4 ms·

It's not just price. Amtrak routes cover a tiny fraction of the routes that greyhound does, and likewise only a fraction of cities/towns have airports. At least

by pavon 3y ago

It's not just price. Amtrak routes cover a tiny fraction of the routes that greyhound does, and likewise only a fraction of cities/towns have airports. At least in the past, Greyhound was often bundled with Amtrak to complete trips. Many of the existing freight rail lines aren't suitable for passenger use even if there was demand to support them, and even if they were the are still tons of town with no rail passing through them. Using the highways we've already built and are going to maintain either way is more efficient than building out completely different infrastructures for public transit and personal transportation.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Eh. Amtrak has routes to most regions and Greyhound doesn't have routes to most ultimate destinations. Typical bus or train trips are you get a ride to the station from a friend or Uber and then the people you're visiting pick you up at the station on the other end. If the station on the other end is five minutes drive or fifteen minutes doesn't really matter, because it's too far to walk either way. The problem here isn't intercity transit, it's intra-city transit. But that isn't the one Greyhound solves. Low ridership is also the reason many cities with tracks don't have passenger routes.
- pavon 3y ago
  > Amtrak has routes to most regions No it really doesn't, and even if it passes through a region, the routes are often pathological, like in the worst case a trip from Denver to Dallas having to pass through Chicago or San Francisco. > If the station on the other end is five minutes drive or fifteen minutes doesn't really matter, because it's too far to walk either way. That is very minor problem compared to the issue of the nearest Amtrak stop being literally hundreds of miles further away compared to the nearest greyhound stop. > Low ridership is also the reason many cities with tracks don't have passenger routes. There are other reasons, in particular that running freight and passenger trains on the same rails has many scheduling issues that makes the rails worse for both users.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > No it really doesn't, and even if it passes through a region, the routes are often pathological, like in the worst case a trip from Denver to Dallas having to pass through Chicago or San Francisco. The west is why it's "most" rather than "all" regions. But the places Amtrak doesn't go are the same places where local mass transit is abysmal or non-existent and everybody has a car. The reason there is no direct passenger route from Denver to Dallas is that anybody going there would drive or -- because everything is so spread out in the west and that's still a 12 hour drive -- fly. > That is very minor problem compared to the issue of the nearest Amtrak stop being literally hundreds of miles further away compared to the nearest greyhound stop. But it usually isn't, especially anywhere that anybody would be using either of these modes of transport. Okay, so Greyhound goes to Daytona Beach and Amtrak "only" goes to DeLand, but they're <25 miles apart, and your destination may be some other town in the region rather than one where either of them have a stop. > There are other reasons, in particular that running freight and passenger trains on the same rails has many scheduling issues that makes the rails worse for both users. It's all down to ridership. If more people used them then you could justify more sections of parallel track that allow trains to pass each other or travel in opposite directions at the same time.
    - cool_dude85 3y ago
      >The west is why it's "most" rather than "all" regions Not just the west. I live in Jacksonville, FL, an 8 hour drive to New Orleans, and just 6 to Atlanta, but I'd need to go through Washington DC to get to Atlanta or through Chicago if I wanted to get to New Orleans (on a train the whole way).
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        They still have routes through all of those cities, and the reason it's circuitous to get from Jacksonville to New Orleans is that there's a line that goes directly there but it's suspended. They're making efforts to restore it, but the process is unsurprisingly full of politics and bureaucracy.

by pavon 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

Eh. Amtrak has routes to most regions and Greyhound doesn't have routes to most ultimate destinations. Typical bus or train trips are you get a ride to the station from a friend or Uber and then the people you're visiting pick you up at the station on the other end. If the station on the other end is five minutes drive or fifteen minutes doesn't really matter, because it's too far to walk either way. The problem here isn't intercity transit, it's intra-city transit. But that isn't the one Greyhound solves. Low ridership is also the reason many cities with tracks don't have passenger routes.

pavon 3y ago
> Amtrak has routes to most regions No it really doesn't, and even if it passes through a region, the routes are often pathological, like in the worst case a trip from Denver to Dallas having to pass through Chicago or San Francisco. > If the station on the other end is five minutes drive or fifteen minutes doesn't really matter, because it's too far to walk either way. That is very minor problem compared to the issue of the nearest Amtrak stop being literally hundreds of miles further away compared to the nearest greyhound stop. > Low ridership is also the reason many cities with tracks don't have passenger routes. There are other reasons, in particular that running freight and passenger trains on the same rails has many scheduling issues that makes the rails worse for both users.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > No it really doesn't, and even if it passes through a region, the routes are often pathological, like in the worst case a trip from Denver to Dallas having to pass through Chicago or San Francisco. The west is why it's "most" rather than "all" regions. But the places Amtrak doesn't go are the same places where local mass transit is abysmal or non-existent and everybody has a car. The reason there is no direct passenger route from Denver to Dallas is that anybody going there would drive or -- because everything is so spread out in the west and that's still a 12 hour drive -- fly. > That is very minor problem compared to the issue of the nearest Amtrak stop being literally hundreds of miles further away compared to the nearest greyhound stop. But it usually isn't, especially anywhere that anybody would be using either of these modes of transport. Okay, so Greyhound goes to Daytona Beach and Amtrak "only" goes to DeLand, but they're <25 miles apart, and your destination may be some other town in the region rather than one where either of them have a stop. > There are other reasons, in particular that running freight and passenger trains on the same rails has many scheduling issues that makes the rails worse for both users. It's all down to ridership. If more people used them then you could justify more sections of parallel track that allow trains to pass each other or travel in opposite directions at the same time.
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    >The west is why it's "most" rather than "all" regions Not just the west. I live in Jacksonville, FL, an 8 hour drive to New Orleans, and just 6 to Atlanta, but I'd need to go through Washington DC to get to Atlanta or through Chicago if I wanted to get to New Orleans (on a train the whole way).
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      They still have routes through all of those cities, and the reason it's circuitous to get from Jacksonville to New Orleans is that there's a line that goes directly there but it's suspended. They're making efforts to restore it, but the process is unsurprisingly full of politics and bureaucracy.