Although I love trains, when I was on the Coast Starlight and I saw a greyhound bus going up highway 1 overtake the train i realized that I could have gotten to sanfransic (my destincation) cheaper and faster by Greyhound bus. Therefore, sadly im forced to say greyhound
Posted by Boyce (Member # 2719) on :
Why dont you hitch-hike? It's cheaper and maybe faster (if you live).
Posted by Konstantin (Member # 18) on :
If you are only considering speed and cost, then you are probably correct. I think of a train ride as an adventure, where getting to the destination is more important than the destination itself.
I agree that the train ride is an adventure. I would only take Greyhound if the trip were under three hours.
Posted by mr williams (Member # 1928) on :
On a long journey the main disadvantage of the bus is that if you have the misfortune to have anti-social/loud/discourteous/drunk/smelly fellow travellers in your vicinity at least on the train you can move to another carriage, even if only to the cafe-car. On a bus you are stuck with them.
Posted by MPALMER (Member # 125) on :
Greyhound can be used on day trips where Amtrak runs less than once a day or at inconvenient hours. I would also think you could ride each during a trip. (Out on Amtrak, back on Greyhound). It is interesting that Greyhound does not have printed schedules, but is on the web. Most of their customers did not seem to be part of the wired generation.
The idea is to get people out of their cars, at least for a few trips.
Posted by polarbearucla (Member # 2723) on :
i think you all are right: amtrak is more than a trip and I really wouldnt want to be on a bus for hours! Thanks for you posts
Posted by coach34135 (Member # 1979) on :
I'm in the bus business and I would NEVER EVER ride Greyhound ever.
You get rude drivers and the buses look like crap - some of the newer D models already look bad, a few of the even more newer G models look bad - and who knows if they pay attention to the hours of service. Lotta weirdos ride the hounds.
With the train you get a comfortable ride, nice scenery, you go where there are no roads but rails. Plus you can go eat, chat with people. It's a safer ride. Amtrak pays attention to their hours of service rules.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
It depends on which bus or train you pick. I checked the Greyhound website and came up with three busses from LA to Jack London Square in Oakland. Travel times ranged from 9 hours 20 minutes to 14 hours 30 minutes.
Amtrak is 11 hours 17 minutes by the Coast Starlight schedule, or 8 hours 45 minutes via the San Joaquins.
Of course one must also consider comfort. 9 hours on a bus is an endurance contest. 11 hours on a train is easy.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
Trains are fun even before and after 1
Posted by cajon (Member # 40) on :
They are better known as the GREYDOG amongst frequent travelers.
Posted by DC2001 (Member # 542) on :
The short answer to this question is both.
The bus is that mode of transportation which makes sense for relatively short trips (ie, around a city or "metropolitan area"), perhaps serving as a connection for other modes. Many Amtrak Thruway connections (often via Greyhound) really ought to be actual trains instead, of course, but the basic idea of a bus connection is valid. You wouldn't take a mainline train five miles across towm (this in no way precludes light-rail applications, of course), but then you certainly would want to avoid a bus expedition of several hundred miles.
The train is a different creature, transporting a usually larger number of passengers over a generally greater distance (though what we mean by greater varies tremendously from commuter to intercity rail). It is much more efficient than bus travel; one "train" can carry many more passengers than one "bus", and can do so more comfortably and safely while operating much faster than the bus - whethor or not this speed actually happens is another matter. Still, trains certainly can run faster than buses (though I'd love to see a 150-mph bus - as a spectator only!).
Posted by CoastStarlight99 (Member # 2734) on :
I would NEVER take greyhound maybe an AMTRAK Bus for a quick connection but not Greyhound..Now thats just me..I have a car..So If I needed to go somewhere plane or Train didnt I would Drive...I personally take AMTRAK because I love it!!! Greyhound is just a bus more under privelaged people take...If you have a car and take AMTRAK..then why take Greyhound???
Anton L. pillsbury09@excite.com
Posted by mytravel (Member # 2736) on :
Greyhound better than Amtrak???!!!
You've got to be joking! The train ride up north is much better on the train vs. Greyhound bus. Amtrak is a more comfortable, cleaner and relaxing ride than Greyhound. And I'd think you'd get to your destination quicker than on the bus.
Go Amtrak, not Greyhound!
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
though I'd love to see a 150-mph bus - as a spectator only
What I would like to know is, what money (and how much of it) shall build a busway safe enough for such a dangerous vehicle to operate on? I would hate to see the amount of fuel that such a bizarre contraption would consume, also...
Stick to the steel-wheels-on-steel-rails concept. More passengers per vehicle, plus far safer than potentially skidding out and hitting the railing of your busway...
when I was on the Coast Starlight and I saw a greyhound bus going up highway 1 overtake the train i realized
And what did you realize? That the bus was speeding? That the train was not going as fast as it was capable of? That better track, signaling and rolling stock would have permitted the train to go faster than the bus? That the FRA is over-regulating the railroads? That's some of the stuff I happen to realize. And also, where can you view a Greyhound bus from the Coast Starlight, what mile marker...?
[This message has been edited by irishchieftain (edited 09-01-2003).]
Posted by Steve Dunham (Member # 924) on :
Amtrak is so expensive in the Northeast Corridor that I have ridden the bus a few times between Baltimore and Philadelphia as a bridge between MARC and SEPTA. However, there is a huge drawback to the bus: you might not get on board. The first time I made this trip my son and I were unable to board the bus and had to wait hours for another. I stood in line the whole time to make sure we would get on board.
Intercity buses are, for me, an alternative of desperation.
------------------ Steve Dunham Literalman@aol.com http://www.stevedunham.50megs.com/
Posted by StevePostal (Member # 2726) on :
I love AMTRAK and I love GREYHOUND for various reasons BUT on long trips NOTHING beats AMTRAK for comfort, running-water bathrooms, ability to get up and walk back- and-forth for exercise and on-board food choices. Also, RAIL SALE on the AMTRAK.com website offers trips at amazing rock-bottom prices less than GREYHOUND's prices. Take a look and believe me, it's true!
------------------
Posted by chennaiexp (Member # 2749) on :
Hi all, I was in the USA for 1.5 years(2001-2002) and i rode grey hound two times from knoxville-memphis. The bus was great but the timing and the service is so bad that you dont have your seats confirmed even after buying a reserved ticket! the most ridiculous thing in the world! this buy-tickets-but-no-seat-gaurenteed is ok if the grey hound runs more number of services on this route but its just 3-4 buses a day. I couldnt get into a bus to knoxville at 7pm in nashville and had to wait for the next bus at 345 am next day...just ridiculous. I didnt have a driving license...no other transportation alternative, extremely beautiful tennesse is a crap if you dont have a car and a license. It's just bad luck that i never got to ride on even one of those beautiful amtrak trains. Given the pathetic alternatives the USA government should work on some alternatives, its high time. regards chennaiexp