# Intercity bus services are typically a gap in transportation planning



## CHamilton (Mar 2, 2014)

Intercity bus services are typically a gap in transportation planning



> Intercity buses are usually ignored by transportation planning. While this map has been written up elsewhere already, it's important for us to take the opportunity to consider that inter-city bus service generally isn't actively addressed by transportation planning at national, multi-state, and regional scales, other than at the local level as a matter of regulation and siting.


----------



## railiner (Mar 2, 2014)

That's mainly a result of the demographic that uses them, as in no "Mover's and Shaker's".....

There are some exception's of course, but in general, the mode 'get's no respect'. It is apparent even here on these boards where intercity bus travel is treated with disdain by many....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 2, 2014)

railiner said:


> That's mainly a result of the demographic that uses them, as in no "Mover's and Shaker's".....
> 
> There are some exception's of course, but in general, the mode 'get's no respect'. It is apparent even here on these boards where intercity bus travel is treated with disdain by many....


I agree, I mean, it's so hard to find bus fans, I found Greyhound Through Express which has merely 1,227 members, but all its members hold Greyhound in a high regard and are eagar to celebrate its 100th Anniversary in May.

I personally have that AIBRA bus map saved on my computer but I am surprised to find there is only one member in AIBRA. Great job gathering all that info into one map! I would love to join him in exploring the fun of intericty bus travel.


----------



## cirdan (Mar 3, 2014)

I guess you could turn that statement around too though.

If nobody in government is planning for intercity buses, nobody is interfering either. That means intercity buses are able to fly below the radar of things politicians think they can fix by adding crazy legislation and micromanagement.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 3, 2014)

cirdan said:


> I guess you could turn that statement around too though.
> 
> If nobody in government is planning for intercity buses, nobody is interfering either. That means intercity buses are able to fly below the radar of things politicians think they can fix by adding crazy legislation and micromanagement.


Crazy legislation? I think the requirement for all large operators to be 100% wheelchair accesible is a bit outrageous. Passengers can order a wheelchair lift in advance anyway.

But yes, less government red-tape means Greyhound can reshuffle their fleet and routes wherever, whenever. The opposite is true for Amtrak.


----------



## MattW (Mar 3, 2014)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you could turn that statement around too though.
> ...


The flipside of that though is they can just abandon any route at any time even if it provides a great service for someone. Not saying government-provided bus routes are permanent either, just the government has to listen to the people, Greyhound doesn't.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 3, 2014)

MattW said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > cirdan said:
> ...


Greyhound would only drop a route if there is not enough ridership to sustain it. If there's not much people riding the bus, then why drive it there? Greyhound _does_ have to listen to the people, because if the people don't ride, then Greyhound doesn't drive. If there's only ten passengers every day, then Amtrak wouldn't operate it either.


----------



## railiner (Mar 3, 2014)

The exception to bus deregulation is international routes....for example, New York and Boston to Montreal routes are both still regulated.

I personally think that the bus deregulation with the abolishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission has proven to be a failure, overall. Back in the regulated area, carrier's were awarded routes on application after proving a need for "public convenience and necessity". Sometimes there would be only one carrier on a route, sometimes two or more, depending on traffic. Carrier's were protected from competition, but were also expected to "cross-subsidize" lightly used branch lines with heavily patronized mainlines. And the ICC set and approved both fares charged, on a fair mileage basis, (rather than a market basis), as well as number of schedules added or removed.

The regulation allowed carrier's to pay their employee's a decent living wage, and were able to attract a high standard of employee, as a result.

Deregulation has proved to be a boon to some heavily traveled markets, where cut-rate new entrants have 'cherry-picked' the most lucrative routes, and given the public some very low fares. I believe that the ferocious competition has caused carrier's to cut corner's on certain standards in order to survive the intense competition. And what about all the branch lines that have lost all service? A look at what exists now with what was there in the pre-deregulation era, pales in comparison.


----------



## rickycourtney (Mar 3, 2014)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I think the requirement for all large operators to be 100% wheelchair accesible is a bit outrageous. Passengers can order a wheelchair lift in advance anyway.


I disagree 100%.Transit buses are accessible, Amtrak is accessible, airlines are required to provide accessible jet bridges or lifts. Greyhound should be accessible too.

It's the right thing to do.

Greyhound had the chance to try the "wheelchair lift on request" system and failed. A simple google search turns up horror stories of ordering a lift equipped bus and having it not show up, drivers who didn't know how to operate a lift, or people having to be carried up into the bus.

Plus here's the total inescapable fact... Everyone deserves the same treatment. That means people should be able to walk down to the greyhound station... and buy a ticket for the next available bus out of town (no matter if they are in a wheelchair or not.)

Again, It's the right thing to do.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 4, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > I think the requirement for all large operators to be 100% wheelchair accesible is a bit outrageous. Passengers can order a wheelchair lift in advance anyway.
> ...


Then the government regulators should purchase wheelchair lifts for Greyhound's suspended non-ADA 102DL3's, many of which are sitting idle in the garage because they don't have lifts and Greyhound Canada only wants 160 of them. The rebuild line is so huge right now that it will take a long time for them to all get lifts.

I think non-ADA buses can be allowed on scheduled service, but they should be restriced to their own operating pool with a special sign on the timetable that these buses have no wheelchair lift. This will only occur on very frequent routes, where frequencies are high enough that a non-ADA bus won't hamper the travel of the disabled.

For example, on New York-Atlantic City, where there is a schedule every 30 minutes, every other bus could be wheelchair accesible. The non-ADA buses could be restriced to the Northeast USA Non-ADA pool and based from Atlantic City Garage. At least better than sitting idle in the garage.

102DL3's are still far better than G4500's, even though all the G4500's have wheelchair lifts.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 4, 2014)

railiner said:


> The exception to bus deregulation is international routes....for example, New York and Boston to Montreal routes are both still regulated.
> 
> I personally think that the bus deregulation with the abolishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission has proven to be a failure, overall. Back in the regulated area, carrier's were awarded routes on application after proving a need for "public convenience and necessity". Sometimes there would be only one carrier on a route, sometimes two or more, depending on traffic. Carrier's were protected from competition, but were also expected to "cross-subsidize" lightly used branch lines with heavily patronized mainlines. And the ICC set and approved both fares charged, on a fair mileage basis, (rather than a market basis), as well as number of schedules added or removed.
> 
> ...


I don't know if you've seen this before, but it really shows: http://www.chicagorailfan.com/greyhite.html. And a road map to go with it: http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_north_america/maps_of_usa/detailed_map_of_USA_highway_system_of_1955.jpg.

I heard from National Bus Trader that before deregulation, most of the bus operators had scheduled service, then suddenly over 50% of the industry was charter-only. This meant MCI's line-haul oriented models had to adapt to do something they were not designed for, heck the MC-9 had a 51-foot turning circle, compared to 40 feet in a C2045!

Yeah, I think deregulation and Teets/Currey really messed up the intercity bus industry.


----------



## railiner (Mar 5, 2014)

Yes...that site shows the vast difference between service available in 1976, and what we have today....I cringe everytime I get a new Greyhound System Timetable, to see what the latest cut from the 'system' is.....

I have some old Russell's Guides from the fifties....almost a thousand pages! Almost every paved highway across the country had some sort of scheduled bus service in that era.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 6, 2014)

railiner said:


> Yes...that site shows the vast difference between service available in 1976, and what we have today....I cringe everytime I get a new Greyhound System Timetable, to see what the latest cut from the 'system' is.....
> 
> I have some old Russell's Guides from the fifties....almost a thousand pages! Almost every paved highway across the country had some sort of scheduled bus service in that era.


It's not so bad now, at least since 2013 Greyhound has reintroduced some services with cutaways and even full-size coaches. But cuts are still going on, remember how 554 Los Angeles-Mojave-Las Vegas was cut back to Palmdale? I guess the time of circuitous routes is over.

I'm not sure if almost every paved highway had bus service in the 1950's, I presume most of the US Highways and all the Turnpikes had buses, but I don't think much of the state highways did. But even on US Highways, for example, I presume US Route 93 never had bus service for a majority of its route, since it cuts right across the Great Basin from south to north.


----------



## railiner (Mar 6, 2014)

Well, I was exaggerating a bit.....but anyway....from October, 1959....US 93 in your state of Nevada was served from Wells to Ely by Nevada Northern Ry. Co.; from Ely to Las Vegas by Lewis Bros. Stages; from Las Vegas over the Hoover Dam into Arizona and then on down to Wickenburg (and Phoenix) by Las Vegas-Tonopah-Reno Stage Line.

And going north from Wells to Twin Falls, Idaho, was Twin Falls-Wells, Nevada Stage Line.....then from Twin Falls up to Sun Valley was Sun Valley Stages....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 6, 2014)

railiner said:


> Well, I was exaggerating a bit.....but anyway....from October, 1959....US 93 in your state of Nevada was served from Wells to Ely by Nevada Northern Ry. Co.; from Ely to Las Vegas by Lewis Bros. Stages; from Las Vegas over the Hoover Dam into Arizona and then on down to Wickenburg (and Phoenix) by Las Vegas-Tonopah-Reno Stage Line.
> 
> And going north from Wells to Twin Falls, Idaho, was Twin Falls-Wells, Nevada Stage Line.....then from Twin Falls up to Sun Valley was Sun Valley Stages....


My bad, I didn't know about Twin Fall-Wells Stage Line! :blush: I was only looking at the 1976 map. And I didn't know Lewis Bros. Stages ran all the was south to Las Vegas. I actually saw one of their charter J4500's in Salt Lake City, now think about what network they used to have! Now they only have charters & tours, plus that J4500 is just an overrated piece of plastic!

Edit: Do you happen to know what ran on US Route 50 east of Ely into Utah? I know Reno-Ely was served by Nevada Central.


----------

