Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #150304 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-24 11:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-22 18:01 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-24 11:00 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "hqhy" <hqhy@nospam.com> - 2015-08-25 04:47 +1000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-24 15:01 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-24 14:45 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-24 13:22 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 13:26 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 11:48 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 16:12 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 20:20 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 20:28 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-08-24 21:42 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-24 15:14 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 08:07 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 12:52 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-08-25 20:06 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-08-24 23:33 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 01:39 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-08-25 10:23 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 12:30 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-08-25 22:48 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-26 10:44 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-08-26 18:03 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-26 12:04 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-08-25 14:15 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 15:15 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 13:33 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 15:49 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 21:00 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 16:37 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-08-25 23:52 +0200
fluorescents, was: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 22:25 +0000
Re: fluorescents, was: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-08-26 04:13 +0200
Re: fluorescents, was: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 20:24 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 19:11 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 20:36 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-08-26 02:29 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 09:35 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2015-10-11 17:24 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-13 07:30 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2015-10-15 19:32 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 20:52 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "Joseph D. Korman" <joekor@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-28 14:34 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-08-26 04:03 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 20:36 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 08:10 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 12:18 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 17:30 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-12 22:15 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-13 07:37 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 13:15 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 12:37 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 14:57 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 13:30 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 11:26 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-16 07:19 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-16 15:55 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-17 00:10 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-21 13:12 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 13:23 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 17:56 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-22 17:53 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-24 00:46 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 12:38 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 17:56 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-22 10:56 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-22 10:09 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-22 19:44 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-22 14:38 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-22 23:40 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-23 13:29 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-23 11:39 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-23 15:52 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-23 21:40 +0100
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-23 16:55 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-23 22:18 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-25 21:04 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 07:17 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:48 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-26 15:54 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-28 07:07 +1100
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:36 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-24 16:01 +1100
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-23 08:19 +1100
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 05:57 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-22 14:12 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-23 14:27 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-23 16:16 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-23 20:05 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-25 00:53 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-25 17:49 +1100
car rentals, was: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-10-25 12:47 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-23 19:55 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 07:16 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-24 18:11 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-24 20:18 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-24 23:55 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-22 18:01 +0000
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0o9Wx.163193$%c.36366@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #153195 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: ><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> > >> They are doing whatever they can to sabotage passenger trains. New >> signal rules are an extremely costly burden using resources not even >> available. Certain long haul trains were ordered to lose their food >> service, making the trip unattractive; > >Compared to the wonderful food service on airlines? It was wonderful, prior to deregulation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 00:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0ekdp$1n3j$2@miucha.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #153223 |
>>Compared to the wonderful food service on airlines? > >It was wonderful, prior to deregulation. Considering what tickets cost, it should have been.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 12:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <proto-729198.12382204112015@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153223 |
In article <0o9Wx.163193$%c.36366@fx26.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > ><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >> > > > >> They are doing whatever they can to sabotage passenger trains. New > >> signal rules are an extremely costly burden using resources not even > >> available. Certain long haul trains were ordered to lose their food > >> service, making the trip unattractive; > > > >Compared to the wonderful food service on airlines? > > It was wonderful, prior to deregulation. And for the same cost, real money, as coach in them days you can get first class. -- Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 17:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1021954800.467155766.390220.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153159 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 16-Oct-15 17:10, Morten Reistad wrote: >> If I can get to a city within 3 hours on a train, I prefer that mode >> of transportation; unless I have a lot to carry, in which case I use >> a car. Flights are for longer distance travel. >> >> Those three hours are a magical threshold for rail travel, it is >> when the train overtakes the planes in popularity. > > The general rule of thumb is 4 hours, and some recent data indicates > that it may actually be 5 hours. > Given how far out most airports are it may take you and hour or so to get there depending on where you live, plus either cab or limo fare or parking and/or car rental at destination. Everyone suggests you get to the airport two hours prior to flight time, although IME less is OK. It usually takes 1/2 hour to get checked luggage, if you have any. You're already close to five hours (trip to origin and from destination), and you haven't even taken off yet. Yes, for trips of 300 mi or so driving is both faster and a lot cheaper than air travel. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 10:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0b0rg$nq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153194 |
On 21-Oct-15 16:56, Peter Flass wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 16-Oct-15 17:10, Morten Reistad wrote: >>> Those three hours are a magical threshold for rail travel, it is >>> when the train overtakes the planes in popularity. >> >> The general rule of thumb is 4 hours, and some recent data >> indicates that it may actually be 5 hours. > > Given how far out most airports are it may take you and hour or so to > get there depending on where you live, plus either cab or limo fare > or parking and/or car rental at destination. Everyone suggests you > get to the airport two hours prior to flight time, although IME less > is OK. It usually takes 1/2 hour to get checked luggage, if you have > any. Right; what the customer cares about is end-to-end trip time, not just the travel time. And for the former, the rule of thumb is that rail wins for trips under 4-5 hours. > You're already close to five hours (trip to origin and from > destination), and you haven't even taken off yet. How did you get 5 hours? My typical trip: 30 mins to drive to airport 15 mins to park 45 mins check-in/security/boarding -- actual flight time 15 mins to get rental car 15 mins to drive to hotel So, that's 2 hours on top of the flight time. For less experienced travelers or those with kids, it's probably more like 3 hours. For a decent rail system, I'd expect _at least_ an hour less, which means the actual travel time could be up to an hour longer. > Yes, for trips of 300 mi or so driving is both faster and a lot > cheaper than air travel. In many cases, yes, especially once you factor in the benefit of having your own car at the destination rather than a rental, and especially if there are multiple people traveling. Trains share the former, but the much lower marginal cost per passenger means they can more easily offer discounted family/group fares to mitigate the latter. OTOH, driving is stressful, and other factors may make putting so many miles on your own car undesirable--and it assumes you own a car in the first place. If you use a rental, most benefits of driving evaporate. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 10:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac349caf-877a-43e5-842d-5db024a03ee9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153216 |
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 11:56:34 AM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > My typical trip: > > 30 mins to drive to airport > 15 mins to park > 45 mins check-in/security/boarding > -- actual flight time > 15 mins to get rental car > 15 mins to drive to hotel > > So, that's 2 hours on top of the flight time. For less experienced > travelers or those with kids, it's probably more like 3 hours. > For a decent rail system, I'd expect _at least_ an hour less, which > means the actual travel time could be up to an hour longer. Often, the time factor is dependent on the distance from one's home to the transport terminal, the congestion of the terminal, and the situation at the arrival point. Usually, trains win out with a much shorter check-in time since there is (at present) no security. People can and often do show up only a few minutes before train department time if they're already ticketed. Also, usually train passengers can bring their luggage with them, eliminating a baggage delay at pick up. At some points, wise passengers will allow at least a full hour before departure time as a cushion against TSA or ticketing delays, which seem to make the news often. Also, a train might have multiple stations serving a large metropolitan area, making the train station closer to home or destination. For example, Boston has Rt 128; and Philadelphia has Paoli, Wilmington, and Trenton. On the other hand, some tiny airports have expanded to provide good scheduled jet service yet remain small and easy to get to and use. I've been told using Bob Hope airport in Burbank is much faster than using LAX. Usually, rental car availability is better and airports than train stations. At smaller train stations, one may have to call and get picked up or take a taxi to a different location. In the old, old days businessmen found the train convenient as it desposited them at downtown terminals where they had their clients. But then, suburban office parks sprung up, eliminating the downtown advantage, and some of them are fairly close to the airport. Most require a car to conveniently get around. For example, suburban Philadelphia has an industrial park in Fort Washington. There's a commuter train station serving it. But the park is spread out, and it's a full mile walk, maybe more from the station, to the various businesses. Not very practical. Also, in the old, old days, there were commuter and branch line trains to many locations. One could conveniently check baggae through to a suburban point and make a connection at the main train station. While there is still commuter service at many stations, the branchline service is mostly gone, and commuter trains no longer check baggage. As an aside, the Pennsylvania Railroad had a secondary major station in Philadelphia, North Philadelphia (main station for key east-west trains). At one time the surrounding area was a teeming industrial and residential area. Today, unfortunately, the area is in very bad shape. It's still an Amtrak station, but only one or two trains a day stop here now. Sadly, that is a challenge for many train stations, they're in the dumpy part of town.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 19:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtjnfc-bl7.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #153218 |
In article <ac349caf-877a-43e5-842d-5db024a03ee9@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 11:56:34 AM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> My typical trip: >> >> 30 mins to drive to airport >> 15 mins to park >> 45 mins check-in/security/boarding >> -- actual flight time >> 15 mins to get rental car >> 15 mins to drive to hotel >> >> So, that's 2 hours on top of the flight time. For less experienced >> travelers or those with kids, it's probably more like 3 hours. >> For a decent rail system, I'd expect _at least_ an hour less, which >> means the actual travel time could be up to an hour longer. > >Often, the time factor is dependent on the distance from one's home to the transport >terminal, the congestion of the terminal, and the situation at the arrival point. > >Usually, trains win out with a much shorter check-in time since there is (at >present) no security. People can and often do show up only a few minutes before >train department time if they're already ticketed. Also, usually train passengers >can bring their luggage with them, eliminating a baggage delay at pick up. At some >points, wise passengers will allow at least a full hour before departure time as a >cushion against TSA or ticketing delays, which seem to make the news often. We do have better service at both the airports and the train stations over here, evidently. Still, I prefer to be at the airport 50 minutes before departure, at the very least. I plan for an hour if I go by train, so I can accommodate some minor delays. Getting to the closest, main train station is a drive of around 25 minutes, and I depart 40 minutes before the trains leave, so I have time to have some road congestion, find parking, collect ticket if appropriate, and find the right platform. In the other direction it takes around 30-35 minutes to get off, go find the car and drive home. (The parking lot is huge, it can take 10 minutes to walk to the car if it is in the other end). Getting to the airport is an hours train ride, and then another 50-60 minutes; that is 2 hours on top of the train access time. The other way is around 30-40 minutes walk and luggage pickup, and then the 35+60 minutes by train. This gives access times to the airport of 2:30 to and 2:05 at the very best. I concede that this is a little above average, but not by very much. The cities I visit most have 1:40/1:25, 2:10/1:50, 1:35/1:20 for the other end (departing/arriving, from takeoff/touchdown to city centre). Ticketing is automatic, either web-based or smartphone-based for both air travel, trains, buses, trams and ferries. That took off at least 20 minutes on the departure side. >Also, a train might have multiple stations serving a large metropolitan area, making >the train station closer to home or destination. For example, Boston has Rt 128; >and Philadelphia has Paoli, Wilmington, and Trenton. > >On the other hand, some tiny airports have expanded to provide good scheduled jet >service yet remain small and easy to get to and use. I've been told using Bob Hope >airport in Burbank is much faster than using LAX. For departure you still need to allow for around 40 minutes, and at least 15 when arriving with luggage. Changi in Singapore has impressive statistics, and is quite large. >Usually, rental car availability is better and airports than train stations. At >smaller train stations, one may have to call and get picked up or take a taxi to a >different location. > > >In the old, old days businessmen found the train convenient as it desposited them at >downtown terminals where they had their clients. But then, suburban office parks >sprung up, eliminating the downtown advantage, and some of them are fairly close to >the airport. Most require a car to conveniently get around. > >For example, suburban Philadelphia has an industrial park in Fort Washington. >There's a commuter train station serving it. But the park is spread out, and it's a >full mile walk, maybe more from the station, to the various businesses. Not very >practical. > >Also, in the old, old days, there were commuter and branch line trains to many >locations. One could conveniently check baggae through to a suburban point and make >a connection at the main train station. While there is still commuter service at >many stations, the branchline service is mostly gone, and commuter trains no longer >check baggage. We used to have two sets of train service. Local, commuter and remote, long distance. The first set usually travelled ~100 km out from the large cities, stopped at every stop, and had onboard ticket sales. The second one ran for 300-700 km between the large cities, and had diner, and reserved seats ordered in advance. Stopped at around 1/5th as many places as the local one. The local trains always had to yield for the remote ones. No more. Now everything is run commuter-style, and only 3 lines still have the diner. And ticketing is all electronic. >As an aside, the Pennsylvania Railroad had a secondary major station in >Philadelphia, North Philadelphia (main station for key east-west trains). At one >time the surrounding area was a teeming industrial and residential area. Today, >unfortunately, the area is in very bad shape. It's still an Amtrak station, but >only one or two trains a day stop here now. Sadly, that is a challenge for many >train stations, they're in the dumpy part of town. We are 20 years beyond that development. 30 years ago the train ride into the large cities showed decrepit dwellings. They have all been refurbished and are brightly lit and painted. The main railway stations have become hubs with large shopping facilities either in them or right next door, and large parking spaces next to them. We are actively encouraged to have commuter passes and use the rail system even if we have to drive to the stations. A commuter parking pass is NOK 50/month, around $8. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 14:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0bdra$n76$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153219 |
On 22-Oct-15 12:44, Morten Reistad wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> So, that's 2 hours on top of the flight time. For less >>> experienced travelers or those with kids, it's probably more like >>> 3 hours. For a decent rail system, I'd expect _at least_ an hour >>> less, which means the actual travel time could be up to an hour >>> longer. >> >> Often, the time factor is dependent on the distance from one's home >> to the transport terminal, the congestion of the terminal, and the >> situation at the arrival point. >> >> Usually, trains win out ... That was my point. > We do have better service at both the airports and the train > stations over here, evidently. Your airports are better for domestic flights, but domestic flights are a much higher percentage in the US, so on average, we probably win. It's hard to generalize about our train stations since we have so few and passenger volumes span several orders of magnitude. As you might expect, one handling thousands of passengers per hour is more efficient than one handling a dozen passengers per day. Amtrak employees at the latter seem to take perverse pleasure in making the experience as bad as possible--maybe because they're so bored. > Still, I prefer to be at the airport 50 minutes before departure, at > the very least. At my home airport, I know exactly how close I can cut it and still be safe; I generally allow more time elsewhere for driving, returning the rental, check-in and security, etc., but it varies by airport. > I plan for an hour if I go by train, so I can accommodate some > minor delays. > Getting to the closest, main train station is a drive of around 25 > minutes, and I depart 40 minutes before the trains leave, so I have > time to have some road congestion, find parking, collect ticket if > appropriate, and find the right platform. That seems reasonable, except I don't get the "hour" comment. > Getting to the airport is an hours train ride, and then another 50-60 > minutes; that is 2 hours on top of the train access time. The other > way is around 30-40 minutes walk and luggage pickup, and then the > 35+60 minutes by train. This gives access times to the airport of > 2:30 to and 2:05 at the very best. Sheesh. But that exposes a serious infrastructure difference: local transit is horrible or nonexistent in most of the US, whereas highways and airports are plentiful. Transit connections to airports (if such exist at all) seem designed for airport employees, not passengers. Few Merkins would even _consider_ spending several hours on transit to an airport when they could drive there in 30-60 mins. >> As an aside, the Pennsylvania Railroad had a secondary major >> station in Philadelphia, North Philadelphia (main station for key >> east-west trains). At one time the surrounding area was a teeming >> industrial and residential area. Today, unfortunately, the area is >> in very bad shape. It's still an Amtrak station, but only one or >> two trains a day stop here now. Sadly, that is a challenge for >> many train stations, they're in the dumpy part of town. > > We are 20 years beyond that development. 30 years ago the train ride > into the large cities showed decrepit dwellings. They have all been > refurbished and are brightly lit and painted. After "white flight" to the suburbs, which resulted in de facto segregation even more stark than the de jure segregation it replaced, many cities tried "urban renewal" projects. However, that quickly became known as "negro removal" and there was enormous backlash. Today's "gentrification" clearly has the same "negro removal" effect, but since it is driven by many developers responding to market demand rather than by a centralized city plan, it's a lot harder to stop. Also, politicians have convinced much of the public (and courts) that discrimination today is economic rather than racial; it's not _their_ fault that historical factors result in a strong correlation, right? > The main railway stations have become hubs with large shopping > facilities either in them or right next door, and large parking > spaces next to them. There is a big push for "transit-oriented development" here, and there are a few stunning successes (e.g. Washington Union), but most projects fail to attract tenants, never get built in the first place, or end up being so car-oriented that they miss the entire point. > We are actively encouraged to have commuter passes and use the rail > system even if we have to drive to the stations. A commuter parking > pass is NOK 50/month, around $8. Many US transit agencies charge more than that _per day_, on the theory that parking downtown is even more expensive--but not everyone is going to downtown these days, so it limits ridership, especially off-peak when the marginal cost of a passenger is nearly zero. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8n1ofc-h98.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #153231 |
In article <n0bdra$n76$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >On 22-Oct-15 12:44, Morten Reistad wrote: >> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> Usually, trains win out ... > >That was my point. > >> We do have better service at both the airports and the train >> stations over here, evidently. > >Your airports are better for domestic flights, but domestic flights are >a much higher percentage in the US, so on average, we probably win. Within the Schengen area the hassle is not much greater. You need 5 min extra, max. And you need to bring the passport. >It's hard to generalize about our train stations since we have so few >and passenger volumes span several orders of magnitude. As you might >expect, one handling thousands of passengers per hour is more efficient >than one handling a dozen passengers per day. Amtrak employees at the >latter seem to take perverse pleasure in making the experience as bad as >possible--maybe because they're so bored. When I talk of major train station I think of those with at least 10k passerngers a day, with train service at least every hour for the daytime, or at least 5 daily long distance trains. >> Still, I prefer to be at the airport 50 minutes before departure, at >> the very least. > >At my home airport, I know exactly how close I can cut it and still be >safe; I generally allow more time elsewhere for driving, returning the >rental, check-in and security, etc., but it varies by airport. Just for info, 50 minutes normally allows for one coffee to be grabbed on the inside, and then the boarding sign lights up. They usually board 30 minutes ahead of departure, and they can close the gate 10 minutes early. That means I can get away with a ~20 minutes delay, and have 10 for checkin (automated) plus 10 for security and the walk to the gate. How close can you cut it, and still be safe? >> I plan for an hour if I go by train, so I can accommodate some >> minor delays. >> Getting to the closest, main train station is a drive of around 25 >> minutes, and I depart 40 minutes before the trains leave, so I have >> time to have some road congestion, find parking, collect ticket if >> appropriate, and find the right platform. > >That seems reasonable, except I don't get the "hour" comment. > >> Getting to the airport is an hours train ride, and then another 50-60 >> minutes; that is 2 hours on top of the train access time. The other >> way is around 30-40 minutes walk and luggage pickup, and then the >> 35+60 minutes by train. This gives access times to the airport of >> 2:30 to and 2:05 at the very best. > >Sheesh. But that exposes a serious infrastructure difference: local >transit is horrible or nonexistent in most of the US, whereas highways >and airports are plentiful. Transit connections to airports (if such >exist at all) seem designed for airport employees, not passengers. Few >Merkins would even _consider_ spending several hours on transit to an >airport when they could drive there in 30-60 mins. I could drive, it would take me slightly longer, and I would have to contend with parking, which is either in a "cheap" site 10-20 minutes by bus from the terminal, or somewhere around $65/day. I do use that if I leave on the 0605 flight and return the same day, but otherwise I take the train. The drive is around 1:20, with no congestion; which would imply driving at night. "Mild" congestion can add an hour to that. The train has a drive detour of around 5 minutes, and go in an hour. I still have to park. The train cost is about what I would pay in road tolls, and then I have to pay extra for parking plus gas. >>> As an aside, the Pennsylvania Railroad had a secondary major >>> station in Philadelphia, North Philadelphia (main station for key >>> east-west trains). At one time the surrounding area was a teeming >>> industrial and residential area. Today, unfortunately, the area is >>> in very bad shape. It's still an Amtrak station, but only one or >>> two trains a day stop here now. Sadly, that is a challenge for >>> many train stations, they're in the dumpy part of town. >> >> We are 20 years beyond that development. 30 years ago the train ride >> into the large cities showed decrepit dwellings. They have all been >> refurbished and are brightly lit and painted. > >After "white flight" to the suburbs, which resulted in de facto >segregation even more stark than the de jure segregation it replaced, >many cities tried "urban renewal" projects. However, that quickly >became known as "negro removal" and there was enormous backlash. > >Today's "gentrification" clearly has the same "negro removal" effect, >but since it is driven by many developers responding to market demand >rather than by a centralized city plan, it's a lot harder to stop. > >Also, politicians have convinced much of the public (and courts) that >discrimination today is economic rather than racial; it's not _their_ >fault that historical factors result in a strong correlation, right? > >> The main railway stations have become hubs with large shopping >> facilities either in them or right next door, and large parking >> spaces next to them. > >There is a big push for "transit-oriented development" here, and there >are a few stunning successes (e.g. Washington Union), but most projects >fail to attract tenants, never get built in the first place, or end up >being so car-oriented that they miss the entire point. With excellent train and metro systems the rail system combined takes around 70% of all the commuters, around a third do park in the commuter parking before using the trains. > >> We are actively encouraged to have commuter passes and use the rail >> system even if we have to drive to the stations. A commuter parking >> pass is NOK 50/month, around $8. > >Many US transit agencies charge more than that _per day_, on the theory >that parking downtown is even more expensive--but not everyone is going >to downtown these days, so it limits ridership, especially off-peak when >the marginal cost of a passenger is nearly zero. There are 10 such parking lots around the 50-100 km periphery of Oslo, all of them municipal. They each take a good number of thousand cars. Land is much cheaper out here, so the muni takes in a little money on the scheme. At $8/month they can oversubscribe a lot; everyone takes the deal even if they only plan to use if 1-5 days per month. A full day pass on all public transport from here throughout the city is around $20. A single ticket around $7. Trains leave as often as the tracks can take them (i.e. 8 per hour) in the rush hour, where the metro runs every 5 minutes, 10 for some outlying lines. During the evening there are 2 trains per hour, and the metro runs every 6-12 minutes. This is how the rail system plus sume trams and buses carry 70% of all commuter transport, and it is increasing. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 13:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0du74$ehq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153233 |
On 22-Oct-15 16:40, Morten Reistad wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 22-Oct-15 12:44, Morten Reistad wrote: >>> We do have better service at both the airports and the train >>> stations over here, evidently. >> >> Your airports are better for domestic flights, but domestic flights >> are a much higher percentage in the US, so on average, we probably >> win. > > Within the Schengen area the hassle is not much greater. You need 5 > min extra, max. And you need to bring the passport. Do you have to go through customs/immigration control at all? I've never flown within Schengen, just in and out. The times I've flown into Europe have been almost painless on that count, about as easy as flying to Canada--and certainly easier than returning to the US (even as a US citizen!). So, you clearly win on int'l flights, at least for folks who have a visa waiver. Australia is the only country where I've had significant delays with immigration/customs, but that's not really their fault; dumping a 747 full of people into the queue at once is inherently problematic. (My first trip to Canada was screwy, but that was my fault for saying "work" rather than "business meetings", so I'm not counting that.) >> It's hard to generalize about our train stations since we have so >> few and passenger volumes span several orders of magnitude. As you >> might expect, one handling thousands of passengers per hour is more >> efficient than one handling a dozen passengers per day. Amtrak >> employees at the latter seem to take perverse pleasure in making >> the experience as bad as possible--maybe because they're so bored. > > When I talk of major train station I think of those with at least 10k > passerngers a day, with train service at least every hour for the > daytime, or at least 5 daily long distance trains. We have a few of those, and they're relatively painless. Most Amtrak stations, though, only see a dozen to a few hundred people, for one to three pairs of trains, per day. Some stations only have three pairs of trains per _week_. Obviously, trying to compare such stations (and their service) to a "major" station is unfair. >>> Still, I prefer to be at the airport 50 minutes before departure, >>> at the very least. >> >> At my home airport, I know exactly how close I can cut it and still >> be safe; I generally allow more time elsewhere for driving, >> returning the rental, check-in and security, etc., but it varies by >> airport. > > Just for info, 50 minutes normally allows for one coffee to be > grabbed on the inside, and then the boarding sign lights up. They > usually board 30 minutes ahead of departure, and they can close the > gate 10 minutes early. That means I can get away with a ~20 minutes > delay, and have 10 for checkin (automated) plus 10 for security and > the walk to the gate. > > How close can you cut it, and still be safe? 45 minutes on average for me, but there are a variety of factors that can move that up or down a bit: the terminal/gate I'm going to, time of day, day of week, holidays, weather, checking baggage vs carrying on, etc. Most of it is subconscious; I fly enough that I just "know" how much of a buffer is appropriate for a given trip. I've squeaked through arriving <20 minutes before departure due to unforeseen highway construction delays, but I wouldn't do that on purpose; 30 minutes is the minimum that I'd plan for. >>> Getting to the airport is an hours train ride, and then another >>> 50-60 minutes; that is 2 hours on top of the train access time. >>> The other way is around 30-40 minutes walk and luggage pickup, >>> and then the 35+60 minutes by train. This gives access times to >>> the airport of 2:30 to and 2:05 at the very best. >> >> Sheesh. But that exposes a serious infrastructure difference: >> local transit is horrible or nonexistent in most of the US, whereas >> highways and airports are plentiful. Transit connections to >> airports (if such exist at all) seem designed for airport >> employees, not passengers. Few Merkins would even _consider_ >> spending several hours on transit to an airport when they could >> drive there in 30-60 mins. > > I could drive, it would take me slightly longer, and I would have to > contend with parking, which is either in a "cheap" site 10-20 > minutes by bus from the terminal, or somewhere around $65/day. For comparison, people rant about our airports charging $20/day for terminal parking, which is right outside check-in/security. Shuttle parking cuts that to $5-10/day but adds 15-30 mins, which seems like a fair trade. >>> The main railway stations have become hubs with large shopping >>> facilities either in them or right next door, and large parking >>> spaces next to them. >> >> There is a big push for "transit-oriented development" here, and >> there are a few stunning successes (e.g. Washington Union), but >> most projects fail to attract tenants, never get built in the first >> place, or end up being so car-oriented that they miss the entire >> point. > > With excellent train and metro systems the rail system combined takes > around 70% of all the commuters, around a third do park in the > commuter parking before using the trains. NYC and DC hit such numbers due to excellent transit--and limited highways and parking, for various reasons. The rest of the US is struggling to hit 5-10%, or has no transit at all. Generally, the latter are only used by those who have financial, physical or legal impediments to driving. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3054df80-a8d1-486a-bc53-616440411c1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153261 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:29:58 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > (My first trip to Canada was screwy, but that was my fault for saying > "work" rather than "business meetings", so I'm not counting that.) What is the difference between "work" and "business meeting"? They sound exactly the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 15:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510231551130.21804@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #153262 |
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:29:58 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> (My first trip to Canada was screwy, but that was my fault for saying >> "work" rather than "business meetings", so I'm not counting that.) > > What is the difference between "work" and "business meeting"? They > sound exactly the same. > "Work" sounds like he's going to milk the cows. "Business meeting" sounds like he's going to negotiate to buy that milk to import to the US. Yes, he's "working" at the meeting, but he's not taking some job away from a Canadian. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 21:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20151023214003.d23efc5404037cfba7900fd5@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #153262 |
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:39:33 -0700 (PDT) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:29:58 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > (My first trip to Canada was screwy, but that was my fault for saying > > "work" rather than "business meetings", so I'm not counting that.) > > What is the difference between "work" and "business meeting"? They sound > exactly the same. Wok might imply that you're coming to Canada to be employed (perhaps briefly) by a Canadian company, business meeting implies that you're employed elsewhere and coming to a meeting on behalf of your employer. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 16:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0ea8u$4jl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153275 |
On 23-Oct-15 15:40, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> (My first trip to Canada was screwy, but that was my fault for >>> saying "work" rather than "business meetings", ... >> >> What is the difference between "work" and "business meeting"? They >> sound exactly the same. > > Wok might imply that you're coming to Canada to be employed (perhaps > briefly) by a Canadian company, business meeting implies that you're > employed elsewhere and coming to a meeting on behalf of your > employer. That's essentially the distinction. A "business meeting" means I am employed by a non-Canadian company but my duties are temporarily in Canada, i.e. I'm _not_ an immigrant. In contrast, "work" means I am seeking new permanent employment by a Canadian company in Canada, i.e. I'm an immigrant. Fortunately, the agent figured out my mistake fairly quickly. She was probably more confused than I was; they're trained to find immigrants pretending to be non-immigrants, not the reverse. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 22:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a9hqfc-4j1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #153261 |
In article <n0du74$ehq$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >On 22-Oct-15 16:40, Morten Reistad wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> On 22-Oct-15 12:44, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> We do have better service at both the airports and the train >>>> stations over here, evidently. >>> >>> Your airports are better for domestic flights, but domestic flights >>> are a much higher percentage in the US, so on average, we probably >>> win. >> >> Within the Schengen area the hassle is not much greater. You need 5 >> min extra, max. And you need to bring the passport. > >Do you have to go through customs/immigration control at all? I've >never flown within Schengen, just in and out. Within the EU and Schengen, no. You have to show a passport to the airline as you board, though. This is some dumb rule about "security". Airlines are happy to let you onboard without any ID at all, as long as you pass security and paid for the flight. For Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and some outlying areas you have to clear customs, but I rarely see any inspections at all. For the standard extra booze and tobacco there are vending machines to pay the import tarrifs. >The times I've flown into Europe have been almost painless on that >count, about as easy as flying to Canada--and certainly easier than >returning to the US (even as a US citizen!). So, you clearly win on >int'l flights, at least for folks who have a visa waiver. > >Australia is the only country where I've had significant delays with >immigration/customs, but that's not really their fault; dumping a 747 >full of people into the queue at once is inherently problematic. When I first arrived in Aussie I immediatly saw that my luggage had been opened without any customs or security tags, as required, and I alerted an inspector to the fact. Lots of commotion ensued. > >(My first trip to Canada was screwy, but that was my fault for saying >"work" rather than "business meetings", so I'm not counting that.) > >>> It's hard to generalize about our train stations since we have so >>> few and passenger volumes span several orders of magnitude. As you >>> might expect, one handling thousands of passengers per hour is more >>> efficient than one handling a dozen passengers per day. Amtrak >>> employees at the latter seem to take perverse pleasure in making >>> the experience as bad as possible--maybe because they're so bored. >> >> When I talk of major train station I think of those with at least 10k >> passerngers a day, with train service at least every hour for the >> daytime, or at least 5 daily long distance trains. > >We have a few of those, and they're relatively painless. > >Most Amtrak stations, though, only see a dozen to a few hundred people, >for one to three pairs of trains, per day. Some stations only have >three pairs of trains per _week_. Obviously, trying to compare such >stations (and their service) to a "major" station is unfair. There are a number of such stations here as well, along the remote lines. They are little more than a ramp, a little open shack and a footpath to the nearest road. They typically have one train in each direction stop there a day; the "milk route". > >>>> Still, I prefer to be at the airport 50 minutes before departure, >>>> at the very least. >>> >>> At my home airport, I know exactly how close I can cut it and still >>> be safe; I generally allow more time elsewhere for driving, >>> returning the rental, check-in and security, etc., but it varies by >>> airport. >> >> Just for info, 50 minutes normally allows for one coffee to be >> grabbed on the inside, and then the boarding sign lights up. They >> usually board 30 minutes ahead of departure, and they can close the >> gate 10 minutes early. That means I can get away with a ~20 minutes >> delay, and have 10 for checkin (automated) plus 10 for security and >> the walk to the gate. >> >> How close can you cut it, and still be safe? > >45 minutes on average for me, but there are a variety of factors that >can move that up or down a bit: the terminal/gate I'm going to, time of >day, day of week, holidays, weather, checking baggage vs carrying on, >etc. Most of it is subconscious; I fly enough that I just "know" how >much of a buffer is appropriate for a given trip. > >I've squeaked through arriving <20 minutes before departure due to >unforeseen highway construction delays, but I wouldn't do that on >purpose; 30 minutes is the minimum that I'd plan for. Sure, but then I had to make a dash for it. >>>> Getting to the airport is an hours train ride, and then another >>>> 50-60 minutes; that is 2 hours on top of the train access time. >>>> The other way is around 30-40 minutes walk and luggage pickup, >>>> and then the 35+60 minutes by train. This gives access times to >>>> the airport of 2:30 to and 2:05 at the very best. >>> >>> Sheesh. But that exposes a serious infrastructure difference: >>> local transit is horrible or nonexistent in most of the US, whereas >>> highways and airports are plentiful. Transit connections to >>> airports (if such exist at all) seem designed for airport >>> employees, not passengers. Few Merkins would even _consider_ >>> spending several hours on transit to an airport when they could >>> drive there in 30-60 mins. >> >> I could drive, it would take me slightly longer, and I would have to >> contend with parking, which is either in a "cheap" site 10-20 >> minutes by bus from the terminal, or somewhere around $65/day. > >For comparison, people rant about our airports charging $20/day for >terminal parking, which is right outside check-in/security. Shuttle >parking cuts that to $5-10/day but adds 15-30 mins, which seems like a >fair trade. > >>>> The main railway stations have become hubs with large shopping >>>> facilities either in them or right next door, and large parking >>>> spaces next to them. >>> >>> There is a big push for "transit-oriented development" here, and >>> there are a few stunning successes (e.g. Washington Union), but >>> most projects fail to attract tenants, never get built in the first >>> place, or end up being so car-oriented that they miss the entire >>> point. >> >> With excellent train and metro systems the rail system combined takes >> around 70% of all the commuters, around a third do park in the >> commuter parking before using the trains. > >NYC and DC hit such numbers due to excellent transit--and limited >highways and parking, for various reasons. The rest of the US is >struggling to hit 5-10%, or has no transit at all. Generally, the >latter are only used by those who have financial, physical or legal >impediments to driving. There is a break point with cities; where it gets too dense for everyone to use a car. The new world has generally newer cities where things are designed a lot more spaciously; where the old world generally have just grown around some dense centre in a haphazard way. This break point is therefore with a lot bigger cities in your continent. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 21:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0k1im$nqr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153270 |
On 23-Oct-15 15:18, Morten Reistad wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 22-Oct-15 16:40, Morten Reistad wrote: >>> Within the Schengen area the hassle is not much greater. You need >>> 5 min extra, max. And you need to bring the passport. >> >> Do you have to go through customs/immigration control at all? >> I've never flown within Schengen, just in and out. > > Within the EU and Schengen, no. You have to show a passport to the > airline as you board, though. This is some dumb rule about > "security". Airlines are happy to let you onboard without any ID at > all, as long as you pass security and paid for the flight. We have to show photo ID to get through security but, except for a few weeks after 9/11, not to actually board. The airlines claim to be against this and blame the TSA, but they were lobbying the FAA to do the same thing for decades; ID checks make it more difficult for agents to resell discounted advance-purchase tickets for a profit after the discounts go away, which was cutting into their full-fare revenues. > For Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and some outlying areas you have to > clear customs, but I rarely see any inspections at all. For the > standard extra booze and tobacco there are vending machines to pay > the import tarrifs. In my experience, the queues are the worst part of both customs and immigration; even if all they do is stamp your papers and wave you through, it can still add a lot of time. >> Most Amtrak stations, though, only see a dozen to a few hundred >> people, for one to three pairs of trains, per day. Some stations >> only have three pairs of trains per _week_. Obviously, trying to >> compare such stations (and their service) to a "major" station is >> unfair. > > There are a number of such stations here as well, along the remote > lines. They are little more than a ramp, a little open shack and a > footpath to the nearest road. They typically have one train in each > direction stop there a day; the "milk route". Most low-traffic stations here are like that; many have so little traffic that they're "flag stops". Add a little traffic and Amtrak thinks the station needs to be staffed (in particular for checked baggage), and that is when the problems start. It's a bad sign when staffed stations have _worse_ customer service than unstaffed ones. >>> With excellent train and metro systems the rail system combined >>> takes around 70% of all the commuters, around a third do park in >>> the commuter parking before using the trains. >> >> NYC and DC hit such numbers due to excellent transit--and limited >> highways and parking, for various reasons. The rest of the US is >> struggling to hit 5-10%, or has no transit at all. Generally, the >> latter are only used by those who have financial, physical or >> legal impediments to driving. > > There is a break point with cities; where it gets too dense for > everyone to use a car. The new world has generally newer cities > where things are designed a lot more spaciously; where the old world > generally have just grown around some dense centre in a haphazard > way. This break point is therefore with a lot bigger cities in your > continent. Part of it is _when_ the population grew; the older parts of US cities tend to be dense, but development patterns changed after WWII. NYC, DC and a few other cities were already fully developed by then due to geographical limitations, but the rest exploded into sprawling suburbs that were incompatible with transit--and until recently, few people really understood the problems with that. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 07:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1758646089.467550937.611098.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153336 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > > Most low-traffic stations here are like that; many have so little > traffic that they're "flag stops". Add a little traffic and Amtrak > thinks the station needs to be staffed (in particular for checked > baggage), and that is when the problems start. It's a bad sign when > staffed stations have _worse_ customer service than unstaffed ones. "Fast, efficient, courteous self-service." ;-) -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 14:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0lvu5$j2c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153337 |
"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1758646089.467550937.611098.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org... > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> >> Most low-traffic stations here are like that; many have so little >> traffic that they're "flag stops". Add a little traffic and Amtrak >> thinks the station needs to be staffed (in particular for checked >> baggage), and that is when the problems start. It's a bad sign when >> staffed stations have _worse_ customer service than unstaffed ones. > > "Fast, efficient, courteous self-service." ;-) > "If you would have a faithful servant, and one that you like... serve yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 15:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0m3qh$3pl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153360 |
On 26-Oct-15 14:48, Charles Richmond wrote: > "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> It's a bad sign when staffed stations have _worse_ customer >>> service than unstaffed ones. >> >> "Fast, efficient, courteous self-service." ;-) > > "If you would have a faithful servant, and one that you like... serve > yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin "Thank you for calling the San Angeles Police Department! If you would prefer an automated response, please press one now!" --Cop, _Demolition Man_ Perhaps it's a generational thing, but I find most "customer service" people more difficult to deal with than automated systems, and that's _before_ factoring in understaffing and offshoring. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 07:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9a3ruF7kjvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153361 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:n0m3qh$3pl$1@dont-email.me... > On 26-Oct-15 14:48, Charles Richmond wrote: >> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>>> It's a bad sign when staffed stations have _worse_ customer >>>> service than unstaffed ones. >>> >>> "Fast, efficient, courteous self-service." ;-) >> >> "If you would have a faithful servant, and one that you like... serve >> yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin > > "Thank you for calling the San Angeles Police Department! If you would > prefer an automated response, please press one now!" > --Cop, _Demolition Man_ > > Perhaps it's a generational thing, but I find most "customer service" > people more difficult to deal with than automated systems, and that's > _before_ factoring in understaffing and offshoring. Yeah, when we first got automated phone bill paying by phone, it got so many trying it that it got overloaded and some calls ended up with the previous human operators who you told about your phone number and credit card number to pay the bill. She was a bit pissed off when I said I wanted to use the new automated system. I later automated it all from my end too, before there was any net banking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web