (such as the building of the South Circular to grade separated standards and the extension of the M23 through South London to meet this), but I'm very glad that the more central rings were not completed.
Traffic in London would be better, but even more importantly, a far greater area would have been within "commuting driving distance/time" from Central London, reducing housing pressures in the whole area.

It would have changed London quite a lot. Whether for the better or for the worse, it is up to individual taste and preferences. But one possible outcome would be the well-off City guys living not in Chelsea, but in some exclusive community built just outside the green belt, and using comfortable cars instead of the claustrophobic Tube.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manuelmonge View Post
well im thinking.... i prefer big avenues with trees in the middle than huge gray, stressing, first world,boring super highways
They serve different purposes. It would be like saying tramways are cooler and more interesting than high-speed rail.

You wouldn't want a tram to run over a 320kph track, and you wouldn't want a ETR500 or a TGA running over a tramway.

Nice boulevards are nice, but they exist to please and enhance the neighborhood, not to provide an artery for transportation. Freeways do just the opposite.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 06:11 PM   #86
Dahlis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 837
Likes (Received): 107

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post

The problem is that many European cities did only half of the job of dismantling outdated city plans to accommodate the needs of modern life. American cities usually did a far better job, demolishing buildings, constructing massive and über-cool parking garages and so, guaranteeing a place for cars in Downtown.

Of course there were reasons for this, some cities were interested in preserving medieval cores, other European countries didn't have much money to push the bulldozers and couldn't afford losing housing units in the post-War period and so on, while America was at the height of its economic might.
Thats where you are wrong, sadly the modernist experiment was implemented in to many cities, it didnt work and it still doesnt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post

Hence, we can see Europe focused on ring roads more than America. There, usually freeways cut straight into downtown, and later ring roads were built. In Europe, they first built ring-roads and left more expensive urban approaches for later - many of them to never be completed.

But I keep imagining how cool would be to have a stacked freeway pouring cars straight at the limits of the Amsterdam Canal Beltway, for instance, or until the old ring formed by Rome's antique walls. You don't have to build a freeway to the Colosseum, but one cutting through anything built after 1850 would be nice and would help a lot.
The word is not cool, the word is horrible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Freeways are a synonymy for progress and avant-grade mentality, with the mighty of cranes, tractors and earth movers bringing mobility to the town Within 100 years, our "revivalist" and "retrofitted" buildings will be dull and marked for demolition, while our stack interchanges will be celebrate as much as we now celebrate things like the Tower of London or the Parthenon.
Motorways are not the synonym for progress, motorways is what people thought progress was in the 1950s. And once again, the modernist idea did not work. Its time to realize that and go back to traditional town planning. Many cities are already doing that, but sadly not all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Traffic in London would be better, but even more importantly, a far greater area would have been within "commuting driving distance/time" from Central London, reducing housing pressures in the whole area.

It would have changed London quite a lot. Whether for the better or for the worse, it is up to individual taste and preferences. But one possible outcome would be the well-off City guys living not in Chelsea, but in some exclusive community built just outside the green belt, and using comfortable cars instead of the claustrophobic Tube.

Large areas where people now live would have been turned in to concrete wastelands and people would have been put in to suburban towerblocks. The pressure on the old inner city houses would be even higher because thats how people want to live.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post

They serve different purposes. It would be like saying tramways are cooler and more interesting than high-speed rail.

You wouldn't want a tram to run over a 320kph track, and you wouldn't want a ETR500 or a TGA running over a tramway.

Nice boulevards are nice, but they exist to please and enhance the neighborhood, not to provide an artery for transportation. Freeways do just the opposite.

Boulevards are excellent arteries, tram lines in the middle, cars on the outer lines and pedestrians on the pavement. There is space for everywone.
Dahlis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 06:28 PM   #87
KIWIKAAS
Registered User
 
KIWIKAAS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Hague
Posts: 4,520
Likes (Received): 750

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
I have 2 Colombian friends (indeed three, two from Bogota and other from Cali) living here, and both insist that the populist Mayor of Bogota made the city a hell for traffic, because the national gov't constructed a lot of new freeways but the mayor refused to collaborate and improve traffic within the city.



Urban freeways are never a local matter. If you don't get at least a regional highway authority, you'll see dysfunctional situations like the one you just described: people living within the limits of the city feel "unfair" to pay for construction that will cater most for outsider needs. However, this puts pressures on the real estate market and clog their local roads on the long-term.



The problem is that many European cities did only half of the job of dismantling outdated city plans to accommodate the needs of modern life. American cities usually did a far better job, demolishing buildings, constructing massive and über-cool parking garages and so, guaranteeing a place for cars in Downtown.

Of course there were reasons for this, some cities were interested in preserving medieval cores, other European countries didn't have much money to push the bulldozers and couldn't afford losing housing units in the post-War period and so on, while America was at the height of its economic might.

Hence, we can see Europe focused on ring roads more than America. There, usually freeways cut straight into downtown, and later ring roads were built. In Europe, they first built ring-roads and left more expensive urban approaches for later - many of them to never be completed.

But I keep imagining how cool would be to have a stacked freeway pouring cars straight at the limits of the Amsterdam Canal Beltway, for instance, or until the old ring formed by Rome's antique walls. You don't have to build a freeway to the Colosseum, but one cutting through anything built after 1850 would be nice and would help a lot.

Freeways are a synonymy for progress and avant-grade mentality, with the mighty of cranes, tractors and earth movers bringing mobility to the town Within 100 years, our "revivalist" and "retrofitted" buildings will be dull and marked for demolition, while our stack interchanges will be celebrate as much as we now celebrate things like the Tower of London or the Parthenon.



Traffic in London would be better, but even more importantly, a far greater area would have been within "commuting driving distance/time" from Central London, reducing housing pressures in the whole area.

It would have changed London quite a lot. Whether for the better or for the worse, it is up to individual taste and preferences. But one possible outcome would be the well-off City guys living not in Chelsea, but in some exclusive community built just outside the green belt, and using comfortable cars instead of the claustrophobic Tube.



They serve different purposes. It would be like saying tramways are cooler and more interesting than high-speed rail.

You wouldn't want a tram to run over a 320kph track, and you wouldn't want a ETR500 or a TGA running over a tramway.

Nice boulevards are nice, but they exist to please and enhance the neighborhood, not to provide an artery for transportation. Freeways do just the opposite.
This was all tongue in cheek right?
KIWIKAAS está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 02:06 AM   #88
Dr.Scope
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: WA, USA
Posts: 14
Likes (Received): 1

this depends on how many people travel to work inside of the city by car and how many local residents travel outside of the city and of course the usage of public transportation.

It's incredible how identical Tel Aviv is to Seattle both are surrounded by other cities some 180* the rest is water. neither have a subway. Both have one freeway inside the city in Tel Aviv it's root 20 (ayalon) and in Seattle it's the I5. both are full of high tech companies and last but not least both have horrible rush hour traffic.

Maps of both cities first Tel Aviv then Seattle both cities are the marked in the yellow areas on the left of the maps



Dr.Scope no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 02:26 AM   #89
Sagaris
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 165
Likes (Received): 51

Winnipeg has no real motorways.

The Perimeter Highway is divided two lanes each way, speed limit of 100kmh, has normal roads intersecting instead of overpasses and has traffic light with Waverley, Mcgillivray, St.Mary's, St.Anne's, Dugald and Lagimodiere North. In no way a Motorway.

Disreali Freeway is a route called a freeway in the city, but it has a limit of 80 I believe and lasts only 2 km.
Sagaris no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 02:26 AM   #90
Revenant
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 24
Likes (Received): 0

Adelaide has next to no freeways despite being some 1.5 million population. That stupid reversible thing they have doesn't count. There is one freeway that terminates just outside of the city and there is the Port River Expressway, but it's only 6km in length. There is another 23km long expressway under construction. When it's completed, Adelaide will effectively have only about 30km of freeway in the metro area.
Revenant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 11:07 AM   #91
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19363

A large system of multi-lane boulevards and avenues can substitute a freeway system basically, especially if there is not much through traffic, like for example in Vancouver. Freeways always attract traffic from a wider region, and thus have higher traffic volumes than a single avenue.

However, it remains difficult to compare as cities rarely publish extensive traffic volumes of city streets.

Some cities prefer 6 avenues with 20,000 vpd with constant stop-and-go traffic than 1 freeway with 100,000 vpd.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 01:30 PM   #92
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,090
Likes (Received): 286

My nearest city Manchester has quite a few motorways, and loads of expressway type roads...

I think thats mainly to do with a lot of it being re built in the 1960s...



The M60 runs around Manchester, the M602 runs to the centre, the M67 runs out to Glossop, then there is the M56, M61, M62, M66 and M627...

There are also a ton of big roads including, Princess Parkway, Kings Way and Mancunian Way...all way 6-8 lane expressways!
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 01:31 PM   #93
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,090
Likes (Received): 286

My nearest city Manchester has quite a few motorways, and loads of expressway type roads...

I think thats mainly to do with a lot of it being re built in the 1960s...



The M60 runs around Manchester, the M602 runs to the centre, the M67 runs out to Glossop, then there is the M56, M61, M62, M66 and M627...

There are also a ton of big roads including, Princess Parkway, Kings Way and Mancunian Way...all way 6-8 lane expressways!
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 04:37 PM   #94
Comfortably Numb
Goddess of Winter
 
Comfortably Numb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 2,521
Likes (Received): 309

Quote:
Originally Posted by poshbakerloo View Post
My nearest city Manchester has quite a few motorways, and loads of expressway type roads...

I think thats mainly to do with a lot of it being re built in the 1960s...

The M60 runs around Manchester, the M602 runs to the centre, the M67 runs out to Glossop, then there is the M56, M61, M62, M66 and M627...

There are also a ton of big roads including, Princess Parkway, Kings Way and Mancunian Way...all way 6-8 lane expressways!
I agree..Manchester has a fantastic motorway network, very easy to navigate. The only thing I wish they'd do is bridge the gap between the M6 and the M56 near Manchester Airport. Whenever I drove up there, it was always a pain having to get off and take the A556 to the M56 (I don't believe you can get on the M56 eastbound from the M6 and vice-versa).
Comfortably Numb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 04:46 PM   #95
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,072
Likes (Received): 8774

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS View Post
This was all tongue in cheek right?
No, read some of his other posts, Kaas. He's absolutely stark-raving.

On a serious note, I'd actually nominate Christchurch in New Zealand for a city with minimal roading infrastructure. It has a lot of wide arterial roads and a grid system, however, genuine divided highways are hard to find.
Svartmetall está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 09:18 PM   #96
niterider
niterider
 
niterider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 413
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb View Post
I agree..Manchester has a fantastic motorway network, very easy to navigate. The only thing I wish they'd do is bridge the gap between the M6 and the M56 near Manchester Airport. Whenever I drove up there, it was always a pain having to get off and take the A556 to the M56 (I don't believe you can get on the M56 eastbound from the M6 and vice-versa).
Yes that bit its irritating!
One other niggle - the m60/m62 junction (north on the map) - to continue around the m60 (going clockwise) you have to navigate a British classic - 3 level roundabout complete with traffic lights...not good enough for a motorway junction on the ring road
niterider no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2010, 11:20 PM   #97
greek_eagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Scope View Post
this depends on how many people travel to work inside of the city by car and how many local residents travel outside of the city and of course the usage of public transportation.

It's incredible how identical Tel Aviv is to Seattle both are surrounded by other cities some 180* the rest is water. neither have a subway. Both have one freeway inside the city in Tel Aviv it's root 20 (ayalon) and in Seattle it's the I5. both are full of high tech companies and last but not least both have horrible rush hour traffic.

Maps of both cities first Tel Aviv then Seattle both cities are the marked in the yellow areas on the left of the maps



The map of Seattle is not complete. It does not show US 99 which is partially a highway then an expressway, then freeway and then expressway again. It also lacks the West Seattle Freeway among others. It is showing the Interstate system plus some state routes.
greek_eagle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2010, 11:40 PM   #98
greek_eagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smelser View Post
Quite right. And there is no real freeway system in the wider metro area of over 2 million people. There are just unconnected elements, Hwy 1 to the east and Hwys 99 and 91 to the south.

To some Vancouverites this absence of freeways is a mark of pride. In reality, it's a function of the fact that in Canada there was no federal funding for freeway building as in the US, except for the Trans-Canada, plust the fact that the Vancouver City Charter Act puts the responsibility for highways onto the City within the City boundaries. That meant that the city's home owners would have had to pay for freeways through their yearly property taxes, and in the 1960s they simply said "No", because they did not want to bear the cost of building expensive freeways which would primarily benefit suburban commuters. The BC Govt has been reluctant to spend on a general freeway network without local cooperation, and without cooperation from the key municipality of Vancouver, that wasn't really there.

So bit by bit the decision has been made to do nothing. And then the urban myth-makers and local boosters decided to make a virtue of necessity by proclaiming this to be a clever approach to modern city planning. See former Councillor Gordon Price's "Pricetags" blog for numerous examples of this propaganda.

Metro Vancouver DOES have its fair share of highways, expressways and freeways. [ Don't let names mislead you; Hwy 1 is a full pledged freeway or expressway to those living in NY, ON, PA, NJ etc.] The bulk of the great freeway debate was not to allow the freeway system come into the city center back in the decades of great freeway building, namely the 50s 60s and 70s. Much of what goes on in the Vancouver area is focused on what the needs are of a tiny portion of the metropolitan area. This namely is the area that includes the downtown peninsula and the immediate surrounding area such as False Creek. Sure, it is nice ..and yes much of it is a job well done...but how many people benefit from this? The majority of the people commute tens of miles/kilometers to their jobs and homes and the majority do so using the almighty car. I think that Vancouver should have done their homework a little and instead of scrapping freeway plans and let people suffer outside the city limits..NOT outside the metro area...there are no freeways inside 98.5% of the city of Vancouver. Once you drive into the suburbs freeways appear. Vancouver could have designed a tasteful parkway system which would have been controlled access roadways full of greenery, trees, creeks and the like. People would have been able to commute in beautiful surroundings at freeway speeds. It is also safer as we know and Vancouverites would have been able to drive through their region on better roads. One thing that bothered me about Vancouver is that Vancouverites are NOT only the people that live west of Boundary Rd. It is a full 2 million plus urban area with several municipalities all working together as one whole and not only for the city of Vancouver. Thus, when things like this are brought to the table, metro governments work better when they work for the whole urban area. --- Don't get me wrong, I commend the city for many things it attempts to do , but not for its road system.
greek_eagle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2010, 01:44 PM   #99
Ayceman
Registered User
 
Ayceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 2,690
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by wyqtor View Post
Bucharest. It doesn't even have a proper motorway ring/bypass.

The reason: abysmally bad planning during the Communist period + the incompetence of current politicians.
Yep, Bucharest has 0 km of motorways/expressways inside the city limits (or perimeter, for that matter).
Ayceman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2010, 03:33 PM   #100
EEH
разбирач :))
 
EEH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,830
Likes (Received): 8213

Sofia (1,2 mln) has one city highway (named Tsarigradsko shose blvd) entering from southeast and ending in the city centre. It starts as 2x4 then 2x3+2x2 and finaly ends as 2x3 lane road. Its length is about 13 km, 10 of which with no intersetions at the same level.

The start at the ringroad (2x4) - http://arhitektura.bg/blog/wp-conten...4/dscf2886.jpg
http://www.ranobudnik.net/attachments/Image/karta.png

One of the major crossings with another city boulevard. Tsarigradsko shose blvd passing above the roundabout.


Another crossing close to the city centre (nice picture ):
http://www.wikiwak.com/image/Road+ju...lvd,+Sofia.jpg

The 2x3+2x2 section


The 2x3 section
http://commondatastorage.googleapis....al/8527634.jpg



And finaly reaching its destination with the rush hour nightmare:
EEH 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 11:46 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