Elon Musk’s Latest Plan Is To Dig Underground Tunnels To Avoid Traffic Jams

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
I think Elon may have just started his holiday drinking early, but he is supposedly starting a tunnel-boring company to offset traffic. He already has the best way to mitigate traffic, though, which is self-driving cars…

Elon Musk took to Twitter early this morning to sketch out a new plan to disrupt traffic on American roadways by digging tunnels underground to circumvent congestion. Specifically, Musk wants to open The Boring Company, which he says will actually happen. In a series of four tweets, Musk didn’t reveal exactly how he would do this without causing even more traffic, since that’s what happens with construction projects. But the serial entrepreneur did update his Twitter bio to read, “Tesla, SpaceX, Tunnels (yes, tunnels) & OpenAI.”
 
The only way to stop traffic is to reduce population. Here in Socal we spent billions widening our freeways by adding lanes and guess what happened? Nothing. Why, you ask? More people started using the widened freeways so traffic actually increased and the congestion continued. The most recent project of widening our 405 freeway in the Hollywood area was deemed a total failure soon after it was completed.
 
Last edited:
He must have been drunk and watching the simpsons stone cutters episode where Homer uses tunnel to escape traffic.
 
The only way to stop traffic is to reduce population. Here in Socal we spent billions widening our freeways by adding lanes and guess what happened? Nothing. Why, you ask? More people started using the widened freeways so traffic actually increased and the congestion continued. The most recent project of widening our 405 freeway in the Hollywood area was deemed a total failure soon after it was completed.

Trains, high speed rail, buses.

Or find a way to lure populations away from the economic nexus of metropolitan areas to more rural regions.
 
Yup junior year I looked into the topic of TOD (Transit Oriented Development). Mind you, I've been working for 10 years now so my academic endeavors are somewhat faded now. But if I'm recalling my presentation, to actually accomplish this requires real, substantial culture change.

Urban planning, traffic and civil engineering is only a small part - but you still need to accomplish society buy-in. That's at all levels - investors, developers, policy makers, users, business owners, etc.
 
The only way to stop traffic is to reduce population. Here in Socal we spent billions widening our freeways by adding lanes and guess what happened? Nothing. Why, you ask? More people started using the widened freeways so traffic actually increased and the congestion continued. The most recent project of widening our 405 freeway in the Hollywood area was deemed a total failure soon after it was completed.
Absolutely. When are urban planners going to get it through their skulls that designing cities around the automobile is a terrible idea whose inevitable result is traffic jams and frustration? Buses and trains are nice, but I don't see a critical mass of middle-class America ever becoming willing to sit around at a stop and then sit next to a stranger.

The best solution is the electric bicycle, specifically Class 3 ebikes that can do 28 MPH. With proper protected lanes, most trips in most cities can be done much faster by ebike than by car and infinitely more enjoyable and less damaging to the road infrastructure, environment, and with profound health benefits. That is currently a pie-in-the-sky idea however, given the current cultural attitudes about bikes.

The next best is car and ride sharing. Uber can't wait to fire all its drivers and stop paying them 75% of their revenue, and when that happens the fares will drop dramatically. I can already get anywhere in my city for $4.75 to 6 or 7 bucks with a Lyft Line (granted my city is 7 x 7 miles so that won't apply to most people), and I expect that to drop to about $2 with self-driving vehicles, or $1 if you schedule a 20-person minibus in advance like the one Elon Musk recently proposed. The case for owning your own vehicle as an urbanite is already poor, and will be considered madness in another 5-10 years. Public transit and new car sales will be casualties, but overall traffic will improve and it will be much cheaper and easier to get around with fewer carbon emissions from transportation.
 
The next best is car and ride sharing. Uber can't wait to fire all its drivers and stop paying them 75% of their revenue, and when that happens the fares will drop dramatically. I can already get anywhere in my city for $4.75 to 6 or 7 bucks with a Lyft Line (granted my city is 7 x 7 miles so that won't apply to most people), and I expect that to drop to about $2 with self-driving vehicles, or $1 if you schedule a 20-person minibus in advance like the one Elon Musk recently proposed. The case for owning your own vehicle as an urbanite is already poor, and will be considered madness in another 5-10 years. Public transit and new car sales will be casualties, but overall traffic will improve and it will be much cheaper and easier to get around with fewer carbon emissions from transportation.
Hiring cars to drive people is by far the least efficient method of transporting people considering the amount of dead miles that will be incurred in going from passenger to passenger.

You already point people don't like sitting with strangers in buses and trains, what makes you think they'll sit with strangers in a car or minibus? And of course, given the pitiful earnings of Uber drivers who make do with old, depreciated cars while skimping on maintenance as much as possible, the cost savings of removing the driver will be nil. But given the unprecedented losses of Lyft and especially Uber, they're not going to be around to see that day anyways.

But in reality, as with everything in the past that made privately owned vehicles more convenient and easier to use, self-driving tech is going to make privately owned vehicles eve more popular. It'll also remove the need for almost all fleet services and much of mass transit.
 
Last edited:
The only way to stop traffic is to get rid of the necessity of being in an office. And actually most office jobs could be done from home. The problem is that there is no work ethic for it. Bosses doesn't even want to hear about it, because they think if they can't breath down the neck of the employees they won't work.

But Musk does need to do some digging. For that hyperloop thing to work it needs to go underground. Because exposed to the sun, he'll have a nasty problem with thermal expansion.
 
With cities already a bit like Swiss cheese underground, adding to that with even more tunnels and ventilation is just going to make it worse. Even cities that lack metro rails can have horrendously bad storm management systems and antiquated (and forgotten even) tunnel systems below the surface. Columbus, Ohio, where I live, floods downtown every time it rains. Adding tunnels to it will solve that issue, to an extent, but only to flood out the new car tunnels instead. I can't imagine trying that in cities like LA or NYC or DC which have tunnels everywhere already and, at least with the east coast, have issues with sinking into the muck the city is built upon.

Americans, to alleviate congestion, will have to have a cultural shift. Either we stop building deeper and deeper into megalopolises and begin to really spread out, or we start doing what major cities worldwide do and push very heavily into mass transit and bicycles and, most dreaded of all, walking. Whilst we have miles of empty space, our population is jam-packed to the coasts and in city clusters. I really hate driving the interstates because of that around cities. Driving I-90 in Wyoming? Fantastic. I-90 up by Cleveland, Chicago, or Seattle? Just an awful experience of cars and freight. Driving through our labyrinthine cities is even worse running into one ways, special lanes, construction and people. And even if you do manage to drive to your destination, you then either can't find parking or pay dearly for it. It was a mistake to build our cities around the car but we're too stubborn to attempt any sort of meaningful solution, especially in older, eastern cities which were built around walking, horses, and carts rather than cars. Of course, consolidating our freight off of the roads onto trains could also help greatly. That too was a terrible mistake on our part of putting far too much reliance into truck freight rather than rail.
 
Pneumatic launchers. Think Habitrails mixed with your local bank's drive-through air canister. That's the future. Get in your pod, "whoosh!", and you're there. ;)
 
The best solution is the electric bicycle, specifically Class 3 ebikes that can do 28 MPH. With proper protected lanes, most trips in most cities can be done much faster by ebike than by car and infinitely more enjoyable and less damaging to the road infrastructure, environment, and with profound health benefits. That is currently a pie-in-the-sky idea however, given the current cultural attitudes about bikes.
Er, not for this country. Unless you live in SF or NY, that's an unrealistic idea. The US is sprawling. Getting from one city to the next, can not be done rapidly on a slow, limited range bike.
 
If it's done right, tunnels would be very welcome around here. Subways have been around for decades and people still use them. It's just the inverse of flying.

I have one of those jobs where you can't telecommute.
 
Er, not for this country. Unless you live in SF or NY, that's an unrealistic idea. The US is sprawling. Getting from one city to the next, can not be done rapidly on a slow, limited range bike.
When I said "my city is 7 x 7 miles" that meant that I live in San Francisco :) I did acknowledge that it was pie-in-the-sky in my post. However even sprawling cities don't necessarily need to be designed with the nearest grocery store being a Super Walmart 25 miles away. Proper bike infrastructure would create demand for smaller stores closer to home even in a spread out city like Phoenix, not that I expect political support to materialize anytime between now and the heat death of the universe.
 
Hiring cars to drive people is by far the least efficient method of transporting people considering the amount of dead miles that will be incurred in going from passenger to passenger.
I drove for Lyft and Uber for a while and hardly deadheaded any of my miles (industry jargon for driving without a passenger). Granted I'm in SF which is very densely packed, but I suspect that even nationwide the deadhead miles are offset by the ones with multiple passengers.

You already point people don't like sitting with strangers in buses and trains, what makes you think they'll sit with strangers in a car or minibus? And of course, given the pitiful earnings of Uber drivers who make do with old, depreciated cars while skimping on maintenance as much as possible, the cost savings of removing the driver will be nil. But given the unprecedented losses of Lyft and especially Uber, they're not going to be around to see that day anyways.
Are you kidding? You don't think that reclaiming 75% of their gross earnings will help their bottom line?

As to the stranger issue, the main difference between a Lyft Line / Uber Pool and a bus is that the person you're sitting next to is a lot less likely to be homeless or disturbed, however people who can afford to ride alone will continue to do so and that's their perogative.

But in reality, as with everything in the past that made privately owned vehicles more convenient and easier to use, self-driving tech is going to make privately owned vehicles eve more popular. It'll also remove the need for almost all fleet services and much of mass transit.
Before I got rid of it, my car was costing me $530 per month even if I didn't drive it, and it was a Honda Fit, one of the least expensive cars to own. It would take a lot of Lyft rides to equal that! Sure, you could own a self-driving car and have it drop you off at your destination and find a parking spot or drive back home, or you could ride in someone else's car for a lot less and let them worry about fuel, maintenance, insurance, depreciation, accidents, parking tickets, broken windows, and breakdowns. I know which one sounds better to me!
 
The only way to stop traffic is to reduce population. Here in Socal we spent billions widening our freeways by adding lanes and guess what happened? Nothing. Why, you ask? More people started using the widened freeways so traffic actually increased and the congestion continued. The most recent project of widening our 405 freeway in the Hollywood area was deemed a total failure soon after it was completed.

And ppl gotta stop commuting across cities, stay in your own city. Draconian as it would be but limiting companies from hiring commuter work force that travel over X distance. I was thinking this for the greater good and all but putting aside the ethical and financial dilemmas involved, I think it would cut down on a major chunk of traffic.
 
I drove for Lyft and Uber for a while and hardly deadheaded any of my miles (industry jargon for driving without a passenger). Granted I'm in SF which is very densely packed, but I suspect that even nationwide the deadhead miles are offset by the ones with multiple passengers.
One can easily read the experiences of drivers at a forum like uberpeope.net or reddit where they struggle to meet a 1:1 ratio, even with cherry picking rides. A service that tries to compete against private usage which includes things like commutes where traffic is focused in one direction is simply going to be killed by dead miles.

Are you kidding? You don't think that reclaiming 75% of their gross earnings will help their bottom line?
No, it'll be disastrous once they can no longer have their workers pay for the capital and operating costs of vehicles while taking almost all of the legal, financial and physical risks.

Before I got rid of it, my car was costing me $530 per month even if I didn't drive it, and it was a Honda Fit, one of the least expensive cars to own. It would take a lot of Lyft rides to equal that! Sure, you could own a self-driving car and have it drop you off at your destination and find a parking spot or drive back home, or you could ride in someone else's car for a lot less and let them worry about fuel, maintenance, insurance, depreciation, accidents, parking tickets, broken windows, and breakdowns. I know which one sounds better to me!
The typical operating cost of a vehicle in the US based on the AAA 58c/mile for a typical family sized sedan. Trying to compete against this means Uber and Lyft suffer huge losses and drivers can't make money without using old, depreciated cars. Trying to make money with brand new vehicles is quick road to bankruptcy.
 
I'm not a miner.
What does it cost to dig a mile of tunnel?
What does it cost to maintain a mile of tunnel?
How big of a tunnel does it take to support 2 lanes of traffic? What about 3? Or 4? Is there a scale effect? (A circular cross-section would imply that a 4-lane tunnel is about 40' across at the maximum diameter, and therefore the ceiling is about 20' above the road surface. Would the sub-road, bottom half, of the tunnel be usable?)
What does it take to provide air, light, heat/cooling per mile? Does it get more difficult the longer it is?
What are the escape requirements for a vehicle tunnel? Does it scale with larger tunnels?
What is the cost of expanding a tunnel from a 2-lane size to a larger one, per mile?

Who pays for all of this?

I sure don't think I should pay. Nor should the Nebraska farmer. Perhaps the only fair way would be to make it a toll road. If you use it, you pay. Heck, a lot of folks would say that you should put a smaller toll on the surface roads under the guise that "you'll benefit if others use the tunnel". Still, what would it cost? And no-one who is not within the footprint of the tunnel corridor should pay a dime.
 
A preliminary geotechnical investigation and subsurface utility engineering (SUE) effort would need to be conducted, just to see if it's feasible. I think people underestimate existing utilities affecting future improvements (above and below surface) until construction occurs - and then hooray, changer orders.

As you alluded to, the earthwork required would also be significant, so factor in countless VE efforts by developers and if it's a public ROW, also county/city/state agencies.
 
Super highways no matter where they are located, above ground or in tunnels, are only as good as their ability to exit traffic to their destinations. A bottleneck anywhere will affect the entire system. Vehicles have to move as quickly ramping off as they ramp on, which would affect all terminal exits.
 
Another thought, who pays to fix all the foundations for the buildings which are undermined? (See the story about that sinking San Fran condo. Pretty upscale...but sliding down. ;) )
 
c3k -

Engineers have questioned the wisdom of building skyscrapers with foundations in mud and clay. A skyscraper being constructed next door has made it clear that its foundation, unlike the Millennium Tower, reaches down to bedrock.

Mr. Peskin has also questioned whether the developer is playing down the severity of the problem. At a meeting in City Hall last week, Mr. Peskin read from a draft report prepared by Ronald Hamburger, a structural engineer hired by the developer to assess the building. The report concluded that parts of the tower, including the foundation, “had experienced significant stresses as a result of the settlement.” That observation was deleted in the final draft of the report.

“All of that language has been removed,” Mr. Peskin said.

Rofl I just can't stop laughing at the incompetence displayed by the developers here and the subsequent damage control/spin.
 
Want to avoid traffic jams? Make freeways only accessable for cars with "auto-drive" during commute times, traffic jams go away for all those who are driving there, however those who "refuse to allow a computer to drive" will have to deal with it on city streets where it will get congested... ok I'm not cruel, people who feel the need to drive on a freeway during commuter times can have one lane, a lane that has K-rails to prevent them from fucking it up for everyone else because they're stubborn.
 
I'm not a miner.
What does it cost to dig a mile of tunnel?
What does it cost to maintain a mile of tunnel?
How big of a tunnel does it take to support 2 lanes of traffic? What about 3? Or 4? Is there a scale effect? (A circular cross-section would imply that a 4-lane tunnel is about 40' across at the maximum diameter, and therefore the ceiling is about 20' above the road surface. Would the sub-road, bottom half, of the tunnel be usable?)
What does it take to provide air, light, heat/cooling per mile? Does it get more difficult the longer it is?
What are the escape requirements for a vehicle tunnel? Does it scale with larger tunnels?
What is the cost of expanding a tunnel from a 2-lane size to a larger one, per mile?

Who pays for all of this?

I sure don't think I should pay. Nor should the Nebraska farmer. Perhaps the only fair way would be to make it a toll road. If you use it, you pay. Heck, a lot of folks would say that you should put a smaller toll on the surface roads under the guise that "you'll benefit if others use the tunnel". Still, what would it cost? And no-one who is not within the footprint of the tunnel corridor should pay a dime.
Well.... Boston's "Big Dig" which included 3.5 miles of tunnels, removing the old elevated expressway and a new bridge cost almost $15 Billion (yes, billion). The bulk of it was the cost of tunneling. The bridge, for example was around $100 Million. I think a realistic, super conservative , estimate would put the tunnel portion at around $12 Billion. A lot of the cost was associated with having to work around existing infrastructure. There were several MBTA subway lines to get around/under. At one point they had to tunnel 120 feet down to get under the existing Red Line.

I believe it was primarily funded by the Feds. The tunnels being for the Mass Pike (I-90) and The Central Artery (I-93), made it eligible for federal funding as they are Interstate Highways.
 
build a new road for only self driving cars and let the things zip along at high speeds

Californians already think this way. They allowed hybrids to use the HOV/Diamond lanes. Turns out more people bought hybrids as time went buy and then they didn't want the hybrids jamming up the HOV/Diamond lanes anymore. Then they started loosing tax revenue on all those hybrids cause they weren't buying as much gas anymore.

Always looking for band-aids to get through the next election. Never addressing the root cause.
 
I am a proponent of underground though.

I think houses and buildings should be built underground (or burmed) as much as possible. Reduces damage from natural disasters (a tornado or hail storm aint doing shit to a buried structure). It saves on cooling and heating (ground stays in the low 70's in most American locations). And it keeps vegetation in place (which keeps urban heat island effect lower).
 
>surface of the planet overrun with idiots and stupid people writ large
>some guy thinks "hey, we could just dig tunnels and get around all that bullshit..."
>world collapse - literally - eminent, at least on the surface (pun very much intended)

Nope.
 
One can easily read the experiences of drivers at a forum like uberpeope.net or reddit where they struggle to meet a 1:1 ratio, even with cherry picking rides. A service that tries to compete against private usage which includes things like commutes where traffic is focused in one direction is simply going to be killed by dead miles.
Even if that's the case, the car share can replace a lot of personal vehicles. Zipcar claimed something like 27 cars off the road for every one of their vehicles.

No, it'll be disastrous once they can no longer have their workers pay for the capital and operating costs of vehicles while taking almost all of the legal, financial and physical risks.
Risks average to a predictable expense for a large fleet and whatever risk remains can be insured against. Uber and Lyft will simply price their rides so they make a ~15% profit over those expenses.

The typical operating cost of a vehicle in the US based on the AAA 58c/mile for a typical family sized sedan. Trying to compete against this means Uber and Lyft suffer huge losses and drivers can't make money without using old, depreciated cars. Trying to make money with brand new vehicles is quick road to bankruptcy.
Driving a beater into the ground doesn't save money. If anything, repairs on an old POS are more expensive than the payment on a warrantied vehicles. I drove a 2015 Honda Fit and netted $20-$25 per hour. I had to have it towed a couple of times, which was covered under the warranty and would have cost a lot of money otherwise. Before that I drove a 1998 BMW Z3 and paid a lot more when things went wrong. Now I'm car-free and save $240 on the lease payment, $130 on insurance, $200 from renting out my parking space, $50 on gas, and roughly $100 on maintenance and unexpected events like parking tickets and break-ins. I mostly bike everywhere but rent a car or take Lyft when I need to, which costs around $100 a month and I put the other $620 in my pocket. Cheaper ride shares will make the economics of car ownership even worse than they already are. Why shell out $700+ every month for a vehicle that spends 90% of its life just sitting there?
 
Maybe he should concentrate on something that actually makes a difference with traffic congestion, like mass transit. I mean, 40,000 people dying on our roads every year is fun and all, but it's getting rather old.
 
Maybe he should concentrate on something that actually makes a difference with traffic congestion, like mass transit. I mean, 40,000 people dying on our roads every year is fun and all, but it's getting rather old.
We've had viable mass transit since the 1890's and not much has come of it in the US. I don't think that is going to change.
 
Driving a beater into the ground doesn't save money. If anything, repairs on an old POS are more expensive than the payment on a warrantied vehicles. I drove a 2015 Honda Fit and netted $20-$25 per hour. I had to have it towed a couple of times, which was covered under the warranty and would have cost a lot of money otherwise. Before that I drove a 1998 BMW Z3 and paid a lot more when things went wrong. Now I'm car-free and save $240 on the lease payment, $130 on insurance, $200 from renting out my parking space, $50 on gas, and roughly $100 on maintenance and unexpected events like parking tickets and break-ins. I mostly bike everywhere but rent a car or take Lyft when I need to, which costs around $100 a month and I put the other $620 in my pocket. Cheaper ride shares will make the economics of car ownership even worse than they already are. Why shell out $700+ every month for a vehicle that spends 90% of its life just sitting there?

Cause you drove a BMW. It costs more to service in general. Also BMWs aren't reliable vehicles. Hence why you don't see that many old ones around, while you'll see beater Civics all the time. If you're going to buy an old car, you research what old car to get. Especially if you're doing it to save money. Buying an old BMW anything is going already be more expensive than a beater Japanese car. Maintenance is always ridiclously expensive on those things and shit breaks on them all the time. Even when they're new.

The people here with their 1-2 year old BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, VW, etc have had their cars in the shop more than I've had my 2000 Subaru Impreza WRX STI in the shop. Not that I take my car to the shop, I fix it myself. Even their mundane normal maintenance is ridiculously expensive. Coworker needs new rotors on his BWM M5. The rotors alone cost more than my brake pads, rotors, and even the brake calipers. Then add in the high cost labor rates they charge and I could buy another Subaru Impreza for that price.

My buddy on the other hand has a 96 beater Civic. Got it for free, all it's needed so far was a car battery. No car payments, high gas mileage, and everything on it is cheap.

Me, I'm good with my car. Even if all I did was drive to/from work, it ends up being the same cost, while I save a buttload more time with a car. It's a $10 round trip on the train and a 6 km round trip walk for me to get to work. 2 hour round trip commute or 20 minute round trip in my car. Of course, my car costs a hell of a lot more, cause I drive more than to work, I race my car on the track, and I modify it. Not taking a Uber or Lyft ride on the Nurburgring for cheap.

It really all boils down to everyone's uses. For you, a car doesn't make much sense. For some of us, it makes a whole lot more sense. Also if you're going with a beater, also research and always get a Japanese one. They seem to last the longest.
 
I have a bone to pick with the mass transit fanatics.

Mass transit it is not a very good solution. It has tons of drawbacks the proponents gloss over.

First mass transit is the opposite of freedom. Mass transit is a constricting system that forces people to live and work on defined routes, routes which are often picked by a select group of individuals where are susceptible to corruption. This causes all sorts of problems like huge disparities in property values and motivation for wealthy players to influence the mass transit system. It also constricts their time, you have to live and work on the schedule of the transit systems. All of this takes freedom away from the individual that freedom is the freedom that causes competition to drive down prices. Without it competition looks to use lobbying and corruption to get the prime spots on routes. I am not saying this is impossible with roads but you can always carve your own path with a road not with a mass transit system. This gives you freedom to find a better job, get a better price, live in a cheaper or better area while still purchasing from Walmart and working that job you want.


If mass transit was soo freaking good and efficient like proponents claim you wouldn't need to talk about it, argue about it, companies would just naturally desire to build these systems so they could make money off of them. Why doesn't that happen? Maybe because its not that good. Maybe because its not actually that much more efficient, maybe because the proponents forget that the only way it really works is if people are forced or coerced into giving up a lot to make mass transit work.

When ever you talk about this proponents say well that's because we don't do it right, well that's right, almost no one does it right. Maybe because it cannot be done right. Maybe its just too hard to put in place a good mass transit system. And maybe that speaks to the drawbacks. You know communism might be a great idea but it just seems like implementation has never really panned out. I view mass transit the same way.

IMO the far better way to approach traffic issues is to not even focus on the traffic at all. It is to ask yourself why are all these people moving around is there some way to reduce that. How about more efficient mail or delivery systems so products can be delivered to the consumer. How about more working at home. What if simply laying down a much better internet infrastructure could actually allow companies to do things with web delivery that would replace the need for people to go out. Ask the people why they are driving so much and work back to a solution from there.
 
Californians already think this way. They allowed hybrids to use the HOV/Diamond lanes. Turns out more people bought hybrids as time went buy and then they didn't want the hybrids jamming up the HOV/Diamond lanes anymore. Then they started loosing tax revenue on all those hybrids cause they weren't buying as much gas anymore.

Always looking for band-aids to get through the next election. Never addressing the root cause.
California allowed hybrids to use diamond lanes for the same reason the federal government gave tax credits for hybrids, to encourage the selling of lower fuel vehicles, and guess what they succeeded. Yes hybrids are no longer able to use them, but alternative fuel vehicles can (CNG, electric only, etc). And yeah show me a politician that isn't happy about any type of revenue source decreasing and I'll show you a duck that can swim.

That said, to the person that you quoted, allowing hybrids in diamond lanes had nothing to do with alleviating traffic.
 
And yeah show me a politician that isn't happy about any type of revenue source decreasing and I'll show you a duck that can swim.

So...show you a politician that is happy about getting less tax money?
 
He's just throwing shit to see what sticks at this point, huh?


This is the DFW answer to congestion. MOAR ROADS.

d73e0476a2614fc3eb4d4b73577d0078.jpg
 
Back
Top