Comments on: OpenOffice.org Conference 2007

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 23:00:00 +0000

Interesting, thanks for the info.

I wouldn’t necessarily call the trains in Europe fast or punctual. Well, in mainland Europe, in my experience, they certainly are. Just don’t count on it too much in the UK! :)

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:02:00 +0000

it would be different if you could get on the long-distance train right at the airport, as you can at, oh, almost every major airport in Europe. Here in Chicago, I’m not even sure where a long-distance train can take me reasonably other than Milwaukee, and the train station and airport are 20 miles apart. In NYC, the situation is the same (maybe not 20 miles), but you have to leave the airport, get in a taxi (as in the case of Laguardia) or on a train to a train to a train. Not worth it.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:48:00 +0000

NYC to Boston is 3h30m by train. If it was just a matter of getting from one to the other, then I wouldn’t bother with air travel. But in this case it was the last leg of an international flight. After an 8h30m long flight, the last thing I want to do is drag my bags around NYC to board a rush-hour train to Boston.

In Europe I like the trains. They are fast, clean and on time. But in the U.S. they have been underfunded over the years and are rarely attractive options. So airlines have stepped in with numerous short-hop flights to hub cities. For example, Delta has a “shuttle” flight from Boston to NYC or Washington, DC every half hour.

By: Koranteng

Koranteng — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:11:00 +0000

Apropos Delta and delays, Bush – the president that is, was landing in JFK yesterday hence the reason for delays that messed everyone up. I got caught on both ends – first stuck in the city as police cordoned off a few blocks around his hotel and wouldn’t let anyone leave and then at the airport which was a mess as you noted. For security reasons, they don’t tell anyone about these things. At least you were on the tarmac, you could have been in one of those planes that had to circle for a couple of hours…

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:19:00 +0000

Apologies in advance that this comment is so off-topic from your post (although it's great to hear about IBM's involvement in OOo now)...

Now, I admittedly know very little about the capabilities of the US transportation system, but taking a flight as short as 40 minutes strikes me as a bit odd.

It used to be that whenever I went to London from Glasgow, I would take a 50 minute flight. I now get the train and it only takes me about 90 minutes longer overall, taking into account travel between the city centre and airport at each end, check-in, security, waiting for baggage, untold (and always seemingly lengthy) delays etc..

Plus there's less hassle overall: I can turn up two minutes before the train leaves, and then I get a few hours of uninterrupted time to Get Things Done.

Anyway, my point is to ask: does the US not have any better (less polluting!) method of getting between not-too-distant cities?

Having looked it up, I'm even a bit more surprised that flying is an option here. New York and Boston are only about 220 miles apart! London and Glasgow are 400 miles apart and it takes 4.5 hours on the train. Surely New York to Boston can be done pretty speedily without flying..?

Anyway, sorry, this environmentalist-sounding spew is over. I return you to the fine writings of Mr Weir and his commenters. :)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:15:00 +0000

Boston? They probably closed the airport because someone found an LED somewhere. Remember that MIT student?

You’re just lucky they didn’t close the airport after finding out that a 4oz shampoo bottle made it past security.