# Taking Greyhound Cross-Country



## trainman74 (Sep 27, 2012)

From today's L.A. Times:



> GLASGOW, Scotland — The other passengers aboard the late-night Greyhound bus weren't looking to get their kicks on route M6. Mostly they were just hoping to catch some Z's.
> ​
> 
> ​
> ...


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Sep 27, 2012)

You got me. When I read the heading I was thinking "That's just nuts. Don't do it!"

So okay, not so nuts. But I'd still prefer the train for THAT x-country trip.


----------



## railiner (Sep 27, 2012)

I am not at all surprised by that report. Greyhound Lines for the past twenty or so years, has systematically abandoned major routes in its 'system' that took years to build up. First Group since its ownership of Greyhound, has continued that policy. They want to exit the cross-country market and leave that to the budget airlines, and concentrate on 'hub and spoke' regional operations out of their largest markets. You can no longer even take a thru bus from coast to coast.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 27, 2012)

railiner said:


> I am not at all surprised by that report. Greyhound Lines for the past twenty or so years, has systematically abandoned major routes in its 'system' that took years to build up. First Group since its ownership of Greyhound, has continued that policy. They want to exit the cross-country market and leave that to the budget airlines, and concentrate on 'hub and spoke' regional operations out of their largest markets. You can no longer even take a thru bus from coast to coast.


They are still adding some services like 364 and they still have some long runs like New York-Denver, Richmond-Dallas, Dallas-Los Angeles, Denver-Portland, Richmond-Miami, Miami-Houston, etc. You can see where their hubs are.

IMHO, budget airlines are worse than Greyhound. I would still take a 102DL3 over a 737/A320, even if it means transferring. I don't think Greyhound ever had thru transcons anyway.


----------



## railiner (Sep 28, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > I am not at all surprised by that report. Greyhound Lines for the past twenty or so years, has systematically abandoned major routes in its 'system' that took years to build up. First Group since its ownership of Greyhound, has continued that policy. They want to exit the cross-country market and leave that to the budget airlines, and concentrate on 'hub and spoke' regional operations out of their largest markets. You can no longer even take a thru bus from coast to coast.
> ...


Most people would not agree with your opinion of taking a bus cross-country over an airliner. The numbers will bear that fact out, by far. A few years back, in Greyhound's employee newspaper, the CEO even acknowledge that fact and stated that Greyhound was not pursuing that market any longer, but was reinventing themselves to concentrate on trips of up to 300 or 400 miles max.

The thru trips you mention are correct, but you have to wonder why they don't offer thru service between major markets like New York and Florida, without a change in Richmond. While the connections are there, they inconvenience thru passengers mainly because New York no longer has a maintenance base, and buses are serviced in Richmond. Just a few years ago, they used to load multiple sections on trips packed with families traveling from New York to Orlando. They pretty much killed off

the majority of that business.

And they have abandoned thru service from Chicago to both California and the Northwest via I-80 or I-94/90, with no service at all other than connections with other carriers that have taken over some of it.

If you compare their system timetable of today with that of thirty years ago, it is but a mere skeleton of what once was.

And yes they did run coast to coast, and border to border thru buses over many routes....so did Continental Trailways, which they purchased in 1987.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 28, 2012)

railiner said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > railiner said:
> ...


You're right. Greyhound did have a lot more service before now. I also did not say I would take Greyhound transcon, I prefer Amtrak. What I mean is that:

Overland LD: Amtrak, then Greyhound, then airplane (exception with rare planes/buses/trains).

Overland SD: Greyhound, then Amtrak, then airplane (exception with rare planes/buses/trains).

Overseas: Gonna have to go with the airplane over ocean liner. Ocean liners also don't run much anymore and I like widebodies a lot more than a 737/A320.

By rare planes I mean like an old DC-9.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Sep 28, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


So you'd rather take Greyhound from LA to San Diego over the Pacific Surfliner? This is a 3-hour schedule, for $24 dollars, doesn't have the scenery, and prone to traffic delays on the 5, and for those schedules that apply, the 405 (route passes through busiest stretch of American road) and then the dreaded 110.


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 28, 2012)

Not including those that have a fear of flying, or some medical condition that prevents them from flying, I think you're probably the only person that would rather take Greyhound cross-country vs. flying.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 28, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > railiner said:
> ...


This is a train forum, so it's no surprise most people here would take the train. But on this occasion, I will have to go with my Overland SD standard, which means Greyhound. The problem is that Greyhound routes on this line are operated by Autobuses Crucero, which I have never taken and don't know much about. It I did get an actual Greyhound (not Crucero) 102DL3, then that's better than a California Car.

If I were to go LAD-SFD, then it'd definately be on Greyhound, that route does not have Crucero. Unless I decide to give the train a"special break" for the CS scenery.


----------

