HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #981  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2012, 7:54 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
If you can provide any credible source supporting your assertion that existing road and runway infrastructure shall, 20-30 years from now, adequately handle the increased intra-state travel produced by ongoing population growth then please do so.

Or is it that you are totally okay with spending nearly twice as much on freeways and runways as we will on high-speed rail, because you just feel better about one kind of government transportation spending over another--even if it costs more and pollutes more? We know electric trains pollute less than cars and airplanes right now, and that electric trains will remain a clean technology regardless of what other modes can or cannot attain. You like to assert all cars will be electric by the projected opening of CAHSR, which is not obviously true, and argue the state must go all-in and commit to today's petroleum-based transportation modes without any certainty the airports and long haul freeways will pollute the air any less in the future than they do now. They promised us flying cars in the future, too, and we would have been stupid to stake our state's air quality and transportation infrastructure investments on such baseless fantasies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Please!!! The California government is rock-solid Democrat (gov, lt. gov, senate, assembly). Nevertheless, the the state auditor, the inspector general, the legislative analyst and the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies (as goofy left as anyone in the US) have ripped HSR a new one on the lack of any comprehensible business plan. Have you been reading the news for the last 2 years?

Your money comparisons are apples and oranges (again). The only likely candidate for expansion would be 5 and it is moving just fine; I drive it regularly and it does 80 the whole way. Money spent on other freeways around the state is not relevant to HSR.

As for air, Ontario is CLOSING a terminal for underuse; SJ has huge excess capacity; LAX is finishing an expansion; Burbank and OC move easily and are not crowded; Oakland has an advertising campaign since they have so much excess capacity.

I agree on the degradation and pollution; but they are in LA and the IE not in the CV. In any case, the contribution of LA-Bay traffic to pollution in the CV is microscopic. Not even measurable. Look to local city driving, local trucks, big rigs, industry and ag uses for the real culprits. And, as noted before, in 30 years when HSR is complete, commuter cars will be entirely electric or hybrid.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013

Last edited by fflint; Jan 10, 2012 at 8:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #982  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2012, 8:15 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
fflint:
Quote:
If you can provide any credible source supporting your assertion that existing road and runway infrastructure shall, 20-30 years from now, adequately handle the increased intra-state travel produced by ongoing population growth then please do so.
I think you mean 60-70 years from now-- that is the planning timeframe for a project of this size. The updated high speed rail business plan estimates construction will be completed by 2030-33 and this will have a 40-50 year lifecycle, so that is 2070-80.

It is extremely difficult to predict population or travel behavior that far out but I think it is safe to say that the existing infrastructure in 2012 is nowhere near adequate for the population of 2070.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #983  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2012, 6:47 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
If you can provide any credible source supporting your assertion that existing road and runway infrastructure shall, 20-30 years from now, adequately handle the increased intra-state travel produced by ongoing population growth then please do so.

Or is it that you are totally okay with spending nearly twice as much on freeways and runways as we will on high-speed rail, because you just feel better about one kind of government transportation spending over another--even if it costs more and pollutes more? We know electric trains pollute less than cars and airplanes right now, and that electric trains will remain a clean technology regardless of what other modes can or cannot attain. You like to assert all cars will be electric by the projected opening of CAHSR, which is not obviously true, and argue the state must go all-in and commit to today's petroleum-based transportation modes without any certainty the airports and long haul freeways will pollute the air any less in the future than they do now. They promised us flying cars in the future, too, and we would have been stupid to stake our state's air quality and transportation infrastructure investments on such baseless fantasies.
I'm really not interested in beating on poor HSR any more. The good news is that the current analyses seem to be focusing on building-out the LA and Bay Areas where there are real problems.

If you are sincere about air pollution, two thoughts: First, pollution is most common in LA, the IE, the South Bay (SJ) and inland North Bay. These would all be helped by building local HSR over the next 5-10 years. Putting anything in the CV that carries meaningful traffic would take 30 years (you would have to complete SF, SJ, LA and CV to get substantial traffic). By then HSR doesn't help anything because all the commuting cars are electric (again, excepting SUV's, trucks and such, which don't compete against HSR).

Second, even if the above weren't true, LA-Bay traffic is immaterial to the CV. You need to address local car traffic, trucks, industrial and ag uses if you are really interested in reducing pollution there. (Interestingly, electric vehicles will have their big impact in the CV from reducing pollution with respect to local driving within the Bako, Fresno, Stockton, etc., metros, but that's not meaningfully related to HSR.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #984  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2012, 7:29 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post

As for air, Ontario is CLOSING a terminal for underuse; SJ has huge excess capacity; LAX is finishing an expansion; Burbank and OC move easily and are not crowded; Oakland has an advertising campaign since they have so much excess capacity.
The problems with your argument are as follows:

1) Ontario is closing a terminal because the vast majority of people in the LA area aren't going to drive all the way out to Ontario to catch a flight. For me, the drive would be longer than the flight if I were going anywhere west of Chicago. Moreover, the airlines won't use airports like Ontario because there are no connecting flights in most instances. Airports like LAX are hubs; airports like Burbank, Ontario, Long Beach, and John Wayne are not. That is why LAX has more traffic than all of them put together and always will.

2) LAX is enlarging the international terminal but the airport is still a mess. The 405 is a semi-permanent parking lot and always will be; mass transit access is limited; parking is expensive and the remote lots add too much time to the trip; the airport is too large and even the "upgraded" terminals are like bus stations. It's like its own third-world country.

3) In the Bay Area, SFO is the hub; San Jose, in spite of serving Silicon Valley, can't seem to attract carriers or flights, probably because all of the connections are at SFO. Oakland is in the middle of a damned slum. I have a friend at Berkeley who is more than happy to take BART all the way over to SFO just to avoid Oakland and the likelihood of getting mugged waiting for the shuttle from the BART station to the terminal. The two big advantages SFO has over LAX are (1) accessibility to mass transit and (2) relative compactness. But if you think SFO will EVER be able to expand its capacity, I want some of what you're smoking.

There is one airport in LA and there is one in the Bay Area and that's how it's always going to be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #985  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2012, 9:08 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
LA-Bay traffic is immaterial to the CV. You need to address local car traffic, trucks, industrial and ag uses if you are really interested in reducing pollution there.
North-south freeway trips within California strongly affect Central Valley air quality, and CAHSR can be part of the solution to bad air in the middle of the state.

The Central Valley has endured seven weeks of record pollution this winter, and the #2 contributor to the hazardous PM 2.5 readings is, according to ABC News, long-haul trucks rolling up and down the 5 and 99 freeways:

"Cutting through the valley are the state's two main north-south highway corridors, the routes for nearly all long-distance tractor trailer rigs, the No. 2 source of particulate pollution in the valley." http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/r...tland-15311690

CAHSR can replace some of those polluting trucks. The CAHSR Authority has already expressed interest in carrying "small packages, parcels, letters, or any other freight that would not exceed typical passenger loads" in "either specialized freight cars on passenger trains or on dedicated lightweight freight trains" with the "same performance characteristics as the passenger equipment....without adjustment to the passenger operational plan or modification to the passenger stations." http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/technology.aspx

CAHSR freight service would, the Authority says, work especially well for moving "medium-weight high-value, time-sensitive goods (such as electronic equipment or perishable items) on the high-speed train track...overnight when it wouldn’t interfere with passenger operations..." Source: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/technology.aspx

To recap, the facts show long-haul trucks plying the 5 and 99 freeways between Northern and Southern California are the #2 cause of hazardous Central Valley air pollution this winter; CAHSR can take some of those polluting trucks off the congested north-south freeways in the Central Valley.

You only discredit yourself when you continue to post opinions rooted not in the facts, but rooted only in your own biases and wishful thinking.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013

Last edited by fflint; Jan 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #986  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2012, 5:48 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
CAHSR can replace some of those polluting trucks. The CAHSR Authority has already expressed interest in carrying "small packages, parcels, letters, or any other freight that would not exceed typical passenger loads" in "either specialized freight cars on passenger trains or on dedicated lightweight freight trains" with the "same performance characteristics as the passenger equipment....without adjustment to the passenger operational plan or modification to the passenger stations." http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/technology.aspx

CAHSR freight service would, the Authority says, work especially well for moving "medium-weight high-value, time-sensitive goods (such as electronic equipment or perishable items) on the high-speed train track...overnight when it wouldn’t interfere with passenger operations..." Source: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/technology.aspx

To recap, the facts show long-haul trucks plying the 5 and 99 freeways between Northern and Southern California are the #2 cause of hazardous Central Valley air pollution this winter; CAHSR can take some of those polluting trucks off the congested north-south freeways in the Central Valley.

You only discredit yourself when you continue to post opinions rooted not in the facts, but rooted only in your own biases and wishful thinking.
Get real, the very minute the UP or BNSF believe CHSR will move freight, and become their competitors, that's when they start tripling and quadrupling costs associated with the construction of CHSR on their right-of-ways. Look at what the freights did to Amtrak trains a decade ago for some history. History is better than facts - especially when you completely and purposely overlooked it. If you look at recent history, you'll know that the freights will take drastic steps to prevent it, possibly kicking commuter rail off their tracks in retaliation.

And we all know that heavy freight railcars are very, very, very bad for the material condition of HSR tracks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #987  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2012, 6:35 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
Tulare County supervisors unanimously oppose high-speed rail (Fresno Bee)

Tulare County supervisors unanimously oppose high-speed rail

By Lewis Griswold
The Fresno Bee
Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012

"The Tulare County Board of Supervisors today voted unanimously to oppose the planned bullet train through the Valley.

By taking a stand, the county joins Kings County and the city of Bakersfield in opposing the planned high-speed rail project from Los Angeles to San Francisco via the Central Valley.

The rail project, estimated at $98 billion, is too expensive, supervisors said..."

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/01/10/...animously.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #988  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2012, 6:40 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
High-speed rail's downtown Fresno station plans not causing much of stir

High-speed rail's downtown Fresno station plans not causing much of stir


By Russell Clemings
The Fresno Bee
Saturday, Jan. 07, 2012

"High-speed rail may someday be the salvation of Fresno's beleaguered downtown.

From the look of things so far, though, you wouldn't know it.

Last month's designation by the California High-Speed Rail Authority of a station site at Mariposa and G streets has been met with a yawn by the local real estate community..."

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/01/07/...ion-plans.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #989  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2012, 6:49 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
The problems with your argument are as follows:

1) Ontario is closing a terminal because the vast majority of people in the LA area aren't going to drive all the way out to Ontario to catch a flight. For me, the drive would be longer than the flight if I were going anywhere west of Chicago. Moreover, the airlines won't use airports like Ontario because there are no connecting flights in most instances. Airports like LAX are hubs; airports like Burbank, Ontario, Long Beach, and John Wayne are not. That is why LAX has more traffic than all of them put together and always will.

2) LAX is enlarging the international terminal but the airport is still a mess. The 405 is a semi-permanent parking lot and always will be; mass transit access is limited; parking is expensive and the remote lots add too much time to the trip; the airport is too large and even the "upgraded" terminals are like bus stations. It's like its own third-world country.

3) In the Bay Area, SFO is the hub; San Jose, in spite of serving Silicon Valley, can't seem to attract carriers or flights, probably because all of the connections are at SFO. Oakland is in the middle of a damned slum. I have a friend at Berkeley who is more than happy to take BART all the way over to SFO just to avoid Oakland and the likelihood of getting mugged waiting for the shuttle from the BART station to the terminal. The two big advantages SFO has over LAX are (1) accessibility to mass transit and (2) relative compactness. But if you think SFO will EVER be able to expand its capacity, I want some of what you're smoking.

There is one airport in LA and there is one in the Bay Area and that's how it's always going to be.
Sorry, almost every word is wrong or just hateful venting. LAX and SFO are the great national and international airports but not so much for flights within Califronia.

Oakland has MORE flights to the LA area than SF does. Your friend in Berkeley needs to get over his racism. Much of my family lives in Oakland and they fly to NY, Hawaii and all over California without going through any worse slums than you would going to Candlestick, ATT, Staples, Dodger Stadium, etc. In any event, most traffic comes by car.

SJ has just built an enormous new terminal and is growing fast. You'll be pleased to know it is not in a ghetto.

Similarly, the other LA area airports combined have far more flights to the Bay than LAX does.

This is what make HSR a loser for these trips. It's already easy to find an airport close to you (Burbank, LB, Ontario, LAX, OC). But HSR will only offer "non-stops" from Union Station (and these will actually have stops).

Finally, I'm not sure what the LAX vs. SFO issue is about.

Last edited by pesto; Jan 12, 2012 at 7:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #990  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2012, 7:07 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Fflint: I would love to see all the trucks between LA and the Bay get onto rail.

But that is not relevant to HSR. We're talking about 350 miles, so I question how much product there is that would be too urgent for normal rail but couldn't use air. I couldn't find this analysis in their business plan so I'm thinking it is not material (and I doubt that those 18-wheelers are carrying "small packages, parcels and letters").

The possibility that LA to Bay trucks on 5 and 99 are at all comparable to the pollution generated by the 8M or so people living, working and building in Sacto., Fresno, Bako, etc., strikes me as absurd. Remember that the trucks are also going to Oregon, Washington and Canada to the north; and Arizona, Texas, etc., to the south. You often see chicken from Arkansas, industrial equipment from Ohio, lumber from Oregon, etc. These are not affected by California HSR at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #991  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 4:16 AM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
California bullet train CEO, chairman stepping down (LA TImes)

California bullet train CEO, chairman stepping down


By Dan Weikel and Ralph Vartabedian
January 12, 2012
Los Angeles Times

"The chief executive of the state’s high-speed rail agency resigned Thursday amid growing criticism of the $98.5-billion bullet train project and declining public support for the proposal.

Roelof van Ark, 59, announced his departure in a major shakeup that included the replacement of attorney Thomas Umberg, a former state legislator, as chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors.

Umberg will recommend that Dan Richard, who was recently appointed to the board by Gov. Jerry Brown, assume his leadership role. Van Ark said he will leave in two months, while Umberg will step down in February..."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ing-down-.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #992  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 4:21 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
I would love....I question....I couldn't find...I'm thinking....strikes me as....
I don't care what you're feeling or wondering or how the truth strikes you, I care about the facts. I linked to the CAHSR Authority, ABC News, etc. to back up what I was saying about the 5 and 99 freeways being the #2 cause of this season's record, hazardous air pollution and CAHSR's published interest in picking up some intra-state freight business from high-pollution trucks.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #993  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 4:44 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Get real....that's when they start....will take drastic steps...possibly kicking commuter rail off their tracks...
Conjecture is never a compelling argument. You declare these things will happen, but that is not obviously true, regardless of what has happened in the past. All you predict might come to pass--or it might not. We don't know either way.

Quote:
History is better than facts
That is obviously false. If you're trying to put together a compelling logical argument about anything, you must provide true premises and sound logic. History can inform your premises, but predictions about the future--no matter on what they are based--are never as good a premise as a fact is. Period. Logic has rules. You don't have to follow them, but then you're just talking shit and nobody need pay attention.

Quote:
And we all know that heavy freight railcars are very, very, very bad for the material condition of HSR tracks.
Who said heavy freight railcars would share CAHSR rail lines? I quoted and linked to the Authority talking about weight specifically.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #994  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2012, 7:48 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
California bullet train CEO, chairman stepping down


By Dan Weikel and Ralph Vartabedian
January 12, 2012
Los Angeles Times

"The chief executive of the state’s high-speed rail agency resigned Thursday amid growing criticism of the $98.5-billion bullet train project and declining public support for the proposal.

Roelof van Ark, 59, announced his departure in a major shakeup that included the replacement of attorney Thomas Umberg, a former state legislator, as chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors.

Umberg will recommend that Dan Richard, who was recently appointed to the board by Gov. Jerry Brown, assume his leadership role. Van Ark said he will leave in two months, while Umberg will step down in February..."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ing-down-.html
This is a good move. Another useful exercise would be to look into the funding of the original intiative campaign and the web sites that have been pushing the HSR agenda. This might help sort out what sorts of political stuff was going on in the background, since on its face the plans did not make much sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #995  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2012, 3:44 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
Brown enlarges his role in California's foundering bullet train project (LA Times)

Brown enlarges his role in California's foundering bullet train project

With the $100-billion project at a critical juncture, the governor puts his people in key positions.

By Ralph Vartabedian and Dan Weikel
Los Angeles Times
January 14, 2012


Roelof van Ark is stepping down as head of the California High Speed Rail Authority. (Image courtesy of the LA Times)

"A surprise shake-up of senior leaders at California's bullet-train agency this week was partly Gov. Jerry Brown's response to a growing crisis of confidence and credibility in recent months that has threatened the political viability of the project.

As criticism of the project has intensified, Brown has moved to exert more direct control, installing two representatives on the board of the California High Speed Rail Authority and, on Thursday, playing at least a peripheral role in replacing the authority's chief executive, Roelof van Ark. Several state government sources said Van Ark, an engineering manager and high-speed rail expert, had become personally frustrated and lost the confidence of some key legislators.

Brown is under pressure from unions, engineering firms, big-city mayors and the Obama administration to stabilize and press ahead on a nearly $100-billion project that would be the biggest in California's lofty history of extraordinary public works gambles. With so much at stake, Brown is putting his own people in charge, although their ability to quickly reverse the damage of a wave of negative outside reviews of the project remains unclear..."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #996  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2012, 1:57 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
Spain's high-speed rail system offers lessons for California (Sacramento Bee)

Spain's high-speed rail system offers lessons for California

By Tim Sheehan
Sacramento Bee
Sunday, Jan. 15, 2012

"MADRID – It's 8 a.m. at the Puerto de Atocha train station in central Madrid. Business travelers armed with cellphones and laptops, and pleasure travelers toting cameras and carry-on bags, make their way through security to board the high-speed trains that connect Spain's capital to cities across the nation.

The sprawling station, which dates to the 1890s, serves not only the AVE, or Alta Velocidad Española (Spanish high-speed) trains, but also the city's metro subway and commuter trains. It sits amid a bustling district of offices, museums, hotels and other businesses.

This is the vision shared by backers of California's proposed, but controversial, high-speed rail system – and there are lessons that California can learn from Spain's 20-year history with high-speed trains.."

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/15/418...te-offers.html


Image courtesy of the Sacramento Bee.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #997  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2012, 7:01 PM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 2,720
^I remember a lot of early comparisons between CA and Spain on several different railway projects (and between LA and Madrid I think for their respective metros).

As much as I want high speed rail, I noticed that the chart did not compare the costs of building the lines in Spain with the costs of building the lines in CA. I don't know much about this subject other than I keep hearing an estimate in the high $90 billions range for the CA network. How much (adjusted) did it cost Spain? Anyone have any numbers?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #998  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2012, 7:47 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,526
it would be a lot cheaper due to cheaper labor. it would probably be $5-10 an hour there, but califoria will be paying $30.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #999  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 11:50 PM
Ragnar Ragnar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 188
L.A. Times:

Doubts Cast On Cost Estimates For High-Speed Rail Alternatives
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4293248.story

Not surprising that it appears the cost estimates for building HSR alternatives have been severely exagerrated by HSR proponents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1000  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 2:59 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Notice how the opponents are so strategical in their attempt to kill the project.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:50 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.