amtrak book with train

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

patty

Guest
I'm going from Solana Beach to LA Union Station at anytime after 10pm. I searched on the website, and there's bus that departs at 10:30pm, but it says that you have to book with a train. Can I buy two separate tickets (like, from San Diego to Solana Beach by train then Solana Beach to LA by bus) and only take the bus part of the trip)?
 
Yes, many do something like that. Due to restrictions placed on Amtrak by the state (due to lobbying by Greyhound), any in-state CA bus must be "booked with train" But many bypass that requirement by buying a cheap train ticket with the bus, and not using the train portion!
wink.gif


And the answer to your question is yes! But book them both on one reservation.
biggrin.gif
 
thanks for the reply! I was searching on amtrak in order to buy the train ticket that includes that bus segment, but i cant find it! can somebody help me please?! I'm leaving on 7/31, the bus departs from solana beach at 10:30pm, thank you in advance!
 
thanks for the reply! I was searching on amtrak in order to buy the train ticket that includes that bus segment, but i cant find it! can somebody help me please?! I'm leaving on 7/31, the bus departs from solana beach at 10:30pm, thank you in advance!
Just request - using the multi city booking screen - San Diego to Solana Beach and then Solana Beach to LAX. It doesn't matter which train you chose from SAN to Solana Beach, as all Surfliners are unreserved! That means if you want, you could even use that ticket anytime within 1 year!
wink.gif
 
I'm going from Solana Beach to LA Union Station at anytime after 10pm. I searched on the website, and there's bus that departs at 10:30pm, but it says that you have to book with a train. Can I buy two separate tickets (like, from San Diego to Solana Beach by train then Solana Beach to LA by bus) and only take the bus part of the trip)?
Just to be on the safe side, put in train no. 595, leaving San Diego at 8:20 p.m., arriving Solana Beach 8:54 p.m. when you book online. As the_traveler indicated, you can actually use the ticket anytime for up to a year because it is unreserved. It just will not be valid BEFORE the time and date you indicated when you booked.

One suggestion, though: As train 597 on Fridays and Sundays leaves Solana Beach only 40 minutes before the AmBus, if you're traveling on either of those days, adjust your schedule if possible and take the train. It's a lot more comfortable than that bus, which I've ridden a couple of times. In addition, some of the people on the late-night bus are sketchy at best.
 
So, if I were to go from Santa Barbara to San Jose, I'd buy a ticket for a bus to San Jose and a train from San Jose to Emeryville and I would be able to ditch the train and be dropped off at San Jose by the bus correct?
 
So, if I were to go from Santa Barbara to San Jose, I'd buy a ticket for a bus to San Jose and a train from San Jose to Emeryville and I would be able to ditch the train and be dropped off at San Jose by the bus correct?
I don't know why you would do that considering the Coast Starlight Serves Santa Barbara, San Jose, and Emeryville within 12 hours start to end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, many do something like that. Due to restrictions placed on Amtrak by the state (due to lobbying by Greyhound), any in-state CA bus must be "booked with train" But many bypass that requirement by buying a cheap train ticket with the bus, and not using the train portion!
wink.gif


And the answer to your question is yes! But book them both on one reservation.
biggrin.gif
Lobbying by Greyhound? Any source for that? I thought it was just a clause when Amtrak was founded in 1971. This dosen't seem anything new that Ambus needs to be booked with a train because Amtrak was originally founded for train travel, not bus travel.
 
Yes, many do something like that. Due to restrictions placed on Amtrak by the state (due to lobbying by Greyhound), any in-state CA bus must be "booked with train" But many bypass that requirement by buying a cheap train ticket with the bus, and not using the train portion!
wink.gif


And the answer to your question is yes! But book them both on one reservation.
biggrin.gif
Lobbying by Greyhound? Any source for that? I thought it was just a clause when Amtrak was founded in 1971. This dosen't seem anything new that Ambus needs to be booked with a train because Amtrak was originally founded for train travel, not bus travel.
No, it's not a clause. It's codified in California law. Specifically Government Code section 14035.55©(2) which states:

"Service is provided only for passengers on trips where the passengers have had prior movement by rail or will have subsequent movement by rail, evidenced by a combination rail and bus one-way or roundtrip ticket, or service is also provided on State Highway Route 50 between the City of Sacramento and the City of South Lake Tahoe and intermediate points or on State Highway Route 5 between the community of Lebec in Kern County and the City of Santa Clarita for passengers solely by bus if no other bus service is provided by a private intercity bus company."

I think the language on its face shows lobbying by Greyhound (or a combination of intercity bus lines operating in state at the time immediately before the bill was introduced until it was codified.) However, I'm sure if you wished you could go back through the legislative history (I'm not going to do it for you) to find the evidence of said lobbying.
 
Yes, many do something like that. Due to restrictions placed on Amtrak by the state (due to lobbying by Greyhound), any in-state CA bus must be "booked with train" But many bypass that requirement by buying a cheap train ticket with the bus, and not using the train portion!
wink.gif


And the answer to your question is yes! But book them both on one reservation.
biggrin.gif
Lobbying by Greyhound? Any source for that? I thought it was just a clause when Amtrak was founded in 1971. This dosen't seem anything new that Ambus needs to be booked with a train because Amtrak was originally founded for train travel, not bus travel.
No, it's not a clause. It's codified in California law. Specifically Government Code section 14035.55©(2) which states:

"Service is provided only for passengers on trips where the passengers have had prior movement by rail or will have subsequent movement by rail, evidenced by a combination rail and bus one-way or roundtrip ticket, or service is also provided on State Highway Route 50 between the City of Sacramento and the City of South Lake Tahoe and intermediate points or on State Highway Route 5 between the community of Lebec in Kern County and the City of Santa Clarita for passengers solely by bus if no other bus service is provided by a private intercity bus company."

I think the language on its face shows lobbying by Greyhound (or a combination of intercity bus lines operating in state at the time immediately before the bill was introduced until it was codified.) However, I'm sure if you wished you could go back through the legislative history (I'm not going to do it for you) to find the evidence of said lobbying.
To me, this sounds like Amtrak California is trying to provide a "public service" and since the routes are already served by other operators, it would not be a needed service.

Greyhound dosen't go to Solana Beach, so why would they lobby for this? They don't go to many places served by Ambuses. Plus, a lot of places they do serve are bought from Cruseros or Americanos.
 
Greyhound lobbied for this law because they thought it was unfair for a state-sponsored service to compete with private enterprise.
 
So, if I were to go from Santa Barbara to San Jose, I'd buy a ticket for a bus to San Jose and a train from San Jose to Emeryville and I would be able to ditch the train and be dropped off at San Jose by the bus correct?
I don't know why you would do that considering the Coast Starlight Serves Santa Barbara, San Jose, and Emeryville within 12 hours start to end.
Because possibly, just possibly, Amy doesn't wish to leave Santa Barbara at 12:40 in the afternoon, which is her only option if she

wishes to utilize the Coast Starlight.
 
Here's the law if anyone is interested. It goes into greater detail, and it does read like they don't want the state-susidized bus service to compete with private, unsubsidized bus service. Government Code 14035.55 (a) - (1), (2), and (3) has the background on why they're protecting privately operated, unsubsidized bus services. It certainly reads like "If we take away their ability to transport passengers in large markets which are served by Amtrak-contracted buses, it may affect their ability to serve communities which Amtrak doesn't serve".

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=14001-15000&file=14030-14052

14035.55. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(1) Intercity passenger bus service provided by intercity bus
companies on a regular-route basis is the only public mass
transportation service in the state to provide surface transportation
without public subsidy.
(2) The long-term maintenance of private sector intercity
passenger service is of vital importance to the state.
(3) Intercity bus companies serve many communities throughout
California, providing a network of connection points without equal by
any other mode of public or private transportation.
(b) To the extent permitted by federal law, the department shall
encourage Amtrak and motor carriers of passengers to do both of the
following:
(1) Combine or package their respective services and facilities to
the public as a means of improving services to the public.
(2) Coordinate schedules, routes, rates, reservations, and
ticketing to provide for enhanced intermodal surface transportation.
© Except as authorized under subdivisions (e) and (f), the
department may provide funding to Amtrak for the purpose of entering
into a contract with a motor carrier of passengers for the intercity
transportation of passengers by motor carrier over regular routes
only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The motor carrier is not a public recipient of governmental
assistance, as defined in Section 13902(b)(8)(A) of Title 49 of the
United States Code, other than a recipient of funds under Section
5311(f) of that title and code. This paragraph does not apply if a
local public motor carrier proposes to serve passengers only within
its service area.
(2) Service is provided only for passengers on trips where the
passengers have had prior movement by rail or will have subsequent
movement by rail, evidenced by a combination rail and bus one-way or
roundtrip ticket, or service is also provided on State Highway Route
50 between the City of Sacramento and the City of South Lake Tahoe
and intermediate points or on State Highway Route 5 between the
community of Lebec in Kern County and the City of Santa Clarita for
passengers solely by bus if no other bus service is provided by a
private intercity bus company.
(3) Vehicles of the motor carrier, when used to transport
passengers pursuant to paragraph (2), are used exclusively for that
purpose.
(4) The motor carrier is registered with the United States
Department of Transportation (DOT) and operates in compliance with
the federal motor carrier safety regulations, and provides service
that is accessible to persons with disabilities in compliance with
applicable DOT regulations pertaining to Amtrak services, in
accordance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-336).
(d) The department shall incorporate the conditions specified in
subdivision © into state-supported passenger rail feeder bus
service agreements between Amtrak and motor carriers of passengers.
The bus service agreements shall also provide that a breach of those
conditions shall be grounds for termination of the agreements.
(e) Notwithstanding subdivisions © and (d), the department may
provide funding to Amtrak for the purpose of entering into a contract
with a motor carrier of passengers to transport Amtrak passengers on
buses operated on a route, if the buses are operated by the motor
carrier as part of a regularly scheduled, daily bus service that has
been operating consecutively without an Amtrak contract for 12 months
immediately prior to contracting with Amtrak.
(f) Notwithstanding subdivisions © and (d), or any other
provision of law, the department may enter into a contract, either
directly with a public motor carrier in the County of Monterey, or
indirectly with that carrier through a contract with Amtrak, to
provide mixed-mode feeder bus service on the San Jose-Gilroy-Monterey
route. The contract with a public motor carrier may only be entered
into if the department determines that there is no private motor
carrier providing scheduled bus service on the San
Jose-Gilroy-Monterey route. However, the contract shall be
terminated, within 120 days' notice to the public motor carrier, if a
private motor carrier again operates a scheduled service on the San
Jose-Gilroy-Monterey route.
(g) Pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision ©, the department
may amend its contract with Amtrak to add a term to provide bus
service to passengers traveling solely by bus on the Sacramento-South
Lake Tahoe route and between Lebec and Santa Clarita on the
Bakersfield-Santa Clarita route. A contract amendment with Amtrak may
only be entered into if the department determines that there is no
private motor carrier providing scheduled bus service on the route
that is the subject of the contract amendment. However, the
applicable contract amendment shall be terminated, within 120 days'
notice to Amtrak, if a private carrier again operates a scheduled bus
service on the Sacramento-South Lake Tahoe route, or within 60 days'
notice to Amtrak, if a private carrier again operates a scheduled
bus service between Lebec and Santa Clarita on the Bakersfield-Santa
Clarita route.
(h) The department shall undertake a two-year study of patronage
on the bus service operated between the City of Sacramento and the
City of South Lake Tahoe and intermediate points pursuant to
subdivision (g), identifying the number of passengers who are
transferring to an Amtrak rail service and those who are traveling
solely on the bus service. The study shall identify the revenue from
each category of passengers and include other pertinent ridership
information. The report shall be submitted to the transportation
policy committees of the Legislature no later than March 1, 2010.
(i) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(1) "Amtrak" means the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
(2) "Department" means the Department of Transportation or the
department's successor with respect to providing funds to subsidize
Amtrak service.
(3) "Motor carrier of passengers" means a person or entity
providing motor vehicle transportation of passengers for
compensation.
(4) "Mixed-mode feeder bus service" means bus service carrying
both passengers connecting to or from a rail service and passengers
only using the bus service.
 
@BCL

And the reasoning behind this is perfectly rational--there's a federal statute that prohibits FTA capital bus grant recipients from competing against "ready, willing, and able" charter operators for similar reasons--but the ugly truth is that Greyhound's industry was subsequently deregulated, leading to a massive cutback in rural service by coach operators.

At this point, if the state is not going to require Greyhound/Trailways to provide this kind of service it really does not make sense to protect their franchise (not quite a monopoly, I suppose) on the other side.

Let them compete with the low cost carriers in the high profit markets and let the state run Amtrak California Ambuses in strategic markets as a transportation alternative. It may cost more and the coach operators are not more profitable as a result but, hey, you said you hated regulation....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top