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 October 19th, 2006, 06:34 PM   #61
AdamChobits
♥사랑해요♥
 
AdamChobits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 660
Likes (Received): 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by nastyathenian View Post
Well, subways are constructed in order to be used by the people, not just to make construction companies rich. Another thing I noticed in the Madrid metro was that it was mainly used by people of low social classes and tourists. People who can afford to have a car seem to shun the subway. You don’t see many men in suit and tie, as in other cities. One reason is, of course, pickpockets.
Are you sure you went to Madrid? My father has 4 cars and is a yuppie but he still takes the metro if he has to go to the "downtown".

And I take the tube almost every week and I see a lot of yuppies there.


Oh, about you said about safety...

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Madrid's metro is one of the most safety and cleanest in the world.
__________________
lol >click<
AdamChobits no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 20th, 2006, 12:37 AM   #62
nastyathenian
Metrophile
 
nastyathenian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Athens
Posts: 2,630
Likes (Received): 709

If you doubt that I have visited Madrid, have a look at http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread...206994&page=11
I think I am experienced enough to judge metro systems. In fact, Madrid’s metro is one of my favorites. I’ m happy it expands so rapidly and I think it has the perspective of becoming the longest in Europe. You see, other major cities like London, Paris, Berlin etc. have given up large subway projects, thinking that enough is enough.
nastyathenian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2006, 01:31 AM   #63
petrolatum
¡Juan, por Dios!
 
petrolatum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 113
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by nastyathenian View Post
If you doubt that I have visited Madrid, have a look at http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread...206994&page=11
I think I am experienced enough to judge metro systems. In fact, Madrid’s metro is one of my favorites. I’ m happy it expands so rapidly and I think it has the perspective of becoming the longest in Europe. You see, other major cities like London, Paris, Berlin etc. have given up large subway projects, thinking that enough is enough.
I don't think a tourist visit to a metro network can give you the knowledge to express a "whole" judgement on it. You have to trust what the daily users have to say about it.
Madrid's in one of the best metro networks. It's enormously safe tecnically and socially, very modern (old stations and lines are being refurnished, apart from the deep renewal of Line 3) and very fast.
Madrid people is very proud of it!!!
petrolatum no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2006, 01:38 AM   #64
balasto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 143
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by nastyathenian View Post
You see, other major cities like London, Paris, Berlin etc. have given up large subway projects, thinking that enough is enough.
Security, quality and cleanliness aren't related to size. Nowadays, investing in metro and public transportation is among the smarter movements any government can do (ie. energy prices are growing). Other regions and cities have other priorites - time will tell who was right.

And no, for Madrid it's not enough as the metro still has to reach some populated zones and whole system can be improved. Don't forget that the city is expanding too.
balasto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2006, 12:40 AM   #65
samsonyuen
SSLL
 
samsonyuen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canary Wharf > CityPlace
Posts: 8,350
Likes (Received): 314

It really is a miracle, the Madrid metro system. Is the same rate of growth in the the other major Spanish cities, or primarily Madrid?
samsonyuen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2006, 01:25 AM   #66
balasto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 143
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonyuen View Post
It really is a miracle, the Madrid metro system. Is the same rate of growth in the the other major Spanish cities, or primarily Madrid?
You can only see such a growth in Madrid.
balasto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2006, 03:37 AM   #67
RSG
Registered User
 
RSG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 511
Likes (Received): 4

This looks great. They obviously have the knowhow on how to build infrastructure.

Maybe they could show the NSW Government (Australia) how to build a metro for this amount and time frame. At the moment, they have penned in the next extension to our rail network for completion in 2017. This extension was needed 10 years ago.
RSG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2006, 04:01 PM   #68
M II A II R II K
Registered User
 
M II A II R II K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 867
Likes (Received): 620

It's been suggested that New York's Second Avenue Subway would cost a colossal $16 billion, but one major factor in that could be the bedrock which must be dug into.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
M II A II R II K no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006, 08:55 PM   #69
Damien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles-Leimert Park & Boston-Cambridge
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 0

Here's a copy of the detailed Metrosur reference edition put together by Tunnelbuilder ltd. It was edited by the people maintaing TunnelBuilder.com, who are engineers that worked on the Metrosur project. They drew from the chief engineers and consultants.

Below is the introduction (pdf), written by Madrid Metro chief Dr. Manuel Melis Maynar. I've posted the text, but you'll have to look at the pdf for the graphs and graphics. Additionally, I've converted kilometers and euros to miles and American dollars, respectively:

METROSUR (Second Edition)
Commuting in the 21st Century
A tunnelbuilder reference edition

INTRODUCTION

MADRID METRO & RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2003
by Manuel Melis Maynar (Madrid, April 2003)

The Madrid Metro Extension designed and built during the period 1995-99 comprised a total of 56 km (34.8 miles) of new railway lines, of which 38 km (23.6 miles) were in tunnel, together with 37 new stations and 4 interchange stations with the commuter train system. The project started in August, 1995 and was completed in March, 1999 at an overall cost of €28.2 million/km ($57.2 mil/mile). The unit final cost of the 38 km-long (23.6 mile-long) underground section was €41.3 million/km ($83.8 mil/mile), which included the new rolling stock.

The correct application of soil mechanics was the most important element of the project, and the best geo-technical expertise in the country was retained and employed. No financial restriction was imposed on soil investigation, monitoring and ground treatment.

The 1999-2003 metro extensions described in this edition involved a total 75 km (46.6 miles) of railway lines, with 58 km (36 miles) in tunnel, and 39 stations. Once again, they have been built within the allotted time span, without compromise on safety or dramatic cost increase.

BALANCE OF COSTS

Some tunnelling experts were advising in 1995/1996 that open face methods such as NATM, SCL or Precutting were both faster and cheaper than small section methods, such as the traditional Madrid Method. Even contractors were not recommending the use of TBMs, maintaining that methods such as NATM were cheaper and faster than EPB machines for tunnel construction. This was because of long delivery times on this specialist equipment, and problems at the time with TBM projects such as Storebaelt in Denmark, and Pinglin in Taiwan.

It was clear that they were not prepared to invest the necessary capital in TBMs, if it could be avoided. For the Client, it was clear from the beginning that, if a collapse were to occur using a supposedly faster and cheaper method, more than 4 or 5 months might be lost, resulting in huge economical and political penalties. The cost of recovering the collapse would, no doubt, exceed the additional costs of the supposedly more expensive method, as had occurred at the Heathrow Express project. It was also thought that the recovery time might well match the delivery time of the EPB machines.

CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES

The priorities applied to the construction methods were: maximum safety for the workers inside the tunnel; maximum safety for the buildings and other surface structures above the tunnel; minimum exposure of open faces, at every stage of tunnel construction; and no cost or timing factors to take precedence over tunnel safety and quality.

Other matters decided at the start of the project were as follows:

No tunnelling project, including this 38 km (23.6 miles) soft ground tunnelling construction, should be contracted under a fixed lump sum contract. It was, and still is, the author’s opinion that it is scientifically impossible for any Client to provide complete geo-technical information. Even with the use of a pilot tunnel, geotechnical conditions can vary so substantially as to make the contract invalid and useless, as has occurred elsewhere. If any problem does appear, litigation or arbitration is likely, and a huge amount of time and money can be wasted in this process. According to Spanish law, it was decided that the contracts would be fixed price, but with a bill of quantities, so that any additional work could be easily priced, and agreed promptly with the contractors.

The selection of the contractors was undertaken with the greatest care, and included consideration of the soft ground tunneling experience of the engineers and technicians proposed for the works. Of especial importance was the selection of the person to be in charge of tunnel construction. A well-executed tunnelling project is a work of art, and the Client was prepared to spend the necessary time in choosing the artist. In the evaluation of the tenders, cost consideration amounted only to 30% of the evaluation. Some 20% was allocated to the evaluation of project time, and the remaining 50% was allocated after an evaluation of the technical merits of the proposals, and of staff considerations.

DISPUTES AVOIDANCE

A system was needed to enable the Client to: foresee problems during tunnelling activities; make a timely study of the most appropriate solution; and agree the solution economically with the contractor concerned. The objective was to avoid disputes, and to always reach agreements before the problems become unmanageable.

No large firm of consulting engineers was hired as general project managers. It is the author’s opinion that experience in other cities and countries has shown that such an approach does not actually produce savings in time and cost. The project management of the civil engineering and architectural elements was carried out by just three Chief Engineers, and six further engineers, all of whom were direct employees of the Madrid Regional Government. Electrical and mechanical installations have been carried out by this group, together with other Madrid Metro staff. Profs J M Rodriguez and C Oteo were the geo-technical experts on site. Each one of the fourteen separate civils contracts had another two contracts involving specialist consultants, one for technical assistance, and the other for quality control.

EPB SPECIFICATION

EPB machine specification was undertaken by the author, in conjunction with EPB manufacturers and suppliers, and the contractors’ specialist staff. As a result, the five 9.4m (30.8 foot)-diameter EPB machines that were ordered had the maximum power-to-diameter ratio found anywhere. Whereas others had decided that a maximum thrust of 6,000 t was appropriate, we increased this figure to 10,000 t, so that at shallow depths we could confidently overcome the passive pressure of soil, and the soil/shield adhesion. The recommended torque of 1,600 mt was increased to 2,000 mt in order to sustain the sticky soil on site, up to a liquid limit of wL = 150%. These parameters, together with excellent design work by Herrenknecht, NFM, Mitsubishi and Lovat have been, along with other matters, the reason that the machines have succeeded so well in their job.

DESIGNER EXCLUSION

Finally, the serious issue of the interference between the designer and the construction works was considered. The designer of each contract was never allowed to interfere with the construction of that contract. Experience has shown that a tunnelling project is always essentially incomplete. All tunnelling projects have a great number of errors and shortcomings, the most important being the lack of soil data, water data, geological and geo-technical information. It is common for the average distance between exploratory bore-holes to be 50 m (164 feet) to 100 m (328 feet) or more, so that, for long lengths of tunnel driving, there is no information whatsoever about the soil and its condition. Protection needed in buildings and structures is not accurately known until well into the construction process, and the same applies to the eventual need of soil improvement measures, or other type of actions, such as compensation grouting, that have been widely and extensively used in the project. Accordingly, it was decided from the beginning that the design of a tunneling contract was, at best, only an approximation to the works actually needed. If the designer was allowed to participate in the works, he would always try to defend his work, his ideas, or his construction methods, leading to errors and inaccuracies.

1999-2003 EXTENSION

After the successful completion of the 1995-99 project, another, even bigger, project was agreed by the Regional Government of Madrid for the period 1999-2003. A grand total of 75 km (46.6 miles) of railway lines, 58 km (36 miles) in tunnel, together with 39 stations and 8 interchange stations were to be planned, designed, built and commissioned in the period, together with the rolling stock needed. This feat has now been completed, with a final unit cost, including rolling stock, of €42.1 million/km ($85.4 mil/mile). This figure includes three new depots and an electrical substation, items that were not needed for the 1995-1999 extension.

Works started in August, 1999 and were finalized and commissioned in March, 2003, as described in this issue.

The same management principles have been applied to this latest project: absolute prohibition of the use of NATM, ADECO, Precutting or any other open face method in tunnels; no external project manager; and a very small group of experienced engineers driving the works, more like close friends and colleagues, than people under a rigid hierarchical organization. The results have been good, although the author believes that the project could have been finished six months earlier, had some of the tunnels been built by EPB instead of by manual methods. However, at the time of deciding the construction methods, smaller rates of advance were expected, compared to those actually returned by the TBMs. Moreover, there were several serious geo-technical problems, due to the difficult ground conditions pertaining in Madrid and the gypseous zones of the southeast.

GROUND MONITORING

The greater part of the tunnelling works were carried out by six EPB machines, three of which were manufactured by Herrenknecht, two by NFM-Mitsubishi, and one by Lovat. The remaining tunnels were constructed using the traditional Madrid Method, or cut and cover with diaphragm walls.

More than 8,000 control points were installed to monitor the tunnelling works, as follows.

Subsidence: 5,400 sensors installed. Structure movement detection: 317 buildings monitored. Soil pressure in tunnel linings: 52 instrumented sections. Diaphragm wall movement: 65 sections instrumented. Soil data: 410 drilled samples with 12,000 m total and 43,750 soil samples analyzed. EPB data: 384 variables per minute.

CONSTRUCTION METHODS

It was difficult to decide the construction method to use in each of the tunnelling contracts.

As said before, the output of the EPB machines was higher than foreseen, and some of the parts built by traditional method, or in open cut, could have been done by EPB, such as the southern part of Line 10 to Alcorcón. However, at the time of the decisions, it was thought that the final completion date would be jeopardized.

Not a single accident occurred during the underground works. Safety was the top priority of the whole project.

CONCLUSIONS

The project demonstrates once again, in the author’s opinion, the following facts:

EPB tunnels in soft ground are less expensive than open face tunnel construction such as NATM, SCL, ADECO or Precutting methods.

EPB tunnels in soft ground are much safer and faster than open face tunnel construction methods.

The Madrid Method of tunnelling in difficult ground is less expensive, and safer, than open face methods such as NATM, SCL or Precutting.

Consulting or other companies were not needed as Project Managers for Madrid Metro Extensions, which ran on time and on budget without such assistance.

It is wrong to contract tunnel construction on a fixed price lump-sum basis. It will not work.

The designer of an important tunnel should never be allowed to interfere in its construction.

Architecture of stations should not be confused with that for a museum or an emblematic building for the city. Several million people will move each day across the stations of the metro network, and the design must emphasize this fact, giving easy and simple movements to the users from the street to the trains, wide escalators and corridors, and shallow stations and platforms.

Design should be focused on the needs of the users, rather than on architectural beauty or exotic materials, and never on the name of the architect. Errors of this type have been common lately in Spain, especially on the new high-speed railway lines.

Time is extremely important in transportation projects. Every year after the first extension of Madrid Metro was commissioned, 170 million new users entered into the system, with an overall time saving of 23 million hours in the Madrid region. Social savings can easily be estimated, at an hourly value of about €12 ($15.13), the average cost of employment. This gives a yearly social saving in Madrid of about €275 million ($346.9 million), not including other social benefits such as reduced traffic congestion, air pollution or noise in the city centre.

Transport infrastructure, be it railways, underground metros or highways, are lineal projects. They can be easily divided into manageable parts. All parts can then be designed simultaneously, taking around eight months for the entire process. All construction contracts can similarly be awarded simultaneously, and any manageable contract of, say, €150 million ($189.2 million), can be built in 36 months. Even enormous tunnelling projects such as the Channel Tunnel have been excavated in 36 months, and the land facilities could have been finished simultaneously. Although this theory is probably not applicable to other types of civil engineering projects, such as a big dam, or a long and complex suspension bridge, the conclusion follows that any lineal project, such as a Metro, can be designed and built in 40 to 45 months, provided funds are available. Madrid Metro has demonstrated this twice in succession.

The reasons for delays, or cost overruns, are explained in great detail, usually by politicians in charge of failed projects.

We engineers are not here to explain why our project has failed in meeting the completion date. The author believes that we are here to meet our dates and our costs. If we have to explain why we have failed, we should leave engineering management, and shift our activities to other fields where we might find more appreciation, say in opera composing or ballet dancing.

Several colleagues from other cities involved in similar works, in asking us about the details of the management of our projects, were particularly impressed when they heard that all decisions by the top politicians with responsibility for the project, President Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón of the Regional Government of Madrid, and Sr Luis Eduardo Cortes, his Regional Minister for Public Works, were taken within 24 hours. In most other cities, similar decisions might take several months. It is therefore correct to say that, the undoubted success of the Madrid Metro Extension Project was due to both the close and supportive relationship provided by those with political responsibility, and the careful consideration and implementation of engineering principles and practices.
Damien no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006, 09:56 PM   #70
DonQui
BANNED
 
DonQui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Free City-State of New York
Posts: 6,035
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien View Post
President Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón of the Regional Government of Madrid, and Sr Luis Eduardo Cortes, his Regional Minister for Public Works, were taken within 24 hours.


Ruiz-Gallardón is the MAYOR of Madrid not the regional president.
DonQui no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006, 11:23 PM   #71
Edu_00
Always learning
 
Edu_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Madrid
Posts: 1,610
Likes (Received): 19

Ruiz-Gallardón was regional president when MetroSur was built. Today he is Mayor of Madrid
Edu_00 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006, 11:24 PM   #72
DonQui
BANNED
 
DonQui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Free City-State of New York
Posts: 6,035
Likes (Received): 10

aaaaaah
DonQui no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2006, 06:21 PM   #73
p5archit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Toronto, Vienna, Amsterdam
Posts: 533
Likes (Received): 1

This entire project, is nothing short of unbelievable- amazing, truly amazing. I cannot imagine how it was possible to get so much of the system built for so little money- €4 billion is not much for 80 KM's of metro-

What is the trick? What did Madrid do, which makes it possible that other cities are missing?

Are the costs really so much lower than they are in say Toronto? They built 6.5 KM's for over $1.12 billion (CAD)- and the area they built is was not very dense nor heavily populated that the cost of expropration was high-. So how is it possible?

p5
__________________
..unc!
p5archit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2006, 06:46 PM   #74
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,604
Likes (Received): 19391

Quote:
Originally Posted by LtBk View Post
Madrid and reset of Spain never ceases to amaze me in constructions like this. Why can't the reset of the West learn from them?
Because we don't have so many billions in our pocket...

Madrid did all these infrastructure, huge roads, beltways, subways and a huge airport all in about... a decade? They've got huge amounts of money from the EU, and is one of the few booming areas of Europe.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2006, 07:57 PM   #75
p5archit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Toronto, Vienna, Amsterdam
Posts: 533
Likes (Received): 1

Yeah- i was pretty sure that most of the money/subsidies was from the EU- but still is hard to explain how they manage to do it for so damned cheap...??

p5
__________________
..unc!
p5archit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2006, 09:23 PM   #76
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,604
Likes (Received): 19391

Maybe, because most of the terrain is flat, and sandy. I think that's less expensive than build large infrastructure near the sea, in the mountains or near large rivers.

And i think the price of land was quite low, compared to other countries. Most build-up areas now, were undeveloped land 10 years ago.

It's amazing how things can grow. I have a map of Spain in the end of the nineties. Almost no motorways. Now it has surpassed the French and German Autoroute/Autobahn network length... And it's still growing.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2006, 09:30 PM   #77
AdamChobits
♥사랑해요♥
 
AdamChobits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 660
Likes (Received): 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by p5archit View Post
Yeah- i was pretty sure that most of the money/subsidies was from the EU- but still is hard to explain how they manage to do it for so damned cheap...??

p5
How many times we have to say it?

Madrid didn't almost receive money from EU, because the regions who needed more money aren't in Madrid but in other regions.

You always putting the merits in others. Madrid can and could pay all that projects by our own pocket and money. Learn a bit about the economical and industrial activities in Madrid and our success.

Chris1491 Madrid is not flat. Flat are New York and London.
__________________
lol >click<
AdamChobits no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2006, 09:33 PM   #78
DonQui
BANNED
 
DonQui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Free City-State of New York
Posts: 6,035
Likes (Received): 10

Madrid is a rich region. EU subsidies go to poor regions predominantly.

How hard is this to understand?

And REGARDLESS of where the money came from, this does not detract from the ability to do things cheaply!

DonQui no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2006, 12:27 AM   #79
LtBk
Registered User
 
LtBk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greater Baltimore
Posts: 3,103
Likes (Received): 3709

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris1491 View Post
Because we don't have so many billions in our pocket...

Madrid did all these infrastructure, huge roads, beltways, subways and a huge airport all in about... a decade? They've got huge amounts of money from the EU, and is one of the few booming areas of Europe.
Either that or they don't have to deal with red tape bureaucracy bullshit.
LtBk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2006, 01:27 PM   #80
balasto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 143
Likes (Received): 0

For comparision, the new tunnel for commuter trains that connects Atocha station with Chamartin one, is 7,5 km long and has costed EUR 280M. Of those, EUR 200M were spent on the perforation, done with two boring machines (EPB), and the rest was spent on rails and equipment installation and a new station at Nuevos Ministerios. That makes a cost of EUR 37,34 M/km or USD 74,68 M/mile (using Damien's conversion factor)!

At these posts by Folk you can see images of one of the two M-30's south bypass tunnels (diameter: 15 m!), a project lead by Melis (of course, done with EPB boring machines):
http://skyscrapercity.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=14
http://skyscrapercity.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=22

Video that shows the end of the perforation:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/1...162233099.html

Video that shows Gallardon and Melis visiting the M-30 works:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/1...161624659.html
balasto no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
madrid, metro, metro de madrid, spain in the world, subway

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:30 AM.


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