4 ms·

I don't know how Greyhound is still relevant. Most of the time you can get comparable if not cheaper tickets on Amtrak, and it's an order of magnitude better e

by bbarn 9y ago

I don't know how Greyhound is still relevant. Most of the time you can get comparable if not cheaper tickets on Amtrak, and it's an order of magnitude better experience than a greyhound bus. I just did a sample from Chicago to SF, and it's 20 dollars cheaper on amtrak, and 1 hour faster. That's leaving on Monday. I suppose there may be some rural routes where it's a good option, but I don't see it.

throwawayjava 9y ago
That's a hell of a train ride. Last I checked rides that long are about price equivalent to flying. Why do you take the train?
- bbarn 9y ago
  It's about half the cost of the cheapest flight I could find to SFO from ORD. Personally, I wouldn't do it - I'm just saying greyhound seems like an even worse choice than a train.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    FWIW that's only true if you don't mind sitting in a coach seat for 2 days. If you want a bed, it's more expensive. And for a 2+ day train ride, you probably want a bed :-) I would seriously consider doing it for the experience / as a vacation (I like trains), but not as a serious mode of transportation. Am I missing something, or are you able to sleep in the coach seats?
    - hornd 9y ago
      I haven't had any issues sleeping in Amtrak coach seats the handful of times I've taken overnight train trips. I sleep much better than on airline coach. Amtrak seats recline pretty far and have much larger pitch than airline coach seats. It's quite comfortable for a single night, really.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        Interesting; thanks for your reply. I guess I'm doomed to airplanes for work travel; I can't justify the added expense and time of the sleeper cars, and can't sleep in the coach seats :(
    - ams6110 9y ago
      The Amtrak multi-day sleeper car trip is not the romantic experience you are imagining. It is one of mechanical breakdowns, unexplained delays, and reaching your destination hours if not days late. The actual beds aren't bad though, and the dining car food is decent.
      - ghaff 9y ago
        It's on my list of things to do someday when the stars line up correctly, but I do fear that it's the sort of thing that seems more exciting and romantic on paper than in reality.
  - rconti 9y ago
    What was the price? At half the cost, I get it. It's not pleasant, but there are plenty of people for whom the money is a lot more important than the time. Particularly if you're not currently employed, for example.
  - 112012123 9y ago
    I'm curious, how much did you pay? I do ORD-->SFO around monthly, and I've never paid more than $150 roundtrip. Amtrak is super expensive by comparison
untog 9y ago
That's very dependent on geography. A counter example: a train up or down the east coast (DC, Philadelphia, NYC, Boston) is often equal to if not greater than the cost of a flight. At least $100, usually a lot more. By comparison, buses are about $30, often less. And that's to say nothing of extended networks - Amtrak is great if you live near an Amtrak station. A lot of people do not, and buses serve them well. Ish. For many places in the country, Amtrak is comparable to a slow plane, not a fast bus.
poulsbohemian 9y ago
For many routes, it is dirt cheap, but like anything, you get what you pay for. I take it semi-regularly from Walla Walla to Seattle (approx 5 hours by vehicle) and it is about $50. If you plan ahead, there are flights (45 minutes) for $60, but they can run as high as $200. By and large the Greyhound consumer is of an income bracket where that $50 is a significant expense, and an airline ticket would be a serious stretch. Also, Greyhound appears to have a deal with the prison system, as released convicts from the state prison are regular passengers. Frankly it isn't any worse than an airplane and you get regular stops to stretch your legs and get a cup of coffee. All the busses have wi-fi and some also have power outlets. To your point -- for really long distances, air travel is likely the way to go, but for regional transportation it is a reasonable alternative. A tank of gas in my Ford F-150 is as much as $90, making a bus ticket or a flight cost effective within the region.
notatoad 9y ago
I don't know about the us, but here in Canada they go everywhere. In most towns and smaller cities, your options for travel are either greyhound or personal vehicle. They're still relevant because there is literally no alternative.
- smelendez 9y ago
  That's true in much of the US as well. Interestingly I looked into bus travel to Oxford, Mississippi (home of the University of Mississippi) a while back. I live in New Orleans without a car, and I figured it could be an interesting weekend trip and assumed it would be something like $30 round trip by bus. There is no bus or rail service to Oxford. Greyhound and Megabus no longer stop there. The nearest airport is in Memphis, Tennessee. Taking a cab from the airport or from the nearest train or bus station is impractically expensive. The only way to get there is by private car. I'll go there someday if I buy a car, or if a friend of mine with a car feels like going.
fishtank 9y ago
I have traveled a lot from Chicago to Iowa City, which has no rail service, via both Megabus and a Greyhound subsidiary. Don't know that I would call it a rural route. Or rather, I don't think it's so rural as to be invisible. People under various hardships have different needs. Greyhound you can pay cash, if you don't have a credit/debit card, though you do need a photo ID. Amtrak is the same, but doesn't go everywhere. Megabus you can ride without a photo ID, but you need a credit/debit card and access to the internet. When I was traveling that way there were a lot of families moving out of Chicago by bus, with all their possessions in black garbage bags. Also, prisoners in Illinois tend to get a bus ticket when they're released: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-prison-releases-bus-met-20150317-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-prison-releases-bus-me...
tptacek 9y ago
On the Illini routes, Amtrak is slower, less reliable, and runs less often.
kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
> cheaper on amtrak, and 1 hour faster. Amtrack's schedules are fiction.
stoic 9y ago
Further anecdata: Amtrak is a joke in Texas. Amtrak from Dallas to Austin is a 6h22 trip for $29 (value fare), departing only once per day (11:50am) and taking about 2 hours to reach Fort Worth, a 30-minute drive. By contrast, there are 11 Greyhound buses from Dallas to Austin per day, from $13-19, and the ride is never longer than 3h40 (mostly 3h to 3h10). There are usually 3-4 Megabuses in each direction per day as well, for around $12 for an unreserved seat.
- jccooper 9y ago
  Heck, they won't even quote you for Houston-Dallas. This is an improvement: they used to show a ridiculous two-day route connecting through San Antonio. Amtrak in Texas (and most of the rest of the country outside the NW corridor) is set up as a cross-country sightseeing/nostalgia tour service. Sunset Limited (New Orleans to LA) runs three times a week. It's not meant for actual, you know, transportation. Really, they ought to fully embrace that and operate more like a cruise ship with day stops for sightseeing. An American version of a Rhine cruise. Probably this is because they can't compete on either price or time with busses, planes, or cars. I think there's many city pairs in the country where center-to-center rail service at a price and speed between bus and air would work well, but I doubt that can be achieved on the freight rail network.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    >(and most of the rest of the country outside the NW corridor) I assume you meant NE corridor although I understand that Seattle to Portland by train works reasonably well. Even on the NE corridor it's really segments. Boston-NYC and NYC-Washington DC work well. Boston to DC really takes too long although I've done it. There are some other segments here and there but even when they seem like a good way to get from A to B (like Raleigh to Charlotte), in my experience it's not heavily utilized.
  - blahedo 9y ago
    I've done a lot of cross-country train trips, and in addition to NE corridor, travel radiating to/from Chicago and within about 500 miles is generally pretty transport-oriented (not just vacationing). And even in a lot of the other places, there are many of the more rural parts of the country where Amtrak is much more accessible than the nearest airport, and people there use it accordingly.
brandonmenc 9y ago
>I suppose there may be some rural routes where it's a good option, but I don't see it. Some rural routes? Google for maps of Greyhound and Amtrak routes to see how many places the train doesn't serve.

by bbarn 9y ago

throwawayjava 9y ago

That's a hell of a train ride. Last I checked rides that long are about price equivalent to flying. Why do you take the train?

bbarn 9y ago
It's about half the cost of the cheapest flight I could find to SFO from ORD. Personally, I wouldn't do it - I'm just saying greyhound seems like an even worse choice than a train.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  FWIW that's only true if you don't mind sitting in a coach seat for 2 days. If you want a bed, it's more expensive. And for a 2+ day train ride, you probably want a bed :-) I would seriously consider doing it for the experience / as a vacation (I like trains), but not as a serious mode of transportation. Am I missing something, or are you able to sleep in the coach seats?
  - hornd 9y ago
    I haven't had any issues sleeping in Amtrak coach seats the handful of times I've taken overnight train trips. I sleep much better than on airline coach. Amtrak seats recline pretty far and have much larger pitch than airline coach seats. It's quite comfortable for a single night, really.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      Interesting; thanks for your reply. I guess I'm doomed to airplanes for work travel; I can't justify the added expense and time of the sleeper cars, and can't sleep in the coach seats :(
  - ams6110 9y ago
    The Amtrak multi-day sleeper car trip is not the romantic experience you are imagining. It is one of mechanical breakdowns, unexplained delays, and reaching your destination hours if not days late. The actual beds aren't bad though, and the dining car food is decent.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      It's on my list of things to do someday when the stars line up correctly, but I do fear that it's the sort of thing that seems more exciting and romantic on paper than in reality.
- rconti 9y ago
  What was the price? At half the cost, I get it. It's not pleasant, but there are plenty of people for whom the money is a lot more important than the time. Particularly if you're not currently employed, for example.
- 112012123 9y ago
  I'm curious, how much did you pay? I do ORD-->SFO around monthly, and I've never paid more than $150 roundtrip. Amtrak is super expensive by comparison

untog 9y ago

That's very dependent on geography. A counter example: a train up or down the east coast (DC, Philadelphia, NYC, Boston) is often equal to if not greater than the cost of a flight. At least $100, usually a lot more. By comparison, buses are about $30, often less. And that's to say nothing of extended networks - Amtrak is great if you live near an Amtrak station. A lot of people do not, and buses serve them well. Ish. For many places in the country, Amtrak is comparable to a slow plane, not a fast bus.

poulsbohemian 9y ago

For many routes, it is dirt cheap, but like anything, you get what you pay for. I take it semi-regularly from Walla Walla to Seattle (approx 5 hours by vehicle) and it is about $50. If you plan ahead, there are flights (45 minutes) for $60, but they can run as high as $200. By and large the Greyhound consumer is of an income bracket where that $50 is a significant expense, and an airline ticket would be a serious stretch. Also, Greyhound appears to have a deal with the prison system, as released convicts from the state prison are regular passengers. Frankly it isn't any worse than an airplane and you get regular stops to stretch your legs and get a cup of coffee. All the busses have wi-fi and some also have power outlets. To your point -- for really long distances, air travel is likely the way to go, but for regional transportation it is a reasonable alternative. A tank of gas in my Ford F-150 is as much as $90, making a bus ticket or a flight cost effective within the region.

notatoad 9y ago

I don't know about the us, but here in Canada they go everywhere. In most towns and smaller cities, your options for travel are either greyhound or personal vehicle. They're still relevant because there is literally no alternative.

smelendez 9y ago
That's true in much of the US as well. Interestingly I looked into bus travel to Oxford, Mississippi (home of the University of Mississippi) a while back. I live in New Orleans without a car, and I figured it could be an interesting weekend trip and assumed it would be something like $30 round trip by bus. There is no bus or rail service to Oxford. Greyhound and Megabus no longer stop there. The nearest airport is in Memphis, Tennessee. Taking a cab from the airport or from the nearest train or bus station is impractically expensive. The only way to get there is by private car. I'll go there someday if I buy a car, or if a friend of mine with a car feels like going.

fishtank 9y ago

I have traveled a lot from Chicago to Iowa City, which has no rail service, via both Megabus and a Greyhound subsidiary. Don't know that I would call it a rural route. Or rather, I don't think it's so rural as to be invisible. People under various hardships have different needs. Greyhound you can pay cash, if you don't have a credit/debit card, though you do need a photo ID. Amtrak is the same, but doesn't go everywhere. Megabus you can ride without a photo ID, but you need a credit/debit card and access to the internet. When I was traveling that way there were a lot of families moving out of Chicago by bus, with all their possessions in black garbage bags. Also, prisoners in Illinois tend to get a bus ticket when they're released: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-prison-releases-bus-met-20150317-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-prison-releases-bus-me...

tptacek 9y ago

On the Illini routes, Amtrak is slower, less reliable, and runs less often.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago

> cheaper on amtrak, and 1 hour faster. Amtrack's schedules are fiction.

stoic 9y ago

Further anecdata: Amtrak is a joke in Texas. Amtrak from Dallas to Austin is a 6h22 trip for $29 (value fare), departing only once per day (11:50am) and taking about 2 hours to reach Fort Worth, a 30-minute drive. By contrast, there are 11 Greyhound buses from Dallas to Austin per day, from $13-19, and the ride is never longer than 3h40 (mostly 3h to 3h10). There are usually 3-4 Megabuses in each direction per day as well, for around $12 for an unreserved seat.

jccooper 9y ago
Heck, they won't even quote you for Houston-Dallas. This is an improvement: they used to show a ridiculous two-day route connecting through San Antonio. Amtrak in Texas (and most of the rest of the country outside the NW corridor) is set up as a cross-country sightseeing/nostalgia tour service. Sunset Limited (New Orleans to LA) runs three times a week. It's not meant for actual, you know, transportation. Really, they ought to fully embrace that and operate more like a cruise ship with day stops for sightseeing. An American version of a Rhine cruise. Probably this is because they can't compete on either price or time with busses, planes, or cars. I think there's many city pairs in the country where center-to-center rail service at a price and speed between bus and air would work well, but I doubt that can be achieved on the freight rail network.
- ghaff 9y ago
  >(and most of the rest of the country outside the NW corridor) I assume you meant NE corridor although I understand that Seattle to Portland by train works reasonably well. Even on the NE corridor it's really segments. Boston-NYC and NYC-Washington DC work well. Boston to DC really takes too long although I've done it. There are some other segments here and there but even when they seem like a good way to get from A to B (like Raleigh to Charlotte), in my experience it's not heavily utilized.
- blahedo 9y ago
  I've done a lot of cross-country train trips, and in addition to NE corridor, travel radiating to/from Chicago and within about 500 miles is generally pretty transport-oriented (not just vacationing). And even in a lot of the other places, there are many of the more rural parts of the country where Amtrak is much more accessible than the nearest airport, and people there use it accordingly.

brandonmenc 9y ago

>I suppose there may be some rural routes where it's a good option, but I don't see it. Some rural routes? Google for maps of Greyhound and Amtrak routes to see how many places the train doesn't serve.