DOCSLIB.ORG

Traffic Impact Study Proposed Ipark Expansion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Traffic Impact Study Proposed Ipark Expansion Traffic Impact Study Proposed iPark Expansion 761 Main Avenue City of Norwalk/Town of Wilton, CT PREPARED FOR: iPark II Norwalk, LLC 485 West Putnam Avenue Greenwich, CT PREPARED BY: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1 North Lexington Avenue, Suite 505 White Plains, NY 10601 914.368.9200 March 2021 Revised May 2021 Project Number 112093000 Proposed iPark Expansion Traffic Impact Study Traffic Impact Study Proposed iPark Expansion 761 Main Avenue City of Norwalk/Town of Wilton, CT PREPARED FOR: iPark II Norwalk, LLC 485 West Putnam Avenue Greenwich, CT PREPARED BY: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1 North Lexington Avenue, Suite 505 White Plains, NY 10601 914.368.9200 Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc. _________________________________ March 2021/Revised May 2021 John Canning Date 1120933000 CT PE Number: 0028017 05/24/21 The entirety of this document, including text and images, is property of Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc., protected under U. S. copyright law. Copyright © 2017 Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc. 112093000 Page ii March 2021, Revised May 2021 Proposed iPark Expansion Traffic Impact Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Methodology .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 Roadway Network ..................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Description of Study Intersections ............................................................................................. 9 3.3 Multi-Modal Transportation ...................................................................................................... 10 3.4 Crash History and Safety Assessment .................................................................................... 11 3.5 Traffic Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 11 4.0 FUTURE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 14 4.1 Background Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Contemplated Future Roadway Improvements ....................................................................... 24 5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC ...................................................................................................................... 25 5.1 Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................ 25 5.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................................................................ 26 6.0 FUTURE COMBINED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 31 7.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 34 7.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................. 34 7.2 Traffic Impact Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 44 7.3 Queue Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 47 8.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 53 APPENDIX 2019 Traffic Counts CTDOT 2025 Background Traffic Volumes and Email correspondence Crash Records Summary Synchro Capacity Analyses Signal Timing Plans 112093000 Page iii March 2021, Revised May 2021 Proposed iPark Expansion Traffic Impact Study FIGURES Figure 1 – Project Location ........................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 – Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................ 13 Figure 3 – 2022 Grown Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4 – Vicinity Development Traffic Volumes – Grist Mill Village ......................................................... 16 Figure 5 – Vicinity Development Traffic Volumes – BLT North 7 ................................................................ 17 Figure 6 – Vicinity Development Traffic Volumes – Innovation Center ...................................................... 18 Figure 7 – Vicinity Development Traffic Volumes – Wilton Corporate Park ............................................... 19 Figure 8 – 2022 Background Traffic Volumes............................................................................................. 20 Figure 9 – Adjusted CTDOT 2025 Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 22 Figure 10 – 2025 Background Traffic Volumes........................................................................................... 23 Figure 11 – Residential Trip Distributions ................................................................................................... 27 Figure 12 – Hotel Trip Distributions ............................................................................................................ 28 Figure 13 – Residential Project Trips .......................................................................................................... 29 Figure 14 – Hotel Project Trips ................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 15 – 2022 Combined Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 32 Figure 16 – 2025 Combined Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 33 112093000 Page iv March 2021, Revised May 2021 Proposed iPark Expansion Traffic Impact Study TABLES Table 1 – Crash Summary .......................................................................................................................... 11 Table 2 – Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................... 25 Table 3 – LOS Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 35 Table 4 – Existing Conditions – Intersection Capacity Analysis Results .................................................... 36 Table 5 – 2022 Background Conditions – Intersection Capacity Analysis Results .................................... 37 Table 6 – 2022 Combined Conditions – Intersection Capacity Analysis Results ....................................... 38 Table 7 – 2025 Background Conditions – Intersection Capacity Analysis Results .................................... 39 Table 8 – 2025 Combined Conditions – Intersection Capacity Analysis Results ....................................... 40 Table 9 – 2022 Background vs. 2022 Combined Improved Conditions - AM Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results ........................................................................................................................... 45 Table 10 – 2022 Background vs. 2022 Combined Improved Conditions - PM Peak Hour - Intersection Capacity Analysis Results ........................................................................................................................... 46 Table 11 – 95th Percentile Queuing Summary – Existing, 2022 Background & 2022 Combined Conditions .................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Table 12 - 95th Percentile Queuing Summary – 2025 Background & 2025 Combined Conditions ............ 49 112093000 Page v March 2021, Revised May 2021 Proposed iPark Expansion Traffic Impact Study 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has been prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to document the potential traffic impacts associated with a proposed expansion to the iPark development at 761 Main Avenue (US Route 7) on the border of the City of Norwalk and the Town of Wilton. (the “Project”). This traffic impact study evaluated existing and future traffic conditions surrounding the site both with and without the Project. The anticipated year of completion of this development is 2022, although to be conservative, this report also provides
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Press Releases Gov. Malloy, CTDOT Indefinitely Postpone Hundreds Of
    Press Releases 01/10/2018 Gov. Malloy, CTDOT Indefinitely Postpone Hundreds of Transportation Projects Across Connecticut Malloy Administration Will Work With Legislature to Identify New Funding and Save Projects (HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Dannel P. Malloy and Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) Commissioner James P. Redeker today released a full list of projects totaling $4.3 billion that are postponed indefinitely until new revenue is appropriated for the Special Transportation Fund (STF). The Governor made clear that his administration will announce detailed proposals this month that, if adopted by the General Assembly, would bring the projects back online. The STF finances the state’s transportation system, including the operating costs of the CTDOT and all of the services it provides. Last month, Governor Malloy reiterated and increased his warnings on the solvency of the fund following the release of a report showing that without prompt action, the STF will be in deficit by fiscal year 2019, which begins July 1, 2018. **Download the list of CTDOT projects now postponed indefinitely here** Hundreds of projects across the state, such as critical improvements to the I-91/Route 15 interchange on the Charter Oak Bridge, the replacement of the Waterbury Mixmaster, and the widening of I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford, are postponed indefinitely, or until resources are identified to allow projects to continue. Even routine highway maintenance and transportation aid to cities and towns are seriously jeopardized. “If Connecticut does not take the necessary action to allow us to restart these vital projects, not only will it put the state’s infrastructure into a further state of disrepair, it will hurt our economy,” Governor Malloy said.
    [Show full text]
  • AQUIFERPROTECTIONAREA SW Estport , CONNECTICUT
    n M ! R F S o N G o Godfrey Pond C e t Inwood Rd u P u n o d a r u d B W d r n n r t e R L r e t d R d b e r t e R o t t s n R 111 D i l n I o a e l a r o M o t e n l s S1 r R i t t V W w l r A O d n k a l d e K i i R e i S d 1 n M a n n l R W B e l y D H o id g e a a T u a l R t R i Wheelers Pond 1 H L l a a r x d n l B o a g e R d r r a v a d o F d d e d d R n r T t e Nod Hill Pond t e y n l n e R r e R R W d h d o e u d r D e D d i y n u D R v M R e e E w e e d n k d e o S H R u b n d w r r a r r r e Chestnut Hill r c d e o e d d w 7 R H u w o n b L e r D d l R d Mill River h B o d L w t S W n d b n s s s u Plymouth Avenue Pond £ a d s y e ¤ r A u o i R R s o n i b Pipers t o R h d Hill R n d o i n L c S d d e 5 C t a e d r r d d B o U H g Powells Hill k t t o r t 9 d e S k n Spruc u p r l d D o R d c r R R L P e S i a r n s l H r Cristina R 136 i h L Ln e n B l i r T R o d n r d s l L S o n r R V e o H o k L R i r M d t M Killian A H G L a S ve d R e s R y n l g e d Pin 1 i l C r a d w r n M e d d e r a a 1 i R r d c y e D h k h s r S R 1 d o d c E Cricker Brook i t c a k n l 7 r M d r u w a e l o R l n y g a R d r S n d l Dr c e B W od l e F nwo d r Nature Pond o t utt o l S i B t w d C h l S B n y i d r o t l e W ch R e i D R e e o o D p B r M Hill Rd i L d n r H R ey l on r il H P H n L H o ls illa w o d v r w t w a w on La n o s D D d d e O e S e n w r g r R e p i e i W k l n n e d d W t r g L e v e r t l y e l D l r y g l 53 e e T a e o R e l s d y d H n Plum rkw o a D i P a R n l r a S d R L V W i w o u r u Jennings Brook l
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Oriented Development Final Report | September 2010
    FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2010 In Cooperation with U.S. Department CONNECTICUT South Western Regional Planning Agency of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF Federal Transit TRANSPORTATION Administration FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2010 In Cooperation with U.S. Department CONNECTICUT South Western Regional Planning Agency of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF Federal Transit TRANSPORTATION Administration Abstract This report presents an evaluation of transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunities within the Danbury Branch study corridor as a component of the Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis/ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FTA AA/DEIS) prepared for the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT). This report is intended as a tool for municipalities to use as they move forward with their TOD efforts. The report identifies the range of TOD opportunities at station areas within the corridor that could result from improvements to the Danbury Branch. By also providing information regarding FTA guidelines and TOD best practices, this report serves as a reference and a guide for future TOD efforts in the Danbury Branch study corridor. Specifically, this report presents a definition of TOD and the elements of TOD that are relevant to the Danbury Branch. It also presents a summary of FTA Guidance regarding TOD and includes case studies of FTA-funded projects that have been rated with respect to their livability, land use, and economic development components. Additionally, the report examines commuter rail projects both in and out of Connecticut that are considered to have applications that may be relevant to the Danbury Branch.
    [Show full text]
  • A Q U I F E R P R O T E C T I O N a R E a S N O R W a L K , C O N N E C T I C
    !n !n S c Skunk Pond Beaver Brook Davidge Brook e d d k h P O H R R O F p S o i d t n n l c t u i l R a T S d o i ll l t e e lv i d o t R r r d r l h t l l a H r n l t r M b a s b R d H e G L R o r re R B C o o u l e t p o n D o e f L i s Weston Intermediate School y l o s L d r t e Huckleberry Hills Brook e t d W d r e g Upper Stony Brook Pond N L D g i b R o s n Ridgefield Pond a t v d id e g e H r i l Country Club Pond b e a R d r r S n n d a g e L o n tin a d ! R d l H B n t x H e W Still Pond d t n Comstock Knoll u d a R S o C R k R e L H d i p d S n a l l F tt h Town Pond d l T te r D o e t l e s a t u e L e c P n n b a n l R g n i L t m fo D b k H r it to Lower Stony Brook Pond o r A d t P n d s H t F u d g L d d i Harrisons Brook R h e k t R r a e R m D l S S e e G E o n y r f ll H rt R r b i i o e n s l t ld d d o r l ib l a e r R d L r O e H w i Fanton Hill g r l Cider Mill School P y R n a ll F i e s w L R y 136 e a B i M e C H k A s t n d o i S d V l n 3 c k r l t g n n a d R i u g d o r a L 3 ! a l r u p d R d e c L S o s e Hurlbutt Elementary School R d n n d D A i K w T n d o O n D t f R l g d R l t ad L i r e R e e r n d L a S i m a o f g n n n D d n R o t h n Middlebrook School ! l n t w Lo t a 33 i n l n i r E id d D w l i o o W l r N e S a d l e P g n V n a h L C r L o N a r N a S e n e t l e b n l e C s h f ! d L nd g o a F i i M e l k rie r id F C a F r w n P t e r C ld l O e r a l y v f e u e o O n e o a P i O i s R w e t n a e l a n T t b s l d l N l k n t g i d u o e a o R W R Hasen Pond n r r n M W B y t Strong
    [Show full text]
  • Danbury Branch Improvement Program Task 5
    W FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TASK 5 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM STATE PROJECT 302-008 SECTION 18: VISUAL RESOURCES MAY 2009 State Project No. 302-008 Connecticut Department of Transportation Danbury Branch Improvement Program AA/DEIS SECTION 18. VISUAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section describes the visual resources in the study corridor. Visual resources contribute greatly to environmental quality, shaping the views and aesthetic experiences of people’s daily lives. Visual resources include natural landscape elements as well as features of the built environment. The quality of the visual experience depends on many factors, including the physical attributes of objects, the combination of objects and features in view, the location of visual elements in relation to the viewer, the condition of the elements, their uniqueness, viewer perceptions, and cultural connotations, among many others. Descriptions of landscape characteristics and features under existing conditions lay the groundwork for evaluating the effects of a project on the visual environment. Regulatory Context There are no federal and state laws that specifically protect visual resources across the board. There are, however, several important references to visual resources within the context of historic preservation and coastal zone management statutes. The implications of these legal protections are described below. At the Federal level, the following legislation is relevant to the project:
    [Show full text]
  • Customer Opinion Survey Final Report
    Task 1.2: Customer Opinion Survey Final Report URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. May 2003 Task 1.2:Technical Memorandum Customer Opinion Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................................1 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................................1 EXHIBIT 1: SURVEY SAMPLE.....................................................................................................................................2 COMPARISON TO METRO-NORTH RAILROAD CUSTOMER OPINION SURVEY ...........................................................10 CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS.........................................................12 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 .................................................................................13 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 4, 5, 6, AND 7 .............................................................................15 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY
    [Show full text]
  • Routes 7/15 Interchange Norwalk, Connecticut State Project 102-358 Analysis, Needs, and Deficiencies Report Prepared For: CTDOT
    Routes 7/15 Interchange Norwalk, Connecticut State Project 102-358 Analysis, Needs, and Deficiencies Report Prepared for: CTDOT Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. December 6, 2017 (Revised August 8, 2018) Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1.1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK .................................................................................. 2.1 2.1 ROADWAY NETWORK ...................................................................................................... 2.1 2.1.1 Mainlines and Interchanges ........................................................................... 2.4 2.1.2 Local Roads and Key Intersections ................................................................. 2.8 2.2 TRANSIT NETWORK ........................................................................................................ 2.10 2.2.1 Bus Transportation....................................................................................... 2.10 2.2.2 Rail Transportation ...................................................................................... 2.12 2.3 BICYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY .................................................................. 2.12 2.3.1 Assessment of Key Roadways ...................................................................... 2.12 2.3.2 Field Review of Bicycle and Pedestrian Environment .................................. 2.14 2.3.3 Review of ADA Issues ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Haven Line Capacity and Speed Analysis
    CTrail Strategies New Haven Line Capacity and Speed Analysis Final Report June 2021 | Page of 30 CTrail Strategies Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2 2. Existing Conditions: Infrastructure, Facilities, Equipment and Services (Task 1)............... 2 2.1. Capacity and Speed are Constrained by Legacy Infrastructure .................................... 3 2.2. Track Geometry and Slow Orders Contribute to Reduced Speeds ............................... 4 2.3. State-of-Good-Repair & Normal Replacement Improvements Impact Speed .............. 6 2.4. Aging Diesel-Hauled Fleet Limits Capacity ..................................................................... 6 2.5. Service Can Be Optimized to Improve Trip Times .......................................................... 7 2.6. Operating Costs and Revenue ........................................................................................ 8 3. Capacity of the NHL (Task 2)................................................................................................. 8 4. Market Assessment (Task 3) ............................................................................................... 10 4.1. Model Selection and High-Level Validation................................................................... 10 4.2. Market Analysis..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Resilient Connecticut Phase II Workshop to Discuss Potential Regional Adaptation/Resilience Opportunity Areas
    Resilient Connecticut Phase II Workshop to Discuss Potential Regional Adaptation/Resilience Opportunity Areas • SCRCOG ✓ May 24, 2021 • MetroCOG ✓ May 25, 2021 • WestCOG ✓ May 26, 2021 • NVCOG ✓ May 27, 2021 Resilient Connecticut Phase II Potential Regional Adaptation/Resilience Opportunity Areas Team Present Today Individual Role Victoria Vetre, CFM, SLR Consulting Presenter and Breakout Room Facilitator David Murphy, PE, CFM, SLR Consulting Presenter and Breakout Room Facilitator Scott Choquette, CFM, Dewberry Breakout Room Facilitator Johanna Greenspan-Johnston, Dewberry Breakout Room Facilitator Noah Slovin, CFM, SLR Consulting Zoom Logistics and Breakout Room Controller John Truscinski, CFM, CIRCA Facilitator Joanna Wozniak-Brown, PhD, CIRCA Facilitator Yaprak Onat, PhD, CIRCA Facilitator Katie Lund, CIRCA Facilitator Alex Felson, PhD, for CIRCA Facilitator Resilient Connecticut Phase II Potential Regional Adaptation/Resilience Opportunity Areas Workshop Objectives • Review Methods to Identify Potential Opportunities ✓ What is a potential adaptation/resilience opportunity area? ✓ How did we link vulnerability mapping with zones of shared risk and regional assets/infrastructure? • Breakout Rooms for Discussion about Specific Opportunity Areas ✓ What does the general profile of areas look like in the region or community that you represent? ✓ Do you have any thoughts about specific areas? • Report Out ✓ What is your impression of the potential opportunity areas? ✓ Did we miss anything? • Open Discussion and Next Steps ✓ What types of
    [Show full text]
  • Greening Mass Transit & Metro Regions: the Final Report
    Greening Mass Transit & Metro Regions: The Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the MTA State of New York Elliot G. Sander Executive Director & CEO Metropolitan Transportation Authority, NYS 347 Madison Avenue, Seventh Floor New York, N.Y. 10017-3739 Dear Lee, The Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the MTA is pleased to transmit to you its final report, Greening Mass Transit & Metro Regions. Your decision to empanel this commission, which you convened in the fall of 2007 long before the impact of the global recession was known, turned out to be prescient. As my fellow commissioner Robert Yaro noted, this report calls for a green transformation and expansion of the MTA network, which serves New York City, the Hudson Valley, Long Island and southern Connecticut. Our final report makes scores of recommendations in a number of key areas of sustainability planning. Implementing these recom- mendations will result in the comprehensive greening of our region’s transit system. We made every effort to ensure that our recommendations for greening the MTA also dealt with the economic realities described in the Ravitch Commission Report. As Commissioners, we believe that the recovery of the American economy and future well-being of the metropolitan region will hinge in part on new industries and new jobs created by greening the way we live and the way we work. Our recommendations will not only give the MTA agencies tools for reducing and managing the MTA’s ecological footprint, but also policies and strategies designed to accelerate the rate at which the MTA and the MTA region can reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • South Western Region Long Range Transportation Plan 2007-2035 Update Schedule
    SouthSouth Western RegionRegion LongLong RangeRange TransportationTransportation PlanPlan 20072007--20352035 Endorsed by: South Western Region Metropolitan Planning Organization May 8, 2007 Prepared by: South Western Regional Planning Agency 888 Washington Blvd. 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06901 203.316.5190 SOUTH WESTERN LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2007-2035 CONTENTS Guide to the Plan – Frequently Asked Questions………….. FAQ1- FAQ9 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 The South Western Region ................................................................... 17 Regional Characteristics ....................................................................... 23 Transportation Inventory and Travel Characteristics............................ 28 Long Range Transportation Plan 2007 – 2035 ..................................... 39 Transportation Plan Update Components……………………………... 48 Regional Transportation Plan References……………………………... 50 The Transportation Planning Process ................................................... 51 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................ 53 Highway Systems and Operations ........................................................ 56 Transportation Systems Management and Operations.......................... 62 Safety ................................................................................................... 64 Road Condition....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mta Property Listing for Nys Reporting
    3/31/2021 3:48 PM MTA PROPERTY LISTING FOR NYS REPORTING COUNTY SECTN BLOCKNO LOTNO Property_Code PROPERTYNAME PROPERTYADDDRESS AGENCY LINE PROPERTYTYPE limaster LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIR Main Line Station Bronx bbl05200 Bronx Whitestone Bridge Hutchson River parkway BT Block/Lot Bridge Bronx 9 mha04650 ROW b 125th & Melrose XXX St MN Harlem ROW Bronx 9 mha06600 ROW b 125th & Melrose Milepost 5,Sta-Mon# 31.5 MN Harlem ROW Bronx 12 mha09500 FORDHAM STATION Fordham Rd (Fordham U) MN Harlem Station Bronx mhu00343 Perm E'ment at Yankee Stadium Sta-mon 30.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx mhu06251 Spuyten Duyvil Substation Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx 19 mhu06301 Parking at Riverdale Milepost 12 , Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Parking Bronx tbl03600 Unionport Shop Unionport Rd. NYCT White Plains Road Shop Bronx tbl65340 Con Edison Ducts East 174 St NYCT Block/Lot Ducts Bronx tbw32500 231ST 231 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32600 238 ST 238 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32700 242 ST 242 St-Van Cortlandt Pk NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tco21000 161 ST Yankee Stadium 161 St/River Ave NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21100 167 ST 167 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21200 170 ST 170 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21300 174 175 STs 174-175 Sts/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21400 TREMONT AVE Tremont Ave/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21500 182 183 STs 183 St/Grand
    [Show full text]