More Greyhound cutbacks and comparison with airlines

[Skyline]

There is no longer a reason to force travelers

Ah, even in my dotage, my memory seems to be functioning okay. I remember friends who worked on budget stuff in the U.S. House of Representatives telling me that improvements to the notorious Breezewood interchange were systematically blocked by then-Rep. Bud Shuster, powerful member of a public-works committee. "Millions of people who travel between the Mid-Atlantic and the Midwest each year fight through Breezewood, Pa., a strange gap in the Interstate System...Although Mr. Shuster was a leading member of the House Transportation Committee and was known for steering taxpayer funds to local highway projects, he made clear that he would never permit funding for a Breezewood bypass, [Democratic state senator] Mr. Dawida recalled. (Mr. Shuster’s son, Bill Shuster, now represents that same district; his office did not respond to requests for comment.)"

Well, young Shuster finally stepped down after redistricting, and after four years without an Infrastructure Week it finally happened in a new Administration, but I have no idea whether the Breezewood Boondoggle will change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/...n-at-the-junction-of-politics-and-policy.html (no paywall)

Capitalism and Breezewood

That boondoggle NEEDS to change! A direct Turnpike interchange to and from I-70 is long overdue, the Shusters and their ilk be damned. But it wouldn't be cheap and it would be a lengthy construction project.

The Breezewood business district would need to survive just like all the others that are a few miles from a Turnpike exit. Fortunately, there is a large constituency of long haul truckers that would likely save Breezewood from itself if entry and exit points are reimagined for them. But more likely, a new and more efficient business district would develop nearby concurrent with a new I-70 interchange.

 

[MARC Rider]

There is no longer a reason to force travelers

That boondoggle NEEDS to change! A direct Turnpike interchange to and from I-70 is long overdue, the Shusters and their ilk be damned. But it wouldn't be cheap and it would be a lengthy construction project.

The Breezewood business district would need to survive just like all the others that are a few miles from a Turnpike exit. Fortunately, there is a large constituency of long haul truckers that would likely save Breezewood from itself if entry and exit points are reimagined for them. But more likely, a new and more efficient business district would develop nearby concurrent with a new I-70 interchange.

I used to drive through there regularly during the period 2005 - 2018, and except for once during the Christmas holiday season, I never found it a real problem. There are two traffic lights you have to pass through, that's all. It's true that ever since they expanded the Midway Rest area on the Turnpike a few miles west of the interchange, there's a little more variety in the food offerings, but if you want to be served by a waitress or waiter, you still have to get off and patronize the Gateway. Plus, I have a Sheetz card, so I like to buy the discounted gas at the Sheetz in Breezewood. I think the state would be better off using the money to improve public transportation.

 

[UserNameRequired]

There is no longer a reason to force travelers

That boondoggle NEEDS to change! A direct Turnpike interchange to and from I-70 is long overdue, the Shusters and their ilk be damned. But it wouldn't be cheap and it would be a lengthy construction project.

The Breezewood business district would need to survive just like all the others that are a few miles from a Turnpike exit. Fortunately, there is a large constituency of long haul truckers that would likely save Breezewood from itself if entry and exit points are reimagined for them. But more likely, a new and more efficient business district would develop nearby concurrent with a new I-70 interchange.

Those Shusters sound like they could be shiesters I visited the area 7 years ago to walk on the retired interstate and go into the tunnels. It is very surreal to walk on an interstate and the weeds are growing in the cracks and the shoulders are overgrown with shrubs/trees as far as one could see in any direction. Very post-nuclear Twilight Zone vibe. I think the tunnels had a railroading past but I have to go to church now…

 

[jis]

Those Shusters sound like they could be shiesters I visited the area 7 years ago to walk on the retired interstate and go into the tunnels. It is very surreal to walk on an interstate and the weeds are growing in the cracks and the shoulders are overgrown with shrubs/trees as far as one could see in any direction. Very post-nuclear Twilight Zone vibe. I think the tunnels had a railroading past but I have to go to church now…

You can read about how the Pennsylvania Turnpike came to use the right of way of a railroad that was never built....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pennsylvania_Railroad

 

[railiner]

Do you mean bus industry deregulation or airline deregulation? I think the long-distance bus companies got hammered when it became really cheap to fly. The remaining really strong markets for bus travel is for really short trips, sold really cheap. They don't even need to bother with terminals, just a bus stop on the sidewalk. And they're doing good business, too. Why should they spend the money for frills their passengers aren't demanding?

View attachment 30604
The New York Terminal for Megabus.

View attachment 30605
The New York Terminal for FlixBus, right across the street from Moynihan Train Hall.

Actually, regarding deregulation, I meant both...discount low cost airlines, for taking away most of the ultra long haul business, but more so for bus deregulation, which ended the practice of cross-subsidization and putting the cost of maintaining essential local services for those unable to drive on the taxpayers with county financed minibus services, that did not offer network connectivity to other regions.

When buses were regulated, protection from competition on mainline routes, along with the responsibility of maintaining local branch line services, resulted in reliable and predictable service, and with fares fairly based on distance traveled, rather than market supply and demand. The prices and number of schedules had to be approved by federal and state regulators, to prevent gouging, while making the service profitable enough to pay driver's and support terminal and administrative personnel a decent wage. A wage high enough, that to be a Greyhound driver, you had to be highly qualified to perform what was considered at one time the most prestigious of professional driving positions.

And on especially heavy mainline routes, the government did allow a second carrier to compete, but they competed only on equipment or level of service provided...not on fares.

Now with deregulation, there is no service to vast area's of the country formerly served, and cut-throat competition on lucrative routes, resulting in carrier's cutting costs with minimal services, low wages, sometimes sub-standard equipment and maintenance. No wonder it is so hard to find good driver's to join the industry.

Even into the early 1970's, Greyhound and Trailways nationwide were opening up new full service terminal's at the rate of one a month. Now I don't know which of the above pictured examples is worse...loading directly on the street, with zero shelter or facilities, or having an off-street parking lot, but a parasite like dependence on Penn Station for free facilities.

 

[Matthew H Fish]

I think the long-distance bus companies got hammered when it became really cheap to fly. The remaining really strong markets for bus travel is for really short trips, sold really cheap. They don't even need to bother with terminals, just a bus stop on the sidewalk.

Sorry if this is a detour for a question that has been asked elsewhere, but how exactly, did flying become so cheap?
I mean, the basic economics of it would suggest that if a 75 seat passenger plane costs 30 million dollars, and a coach bus costs $500,000, and that if a trained pilot makes $150,000 and a bus driver makes $50,000, and that if an airplane needs an expertly engineered and maintained airport to land at while a bus needs a mostly level piece of asphalt, that air travel should just naturally be more expensive. And of course, we can fiddle with and explain some of these figures, but overall, it seems difficult to explain. Are prices for air travel lower because companies are sinking money in to obtain market share, and eventually that investment money is going to dry up, or is there something else going on?

 

[Trollopian]

Sorry if this is a detour for a question that has been asked elsewhere, but how exactly, did flying become so cheap?

To paraphrase the old Yiddish joke, I assumed that the airlines lose money on every passenger but make it up on volume.

 

[Trollopian]

To paraphrase the old Yiddish joke, I assumed that the airlines lose money on every passenger but make it up on volume.

A more rigorous answer, I suppose (I'm an economist but not a transportation economist), is that flying is cheap between busy city pairs with plenty of demand. Airlines' costs are mostly fixed costs, not marginal. The airports and the airplanes are fixed investments and to make 'em pay off you have to fill them. The per-flight costs are payrolls and fuel, not trivial but incurred regardless of how full or empty the aircraft is. Hence a butt in every seat. (And "yield management," or what economists would call "price discrimination," i.e., charging people different fares for the same service depending on their price sensitivity.) Deregulation of airline fares enabled airlines to move overwhelmingly to flying the competitive routes between major markets and hub-and-spoke systems for everyone else. Like they say, wherever you're going on Delta, whether Heaven or Hell, you'll have to change planes in Atlanta. Small and medium markets were ill-served by deregulation but I suppose they were greatly cross-subsidized before that.

 

[Matthew H Fish]

Also, this video explains that airlines lose money on flights, and the way they stay in the black is marketing Frequent Flier programs:


(This is a good channel, I don't know if this video is 100% accurate in its facts and conclusions though)

 

[Willbridge]

A more rigorous answer, I suppose (I'm an economist but not a transportation economist), is that flying is cheap between busy city pairs with plenty of demand. Airlines' costs are mostly fixed costs, not marginal. The airports and the airplanes are fixed investments and to make 'em pay off you have to fill them. The per-flight costs are payrolls and fuel, not trivial but incurred regardless of how full or empty the aircraft is. Hence a butt in every seat. (And "yield management," or what economists would call "price discrimination," i.e., charging people different fares for the same service depending on their price sensitivity.) Deregulation of airline fares enabled airlines to move overwhelmingly to flying the competitive routes between major markets and hub-and-spoke systems for everyone else. Like they say, wherever you're going on Delta, whether Heaven or Hell, you'll have to change planes in Atlanta. Small and medium markets were ill-served by deregulation but I suppose they were greatly cross-subsidized before that.

The shorter routes were cross-subsidized under the CAB's "all up" policy. Unlike the ICC, the Civil Aeronautics Board was mandated to encourage air travel. That helps explain the helicopter shuttles in big cities. When airline deregulation occurred, ridership on the California Zephyr between Denver and Lincoln increased. Air service decreased (rather completely in the case of old Frontier).

This clipping is a bit dated, but it reflects the government attitude that could only see expansion (closer to God than any other mode). There were many short haul or low patronage routes that lasted until the WWII investments wore out.

 

[Fenway]

Growing up the old Greyhound Terminal in Boston on St James Avenue was lavish compared to Trailways in Park Sq.

The one bus company I truly miss is Vermont Transit as their service between Boston and Montreal was reliable. Greyhound bought them in the 70s but kept the name until 2008.

What infuriates me are the transportation options between Boston and Bangor, Maine. There is ONE daily bus. but not to Boston

From Bangor there are flying options but not to Boston which seems absurd.



But there are not even any FLIGHT options between Burlington, VT and Boston

https://www.btv.aero/flights/flight-status

 

[BlackDiamond]

What infuriates me are the transportation options between Boston and Bangor, Maine. There is ONE daily bus. but not to Boston

Only one by Greyhound, but Concord Coach runs 4 direct trips daily (via Augusta) plus one via the coastal route which stops at several towns along midcoast Maine including the Brunswick Amtrak station. Two of these trips serve the University of Maine campus in Orono just north of Bangor, when school is in session.

 

[Jack Davis]

Only one by Greyhound, but Concord Coach runs 4 direct trips daily (via Augusta) plus one via the coastal route which stops at several towns along midcoast Maine including the Brunswick Amtrak station. Two of these trips serve the University of Maine campus in Orono just north of Bangor, when school is in session.

I feel your concern; years ago I was on vacation, flew to Boston and then took a Concord bus to Bangor, Maine, where I was going to get the car rental and continue to Ellsworth for a weeks stay. The Concord schedule made one stop along the route where snacks were served to the passengers! Wow, how nice.

 

[Fenway]

Only one by Greyhound, but Concord Coach runs 4 direct trips daily (via Augusta) plus one via the coastal route which stops at several towns along midcoast Maine including the Brunswick Amtrak station. Two of these trips serve the University of Maine campus in Orono just north of Bangor, when school is in session.

Thanks for the correction.

I can't believe nobody flies Bangor/Boston.

 

[DetroitTed]

Why anyone would take a bus to anywhere at anytime has always amazed me. It truly has to be the only alternative for me to take a bus in this country.

 

[BlackDiamond]

I feel your concern; years ago I was on vacation, flew to Boston and then took a Concord bus to Bangor, Maine, where I was going to get the car rental and continue to Ellsworth for a weeks stay. The Concord schedule made one stop along the route where snacks were served to the passengers! Wow, how nice.

Yes Concord Coach service is pretty decent. I have not used it since before the pandemic, but our last trip was from Auburn ME to Logan Airport and back. They gave out free bottles of water to all passengers.

 

[jebr]

Actually, regarding deregulation, I meant both...discount low cost airlines, for taking away most of the ultra long haul business, but more so for bus deregulation, which ended the practice of cross-subsidization and putting the cost of maintaining essential local services for those unable to drive on the taxpayers with county financed minibus services, that did not offer network connectivity to other regions.

In an ideal world, I think it makes sense for us to subsidize the bus services that will not run profitably, rather than try and cross-subsidize profitable and unprofitable routes. Having competition can lower fares for those in the markets where there's a lot of demand, and potentially lower prices to the point where it's competitive with the marginal cost to drive. Cross-subsidization also basically means that bus riders on popular routes (many of who are lower-income) are the ones paying for essential services, instead of the populace as a whole (via taxes.) Essential services should be funded by all of us.

 

[BlackDiamond]

In an ideal world, I think it makes sense for us to subsidize the bus services that will not run profitably, rather than try and cross-subsidize profitable and unprofitable routes. Having competition can lower fares for those in the markets where there's a lot of demand, and potentially lower prices to the point where it's competitive with the marginal cost to drive. Cross-subsidization also basically means that bus riders on popular routes (many of who are lower-income) are the ones paying for essential services, instead of the populace as a whole (via taxes.) Essential services should be funded by all of us.

Perhaps something for Buses like the EAS program for air travel.

 

[Willbridge]

Perhaps something for Buses like the EAS program for air travel.

There is a federal program, but it's up to each state as to whether they want to participate or not. And it is structured to favor Greyhound connections. I've never seen a list of which states participate. I know that Colorado, Oregon and Washington do. If a governor determines that there is no need, the money can be used for local transit service.

 

[Jack Davis]

Growing up the old Greyhound Terminal in Boston on St James Avenue was lavish compared to Trailways in Park Sq.

The one bus company I truly miss is Vermont Transit as their service between Boston and Montreal was reliable. Greyhound bought them in the 70s but kept the name until 2008.

What infuriates me are the transportation options between Boston and Bangor, Maine. There is ONE daily bus. but not to Boston

From Bangor there are flying options but not to Boston which seems absurd.

View attachment 30745

But there are not even any FLIGHT options between Burlington, VT and Boston

https://www.btv.aero/flights/flight-status

 

[Jack Davis]

When I was in Bangor, I recall being at their airport and seeing the passenger plane; it was a very small aircraft, maybe a 10 passenger? Prop engines. Perhaps a plane like that would be out of place landing at Boston Airport, maybe not safe enough with all the big jets in & out of there.?

 

[MARC Rider]

When I was in Bangor, I recall being at their airport and seeing the passenger plane; it was a very small aircraft, maybe a 10 passenger? Prop engines. Perhaps a plane like that would be out of place landing at Boston Airport, maybe not safe enough with all the big jets in & out of there.?

Those little planes fly out of Logan. I once flew from Logan to Auburn, Maine on one of those puddle jumpers. They did Boston - Portland - Auburn - Augusta - Waterville. Up and down, up and down. Most of them are turboprops, but once my girlfriend flew up to Augusta where we picked her up and she was flying on a DC-3. (That was back around 1975 or so.)

Personally, if I'm not driving all the way to Maine, I just take the train to Boston and rent my car there. The trick is to time it to get out of Boston in between the traffic jams.

 

[BlackDiamond]

Cape Air flies Cessna 402's out of Boston, about a small a plane can be and still be considered a commercial passenger plane.
I miss when they were still flying DC-3's

 

[jiml]

Cape Air flies Cessna 402's out of Boston, about a small a plane can be and still be considered a commercial passenger plane.
I miss when they were still flying DC-3's

Also:

 

[Bob Dylan]

Back in the day when I traveled extensively via Plane for Work, I visited many "out of the way" Locations that involved flying into Major Airports, then taking Feeder Airline Flights to those locations.

Many were still using Older Prop Planes, the best of which were DC3-s.

But several still were flying Small Multi-Engine Planes ( 2) including Cessnas,Pipers and Beechcraft.

In general Luggage was limited to 1 Bag,a Suit Bag( this was before Cell Phone and Lap Top Days)and a Briefcase or Backpack.

The pilots were mostly Youngsters building time so as to be eligible to move up to the Major Airlines, and as a result there were many things occurred that aren't common on the Big Planes.

This mostly consisted of rough Landings, landing @ the Wrong Airport and going through Turbulence since we flew @ Lower Altitudes.

As a Commercial/Instrument Single/Multi-Engine Rated Private Pilot I generally though I could have done a better job on some of these flights, but such is the ego of pilots!

These type of "Airlines" come and go, and the ones I flew on are all among the Long gone "Fallen Flags " .