Bus from Vegas to LA

[emilesc]

I'm getting a ride to Vegas from LA, but I'm taking the Amtrak service (it's a bus) back home. Has anyone has experience with the service? Good or bad? And what about the station at Vegas - I've read that it is unmanned.

Thanks,

Emile

 

[jccollins]

I believe the Amtrak California Motorcoach stop is actually the Greyhound terminal in Las Vegas, so it is not staffed by Amtrak but by Greyhound, so it should have a waiting room. I may be wrong, though. I have never used the service.

 

[Allen Dee]

Amtrak Thruway Bus Service from Las Vegas to Los Angeles departs from the Greyhound bus terminal located at 200 South Main Street at the southwest corner of the Union Plaza Hotel.

Amtrak passengers are given priority boarding through door # 4. Greyhound passengers to Los Angeles board through door # 5.

Security at this terminal is very tight. Expect to be confronted by some very strict but courteous security guards. Do not attempt to bring any sharp objects on the bus with you, as they will confiscate them.

These security guards will ask to see your ticket and ID before you can even enter the terminal. Do not give these guys any lip, or you will not get on the bus. They also carry hand-held metal detection devices.

Once you are on board the bus, it will make one intermediate rest stop at the Pilot Station Truck Stop at the Lenwood Road exit in Barstow. Unless you are traveling on a busy holiday weekend, you can expect to arrive at Los Angeles Union Station at least 30 minutes ahead of schedule.

Enjoy your trip, but it would be a whole lot better if Amtrak had been allowed to initiate their train service between these two heavily traveled points.

 

[Superliner Diner]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that a rule about Thruway buses is strictly enforced involving those operating in California or between California and Nevada, that states that any Thruway trip has to be in conjunction with a train trip -- that the bus cannot be the sole means of transporation. This rule is intended to be effective all over the country, but only in California did it come to light because it was Greyhound themselves, who operates a majority of the Thruway connections, who did not want Amtrak "competing" with them in the bus market.

 

[Allen Dee]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that a rule about Thruway buses is strictly enforced involving those operating in California or between California and Nevada, that states that any Thruway trip has to be in conjunction with a train trip -- that the bus cannot be the sole means of transporation. This rule is intended to be effective all over the country, but only in California did it come to light because it was Greyhound themselves, who operates a majority of the Thruway connections, who did not want Amtrak "competing" with them in the bus market.

Anyone can walk up to the Amtrak ticket window at Los Angeles Union Station and purchase a ticket to Las Vegas. It can even be done over the internet. All of the Amtrak Thruway bus service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is operated by Greyhound.

In other areas, where the service is operated by companies other than Greyhound, the same is true. There is no requirement that a portion of the trip has to be by train, even though such a statement is made on Amtrak California timetables.

 

[tp49]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that a rule about Thruway buses is strictly enforced involving those operating in California or between California and Nevada, that states that any Thruway trip has to be in conjunction with a train trip -- that the bus cannot be the sole means of transporation. This rule is intended to be effective all over the country, but only in California did it come to light because it was Greyhound themselves, who operates a majority of the Thruway connections, who did not want Amtrak "competing" with them in the bus market.

There is a law on the books I do not remember the Assembly Bill number, a notice on this is posted in most ticket offices that have bus connections at them. However, the rule is not strictly enforced at some stations and I am not sure if it applies to service between California and any other state but it does apply to intrastate trips (within California).

 

[pismobum]

yes, it is a law and is enforced for destinations within California (California law has no impact on Las Vegas). The simple way around it is to book a train seat from your origin or destination to the next station (i.e. bus SLO-Hanford CA can be ticketed by a rail ticket from SLO to Grover Beach (about $1 extra) or to the next station either direction on the San Joaquin line from Hanford). I have also seen people be able to get a bus ticket SLO-San Jose by saying they will go on from San Jose by Caltrain (this meets the requirement, even though Amtrak does not sell Caltrain tickets).

 

[WoodenMike]

Gawd! I'd rather hitchhike than take the bus!!! LOL!

 

[Amtrak Watcher]

Though I've not taken the Las Vegas bus in question, my limited experience shows that riding the bus is similar to air travel in security matters, but, unlike in the air, varies with routes, operators, and markets. They clamped down immediately after the big scare Grayhound had shortly after 9-11. You will recall it turned out to be just another jerk on the bus, not a terrorist. We need to screen for jerks, not weapons.

It seems the train is the only civilized method of public transportation left. A train is too big and too confined to its tracks to do much with except meet its intended purposes.

 

[jccollins]

WM: Cool it about cutting the thruway buses! It gets annoying after a while. Much of Amtrak (especially some of the corridors - specifically the San Joaquins in California) would not be nearly as convenient for passengers without the thruway connections. After all, the overall purpose of Amtrak is public transportation.

Could you picture the San Joaquins ending in BAKERSFIELD with no connection to Los Angeles? The route would not exist - there would be little or no ridership. Over 70 percent of the riders on the San Joaquins make part of their trip by motorcoach.

While NONE of us enjoy riding on a bus, "GAWD - a bus" doesn't help any. :blink:

 

[Superliner Diner]

WM: Cool it about cutting the thruway buses! It gets annoying after a while. Much of Amtrak (especially some of the corridors - specifically the San Joaquins in California) would not be nearly as convenient for passengers without the thruway connections. After all, the overall purpose of Amtrak is public transportation.
Could you picture the San Joaquins ending in BAKERSFIELD with no connection to Los Angeles? The route would not exist - there would be little or no ridership. Over 70 percent of the riders on the San Joaquins make part of their trip by motorcoach.

While NONE of us enjoy riding on a bus, "GAWD - a bus" doesn't help any. :blink:

Agreed with jccollins. While a bus can be comparatively uncomfortable to a train, they are a helpful tool in feeding passengers to and from trains, where the tracks don't go. And this is especially true in California. While we would all love these routes to be totally operated by train, the fact is they can't be. Without the bus train ridership would drop dramatically.

 

[WoodenMike]

Hey! Take some reading comprehension courses!!!

I said NOTHING about cutting the buses! Just that I'd rather hitchhike than sit on a bus.

Please don't make your own meaning out of my posts, America is becoming enough of a police state without your help!

 

[Allen Dee]

WM:  Cool it about cutting the thruway buses!  It gets annoying after a while.  Much of Amtrak (especially some of the corridors - specifically the San Joaquins in California) would not be nearly as convenient for passengers without the thruway connections.  After all, the overall purpose of Amtrak is public transportation.  
Could you picture the San Joaquins ending in BAKERSFIELD with no connection to Los Angeles?  The route would not exist - there would be little or no ridership.  Over 70 percent of the riders on the San Joaquins make part of their trip by motorcoach.

While NONE of us enjoy riding on a bus, "GAWD - a bus" doesn't help any. :blink:

Agreed with jccollins. While a bus can be comparatively uncomfortable to a train, they are a helpful tool in feeding passengers to and from trains, where the tracks don't go. And this is especially true in California. While we would all love these routes to be totally operated by train, the fact is they can't be. Without the bus train ridership would drop dramatically.

Well said, all!

A few years ago, Amtrak California was considering extending at least a few of the San Joaquins to Los Angeles. A survey was conducted, and it was learned that virtually ALL of the passengers preferred the bus connection.

As much as I dislike bus travel vs. rail travel, I would much prefer a 2 hour bus ride to a 6 hour train ride. I would, however, enjoy ONE train ride over the Tehachapi loop.

Las Vegas to Los Angeles is another story. That's too far to ride a bus for someone who is accustomed to train travel. The rails are in place. Amtrak needs to get their act together and get this much-needed service going.

 

[Superliner Diner]

Well said, all!
A few years ago, Amtrak California was considering extending at least a few of the San Joaquins to Los Angeles.  A survey was conducted, and it was learned that virtually ALL of the passengers preferred the bus connection.

As much as I dislike bus travel vs. rail travel, I would much prefer a 2 hour bus ride to a 6 hour train ride.  I would, however, enjoy ONE train ride over the Tehachapi loop.

Las Vegas to Los Angeles is another story.  That's too far to ride a bus for someone who is accustomed to train travel.  The rails are in place.  Amtrak needs to get their act together and get this much-needed service going.

There was consideration of running at least one round trip over the Tehachapi between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. Amtrak looked at sending the pair of 711 & 718 to/from Los Angeles, which would essentially run during overnight hours. As many of you know, Union Pacific has thwarted any attempts to run passenger trains over this route because it is already congested with freight trains. Freights are slow enough, but when you couple that with having to climb a mountain range it compounds the problem. Thus Amtrak would have to operate at freight speeds, which are very, very slow through this area.

So that's why even passengers preferred the bus to the train in this case, as the trip would have been excruciatingly slow getting over the Tehachapi.

Los Angeles-Las Vegas was served by a long distance train, the Desert Wind, until the ill-advised Mercer cuts eliminated it. Running a few buses a day, while adding some frequencies, does not make the service more attractive, especially when you think of the fact that high-speed Talgo service was originally promised for this route.

At issue has been the need to double track parts of the existing freight line, and the resulting disturbance of a desert tortoise (turtle) species, which would somehow destroy the balance of nature. As if all that car traffic (and bus fumes too!) between the two cities aren't doing the same thing......

 

[EmpireBuilderFan]

At issue has been the need to double track parts of the existing freight line, and the resulting disturbance of a desert tortoise (turtle) species, which would somehow destroy the balance of nature.    As if all that car traffic (and bus fumes too!) between the two cities aren't doing the same thing......

This brings up a question that hopefully someone here knows. When environmental studies are performed to evaluate the impact of some construction, do they also take into account the effects that the work will have away from the work site? Using the LA-LV route as an example: evaluating the effect of the construction versus the reduced emissions and less risk of said turtles getting run over by cars due to less cars on the road.

 

[WoodenMike]

I would much prefer a 2 hour bus ride to a 6 hour train ride.

Not I!

I support Amtrak's bus feeder system, as it serves a useful purpose.

A Talgo train would be GREAT between L.A. and Vegas!

Environmental Impact??? George Bush is President, who needs one now? :blink:

Seriously, EBFan, you make a very good point! But, if you study the "stuff" that goes on in Nevada, environmental impact studies ARE used as more of an excuse than a real barrier to construction or any form of testing.

Check out Traitor Bill Clinton's Presidential Declaration (#95-45, I think) that forbid the EPA from doing anything about the hazardous waste dumping/burning at the Groom Lake facility (Area-51).

This was done to deny access to files to all the workers who were poisioned by hazardous waste burning at the site when they filed a lawsuit to save their lives. Their doctors needed to know WHAT they were poisoned with in order to counteract the effects, and they were denied any information, sealing the fate of dozens of affected workers.

Of course, OUR government values it's secrecy more than trying to help those who risk their lives in the name of "Freedom and Democracy".

Go Figure.

 

[jccollins]

I support Amtrak's bus feeder system, as it serves a useful purpose.

WM: Glad to hear it! I know the buses are not what we all want, but they are needed and are good indicators of areas that really need train service (based on how busy the buses are). By "cutting the buses" I meant nagging about how bad they are, not actually cutting them out of service. Sorry if I caused confusion over my actual meaning when I said this.

I look forward to the day we will have L.A. to Las Vegas train service (hopefully with the Talgo). I know that we will have it within the next few (maybe 3-5) years. There are just too many interested parties to "drop the ball" on this one. It would sure be nice if Amtrak could work with the states of California and Nevada to start the service. This would bypass Amtrak's new "orders" not to start new service and Amtrak California seems to "have it together" well enough to manage a service to Vegas. Hopefully this can be accomplished in the near future.

 

[Catalan Talgo]

With State Budgets as low as they are, a long wait should be expected for this service. As I understand it, most of the trackwork that was needed over Cima Hill has been completed. The environmental study has also been completed I believe. What this service really needs (as all new service will need), is someone to pick up the ball and run with it. The states probably don't have the money to devote now, Amtrak is not in a position to do so either, especially with the restriction on new service. Unless the casinos or a citizens group steps up, this one will likely wither on the vine.

Unfortunate.

 

[Allen Dee]

I support Amtrak's bus feeder system, as it serves a useful purpose.

WM: Glad to hear it! I know the buses are not what we all want, but they are needed and are good indicators of areas that really need train service (based on how busy the buses are). By "cutting the buses" I meant nagging about how bad they are, not actually cutting them out of service. Sorry if I caused confusion over my actual meaning when I said this.

I look forward to the day we will have L.A. to Las Vegas train service (hopefully with the Talgo). I know that we will have it within the next few (maybe 3-5) years. There are just too many interested parties to "drop the ball" on this one. It would sure be nice if Amtrak could work with the states of California and Nevada to start the service. This would bypass Amtrak's new "orders" not to start new service and Amtrak California seems to "have it together" well enough to manage a service to Vegas. Hopefully this can be accomplished in the near future.

All of the new trains that Amtrak California has initiated in the past several years have been replacements for Amtrak Thruway buses. A few examples are Los Angeles-Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo and Stockton-Sacramento.

Amtrak Thruway buses should be used only to points not served directly by rail. Not having Los Angeles-Las Vegas train service is a disgrace.

The major missing rail link in the state of California is between Santa Clarita and Bakersfield. This should be a priority ranking right up there with the Alameda Corridor, publicly and privately funded, which has proved to be a major success.

 

[Allen Dee]

With State Budgets as low as they are, a long wait should be expected for this service. As I understand it, most of the trackwork that was needed over Cima Hill has been completed. The environmental study has also been completed I believe. What this service really needs (as all new service will need), is someone to pick up the ball and run with it. The states probably don't have the money to devote now, Amtrak is not in a position to do so either, especially with the restriction on new service. Unless the casinos or a citizens group steps up, this one will likely wither on the vine.Unfortunate.

There are literally millions of people living in Southern California who refuse to go to Las Vegas because there is no convenient way to get there. Flying there is the pits, and driving there is even worse. If you have never seen the gridlock on I-15 in the middle of the desert, it is an ugly sight to behold.

Frequent, comfortable train service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is the answer.

The environmental reports concerning the turtles and the track work between Cima and Kelso have long since been resolved. Let's get those trains rolling!

 

[jccollins]

The major missing rail link in the state of California is between Santa Clarita and Bakersfield. This should be a priority ranking right up there with the Alameda Corridor, publicly and privately funded, which has proved to be a major success.

I enjoyed reading the California Rail News (June, 2002 edition) article about this topic "Grapevine Rail IS Affordable" at http://www.calrailnews.com/602crn.htm . The article mentions that the Australian corporation Quantm has chartered a 200 mph rail route through the Grapevine with maximum slopes of 3.5 to 5.0 percent grade in the canyon just east of the I-5 motor corridor/route. The project would cost about $2 billion, compared with PB's (another corporation) 1994 estimate that was billions higher. This is a great article, and definitely leaves the reader very optimistic about the route. I wish the state was in a little better financial position. We could have a one-time statewide assesment to pay for the construction of the line and it WOULD BE OWNED BY CALIFORNIA, NOT THE FREIGHT RAILROADS . This would give the freight railroads a little incentive to be a little more cooperative with the state - I am sure they would like to run their trains along the new direct link through the mountain instead of the circuitous round-about joke out through Tehachapi. Well, I know that this will probably never come true, but it IS wishful thinking.

In addition, if this route were to be constructed by the state, it could later be used as a part of California's high speed rail project IF it is to ever develop. By completing this portion of the route first it would be immediately beneficial to our already existent San Joaquin Valley train service. Too bad we couldn't start a private fund for this project and ask for donations ..

 

[jccollins]

There are literally millions of people living in Southern California who refuse to go to Las Vegas because there is no convenient way to get there. Flying there is the pits, and driving there is even worse. If you have never seen the gridlock on I-15 in the middle of the desert, it is an ugly sight to behold.
Frequent, comfortable train service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is the answer.

The environmental reports concerning the turtles and the track work between Cima and Kelso have long since been resolved. Let's get those trains rolling!

I agree. It is really to bad the states can't coordinate something to get the trains rolling. I would think Nevada would be eager to start the new service, especially the City of Las Vegas and casinos. Imagine the train and hotel room packages they could offer... it sure would be nice. Come on, Nevada! Step up to the plate. It's YOUR TURN to start helping pay for intercity rail service!

 

[WoodenMike]

Why build to Vegas???

Maybe you could get the city of Primm to help push rail service! They could expand and take thousands of people from Vegas' economy, and this would eventually get the Vegas money-people to push for thru service to Vegas!

Or, could it be that the California state legislature really wants the $$$ to stay in California and the Indian casinos???

 

[jccollins]

Why build to Vegas???
Maybe you could get the city of Primm to help push rail service! They could expand and take thousands of people from Vegas' economy, and this would eventually get the Vegas money-people to push for thru service to Vegas!

Or, could it be that the California state legislature really wants the $$$ to stay in California and the Indian casinos???

I like this idea! I wish our passenger rail service had this great of an impact, though. Unless Amtrak began operating corridor service with full 20-car trains with hourly departures from L.A. to Primm, though, I doubt Las Vegas would even blink an eye at the new train service that would stop just short of their city.

This reminds me of the current situation in Reno, NV. The California Zephyr provides great daily train service between the San Francisco Bay Area/Sacramento and Reno. Reno does not appreciate the value of the train service. You would think they would realize the value: the trains make it over Donner Pass every day even when the I-80 motor road corridor is closed due to heavy snow and flights are delayed/cancelled out of the Reno/Tahoe International airport. It is a RELIABLE service (funny term to use with Amtrak - might be late, but you know it will show up). NONE of the hotels in Reno offer room/train packages, only the California based Key Holidays travel agency offers these, and the marketing is limited to those who have heard of Key Holidays, which isn't very many. It would be used much more if only people knew about it. Reno doesn't care about the service and neither do the casinos. They are burying the tracks underground in a trench. The Amtrak passenger facility in the heart of downtown was an afterthought to the entire project: the city forgot about it until Amtrak officials started bawking at what was to become of the station. Unacceptable.

 

[tubaallen]

See, that's the problem. I think the government too often thinks of the long-haul trains as just that...for long hauls. Just people going from Chicago to Emeryville. However, they get used QUITE frequently as shorter distance trips for people. A lot of people just traveling in Illinois...or I know I had a lot of people this summer just going from Denver to Grand Junction. I don't know why the d*** senators, reps, and the president can't get their brains wrapped around that.