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 > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



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 21st, 2010, 05:10 PM   #341
AlexNL
Registered User
 
AlexNL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 537

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
And I wish the Dutch government fully privatized their passenger operations too, and stopped giving money (more than € 1,4 bln. last year!) to them, while diverting the funds to much more needed highway widening. A matter of priorities. The Netherlands have one of the highest per capita income in the World, we could easily afford - for instance - the sudden cancellation of all discount cards, starting with the students' ones.
Errr.. wrong! NS Reizigers does not receive money from the government, it actually pays money. HSA pays to the government and to ProRail for using the HSL-Zuid, NS Reizigers pays to ProRail for the other tracks. Then there's dividend, taxes, etc.

Of course, there is money which flows from the government to the tracks... but this money goes to ProRail, to keep the rail infrastructure available and to expand it: Hanzelijn, Betuweroute, HSL-Zuid, various track works in other parts of the country, etc.

It's not like Belgium, where several billions of euros go to SNCB while SNCB can't even make a profit...
AlexNL no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 21st, 2010, 06:13 PM   #342
cjav
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Rotterdam, New Haven
Posts: 725
Likes (Received): 117

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
And I wish the Dutch government fully privatized their passenger operations too, and stopped giving money (more than € 1,4 bln. last year!) to them, while diverting the funds to much more needed highway widening. A matter of priorities. The Netherlands have one of the highest per capita income in the World, we could easily afford - for instance - the sudden cancellation of all discount cards, starting with the students' ones.
You could call student OV indirect subsidies.
Student public transport cards are not just discount cards for public transport, students pay 120 euro a month for these cards, one might say this is cheap, true. However on average not all students travel as much. They are however vital for many students in being able to fund their college degree. Whereas many countries have scholarships for students these are basically absent for dutch student. This combined with the artificially high costs of road travel will impede many students from going to a university of their choice. Considering the value the country is supposed to attribute to education. Those cards are but a small cost. If these small indirect subsidies enables travel I think it is worth it.
People would not easily afford the cancellation of such discounts. Considering transport costs are significant. Not everyone can afford having to pay hundreds of euros a month extra. Those that cannot afford car travel are completely dependent on public transport.

As for receiving money directly, Alex is right the NS does not receive subsidies, it however does pay dividend. On the other hand prorail does receive subsidies, but they are also 100% state owned. In my eyes the government is responsibel for rails infrastructure as much as roads.
cjav no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2010, 07:00 PM   #343
ArthurK
Legum Magister Scientiae
 
ArthurK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,360
Likes (Received): 8

I agree, but I do expect the Student Card will disappear within a few years. It's one of the easiest ways for cutting the public spending, as most students live in the city of their university. I expect the card to be replaced by a montly "student travel budget" on the OV-Chipcard, or just free travel between the city of their residence and the city where they are studying. Or a combination of those.

Such change of policy would have a big effect on the public transport in The Netherlands. But it will be inevitable; we can't continue to spend a significant part of the education budget to public transport. Plus, it would encourage students to live on their own in the city of their study, instead of staying at their parents' house and travel to the university everyday.
ArthurK no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2010, 09:51 AM   #344
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21251

The Studenten OV-Chipkaart is not that bad in terms of being a separate program with an independent budget allocation, contrary to what happens in other countries where students travel with discounts or for free at the expense of the transportation companies' budgets.

What I don't understand is why, particularly with the new OV-Chipkaart, can't the government control the use of transportation by students. I understand and, as long as it is allocated as part of educational budget, agree with helping students to attend universities they otherwise couldn't. Still, I see and I've read about a lot of "wrong signals" sent by the free transportation cards, for instance, allowing students who find their University cities' not attractive to live elsewhere and commute (happens a lot here in Tilburg), providing free transportation for night outs in the bigger cities (what is the point of gov't subsidizing students' clubbing?), and even the choice of some part-time jobs in cities up to 1h away by train whose salary, particularly for those younger than 20, wouldn't be enough to pay a monthly pass in that route.

So maybe there are a lot of opportunities to cut expenses down without compromising the core function of this program - allow students to attend college and professional schools. The new RFID ticketing system just make it far more easy to "tweak" the program. Do you live in Heerlen and study in Maastricht? Then you have no business using your student card to go to Eindhoven!
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2010, 05:19 PM   #345
AlexNL
Registered User
 
AlexNL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 537

This has been suggested before, but the outcome was that it would not be interesting at all to tweak the program as it would mean much more administrative overhead for OCW DUO (the organisation responsible for the SOVC). Just look at the amount of things that went wrong during the initial roll-out of the SOVC a couple of months ago, where students had to wait in lines for hours to then find out that they either got the wrong product or didn't get anything at all.

A couple of years ago, the OV-studentenkaart was valid 24/7, as opposed to the current situation with work week and weekend cards. This led to the start of a courier service by public transport... students were earning money with the OV-SK, which was a gift! The rules changed eventually, splitting the OV-SK in the two parts we know nowadays: the week card (valid from monday morning to saturday morning, 4:00) and the weekend card (valid from friday, noon until monday morning, 4:00).

Changing the current SOVC from a net pass to a trajectory pass would mean that for each student a seperate product would have to be created and placed on the students' card, which would need travel rights for their home city (i.e. Tilburg), to their university city (i.e. Nijmegen) and also for public transport in Nijmegen to get to the university buildings and back. While it might sounds more 'fair' towards the other people it wouldn't be as cost-efficient as some people suggest it to be.
AlexNL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2010, 11:08 PM   #346
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
The planet in which rail is a premium service heading only toward high-speed services, leaving the bulk of slow-speed traffic to roads and highways. The planet in which rail companies act like airlines, not like a public service agency. The planet in which rail routes are cut like airline services for economic reasons and nobody can complain like it was a "right" to have transport over tracks in their city or so. The planet that requires advance planning of hefty on spot fees. The planet in which outdated and Third World on-board ticketing was abolished in the name of efficiency.
I still find the idea of throwing away billions in positive externalities in the name of "efficiency" rather absurd.

Quote:
Trenitalia is far from perfect, and I'm the first to point its ailments and shortcomings, and its plagued by some remnants of union action, but at least it is on the right track. The last economic crisis just set the in the mood to study the closure of more than 700km of tracks, local ones, small branches, which is a good move. We have too many rail lines and need to build more highways to replace some of them. Exactly like Italy has been doing since the first Berlusconi Cabinet in 1996.

Now I'm with fingers crossed for full privatization of Trenitalia (I mean the passenger operator, not of RFI or any infrastructure operator).
Italy is the only country in Europe where a private company thinks it has a shot at successfully competing with the incumbent. That says a lot about the incumbent, and was basically why I was so amazed at Trenitalia being declared the best high speed operator in the Europe.
I'd say that it's rather the oposite. Every other high speed railway operator in the world does it better than Trenitalia...

Quote:
And I wish the Dutch government fully privatized their passenger operations too, and stopped giving money (more than € 1,4 bln. last year!) to them, while diverting the funds to much more needed highway widening. A matter of priorities. The Netherlands have one of the highest per capita income in the World, we could easily afford - for instance - the sudden cancellation of all discount cards, starting with the students' ones.
The Netherlands actually does spend money on highway widening too. They even undertook the highways and the railway to the Dutch - Belgian border at the same time.
However, highway widening has it's limit. No amount of highway widening will for example solve the traffic jams on the A12 towards Den Haag every morning.

Last edited by K_; August 23rd, 2010 at 07:41 AM.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 01:00 AM   #347
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21251

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
However, hight widening has it's limit. No amount of highway widening will for example solve the traffic jams on the A12 towards Den Haag every morning.
Massive urban (underground and elevated) highway construction can solve it.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 08:16 AM   #348
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Massive urban (underground and elevated) highway construction can solve it.
Basically you are proposing to save our cities by destroying them?
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 09:12 AM   #349
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21251

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Basically you are proposing to save our cities by destroying them?
"Save" cities? What are you talking about? We need to go past this discourse of "saving" cities from development like it were a bad thing. Most European cities were not originally planned to fit the superior benefits brought by the car, hence, they need to be reinvented and so.

Urban highways, underground if it is the case (whey they bother no one), is part of the solution - together with biofuels, electric cars and so.

The cities need to be saved from environwackism and NIMBYism, indeed.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 09:41 AM   #350
AlexNL
Registered User
 
AlexNL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 537

The problem with asphalt is that the more roads you build, the more cars will run on it which eventually means you'll have to start building more roads just to cope with demand. It's a vicious circle, and if you keep following it you'll end up with a city that's nothing more than a huge slab of asphalt.

The car definitely has its advantages, but to solve the traffic jams problem people would need to be triggered not to take the car everywhere. Take London's congestion charge, for example. I think this is a fine incentive to try and keep people out of the city centre with their cars, they should dump their car somewhere at a nearby parking lot and take public transport from there.

Rail shouldn't be for the elite, as that will mean more cars on the road. It should be for everyone, available and accessible at any time, and it should be financially attracting enough so the number of cars on the roads gets reduced.
AlexNL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 10:35 AM   #351
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
"Save" cities? What are you talking about? We need to go past this discourse of "saving" cities from development like it were a bad thing. Most European cities were not originally planned to fit the superior benefits brought by the car, hence, they need to be reinvented and so.
And the people living in these cities are just inconvenient bystanders who should be ignored?
Sorry, but what you propose is not possible in a democracy.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 10:51 AM   #352
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21251

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexNL View Post
The problem with asphalt is that the more roads you build, the more cars will run on it which eventually means you'll have to start building more roads just to cope with demand. It's a vicious circle, and if you keep following it you'll end up with a city that's nothing more than a huge slab of asphalt.
Myth, a leftist one.

Even if cars cost nothing and gas was free (like air you breathe), that doesn't mean people would be driving all day all night. If the built-up footprint of NL were - say - tripled from 13% of total land area to 39% of total land area, you would reduce density to a third of what it is now, spread traffic and, with a decent program of highway building, you could easily move people around.

Gosh, drivers were not stay driving all the day, they need to work most of their days like any Western citizen.

The idea of not relieving car congestion to "force" people to use PT is just an excuse to promote a certain living arrangement, which are urban areas too dense to cope with an American-style of car mobility.

Quote:
Rail shouldn't be for the elite, as that will mean more cars on the road. It should be for everyone, available and accessible at any time, and it should be financially attracting enough so the number of cars on the roads gets reduced.
Rail should be able to finance its direct costs. Every Western European government recoup far more in road taxes, car licensing fees and gas levies more than it is spent in road maintenance, construction and so. If the outrageous taxes we pay on gas (I mean the product-specific ones, not the general ones like VAT) were used to, and only to, maintain, build, widen, improve and expand roads (capacity, safety, technology, efficiency), we should be expanding our networks like the Chinese or more.

Same can't be said for rail in many countries, though. Pet rail projects divert money from highway taxes, usually..

Imagine how could would it be if this country (NL) get rid of some of its outdated farms (Dutch are rich, they/we can import our from from Latin America or Africa without feeling the pinch) to adopt a heavily suburbanized urban arrangement where we could more easily choose a neighborhood that fits our personal lifestyles and avoid having to interact with so many people on a daily basis.

======
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 10:53 AM   #353
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21251

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexNL View Post
The problem with asphalt is that the more roads you build, the more cars will run on it which eventually means you'll have to start building more roads just to cope with demand. It's a vicious circle, and if you keep following it you'll end up with a city that's nothing more than a huge slab of asphalt.
Myth, a leftist one.

Even if cars cost nothing and gas were free (like air you breathe), that doesn't mean people would be driving all day all night. If the built-up footprint of NL were - say - tripled from 13% of total land area to 39% of total land area, you would reduce density to a third of what it is now, spread traffic and, with a decent program of highway building, you could easily move people around.

Gosh, drivers were not stay driving all the day, they need to work most of their days like any Western citizen.

The idea of not relieving car congestion to "force" people to use PT is just an excuse to promote a certain living arrangement, which are urban areas too dense to cope with an American-style of car mobility.

Quote:
Rail shouldn't be for the elite, as that will mean more cars on the road. It should be for everyone, available and accessible at any time, and it should be financially attracting enough so the number of cars on the roads gets reduced.
Rail should be able to finance its direct costs. Every Western European government recoup far more in road taxes, car licensing fees and gas levies more than it is spent in road maintenance, construction and so. If the outrageous taxes we pay on gas (I mean the product-specific ones, not the general ones like VAT) were used to, and only to, maintain, build, widen, improve and expand roads (capacity, safety, technology, efficiency), we should be expanding our networks like the Chinese or more.

Same can't be said for rail in many countries, though. Pet rail projects divert money from highway taxes, usually..

Imagine how cool would it be if this country (NL) get rid of some of its outdated farms (Dutch are rich, they/we can import our from from Latin America or Africa without feeling the punch and helping to uproot arcane farming practices in those regions too by promoting 21st Century farming there to meet our demands for which we can pay) to adopt a heavily suburbanized urban arrangement where we could more easily choose a neighborhood that fits our personal lifestyles and avoid having to interact with so many people on a daily basis.

======

In such daydreaming scenario, HS rail would make all sense, hauling people who can pay premium prices faster than cars around the country. But then, with all the problems in HSL Zuid, even the much-needed north branch of HSL will not be built (Amsterdam-Hannover).
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!

Last edited by Suburbanist; August 23rd, 2010 at 10:59 AM.
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 11:18 AM   #354
Dase
Registered User
 
Dase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Moscow / Berlin
Posts: 514
Likes (Received): 61

@ Suburbanist: Are you some kind of time traveller from the 70s? The times of the "superiour benefits" brought by the car are over soon and have destroyed much of european cities during the 50s-70s. Luckily, a lot of rethinking has set in during the past 20 years and the times of massive urban highway construction is over for good. Try to get out of your metal boy once in a while, maybe then you'll get why there's actually a point in avoiding additional individual traffic.

Anyway I'd try to avoid sounding like an old men when the Ph.D is still under development. That you try to avoid having to interact with people on a daily basis just fits into that sorry pciture.

Last edited by Dase; August 23rd, 2010 at 12:38 PM.
Dase no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 11:38 AM   #355
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21251

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dase View Post
@ Suburbanist: Are you some kind of time traveller from the 70s? The times of the "superiour benefits" brought by the car are over soon and have destroyed much of european cities during the 50s-70s.
Europeans, according to EUROSTAT, drive, own an spend more time in cars than in anytime before.

But politicians pay lip service to the environmental-urbanism lobby.

And I'm no "old man", not even 30 LOL, I just don't signed the political green correctness manual and I'm not planning doing so anytime soon.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!

Last edited by Suburbanist; August 23rd, 2010 at 11:58 AM.
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 11:49 AM   #356
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 768

It's an useless waste of time replying to Suburbanist, ideologism doesn't accept discussions or arguments but only what it consider truth.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 12:39 PM   #357
Dase
Registered User
 
Dase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Moscow / Berlin
Posts: 514
Likes (Received): 61

Quote:
And I'm no "old man", not even 30 LOL
That's why I said try to avoid sounding like one. Zeitgeist is playing against your cards.
Dase no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 02:07 PM   #358
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Myth, a leftist one.
You can have a look at Los Angeles. Everything but a leftist myth...


Quote:
Even if cars cost nothing and gas were free (like air you breathe), that doesn't mean people would be driving all day all night. If the built-up footprint of NL were - say - tripled from 13% of total land area to 39% of total land area, you would reduce density to a third of what it is now, spread traffic and, with a decent program of highway building, you could easily move people around.
So you basically propose a big social engineering experiment?

Quote:
Rail should be able to finance its direct costs.
But when doing so, externalities should be considered too, otherwise you end up with a society that is less efficient than it could be.


Quote:
Imagine how cool would it be if this country (NL) get rid of some of its outdated farms (Dutch are rich, they/we can import our from from Latin America or Africa without feeling the punch and helping to uproot arcane farming practices in those regions too by promoting 21st Century farming there to meet our demands for which we can pay) to adopt a heavily suburbanized urban arrangement where we could more easily choose a neighborhood that fits our personal lifestyles and avoid having to interact with so many people on a daily basis.
Again: You're suggesting destroying the country in order to save it...
You must really regret that the Netherlands is a democracy...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 02:50 PM   #359
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21251

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
You can have a look at Los Angeles. Everything but a leftist myth...
LA doesn't have enough highways. Simple as that. LA has less highways per area or per population that other metro areas with far less congestions problems like Houston, Orlando-Tampa, Minneapolis or Salt Lake City.

Quote:
But when doing so, externalities should be considered too, otherwise you end up with a society that is less efficient than it could be.
"Externality" has become a wild card to explain and justify ever financial resource waste in rail projects when the bottom line doesn't add up. "It will increase quality of life". "It will reduce stress and road rage". "It will put the city in a more sustainable track". None of that pay taxes or produce revenue.

Quote:
Again: You're suggesting destroying the country in order to save it...
You must really regret that the Netherlands is a democracy...
Not at all. I do think that the environmental-urbanism lobby hijacks much of technical and financial debate about how free the real estate market should be to build pretty much wherever it wants. But I strongly support Democracy, so I myself consider car-friendless as one of my major factors while deciding my votes. I'd tolerate certain degrees of ideas in other fields I don't support just to vote for a politician who will be deaf to the scare-mongering tactics of mainstream urban planners.

As for the "destruction" part, where you see destruction I see transformation. It is like when you chop down a forest to plant soybean, like some friends of mine do by the thousands of hectares in South America. You are not destroying anything, just replacing with something else.

What European country would need, in 2010, a strong agricultural sector that can't compete modern plantations in US, Canada, Australia and Latina America (and even in more stable areas of Africa?). Farmland is useless. So let's take out the strings of housing market and allow the market forces to determine where and how cities should expand.

Then the government should provide infrastructure at the lowest possible cost, like high-speed rail, airports, highways an so. This is how a society should function. A Democracy with strong doses of free-market.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 03:29 PM   #360
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
LA doesn't have enough highways. Simple as that.
About 70% of the surface area of Los Angeles is dedicated to the Automobile. And you think that is not enough?

Quote:
"Externality" has become a wild card to explain and justify ever financial resource waste in rail projects when the bottom line doesn't add up. "It will increase quality of life". "It will reduce stress and road rage". "It will put the city in a more sustainable track". None of that pay taxes or produce revenue.
The externality is however real. And it can be "added up" and does "pay taxes" and does "produce revenue". That you seem to miss this does indicate that there is quite a bit still lacking in your understanding of transport economics.
For example: Proximity to public transport does increase the value of real estate, which in turn increases tax revenue (well, it does were I live).

Quote:
But I strongly support Democracy, so I myself consider car-friendless as one of my major factors while deciding my votes. I'd tolerate certain degrees of ideas in other fields I don't support just to vote for a politician who will be deaf to the scare-mongering tactics of mainstream urban planners.
So basically if the population votes in favor of more spending for public transport (as it does in Switzerland) that this should be OK for you.

Quote:
As for the "destruction" part, where you see destruction I see transformation. It is like when you chop down a forest to plant soybean, like some friends of mine do by the thousands of hectares in South America. You are not destroying anything, just replacing with something else.
I doubt you will find many people who, when confronted with the suggestion of replacing downtown Amsterdam with something looking like downtown Los Angeles, would call it "transformation" and not simply "destruction".
K_ 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 10:08 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