B35 via Church Posted March 30, 2012 Share #26 Posted March 30, 2012 Time to :lock: this thread, I was calling it even because we are now debating on something that could be referred to as differently depending on transit agency, individuals and e.t.c.... Sometimes a transit center complex is laid in a 1/4 mile area and sometimes require few blocks to get from the train to the bus. We've reached something that could be infinitely debated until we all end up coming to the same state as of now. Slick is not applicable. It's not my fault nor my problem when the grounds on which your opinion lies is shaky, at best.... You yourself couldn't (and still can't) make up your mind on the parameters.... now it's a quarter mile..... Slick is definitely applicable when you all of a sudden wanna call it even, then when I pull your card with what you tried to do in that last post, bring up locking the thread afterwards.... Locking the thread is not necessary just because you can't get your way.... I'll cease from this back & forth (meaning, really calling it even) when you stop trying to pass off your opinion as being right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted March 30, 2012 Share #27 Posted March 30, 2012 Look the Q89 and Q9 has a subway transfer. If some of u think 169st is not a transfer the Q9 still passes Jamaica center and LIRR stations. And as for the Q89 169 st was it subway station. But my opinion the q89 wasn't really a full route. It ran between 10:00 and 4:00. And everytime I saw it there was no one or 1 to 2 people on it. It was just a short cut to get to Jamaica and ozone park faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 30, 2012 Share #28 Posted March 30, 2012 Look the Q89 and Q9 has a subway transfer. If some of u think 169st is not a transfer the Q9 still passes Jamaica center and LIRR stations. And as for the Q89 169 st was it subway station. But my opinion the q89 wasn't really a full route. It ran between 10:00 and 4:00. And everytime I saw it there was no one or 1 to 2 people on it. It was just a short cut to get to Jamaica and ozone park faster. Yeah, 169th was it's nearest subway station... The Q89 did not connect to it though.... As for the Q9, I don't know why Keystone even brought up that route when that already connects to Sutphin blvd.... As far the Q89 being a piece of a route & how sorry it was or whatever.... well that's a whole 'nother discussion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted March 30, 2012 Share #29 Posted March 30, 2012 Yeah, 169th was it's nearest subway station... The Q89 did not connect to it though.... As for the Q9, I don't know why Keystone even brought up that route when that already connects to Sutphin blvd.... As far the Q89 being a piece of a route & how sorry it was or whatever.... well that's a whole 'nother discussion.... He was saying that the MTA considered it to connect to 169th Street because they listed it that way on the timetable. Because the MTA considered the Q89 (originally the Q9A) to be a variant of the Q9, then it must've considered the Q89 to connect to 169th Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted March 30, 2012 Share #30 Posted March 30, 2012 Agree and even thought the q79 didn't connect to a subway station at least it had 2 LIRR connections Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 30, 2012 Share #31 Posted March 30, 2012 The Q79 in my case doesn't connect to a subway because it wouldn't be logical to consider it as a "connection to the Subway". The Q89 however does go very near a subway station and logically will have people "connecting/transferring" still. I know I can hardly convince anyone with a locked to rock opinion to agree when that person is saying a connection must be a bus stop right by a subway entrance. So that is why I am acknowledging their locked to rock opinion and calling it even. However I still believe connecting and transferring is along the same line. People do walk blocks in suburban towns from a RR station to a Bus Stop, that is why I am applying it here as well. And thus the is agreeing that the 169th St. is a valid and logical "connection/transfer" and it's right on the schedule. I brought up the Q9 because it's simply a 165th St. Bus - 169th St. Subway argument now to support my argument on the Q89. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 31, 2012 Share #32 Posted March 31, 2012 The Q79 in my case doesn't connect to a subway because it wouldn't be logical to consider it as a "connection to the Subway". The Q89 however does go very near a subway station and logically will have people "connecting/transferring" still. I know I can hardly convince anyone with a locked to rock opinion to agree when that person is saying a connection must be a bus stop right by a subway entrance. So that is why I am acknowledging their locked to rock opinion and calling it even. However I still believe connecting and transferring is along the same line. People do walk blocks in suburban towns from a RR station to a Bus Stop, that is why I am applying it here as well. And thus the is agreeing that the 169th St. is a valid and logical "connection/transfer" and it's right on the schedule. I brought up the Q9 because it's simply a 165th St. Bus - 169th St. Subway argument now to support my argument on the Q89. Make all the indirect statements that you like... I'm directing my commentary at YOU. Yeah, you sure as hell aren't gonna convince me of your opinion when the basis of it isn't "rock" solid.... Indeterminable parameters, now this illegitimate point you're presenting.... People walking blocks to a RR station coming off some bus pales in comparison to people walking blocks coming off some bus route to connect to a subway station.... You cannot compare unlike terms & sit and call that logical.... You are comparing urban commuting habits to suburban commuting habits here.... RR stations are far more spread apart than subway stations.... Really, what you did with this last bit is hurt your argument... But you know what, I'm not trying to convince you of anything at this point... What I am doing with this is reinforcing the opinion I already presented by pointing out the inconsistencies of yours..... Quite frankly, the more you posted in this debate, the easier it is (well, was) to shut down your points.... The odd thing throughout all this is that, you never refuted my original stance of the Q89 not connecting, not dropping passengers off at the 169th st station itself.... How could you? because it never did.... lol.... That is most likely why you started lecturing me about direct relationships & going off on that whole spiel/tangent..... That's all I really have to say to you about this at this point.... Had you not pulled that stunt you did in post #23, I would have called this even a long time ago..... As for the Q9 man, fine.... but the original question asked are there any bus routes that doesn't connect to the subway.... Even if you wanted to bring up that route for the reason you state, the route already connected to another subway station anyway..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 31, 2012 Share #33 Posted March 31, 2012 Make all the indirect statements that you like... I'm directing my commentary at YOU. Yeah, you sure as hell aren't gonna convince me of your opinion when the basis of it isn't "rock" solid.... Indeterminable parameters, now this illegitimate point you're presenting.... People walking blocks to a RR station coming off some bus pales in comparison to people walking blocks coming off some bus route to connect to a subway station.... You cannot compare unlike terms & sit and call that logical.... You are comparing urban commuting habits to suburban commuting habits here.... RR stations are far more spread apart than subway stations.... Really, what you did with this last bit is hurt your argument... But you know what, I'm not trying to convince you of anything at this point... What I am doing with this is reinforcing the opinion I already presented by pointing out the inconsistencies of yours..... Quite frankly, the more you posted in this debate, the easier it is (well, was) to shut down your points.... The odd thing throughout all this is that, you never refuted my original stance of the Q89 not connecting, not dropping passengers off at the 169th st station itself.... How could you? because it never did.... lol.... That is most likely why you started lecturing me about direct relationships & going off on that whole spiel/tangent..... That's all I really have to say to you about this at this point.... Had you not pulled that stunt you did in post #23, I would have called this even a long time ago..... As for the Q9 man, fine.... but the original question asked are there any bus routes that doesn't connect to the subway.... Even if you wanted to bring up that route for the reason you state, the route already connected to another subway station anyway..... 1) Understood, and alright, that is your opinion. 2) Rock solid as I could be, and I stated my viewpoints already and I am not gonna change it, 5 blocks +/-1 block margin of error. You might as well also say that the 63rd St. - Lex. Ave. transfer to 59/60th - Lex. Ave. is also not a "connection", when it is shown on maps as legit. 3) It is not much different as urban and suburban, the landscape is just different, quite frankly just how densely populated and how tall the buildings are the main judgements, and few other reasoning, but it doesn't have to justify how a connection/transfer works. 4) It does drop people off, and people walk few blocks to the entrance and enter the station, just as a bus operator said it, "Connections available to the train." If your lazy, I am sorry but you have to walk! 5) Yes, I might be a touring car driver in the future, thank you! 6) Well, the map below the timetable shows the 169th St. so??? The Q89 does connect too!!! Huzzah!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted March 31, 2012 Share #34 Posted March 31, 2012 Look this topic is basically irrelevant now because #1 Both the Q79 and Q89 are gone and # 2 we are all trying to make each other sound wrong and this topic doesn't have no effect today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 31, 2012 Share #35 Posted March 31, 2012 Look this topic is basically irrelevant now because #1 Both the Q79 and Q89 are gone and # 2 we are all trying to make each other sound wrong and this topic doesn't have no effect today. I agree, that is why I called it even and move on with our current opinions, :face palm:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 31, 2012 Share #36 Posted March 31, 2012 I agree, that is why I called it even and move on with our current opinions, :face palm:. Facepalm all you want..... It aint even when you are quick to dismiss someone else's commentary as an opinion while still passing off your opinion as truth... I'm not letting that slide.... Look this topic is basically irrelevant now because #1 Both the Q79 and Q89 are gone and # 2 we are all trying to make each other sound wrong and this topic doesn't have no effect today. I'm still waiting for more possible answers to this (if any).... Well that, and the threadstarter's take on this whole thing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 31, 2012 Share #37 Posted March 31, 2012 Facepalm all you want..... It aint even when you are quick to call someone else's commentary as an opinion while still passing off your opinion as truth... I'm not letting that slide.... Same for you, but still I have people agreeing with my points and I have proof from 1) a bus operator from the Q89, 2) 2 Schedules/Route Map, 3) A relevant argument based on patterns of travel. This is the truth, but with a kind heart I am letting you pass this time and calling it even, not letting it slide will do you more harm than good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 31, 2012 Share #38 Posted March 31, 2012 Same for you, but still I have people agreeing with my points and I have proof from 1) a bus operator from the Q89, 2) 2 Schedules/Route Map, 3) A relevant argument based on patterns of travel. This is the truth, but with a kind heart I am letting you pass this time and calling it even, not letting it slide will do you more harm than good. Do me more harm than good... Yeah right.... I'm not the one who couldn't make up my mind as to what distance constitutes a connection.... You wanna call your opinion the truth? Then miss me with the calling it even BS then.... The truth is the Q89 did not directly take you to the subway station. There was no physical direct connection. No former Q89 operator can tell me otherwise, those timetables aren't proof that the Q89 dropped people off at 169th subway station, and your so-called "relevant argument based on patterns of travel" definitely isn't proof that the Q89 dropped people off at 169th subway..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 31, 2012 Share #39 Posted March 31, 2012 Do me more harm than good... Yeah right.... I'm not the one who couldn't make up my mind as to what distance constitutes a connection.... You wanna call your opinion the truth? Then miss me with the calling it even BS then.... The truth is the Q89 did not directly take you to the subway station. There was no physical direct connection. No former Q89 operator can tell me otherwise, those timetables aren't proof that the Q89 dropped people off at 169th subway station, and your so-called "relevant argument based on patterns of travel" definitely isn't proof that the Q89 dropped people off at 169th subway..... I exaggerated a bit, but after furious opposition that 10 average blocks is long, I cut it down to 5 as a compromise. Mind made, compromise set, capise! Well it is, a bus operator announced connections available to the IND Line at 169th Street Station, and either way it is not direct, but the post title says "connects", not "directly connects". So connect can mean a 1-5 blocks worth of walking. And where does the OP say drop off/pick up at? It simply says connect, it could mean any distance one thinks should be as a connection, according to some transit workers, a 1/4 mile walk could mean a connection as well, even 1/2, 3/4 or 1, but it all boils down to opinion and the truth. This case my opinion says the Q89 does connect, the truth is it does according to B/O and Supervisors and the MTA Bus Route Map. And no former bus operator? When can you justify that when I was waiting for another bus and heard a Q89 B/O annouce "Connections available to the 169th Street train"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted March 31, 2012 Share #40 Posted March 31, 2012 Can someone lock this thread because this topic is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 31, 2012 Share #41 Posted March 31, 2012 I exaggerated a bit, but after furious opposition that 10 average blocks is long, I cut it down to 5 as a compromise. Mind made, compromise set, capise! Well it is, a bus operator announced connections available to the IND Line at 169th Street Station, and either way it is not direct, but the post title says "connects", not "directly connects". So connect can mean a 1-5 blocks worth of walking. And where does the OP say drop off/pick up at? It simply says connect, it could mean any distance one thinks should be as a connection, according to some transit workers, a 1/4 mile walk could mean a connection as well, even 1/2, 3/4 or 1, but it all boils down to opinion and the truth. This case my opinion says the Q89 does connect, the truth is it does according to B/O and Supervisors and the MTA Bus Route Map. And no former bus operator? When can you justify that when I was waiting for another bus and heard a Q89 B/O annouce "Connections available to the 169th Street train"! So you wanna harp on semantics... okay, but it doesn't change anything... My stance all along is that the Q89 did not connect to 169th st .... connect, directly connect, dropoff/pickup (at the station), it's all interchangable far as I'm concerned.... ...and um, I said "No former Q89 operator can tell ME otherwise".... Never said there was no former bus operator, or no situation you experienced where there was no former bus operator - What are you talking about.... Regardless of that misconstrual of yours, I personally don't care what you heard a former b/o say; that's hearsay.... and it's not proof that the bus connected to the station..... like I said earlier, the nearest subway station some 4 blocks away doesn't make it a connection...... What does the term connect mean to you..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted March 31, 2012 Share #42 Posted March 31, 2012 The ignorance some ppl have. Come on just man up and admit ur wrong it not a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 31, 2012 Share #43 Posted March 31, 2012 Can someone lock this thread because this topic is finished. Stop it with the locking the thread... even Keystone himself got off of doing that..... The ignorance some ppl have. Come on just man up and admit ur wrong it not a big deal. Why, because you say so & agree with Keystone's stance.... yeah right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 31, 2012 Share #44 Posted March 31, 2012 So you wanna harp on semantics... okay, but it doesn't change anything... My stance all along is that the Q89 did not connect to 169th st .... connect, directly connect, dropoff/pickup (at the station), it's all interchangable far as I'm concerned.... ...and um, I said "No former Q89 operator can tell ME otherwise".... Never said there was no former bus operator, or no situation you experienced where there was no former bus operator - What are you talking about.... Regardless of that misconstrual of yours, I personally don't care what you heard a former b/o say; that's hearsay.... and it's not proof that the bus connected to the station..... like I said earlier, the nearest subway station some 4 blocks away doesn't make it a connection...... What does the term connect mean to you..... Okay, that's your stance, the bus schedule map says your wrong, but still it connects and is within walking distance of the 169th St. Station. Let's leave it like that, and keep it civil alright! And if you wanna admit your wrong, feel free, but again I and others agree it connects. Also, one more thing, there is zero reason to argue with the ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted March 31, 2012 Share #45 Posted March 31, 2012 get your facts straight #1 that's the first time me saying lock the thread #2 I don't give a damn what anyone else does and #3 All I ask for u two stop it because I think everyone gets the point about this thread so plz I ask u will u plz stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 31, 2012 Share #46 Posted March 31, 2012 My apologies College Pt Man, I'll stop, but I firmly stand by my stance, the truth and opinion. Final post, have a good evening, :-)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 31, 2012 Share #47 Posted March 31, 2012 Okay, that's your stance, the bus schedule map says your wrong, but still it connects and is within walking distance of the 169th St. Station. Let's leave it like that, and keep it civil alright! And if you wanna admit your wrong, feel free, but again I and others agree it connects. Also, one more thing, there is zero reason to argue with the ... It's within walking distance, but it does not connect..... I already stated those 2 timetables are misleading, because there is no connection..... There is no reason to argue with the MTA.... so you're one of those people huh.... well, that's your prerogative.... I'm not leaving it like anything, under your terms, that puts your opinion as being that of truth..... and for damn sure I'm not admitting I'm wrong when I'm simply not... regardless of who agrees with you..... get your facts straight #1 that's the first time me saying lock the thread #2 I don't give a damn what anyone else does and #3 All I ask for u two stop it because I think everyone gets the point about this thread so plz I ask u will u plz stop? If you don't give a damn, don't ask me to stop..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted March 31, 2012 Share #48 Posted March 31, 2012 What this thread was about was merely about direct connections where it doesn't require more than 1 block (e.g Q6 & Q9 & Sutphin Blvd to connect to the E/J/Z, one block walk) to connect to said subway station. At the basis, the Q89 never had a direct connection to any subway station as the distance between 165th Street Bus Terminal & the 168th Street entrance to the 169th Street station is marginally big. Every route that operated out of that terminal had a direct connection with the exception of the Q89. Now can this damn argument be done with already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRT Bronx Express Posted March 31, 2012 Share #49 Posted March 31, 2012 It's within walking distance, but it does not connect..... I already stated those 2 timetables are misleading, because there is no connection.....I knew I noticed that somewhere...The Bx40/42 timetable mentiones a transfer for the (B )/(D) at Tremont Av, but the Bx36 doesn't mention a transfer for the at Burnside. Bx1/2 timetable -> transfer for the (B )/(D)/(4) at Yankee Stadium. Bx55 timetable -> transfer for the Bx35 at 168th (which it doesn't stop at all). Not sure about this one... Bx3/11/13/35/36 -> train at 175 (3-4 blocks away from where it terminates). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share #50 Posted March 31, 2012 Wow, monitoring this post and its going off. I request a lock if it the argument doesn't chill off. Thanks for the info.... For the Q89, there is still a connection to the subway (Via Walk) verses the Q79 which has no connection to the Subway system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.