Airport transfers

In article ,
Frank F. Matthews wrote:

Their problem may be signage. There is no clear ticket window for the
RER.

At CDG 2, RER ticket windows are on the left side of the main lobby
(before you go down to the trains). They are in the same area as
the SNCF/Thalys windows, and I agree that signage could be better.
CDG 1 is better in this respect (no SNCF windows there).

That was my point in an earlier post. RER will work for airport
employees and business travelers with little or no luggage but folks
visiting for a couple of weeks may well want a mini bus service.

No argument from me. I am not a big fan of trying to squeeze luggage
into packed subway trains or dragging it up and down platforms and
passages.

Ah! They really do need new signage. If it were not for the large
number of folks who were confused at the same time I might accept an
accusation of stupidity (not that you implied it). But when you wall
off an area for a separate (Thalys) service who would expect that the
ticket window and some platform access for a different (RER) service was
located there? FFM

Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:

In article ,
Frank F. Matthews wrote:


Their problem may be signage. There is no clear ticket window for the
RER.


At CDG 2, RER ticket windows are on the left side of the main lobby
(before you go down to the trains). They are in the same area as
the SNCF/Thalys windows, and I agree that signage could be better.
CDG 1 is better in this respect (no SNCF windows there).


That was my point in an earlier post. RER will work for airport
employees and business travelers with little or no luggage but folks
visiting for a couple of weeks may well want a mini bus service.


No argument from me. I am not a big fan of trying to squeeze luggage
into packed subway trains or dragging it up and down platforms and
passages.

In article ,
Frank F. Matthews wrote:

I've tried a few of these but they simply dump you at a location in the
city from which you wander to your final location.

I think that's the main problem with all of this mass transit nonsense.
It only gets you to an arbitrary point in downtown, which is often *not*
where you need to go, and then you have to transfer to yet another train
or bus with all the luggage, etc. Take Heathrow. Yeah, it's served by
tube and rail, but London is a huge city, and unless your destination
is along the Piccadilly line or near Paddington, you have to transfer
again and again - certainly not a pleasant prospect if you have luggage
or trying to get somewhere in a hurry. Amsterdam has the same problem.

By and large the best choice is usually a mini van service.

Minivans, cabs, limos and cars in general take you to where *you*
need to go, not to an arbitrary place where somebody decided to build
a train station or a subway stop.

"Vitaly Shmatikov" schreef in bericht
...

I think that's the main problem with all of this mass transit nonsense.

Be glad that such mass transit "nonsense" exists, or selfish idiots like you
would spend even more time in world-wide traffic jams. Public transport is
almost always cheaper, often faster, and more fun than private motorized
transport. (yes, fun, because you have the chance to meet interesting people
on trains and buses that otherwise you never would have met)

Sjoerd

In article ,
Sjoerd wrote:

Be glad that such mass transit "nonsense" exists, or selfish idiots like you
would spend even more time in world-wide traffic jams.

Believe me, where I live, mass transit has less than negligible impact
on traffic jams, because the overwhelming majority of people commute
by car. Their time is too valuable to waste on two-hour bus rides,
and they want to live in low-density suburban developments, not in
squalid apartment blocks.

Public transport is
almost always cheaper, often faster, and more fun than private motorized
transport.

If I want cheap, fast fun, I go to an amusement park. When I travel,
I want to get from place A to place B. Not to the central train
station 5 miles away. Not to a subway stop on a different line.
Not to a bus transfer center. I want to get to my destination, and
in most cases private motorized transport is the most *convenient* way
to get there. It's not the cheapest, but, fortunately, most of us in
the civilized world can afford these little luxuries. In Madagascar,
folks think nothing of walking 20 kilometers to the market. I drive.
That's civilization for ya.

(yes, fun, because you have the chance to meet interesting people
on trains and buses that otherwise you never would have met)

Maybe *your* social life is so poor that you only meet interesting
people on trains and buses (I would not be surprised, given your
penchant for calling other people ``selfish idiots''). Normal people
don't need mass transit to make new friends.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:52:09 +0000 (UTC),
(Vitaly Shmatikov) wrote:

In article ,
Sjoerd wrote:

Be glad that such mass transit "nonsense" exists, or selfish idiots like you
would spend even more time in world-wide traffic jams.

Believe me, where I live, mass transit has less than negligible impact
on traffic jams, because the overwhelming majority of people commute
by car. Their time is too valuable to waste on two-hour bus rides,
and they want to live in low-density suburban developments, not in
squalid apartment blocks.

Er, where I live, where people also want to live in low density
suburbia, they almost all use public transport for the commute, as
their time is way too valuable for the 2 or 3 hours the commute takes
over the drive.

Even though I'm going out of the city, at 8am it'll take me an hour to
get to work, in an ideal mass transit it'll take me 30 mins (13 mins
actually sitting on the train, but the associated walks at either end
make it up. If I'm late leaving the house it'll be 45 mins.) Going
into London, I wouldn't even consider a car (or consider working there
for that matter.)

Jim.

"Vitaly Shmatikov" schreef in bericht
...
In article ,
Sjoerd wrote:

Be glad that such mass transit "nonsense" exists, or selfish idiots like
you
would spend even more time in world-wide traffic jams.

Believe me, where I live, mass transit has less than negligible impact
on traffic jams,

Where I live, most people commute to work on a bicyle or by public
transport. Some even walk to work.


because the overwhelming majority of people commute
by car. Their time is too valuable to waste on two-hour bus rides,

Perhaps your city should invest in *decent* public transport?

and they want to live in low-density suburban developments, not in
squalid apartment blocks.

Those horrible neighbourhoods ("suburban developments") where you need to
drive to buy your groceries? No thanks, I would never accept such a low
standard of living.



Public transport is
almost always cheaper, often faster, and more fun than private motorized
transport.

If I want cheap, fast fun, I go to an amusement park. When I travel,
I want to get from place A to place B.

Me too. Between my house and place of work, I need 15 minutes by bicycle
(most days), 20 minutes by bus (sometimes), and 20 minutes by car (rarely)

Not to the central train
station 5 miles away. Not to a subway stop on a different line.
Not to a bus transfer center. I want to get to my destination, and
in most cases private motorized transport is the most *convenient* way
to get there. It's not the cheapest, but, fortunately, most of us in
the civilized world can afford these little luxuries.

I own a car, but only use it when I want to visit family / friends that live
in a small village / rural area. Within the city, a hardly use my car.

In Madagascar,
folks think nothing of walking 20 kilometers to the market. I drive.
That's civilization for ya.

I use my bicycle for those kinds of distances. That's civilization for me.


(yes, fun, because you have the chance to meet interesting people
on trains and buses that otherwise you never would have met)

Maybe *your* social life is so poor that you only meet interesting
people on trains and buses

Not "only", but also. And those are people that I am unlikely to meet at
other social events.

(I would not be surprised, given your
penchant for calling other people ``selfish idiots''). Normal people
don't need mass transit to make new friends.

You showed in your post that you deserve the title selfish idiot.

Sjoerd

In article ,
Sjoerd wrote:

Where I live, most people commute to work on a bicyle or by public
transport. Some even walk to work.

You live in an underdeveloped, overpopulated country which does not
have the proper infrastructure for modern means of transportation,
i.e., cars. No wonder people are forced to use 19th-century (bicycle)
or even medieval (walking) means to get around. Any horses and buggies
in your neck of the woods?

Perhaps your city should invest in *decent* public transport?

Typical arrogant European's comment. I don't live in a city, Sjoerd.
Where I live, public transport is a mathematical impossibility.
Distances are too large, density of population is too low, and it's
spread over too wide an area.

You see, Sjoerd, America is a free country, and people are free to
choose any lifestyle they want. Most of them don't wish to live
in overcrowded rabbit warrens like a bunch of Europeans. There are
exceptions to everything, but most people in America prefer low-density
developments, houses with lawns, cul-de-sacs, big SUVs, and mega-stores.
This suburban/exurban lifestyle is fundamentally incompatible with
mass transit, and no dim-witted social engineer who thinks trains are
``fun'' will be able to do anything about this.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 06:47:45 +0000 (UTC),
(Vitaly Shmatikov) wrote:

most people in America prefer low-density
developments, houses with lawns, cul-de-sacs, big SUVs, and mega-stores.
This suburban/exurban lifestyle is fundamentally incompatible with
mass transit

Vitaly, let's stick this post in an envelope and look at it in 10
years. (I should live so long...) It's absolutely true, but I think
it's the cause of a tremendous number of strategic problems in the
country having to do with excess energy consumption compared to
domestic resources.

I have no idea how to turn it around. The houses are here to stay but
I hope the 12 mile per gallon macha-mobiles that shuttle kids around
can be replaced by something more sensible.

"Vitaly Shmatikov" schreef in bericht
...
In article ,
Sjoerd wrote:

Where I live, most people commute to work on a bicyle or by public
transport. Some even walk to work.

You live in an underdeveloped,

You are funnier with every sentence you write. Have a look at the Human
Development Index which compares countries and see at what place the
Netherlands is.

overpopulated country

Yeah, isn't it great that so many people like to live here because of our
superior standard of living?

which does not
have the proper infrastructure for modern means of transportation,
i.e., cars.

We have a relatively good network of highways. I normally average 120 km/hr
easily when travelling at non-rush hours.

No wonder people are forced to use 19th-century (bicycle)

Which is a great way of transport still. Gives me (and many other people
here) 30 minutes of physical exercise every day so obesity is not as big a
problem here compared to some other countries that prefer SUVs.

or even medieval (walking) means to get around. Any horses and buggies
in your neck of the woods?

Yes, we have horses and buggies too.


Perhaps your city should invest in *decent* public transport?

Typical arrogant European's comment.

Typical arrogant American's answer.

I don't live in a city, Sjoerd.
Where I live, public transport is a mathematical impossibility.
Distances are too large, density of population is too low, and it's
spread over too wide an area.

You see, Sjoerd, America is a free country,

Not anymore since Bush.

and people are free to
choose any lifestyle they want.

Though they can't marry the partner of their choice, can not travel to Cuba,
can not smoke marihuana and can not have medical assistance at the end of
their life when they wish to die. Try again Vitaly.


Most of them don't wish to live
in overcrowded rabbit warrens like a bunch of Europeans.

My American friends in New York wouldn't agree with you. And as you know,
many millions of Americans live in big cities with population densities
comparable to European cities.

There are
exceptions to everything, but most people in America prefer low-density
developments, houses with lawns, cul-de-sacs, big SUVs, and mega-stores.

That's why you need so much oil and are now guilty of neo-colonialism in
places that have oil.

This suburban/exurban lifestyle is fundamentally incompatible with
mass transit, and no dim-witted social engineer who thinks trains are
``fun'' will be able to do anything about this.

As long as many Americans are as selfish, ignorant and out of touch with the
rest of the world as you, I am afraid the US will indeed lack decent public
transport for a long time to come. And yes, trains can be "fun".

Sjoerd