Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

The WillyB has a pretty hard limit of 25 tph because of timing (benchmark for most lines is 28-30), and if not for the Williamsburg, the (M) merge would probably keep it to ~28. The (M) runs 10 tph (to be upped to 13), and the (J)(Z) run 6 each for a combined 12. 

IIRC, isn't it also due to the post-rehab weight limits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

IIRC, isn't it also due to the post-rehab weight limits?

Why would that be the case? The stiffing trusses and dampeners should be able to handle Subway Car's which are getting lighter in weight. They'll definitely be shedding a few more pounds moving forward as we try to cut more power consumption.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RailRunRob said:

Why would that be the case? The stiffing trusses and dampeners should be able to handle Subway Car's which are getting lighter in weight. They'll definitely be shedding a few more pounds moving forward as we try to cut more power consumption.     

Subway cars are not getting lighter in weight. This is a myth that comes up frequently. A full R160 set is moderately hevarier than a full R68 set, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, quadcorder said:

Subway cars are not getting lighter in weight. This is a myth that comes up frequently. A full R160 set is moderately hevarier than a full R68 set, for instance.

Myth ?How are you calculating that? A full train or individual cars? You're not pulling more weight with 2 extra cars. Every motor has to pull  its own weight and that's distributed over the length the bridge. The R179 im sure is lighter than R143/160 by at least a ton or two count the car not the full train.  The Willy B is a Unique structure and the fact the outta roadway isn't supported by cable but by viaducts the with the trackage being centered the weight should be balanced.

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Myth ?How are you calculating that? A full train or individual cars? You're not pulling more weight with 2 extra cars. 

A full train of R160s weighs more than a full train of R68s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Myth ?How are you calculating that? A full train or individual cars? You're not pulling more weight with 2 extra cars. Every motor has to pull  its own weight and that's distributed over the length the bridge. The R179 im sure is lighter than R143/160 by at least a ton or two count the car not the full train.  The Willy B is a Unique structure and the fact the outta roadway isn't supported by cable but by viaducts the with the trackage being centered the weight should be balanced.

I'm pretty sure it's a total weight restriction on the Willy B. Even if you shave 5% off the weight of an entire subway car consist, you can't exactly put a clean 5% more train on it at any given time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I’ve seen 3 trains share the main span at once, but I doubt the MTA/DOT wants that to be a regular occurrence. 

The weight and timer issues are deeply linked. By slowing speeds on the bridge, the MTA vastly increased the chances of an overweight occurance taking place, necessitating capacity limits (aside from the ones that the timers institute themselves, of course).

If you decrease train travel time over the main span, you decrease the chance that more than 2 occupy the main span at once. If you accompany this with block lengthening on the approaches, you increase your safety margin, and further decrease the chance of triple occupancy. 

So really, the main issue with the Williamsburg Bridge is its timers (which I heard were being ‘looked at’ but idk..)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2018 at 6:23 PM, Coney Island Av said:

If someone brings up the (J) to 9 Av proposal...

 

As someone who uses Canal St to transfer between the (N)(Q) and the (J)(Z), I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to have some sort of limited rush-hour service to South Brooklyn. Those narrow staircases connecting both sides of the (N)(Q) platform to the upper level (J) platform become completely impassable whenever a (J) or (Z) and an (N) or (Q) pull into Canal at the same time (which seems to happen quite often). And God help you if you have to transfer between those lines and you can’t climb stairs easily or have to use crutches, a cane, a walker or a wheelchair. Though I do agree that 9th Ave isn’t the place to extend the (J).

On 1/21/2018 at 3:33 PM, LGA Link N train said:

 

On 1/21/2018 at 3:33 PM, LGA Link N train said:

Rush Hour (J) trains terminate at Bay Ridge

 

Maybe something like this! Or 8th Ave on the Sea Beach Line. That’s quite a busy station.

 

On 1/21/2018 at 7:03 PM, LGA Link N train said:

Rush Hour (J) trains terminate at Bay Ridge

Only issue is line length, otherwise I partially agree.

It doesn’t have to go all the way to Parsons-Archer. Just have the South Brooklyn (J)’s short-turn at Broadway Junction (of course, this would be after the Canarsie Tunnel work is finished and Eastern Division train service goes back to normal).

 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As someone who uses Canal St to transfer between the (N)(Q) and the (J)(Z), I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to have some sort of limited rush-hour service to South Brooklyn. Those narrow staircases connecting both sides of the (N)(Q) platform to the upper level (J) platform become completely impassable whenever a (J) or (Z) and an (N) or (Q) pull into Canal at the same time (which seems to happen quite often). And God help you if you have to transfer between those lines and you can’t climb stairs easily or have to use crutches, a cane, a walker or a wheelchair. Though I do agree that 9th Ave isn’t the place to extend the (J).

 

Most of those transfers are Williamsburg to Midtown transfers for riders who prefer the (N)(Q) to the (M) ... almost nobody is going from far South Brooklyn to Williamsburg via Canal St. Anyone who wants to go from South Brooklyn to FiDi should transfer to the (R)(2)(3)(4)(5) .

7 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

Myth ?How are you calculating that? A full train or individual cars? You're not pulling more weight with 2 extra cars. Every motor has to pull  its own weight and that's distributed over the length the bridge. The R179 im sure is lighter than R143/160 by at least a ton or two count the car not the full train.  The Willy B is a Unique structure and the fact the outta roadway isn't supported by cable but by viaducts the with the trackage being centered the weight should be balanced.

All stats for empty trains. Note that the newer trains have a higher max capacity, so the difference increases when fully loaded.

R160 weight per car: 85,200 lb. Weight per train: 852,000 lb. The R143 is about 2000 lb lighter per car. The R179 isn't something I could find.

R68/A weight per car: 92,720 lb. Weight per train: 741,760 lb. R46 is a touch lighter.

R32/A weight per car: 79,930 lb. Weight per train: 799,300 lb (post rebuild)

R32/A weight per car: 70,000 lb. Weight per train: 700,000 lb (as delivered)

Edited by quadcorder
add R46

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quadcorder said:

All stats for empty trains. Note that the newer trains have a higher max capacity, so the difference increases when fully loaded.

R160 weight per car: 85,200 lb. Weight per train: 852,000 lb. The R143 is about 2000 lb lighter per car. The R179 isn't something I could find.

R68/A weight per car: 92,720 lb. Weight per train: 741,760 lb. R46 is a touch lighter.

R32/A weight per car: 79,930 lb. Weight per train: 799,300 lb (post rebuild)

R32/A weight per car: 70,000 lb. Weight per train: 700,000 lb (as delivered)

 

 

8 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

A full train of R160s weighs more than a full train of R68s

I understand the math, however, I don't understand the physics.

Totally weight of a train are you measuring traction force or downward weight?  A lighter car means the motors have to use less power to move the overall train. We're not talking a locomotive or a push/pull operation. Less weight less exerted energy to move the object.  Each 75-foot car has to move about more 6 tons with a 115 hp motor. So yeah the overall train's weight is higher and this would be a factor in any Type I or II railroad due to stopping and breaking the ability of the locomotive itself. but the dynamics is different with A EMU the R68 is a heavier  car due to weight power ratio's that's my point it's a bit more in-depth than the basic multiplication. It's other dimensions Involved.

8 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I'm pretty sure it's a total weight restriction on the Willy B. Even if you shave 5% off the weight of an entire subway car consist, you can't exactly put a clean 5% more train on it at any given time.

 

Maximum weight load on any bridge in NYC is 80,000lbs/40 tons what's to stop 30 trucks from driving across? Weight is distributed across every truss, cable and tower. Weight distributed through every bogie and wheel axle and truss.  I had the total weight limits for all the bridges I know the Cantilever Queensboro by far could hold more than the suspension's The Willy handle's less than it's sister to the south The Manhattan so there could be a little something there. Increased truck traffic? Okay, those are factors that I defiantly have to take into consideration here. But I don't feel that's the issue a bridge is designed for 10x more than its limits. I'm sure they strengthened the cables towers and pylons to last the next 100 years with the last over haul. 5% shaved off a consist That's a bit modest it's not hard to hit 10-15% HVAC and motors are getting lighter better composites and alloys. The biggest thing in Manufacturing nowadays is power efficiency shave the weight is one of the best ways to get over the line. Less power used and more returned. 

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, quadcorder said:

Most of those transfers are Williamsburg to Midtown transfers for riders who prefer the (N)(Q) to the (M) ... almost nobody is going from far South Brooklyn to Williamsburg via Canal St. Anyone who wants to go from South Brooklyn to FiDi should transfer to the (R)(2)(3)(4)(5) .

Right. But I’m taking about people coming off the southbound (J)(Z) and transferring to the southbound (N)(Q) at Canal. That’s where I get off every morning and see this. These people aren’t going to Midtown and it’s not a small crowd. And the staircase simply can’t handle it, especially when a southbound (J) or (Z) and a southbound (N) or (Q) arrive at Canal at the same time. Likewise, in the evening it's the same thing with northbound riders coming up the stairs to get the northbound (J) or (Z).

And unless their destination is the Union Square area and they (understandably) don’t want to deal with the huge crowds on the (L), why would anyone coming from Williamsburg prefer to take the (J)(Z) to the (N)(Q) over taking the (M)? If you’re headed to Times Square or the Carnegie Hall area, you can still get the (N)(Q) at 34th St if you take the (M)

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Right. But I’m taking about people coming off the southbound (J)(Z) and transferring to the southbound (N)(Q) at Canal. That’s where I get off every morning and see this. These people aren’t going to Midtown and it’s not a small crowd. And the staircase simply can’t handle it, especially when a southbound (J) or (Z) and a southbound (N) or (Q) arrive at Canal at the same time. 

Same thing in the PM when a northbound (J)(Z) and a southbound (N)(Q) arrive at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, here's an idea. Rearranging the tunnel structure on the (J)(Z) from Bowery to Canal so that the platform and curve are wider (lot of structure rearranging on a low ridership corridor along with renovating Chambers). In this scenario, the staircase can be wider with another idea,......

EXPANDING THE CANAL STREET (N)(Q) PLATFORM (again. Lot of rearranging and I'm not sure if this is even feasible) but seems like a good idea to me. What do you guys think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

 In this scenario, the staircase can be wider with another idea,......

EXPANDING THE CANAL STREET (N)(Q) PLATFORM (again. Lot of rearranging and I'm not sure if this is even feasible) but seems like a good idea to me. What do you guys think

That's a challenge... There's a lot of back rooms and things that would have to be moved.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

 

I understand the math, however, I don't understand the physics.

Totally weight of a train are you measuring traction force or downward weight?  A lighter car means the motors have to use less power to move the overall train. We're not talking a locomotive or a push/pull operation. Less weight less exerted energy to move the object.  Each 75-foot car has to move about more 6 tons with a 115 hp motor. So yeah the overall train's weight is higher and this would be a factor in any Type I or II railroad due to stopping and breaking the ability of the locomotive itself. but the dynamics is different with A EMU the R68 is a heavier  car due to weight power ratio's that's my point it's a bit more in-depth than the basic multiplication. It's other dimensions Involved.

Maximum weight load on any bridge in NYC is 80,000lbs/40 tons what's to stop 30 trucks from driving across? Weight is distributed across every truss, cable and tower. Weight distributed through every bogie and wheel axle and truss.  I had the total weight limits for all the bridges I know the Cantilever Queensboro by far could hold more than the suspension's The Willy handle's less than it's sister to the south The Manhattan so there could be a little something there. Increased truck traffic? Okay, those are factors that I defiantly have to take into consideration here. But I don't feel that's the issue a bridge is designed for 10x more than its limits. I'm sure they strengthened the cables towers and pylons to last the next 100 years with the last over haul. 5% shaved off a consist That's a bit modest it's not hard to hit 10-15% HVAC and motors are getting lighter better composites and alloys. The biggest thing in Manufacturing nowadays is power efficiency shave the weight is one of the best ways to get over the line. Less power used and more returned. 

Those are how much the train weighs. The newer trains weigh more. You keep not understanding that.

That means that using newer trains won't increase the number of trains that can go on the bridge at once. I'm not sure how that can confuse you.

6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Right. But I’m taking about people coming off the southbound (J)(Z) and transferring to the southbound (N)(Q) at Canal. That’s where I get off every morning and see this. These people aren’t going to Midtown and it’s not a small crowd. And the staircase simply can’t handle it, especially when a southbound (J) or (Z) and a southbound (N) or (Q) arrive at Canal at the same time. Likewise, in the evening it's the same thing with northbound riders coming up the stairs to get the northbound (J) or (Z).

And unless their destination is the Union Square area and they (understandably) don’t want to deal with the huge crowds on the (L), why would anyone coming from Williamsburg prefer to take the (J)(Z) to the (N)(Q) over taking the (M)? If you’re headed to Times Square or the Carnegie Hall area, you can still get the (N)(Q) at 34th St if you take the (M)

Please show me statistics to support your claim that people go from a southbound (J)(Z) to a southbound (N)(Q) ? This seems like a very unusual pattern since almost everyone goes to Manhattan, and most of them go to Midtown (this is emphatically supported by data and is why the (M) midtown reroute is such a success). Almost nobody took the (M) from Insert other media Brooklyn when it ran to Bay Parkway, that's why it was cut back! Why would extending the (J) be any different?

Why not take the (M)? Well, for one, maybe they live on the  (J) east of where the (M) diverges!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, quadcorder said:

Those are how much the train weighs. The newer trains weigh more. You keep not understanding that.

That means that using newer trains won't increase the number of trains that can go on the bridge at once. I'm not sure how that can confuse you.

11 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 I get your angle it has some validity. If this were something like say a plane sure it'd be 100% The overall physics for a train is different the overall weight is spread of the length of the train per car even per axle. Think of how you weight a truck or measure it on roadways or bridges.. distributed per axel... If a standard Elevated Subway viaduct can hold a max car weight of 117,000 lbs (57 tons) that's spread out amongst columns. Same on rail or ballast or roadbed ahh even snow shoes lol.  Your point is valid in the fact that the tower on a suspension would have to carry that weight regardless and it can trust always 10x buffer on top of the fact it has to hold itself up (The hardest part) kinetic energy Etc.. But it's the span and truss you have to watch with to much weight in a spot or on a particular section cable.  I've worked for a rail manufacturer I've never heard it broken down that way.  An R46/68 would be a heavier car due to the amount Energy needed to move the car per car and downward weight per axle/bogie. Again not saying in the case of a Suspension bridge and the tower loads your not wrong bc that's mathematically correct and factored.  Just not the way I was taught it's measured in common practice. So I'm going to have to disagree.  If you can show me some MTA documents or equations that say otherwise i'll be more the happy to learn something new.

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, quadcorder said:

Please show me statistics to support your claim that people go from a southbound (J)(Z) to a southbound (N)(Q) ? This seems like a very unusual pattern since almost everyone goes to Manhattan, and most of them go to Midtown (this is emphatically supported by data and is why the (M) midtown reroute is such a success). Almost nobody took the (M) from Insert other media Brooklyn when it ran to Bay Parkway, that's why it was cut back! Why would extending the (J) be any different?

A lot can change in 7 years...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, quadcorder said:

Please show me statistics to support your claim that people go from a southbound (J)(Z) to a southbound (N)(Q) ? This seems like a very unusual pattern since almost everyone goes to Manhattan, and most of them go to Midtown (this is emphatically supported by data and is why the (M) midtown reroute is such a success). Almost nobody took the (M) from Insert other media Brooklyn when it ran to Bay Parkway, that's why it was cut back! Why would extending the (J) be any different?

 

While I don't have any hard ridership numbers to support this, but office space has been on an incline in Downtown Bklyn according to this 2017 report: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/osdc/rpt10-2017.pdf. It's long so I'll summarize some quotes.

Quote

The drive to create new space has also pushed office development beyond the traditional Midtown Manhattan market to the far West Side, Midtown South, Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City. The proposed rezoning of East Midtown Manhattan would help meet the demand for more state-of-the-art office space.

Large concentrations of office space are also found in greater Downtown Brooklyn (20 million square feet) and Long Island City (7 million square feet). Together, they account for another 5 percent of the City’s office space.

The three largest Manhattan business districts, Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City account for 92 percent ($155 billion) of the citywide [office space market value] total. Overall, offices represented 16 percent of the market value of all properties in the City (and nearly two-thirds of the value of all nonresidential properties).

 

In addition, Buswick/Willyb have become inhabited by lots of hip white transplants who are working in hip startup companies, who in turn tend to be attracted to Brooklyn. So I'll believe that a large amount of people transferring at Canal to the downtown (N)(Q).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, quadcorder said:

Please show me statistics to support your claim that people go from a southbound (J)(Z) to a southbound (N)(Q) ? This seems like a very unusual pattern since almost everyone goes to Manhattan, and most of them go to Midtown (this is emphatically supported by data and is why the (M) midtown reroute is such a success). Almost nobody took the (M) from Insert other media Brooklyn when it ran to Bay Parkway, that's why it was cut back! Why would extending the (J) be any different?

Why not take the (M)? Well, for one, maybe they live on the  (J) east of where the (M) diverges!

 

I go through the station every day on my way to work. I see it with my own two eyes. I’ve crammed my way up that narrow staircase many times, so I experience first-hand what happens there. If you don’t believe me, then that’s fine. I’m not asking you to. But I’m not a statistician and I’m not doing any kind of study for the MTA or any local politician, so no, I won’t be showing you any statistics to prove it. I don’t have to. And you don’t have to believe me either. I’m 100 percent aware that most people transfer for Midtown, but don’t disregard those who don’t. 

For the record, east of where the (M) diverges from the (J) is not Williamsburg. It’s Bushwick, bordering on Bed-Stuy. Further east are East New York and Cypress Hills. Even then, wouldn’t it be easier to transfer to the (M) on the same platform between Myrtle Ave and Essex St for Midtown? 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since everyone was whining endlessly a few days ago that the (A) and (C) riders were "promised" by the (MTA) to get R179s...

(A) : 80 cars in service + 40 cars as spares = 120 cars total

(C) : 144 cars in service + 52 cars as spares = 196 cars total

316 R179 cars total (196 in four-car sets and 120 in five-car sets).

This means the (J) / (Z) will be 100% R160s like the (M) with a few still serving the (L) during the Canarsie Tube Shutdown. The rest of the (A) 's fleet will be R46s (and later, replaced with the R211s in the 2020s era).

All other lines retain the same car assignments as they do today.

Simple.

EDIT: I forgot about the 222 R32s. About half of them will be retired and the rest will be sent to Coney Island to run on the (B) and the (B) only. Some of its R68/As will be moved over to the (G) to make full-length 600 feet long trains for the Canarsie Tube Shutdown. The 50 R42s on the other hand will finally be retired as they would no longer be needed much. 

And that's about it.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Since everyone was whining endlessly a few days ago that the (A) and (C) riders were "promised" by the (MTA) to get R179s...

(A) : 80 cars in service + 40 cars as spares = 120 cars total

(C) : 144 cars in service + 52 cars as spares = 196 cars total

316 R179 cars total (196 in four-car sets and 120 in five-car sets).

This means the (J) / (Z) will be 100% R160s like the (M) with a few still serving the (L) during the Canarsie Tube Shutdown. The rest of the (A) 's fleet will be R46s (and later, replaced with the R211s in the 2020s era).

All other lines retain the same car assignments as they do today.

Simple.

EDIT: I forgot about the 222 R32s. About half of them will be retired and the rest will be sent to Coney Island to run on the (B) and the (B) only. Some of its R68/As will be moved over to the (G) to make full-length 600 feet long trains for the Canarsie Tube Shutdown. The 50 R42s on the other hand will finally be retired as they would no longer be needed much. 

And that's about it.

You posted this in the wrong thread, Take this over to the R179 Discussion or R32 Fleet Swap Thread. <_<

EDIT: This is a FLEET ASSIGNMENT, not a proposal. A proposal is like an extension of an existing subway line. Like for example, we were talking about a (J) train extension to South Brooklyn, not fleet assignments. And that goes for every other post in this thread.  And why do you think everything is say makes me a mod?! Current members even say to stop necroposting, even tho they're not a mod. 

Edited by Coney Island Av
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Coney Island Av said:

You posted this in the wrong thread, Take this over to the R179 Discussion or R32 Fleet Swap Thread. <_<

Oh gee, I didn't know you was a moderator.

I knew exactly what thread I was posting in. This is the proposal thread after all. Hop off my back and move on.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

EDIT: This is a FLEET ASSIGNMENT, not a proposal. A proposal is like an extension of an existing subway line. Like for example, we were talking about a (J) train extension to South Brooklyn, not fleet assignments. And that goes for every other post in this thread.  And why do you think everything is say makes me a mod?! Current members even say to stop necroposting, even tho they're not a mod. 

Not necessarily though.

This is the proposal thread and the (MTA) can change things later on. Not everything written in black and white comes true. Big deal. I don't have post this in neither the R179 Thread or the R32 Fleet Swaps Thread if I don't want to anyway. A predicted fleet assignment is still more-or-less a proposed assignment. And anyway, I'll just simply ignore you from now on. You've annoyed me enough.

Edited by Jemorie
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh get a room. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing each other for doing — degrading threads with holier-than-thou, nonsensical bickering. 

 

On a wholly different note, has adding switches to the exp tracks south of Astoria Boulevard ever been looked at to fluidize Ditmars a bit? Then you could turn trains on the middle track there. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Oh get a room. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing each other for doing — degrading threads with holier-than-thou, nonsensical bickering. 

 

On a wholly different note, has adding switches to the exp tracks south of Astoria Boulevard ever been looked at to fluidize Ditmars a bit? Then you could turn trains on the middle track there. 

Oh please. I'm not some kindergarten teacher where I have to sweep everything under the rug and say "Oh okay, sure I will, whatever you want, my bad". Ain't no thread being degraded here. Maybe it's you who needs to open your eyes. Hence the word "proposal". Deal with it.

They can run some trains express on the Astoria Line northbound if the local track gets congested with trains bunching up.

EDIT: Oops. I misread your second sentence. Yes I agree. They really should install one whenever they're ready to. It would ease congestion at Ditmars Blvd during rush hours when trains run more frequently. It's why some (N) trains reroute to or from SAS. That likely won't last long when the (T) comes online and all (N) 's are going to have to head up to and from Astoria. So they need to install a switch south of Astoria Blvd; otherwise Ditmars Blvd would be way too congested.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.