search the site
 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 1st, 2008, 11:46 AM   #1
apaoli
Registered User
 
apaoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 187
Likes (Received): 3

MISC | PRT General Discussion

Personal rapid transit (PRT), also called personal automated transport (PAT) or podcar, is a public transportation concept that offers on-demand non-stop transportation, using small, independent vehicles on a network of specially-built guideways. Several different designs have been proposed, and as of 2008, at least one is under construction.
Comparison of Personal Rapid Transit with existing transport systems:
  • Similar to automobiles:
  • Vehicles are small—typically two to six passengers
  • Vehicles are individually hired, like taxis, and shared only with the passengers of one's choosing
  • Vehicles travel along a network of guideways, much like a network of streets. Travel is point-to-point, with no intermediate stops or transfers
  • It can be available on an on-demand, around-the-clock basis
  • Stops are designed to be off the main guideway, allowing through traffic to bypass stations unimpeded
    Similar to trams, buses, and monorails:
  • A public amenity (although not necessarily publicly owned), shared by multiple users
  • Reduced local pollution (electric powered)
  • Passengers embark and disembark at discrete stations, analogous to bus stops or taxi stands
    Similar to automated people movers:
  • Fully automated, including vehicle control, routing, and collection of fares
  • Usually off-grade—typically elevated—reducing land usage and congestion
  • Distinct features
  • Vehicle movements may be coordinated, unlike the autonomous human control of automobiles and bikes
  • Small vehicle size allows infrastructure to be smaller than other transit modes
  • Automated vehicles can travel close together. Possibilities include dynamically combined "trains" of vehicles, separated by a few inches, to reduce drag and increase speed, energy efficiency and passenger density
    VIDEO:
    http://www.ultraprt.com/ultra-fin-web-h264.mov
    http://www.ultraprt.com/BAA_LHR_ULTra.mov
    http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=KPOXfMKE50M
    http://vectus.se/Vectus%20Movie_low%20res.mov











Projects:

Heathrow (BAA)
Masdar Zero-Carbon City
Foster+Partners Masdar video
Bawadi
__________________

an-148 liked this post
apaoli no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 1st, 2008, 11:59 AM   #2
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: 14,031
Likes (Received): 8514

I seriously don't take these seriously as an alternative to trains, buses, trams etc etc. They are useful in their own way for certain jobs - such as at Terminal 5, but beyond that i don't see them becoming particularly widespread.
Svartmetall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2008, 12:52 PM   #3
apaoli
Registered User
 
apaoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 187
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
I seriously don't take these seriously as an alternative to trains, buses, trams etc etc. They are useful in their own way for certain jobs - such as at Terminal 5, but beyond that i don't see them becoming particularly widespread.
Fortunately some people think it differently:
A Goal to Curb Energy Use

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=YjL1ug...eature=related

Quote:
"Masdar will be the first city where carbon emissions are zero."

Narrow streets and shaded walks would reduce the need for air conditioning. The city would be oriented northeast to minimize the amount of direct sunlight on buildings' sides and windows. Solar panels and solar collectors on roofs and elsewhere would generate enough electricity to meet most of Masdar City's needs.

Another goal is to ban cars in the city, which wouldn't be small enough for people to get around just by walking. Designers envision something called a personal rapid transit (PRT) system.

"Really, all it is is a car," says Scott McGuigan of CH2M Hill, the construction firm that's building Masdar City. "It's a simple vehicle [for] six passengers. It's designed like a car, but obviously it's powered by solar energy with batteries."

These solar-powered cars would run under the city like a subway system. But McGuigan says the cars wouldn't run on fixed routes. Basically, they'dl take you anywhere you wanted to go.

McGuigan says PRTs represent an energy-efficient way of moving people among roughly 1,500 stations.

"You program what station you want to go to, and [the vehicle] will directly take you to that station," he says. "If you look at things like Blade Runner, etc., that we had 15 years ago, it's really bringing that to the fore now."
apaoli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2008, 03:58 AM   #4
NickABQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Albuquerque, Denver
Posts: 603
Likes (Received): 87

Great Thread! For my final semester project I (along with a small team) had to create a carbon neutral transportation system for metro Albuquerque by 2050. We did an extensive section on the possibility of using PRT as a viable system of transit.

Anyway...great to see it here!
__________________

an-148 liked this post
NickABQ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2008, 11:06 AM   #5
worldwide
Registered User
 
worldwide's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: vancouver
Posts: 855
Likes (Received): 3

PAT? i prefer to call it a slacker box. its like a horizontal elevator. personally i dont see whats wrong with taking a train or bus, but whatever, if youre that anti social you can always dream, right?
__________________
SEND IT BACK MAN! THAT MUST BE LIKE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY BUMPS.
COME ON GUYS!!! WE NEED TO OBJECTIFY MORE WOMEN!!!
worldwide no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2008, 12:54 PM   #6
lasdun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 364
Likes (Received): 7

This is great, I'm a big fan. Looking forward to trying the trial at Heathrow.

It's cheap - light vehicles and simple technology, small cross section & light body makes for cheap engineering.

It's quick - as you doing have to wait for a timetable, and you don't stop on route, the prt does not need to be as fast (and as expencive to build) as alternatives to deliver the same result.

It's flexible - the computer can route around problems, there is redundancy. A tube line shuts down completely with a problem, with PRT pods route around the problem.
__________________

an-148 liked this post
lasdun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2008, 04:09 PM   #7
Komiksulo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7
Likes (Received): 0

Would it be possible to define dimensional and control-interface standards and retrofit some existing cars to run in this system as well as under driver control on regular roads? Perhaps plug-in hybrid electrics could be part of the system as well.
Komiksulo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2008, 06:56 PM   #8
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,414
Likes (Received): 5658

I lack to see how this technology should be able to save energy, in comparision to energy efficiency optimized cars.

They lack the essential energy saving factor of trains, buses, trams etc: more people in less but larger vehicle can be transported more energy efficient than in small separate vehicles.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2008, 11:15 PM   #9
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,789
Likes (Received): 738

Morgantown's PRT was pretty dilapidated several years ago. I doubt this transport has much future.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 5th, 2008, 07:58 PM   #10
steveraneyC21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 38
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
Morgantown's PRT was pretty dilapidated several years ago. I doubt this transport has much future.
The Morgantown vehicles hold 21 people so the Morgantown system is more accurately described as Group Rapid Transit, not personal rapid transit (3 or 4 person vehicles). The Morgantown system was more expensive than costs for current PRT systems. http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/morg.htm

Here are two famous planners who believe PRT has a big future:

Peter Calthorpe, author: Next American Metropolis. We need better transit circulator technology: personal rapid transit:

* Urban Land Magazine, March 2008. Article: Riding on the Future: “We’ve concocted a system where local trips take an auto,” explains Peter Calthorpe, principal at Berkeley, California–based Calthorpe Associates. “That’s our biggest tragedy.” Streetcars, such as those used in Portland’s Pearl District, and elevated people movers, like those in downtown Miami, are moving people from rail stations to their final destinations. But a new concept, personal rapid transit (PRT), may help revolutionize urban transportation, providing a cost-effective way to get people from train stations to where they need to go, notes Calthorpe. PRT involves individual cars on a track that connects light- and heavy-rail stations with dense commercial districts and office parks. Private, safe, and requiring little maintenance, PRT cuts transit time because there are no stops and no waiting. Users can push a button and the software-controlled system automatically moves cars to where they are needed. The system can fit on any existing rightof-way, produces little noise, requires no at-grade crossings, and costs one-tenth as much to build as light rail—$10 million per mile ($6.2 million per km) versus $100 million per mile ($62 million per km), according to Calthorpe. A pilot of the ULTra PRT system, developed by U.K.- based Advanced Transport Systems Ltd. (ATS), is under construction at London Heathrow Airport. The $49 million project will provide travelers transportation from the business parking lot to Terminal 5 via 18 low-energy, battery-operated, driverless PRT vehicles."

* "We've been developing TOD without the T for far too long. PRT is the T."

* "In a six-page paper, http://www.calthorpe.com/clippings/UrbanNet1216.pdf , Calthorpe writes: "All the advantages of New Urbanism - its compact land saving density, its walkable mix of uses, and its integrated range of housing opportunities - would be supported and amplified by a circulation system that offers fundamentally different choices in mobility and access. Smart Growth and new Urbanism have begun the work of redefining America's twenty-first century development paradigms. Now it is time to redefine the circulation armature that supports them. It is short sighted to think that significant changes in land-use and regional structure can be realized without fundamentally reordering our circulation system."

* "At the CNU '05 conference, Calthorpe said, "One of my pet peeves is that we've been dealing with 19th Century transit technology. We can do better than LRT. We can have ultra light elevated transit systems (personal rapid transit) with lightweight vehicles. Because the vehicles are lighter, the system will use less energy. I used to be a PRT skeptic, but now the technology is there. It won't be easy to develop PRT technology and get all the kinks out, but it is doable. If you think about what you'd want from the ideal transit technology, it's PRT: a) stations right where you are, within walking distance, b) no waiting."

Sir Peter Hall, author: Cities of Tomorrow: "The social perception of public transportation depends on the quality of the transportation. I think we may be looking to technological advances in public transportation to create new kinds of personal rapid transit. We had a big breakthrough announced only a week ago that a British system called, literally, PRT, Personal Rapid Transit, is going to be adapted for Heathrow Airport progressively over the next ten years. And when you drive your car into Heathrow to one of the parking lots, you will get your own personal vehicle and program it to go to your terminal, or vice versa. And if this is as successful as I think it will be, this could be a big breakthrough in developing new kinds of totally personalized rapid transit, which could transform our cities in ways that we can't yet see." Dec 15, 2005, Natl Building Museum.
__________________

an-148 liked this post
steveraneyC21 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2008, 12:01 AM   #11
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Really? REALLY?

So, to begin with, you can't serve extremely high density destinations with PRT, because the maximum capacity (people per hour per direction) of a trackway would be tiny - a few thousand at most. A car with 2 people in it every 5 seconds, which is extremely generous both in headway and in people per vehicle (as this would be viewed as "personal", you'd likely see a 1.2 average), you get about 1500pphpd. A subway or even a high capacity light rail system has on the high end of an order of magnitude higher capacity.

For lower densities - places like the sprawl of LA - the tax base necessary to build a system like this is nonexistent - the dollars you get from your community for each mile of track you need to serve them doesn't even come close. This is the same reason even bus service gets crappy in the suburbs. With this thing, you have all the cost of monorail or light rail guideway and stations, but much higher maintenance costs (per-vehicle maintenance is similar no matter what the person capacity of the vehicle). And your stations are generally more granularly spaced, which means even more right of way costs!

There's a reason people have talked about this since the 1950s (or earlier) and done nothing. It's dead in the water as soon as right of way and platform costs are calculated - you can simply carry ten or twenty (or more) times as many passenger-miles for the same amount of money using the transit systems that have evolved in the last two centuries.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2008, 02:36 AM   #12
dwdwone
Subway Dave
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 569
Likes (Received): 39

There is supposed to be a small PRT/AGT in a mall in Belfast. Anyone ever hear of it? Any ideas where I might locate a pic?

Thanks,
SubwayDan
dwdwone no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2008, 08:38 PM   #13
X38
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Antwerpen
Posts: 4,213
Likes (Received): 22

Lol, this is pure science-fiction... It makes me think on people-movers om large parkings (at big airports). But really, it IS a people-mover system.
X38 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2008, 09:29 PM   #14
Yardmaster
Registered Melbourne
 
Yardmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,149
Likes (Received): 198

I'm pretty cynical about this stuff: ask yourself: where would you actually use one of those things? One of my friends has been wishing for years that she could kind of drive a thing like that from her city to mine, but how much track would you need to lay?

The closest to this I have seen is in Singapore: they have light-rail, automated vehicles that feed into the MRT (Mass Rapid Transport) stations on their Pungol (and other) lines: but sorry, you can't choose your fellow-passengers ( unless you wait for an empty car).
Yardmaster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2008, 04:25 PM   #15
thatchio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 39
Likes (Received): 1

They always mention PRT in Minneapolis. Thankfully, it hasn't happened yet. I think there's a place for it, as it may work well in college campuses, corporate campuses, airports, or from rapid transit system stations in sprawling suburban commercial districts. For example, I think the Minneapolis example of where it *could* work, would be if they built LRT between Mall of America and Eden Prairie Center (mall), which essentially is along Interstate 494. On either side of the highway are hotels, office buildings, and strip malls, and stand-alone retail/restuarants. It's dense enough where there are lots of people traveling in the corridor, but not dense enough where people can walk to their destinations easily without driving. --- In that case, from the LRT station you put PRT to go to your office building, hotel, a strip mall, etc.

I'm not saying they should do it, rather it may be an application that would work. But I agree, if you're trying to move people efficiently between major destinations or to/from major destinations, it probably isn't going to work in a vehicle with such small carrying capacity.
thatchio no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2008, 07:23 PM   #16
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatchio View Post
They always mention PRT in Minneapolis. Thankfully, it hasn't happened yet. I think there's a place for it, as it may work well in college campuses, corporate campuses, airports, or from rapid transit system stations in sprawling suburban commercial districts. For example, I think the Minneapolis example of where it *could* work, would be if they built LRT between Mall of America and Eden Prairie Center (mall), which essentially is along Interstate 494. On either side of the highway are hotels, office buildings, and strip malls, and stand-alone retail/restuarants. It's dense enough where there are lots of people traveling in the corridor, but not dense enough where people can walk to their destinations easily without driving. --- In that case, from the LRT station you put PRT to go to your office building, hotel, a strip mall, etc.

I'm not saying they should do it, rather it may be an application that would work. But I agree, if you're trying to move people efficiently between major destinations or to/from major destinations, it probably isn't going to work in a vehicle with such small carrying capacity.
If it's not dense enough that people can walk to their destinations without driving, it's not dense enough for any reasonable amount of local tax revenue to build it. Remember, it costs just as much (if not more) than a light rail system, on a per-mile basis. If there isn't already the public support and tax base for light rail, there won't be for pods.

For mall connectors, nearly all users are bringing their car to the mall. You'd have two scenarios.

1) drive (home to mall A); PRT (mall A to mall B); PRT (mall B to mall A); drive (mall A to home).

2) drive (home to mall A); drive (mall A to mall B); drive (mall A to home).

PRT creates an extra trip. It could eliminate a parking lot and make space for more development, but the mall owner would die first before letting you take any parking away.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2008, 02:10 AM   #17
steveraneyC21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 38
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
Really? REALLY?

So, to begin with, you can't serve extremely high density destinations with PRT, because the maximum capacity (people per hour per direction) of a trackway would be tiny - a few thousand at most. A car with 2 people in it every 5 seconds, which is extremely generous both in headway and in people per vehicle (as this would be viewed as "personal", you'd likely see a 1.2 average), you get about 1500pphpd. A subway or even a high capacity light rail system has on the high end of an order of magnitude higher capacity.

For lower densities - places like the sprawl of LA - the tax base necessary to build a system like this is nonexistent - the dollars you get from your community for each mile of track you need to serve them doesn't even come close. This is the same reason even bus service gets crappy in the suburbs. With this thing, you have all the cost of monorail or light rail guideway and stations, but much higher maintenance costs (per-vehicle maintenance is similar no matter what the person capacity of the vehicle). And your stations are generally more granularly spaced, which means even more right of way costs!

There's a reason people have talked about this since the 1950s (or earlier) and done nothing. It's dead in the water as soon as right of way and platform costs are calculated - you can simply carry ten or twenty (or more) times as many passenger-miles for the same amount of money using the transit systems that have evolved in the last two centuries.
The Peter Calthorpe quotes above provide a good explanation of the use of PRT as circulator transit, complementing other modes of transit. He also is quoted about the low per-mile costs of PRT.

Here's my explanation of ULTra PRT: ULTra is a battery-driven, 100-mpg-equivalent, elevated personal rapid transit system with many four-person vehicles. First deployment is scheduled for London Heathrow Airport in Spring 2009, to serve Heathrow's new Terminal 5. Working as circulator transit for office parks, airports, universities, and other major activity centers, ULTra is faster than a car. In these applications, ULTra makes carpooling and conventional transit more effective, by solving the "last mile problem."

I have written some academic papers on applications of PRT. I prefer 1,000 people within walking distance when I place a PRT station in a layout. There are many places with this density, hence there are plenty of circulator applications for PRT.

A web status page on the London Heathrow ULTra PRT system can be found here: http://www.ultraprt.com/heathrow.htm. The Heathrow system is 100% private sector funded. There were no right of way acquisition costs for the Heathrow application. Currently, there's a PRT procurement for Masdar City in Dubai.

The Heathrow PRT headway is something like 4 seconds. PRT headways are projected to go down to 1.0 seconds over time, creating higher capacity than you have calculated. On freeways, the headway between cars going 70 mph is about 0.6 seconds for fast-reflex drivers and 0.8 seconds for slower-reflex drivers. If you drive on a freeway with 1.0 second headway, then other cars cut in front of you.

Advances in computers and sensing technology make it much easier to develop PRT than in the 1950's or 1970's. BMW/Lexus "stop and go adaptive cruise control" is a great example of related technological progress. The ULTra system takes advantage of advances in the automotive sector for the ULTra control system.
steveraneyC21 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2008, 02:57 PM   #18
2co2co
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 225

hm.... this will be fit for American-style suburban corporate headquarters or university campus where buildings are moderately scattered so that walking is too slow but driving is too wasteful, and people frequently move between buildings.

Otherwise, the carrying capacity doesn't look too high.
2co2co no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2008, 04:09 PM   #19
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveraneyC21 View Post
The Peter Calthorpe quotes above provide a good explanation of the use of PRT as circulator transit, complementing other modes of transit. He also is quoted about the low per-mile costs of PRT.

Here's my explanation of ULTra PRT: ULTra is a battery-driven, 100-mpg-equivalent, elevated personal rapid transit system with many four-person vehicles. First deployment is scheduled for London Heathrow Airport in Spring 2009, to serve Heathrow's new Terminal 5. Working as circulator transit for office parks, airports, universities, and other major activity centers, ULTra is faster than a car. In these applications, ULTra makes carpooling and conventional transit more effective, by solving the "last mile problem."

I have written some academic papers on applications of PRT. I prefer 1,000 people within walking distance when I place a PRT station in a layout. There are many places with this density, hence there are plenty of circulator applications for PRT.

A web status page on the London Heathrow ULTra PRT system can be found here: http://www.ultraprt.com/heathrow.htm. The Heathrow system is 100% private sector funded. There were no right of way acquisition costs for the Heathrow application. Currently, there's a PRT procurement for Masdar City in Dubai.

The Heathrow PRT headway is something like 4 seconds. PRT headways are projected to go down to 1.0 seconds over time, creating higher capacity than you have calculated. On freeways, the headway between cars going 70 mph is about 0.6 seconds for fast-reflex drivers and 0.8 seconds for slower-reflex drivers. If you drive on a freeway with 1.0 second headway, then other cars cut in front of you.

Advances in computers and sensing technology make it much easier to develop PRT than in the 1950's or 1970's. BMW/Lexus "stop and go adaptive cruise control" is a great example of related technological progress. The ULTra system takes advantage of advances in the automotive sector for the ULTra control system.
PRT headways have been projected to go down to 1.0 seconds for fifty years. The problem isn't the technology, it's that a fully automated control system *does* go down eventually, and none of the PRT companies have actually managed to accept that and plan for it - so 1 second simply isn't safe.

Regardless, you're missing the basic, overriding points.

- New guideway is not cheap. PRT has to be elevated for it to be automated, which means you have to buy right of way and sink columns. PRT vehicles are lighter than LRT, so you get a small cost savings from having a physically smaller structure, but most of the costs are the same.

- Station on/offs take longer than on fixed route, due to station selection and what have you, as well as the unhurried nature of personal systems. This drastically limits the capacity of any given "bay", making the number of bays at a station much higher, and increasing right of way costs.

- In a situation in which the tax recovery is possible for PRT, and the political will exists for transit, LRT will be cheaper and serve more people.

Sorry. Peter Calthorpe is an urban planner, not an engineer, and he likes anything that can help promote his low-density "new regionalism". He's eschewed economics in favor of style, and while I applaud that, in practice things turn out differently.

ULTra is a 25mph rubber tire system, and can't scale to anything more than connecting a parking garage to a few terminals. PRT advocates are going to keep going along talking about how great their system is and not understanding why politicians don't choose them. They're great for airports, but the points I've made above are the real reasons we don't choose them for urban areas. Those points aren't going to change, because they're inherent to the personal nature of PRT. We build mass transit because personal vehicle storage and right of way (parking and highways) severely limit growth, and PRT doesn't scale well.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2008, 06:17 PM   #20
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,789
Likes (Received): 738

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveraneyC21 View Post
The Morgantown vehicles hold 21 people so the Morgantown system is more accurately described as Group Rapid Transit
21 The furnishings inside those wagons were so sparse I don't remember seeing a bar let alone a stap....I also doubt their tyres there capable of such payloads . . .



Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
PRT headways have been projected to go down to 1.0 seconds for fifty years.
That would obligate a batch of 21 Morgantowners to slim...real fast . . .
trainrover 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 01:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu