If the experience on NEC is any indication, it will have negligible impact on Amtrak revenues. In effect they serve a somewhat different clientele apparently. I must admit I don't quite understand the dynamics, but I can see the results in financial reports.
The one thing that the article doesn't emphasize is that very few seats will be sold for sub-$10. Boltbus may offer great introductory fares, but prices will climb over time (although they will always offer at least one $1 seat per bus).a month or so ago we booked a bus from vancouver,bc to seattle as part of an amtrak reservation. the bus fare was about the same as rail fare. was very happy with the comfort and the floor to ceiling front windows of the bus. for a 3-4 hour trip it was great. i wouldn't even consider amtrak for a trip of that length if the price differential was as great as the article says. especially for a family
The article also neglects to mention what we on here already know, that the bus company's operation is also subsidized by tax money. Trucks & buses do pay road use taxes, but those taxes don't fully cover highway construction and maintenance costs.The one thing that the article doesn't emphasize is that very few seats will be sold for sub-$10. Boltbus may offer great introductory fares, but prices will climb over time (although they will always offer at least one $1 seat per bus).a month or so ago we booked a bus from vancouver,bc to seattle as part of an amtrak reservation. the bus fare was about the same as rail fare. was very happy with the comfort and the floor to ceiling front windows of the bus. for a 3-4 hour trip it was great. i wouldn't even consider amtrak for a trip of that length if the price differential was as great as the article says. especially for a family
I agree with others that the impact to Amtrak will be minimal. If anything, getting more people out of their cars and on to alternative transportation will help Amtrak in the long run, rather than hurt it.
I don't understand the bus service. The $1 advertising was a great way to get people hooked. Also, I never understoood how city's can let these bus companies get away without having a terminal.
Yet it has existed in Chicago for over six years now, and has expanded significantly since then.I also recall seeing the line a couple blocks from CUS when in Chicago. I just can't see this being sustainable
Actually, I think the explanation there is quite simple. The NEC is a HUGE market, with lots of large, dense cities close together, serving significant tourist, college, business/financial, and political markets. You've got everything from Chinatown buses to fast trains to competing air shuttles (though the latter are considerably less relevant than they were a couple of decades ago, mainly thanks to Acela).Although, one thing that makes the NEC different is the very significant difference in running times. But still, for the life of me I cannot explain the huge differences in fares that appear to be quite sustainable.
FYI, 5 of the 6 SF Thruway bus "stops" are only street side bus stops! Only SFC is a (almost) station with all services available!Also, I never understoood how city's can let these bus companies get away without having a terminal.
Yeah. You are right of course. It just strikes me as interesting to say the least. Afterall haven't railfan's been crying wolf about how no one will ride trains if the fares are raised even a bit for decades? I sensed a certain bit of rejoicing in certain corners when the low cost bus service appeared on the NEC - well now we will see how Amtrak fails. And of course none of that transpired and if anything Amtrak's RASM has been rising by leaps and bounds *after* the cheap bus services came on line. Go figure! :Actually, I think the explanation there is quite simple. The NEC is a HUGE market, with lots of large, dense cities close together, serving significant tourist, college, business/financial, and political markets. You've got everything from Chinatown buses to fast trains to competing air shuttles (though the latter are considerably less relevant than they were a couple of decades ago, mainly thanks to Acela).Although, one thing that makes the NEC different is the very significant difference in running times. But still, for the life of me I cannot explain the huge differences in fares that appear to be quite sustainable.
If you just want to get there, and don't care about anything else, there's a way to do that. If you want to get there in luxury, and away from the (perceived or real) "riff raff" there's a way to do that, too. There aren't too many (any?) other places in the country where the market for each of those is large enough to sustain each type of travel mode to the level that it does.
It's really the same reason a McDonald's can exist next to an Applebee's which can exist next to a Morton's Steakhouse.
It also opens the eyes to the availability of decent intercity ground transportation. I'll attest that before Megabus, I rarely even considered ground transportation (and, frankly, didn't travel that far that much.) Now that I know about it, I've traveled multiple times on Megabus, have tickets booked for Amtrak trips, and have influenced others to look at those options also.IMHO it is a bit of a misnomer to think that services like Bolt Bus will harm Amtrak.
Do they compete with each other for a segment of the traveling public? Absolutely.
But they also widen the pool of potential travelers by offering different kinds of services.
These quality point-to-point buses have flourished on the NEC and in the Midwest while Amtrak has continued to grow in both markets.
A person is more likely to travel to city A from city B if they have the option of Air, Rail, and Bus and frequent times. The person is also more likely to travel more often.
To everyone who is complaining about Megabus/Boltbus operating curbside without a terminal, I'd say, I have ridden them all and would take the Megabus with curbside pickup over the Geryhound dog from its shady "terminals".I don't understand the bus service. The $1 advertising was a great way to get people hooked. Also, I never understoood how city's can let these bus companies get away without having a terminal.
To everyone who is complaining about Megabus/Boltbus operating curbside without a terminal, I'd say, I have ridden them all and would take the Megabus with curbside pickup over the Geryhound dog from its shady "terminals".
Megabus picks up and drops passengers curbside or from parking garages, but they are conveniently located downtown/in central city squares and the crowd riding these buses is decent- students, backpackers, leisure travelers et al.
The so-called "Chinatown buses" pick up and drop curbside but generally in Chinatown/Asian areas in cities where they exist. I had a pretty interesting experience with these buses. I was once taking a late night service from Washington DC to Philadelphia and arrived at the exact street address mentioned on the ticket to find nothing there- no bus stop, no bus, no signs. Seeing the confused me, a Chinese lady came up to me and without asking anything just directed to a small alley "Go there". The way she did it, I almost told her "No, I don't want any drugs, I am here to take a bus " Turns out that small alley was where the bus was parked! Also, once everyone had boarded, the Chinese driver announced "Toilet backside. Only small business, no big business!"The "boarding point" in Philadelphia was located opposite the Greyhound terminal in a shop that also sold CD/DVDs of "certain kind" if you know what I mean!
I also had the (mis) fortune of using Greyhound dog a few times and the terminals, especially in small towns are museums displaying everything shady and rundown you'd ever want to see. Given a choice I'd rather stay home than take Greyhound.
Shouldn't it be the job of the city authorities to create ordnances as to where a bus may and may not stop. If the stop is causing a nuisance and dmaging businesses, surely it should be possible to find an acceptable alternative location.I don't think it matters where the passengers want to wait, it is the impact to others where they are waiting. Last time I was in NYC, I walked through an area that a bunch of people were waiting for busses. You can barly get through the crowds and not very pleasant trying to walk through the street. The difference between these busses and public transportation is with public transportation, you may have a dozen people getting on or off at one corner, where these busses there may be hundreds. Also, they are either taking up parking places, for local bussinesses or they are blocking the street to load or unload.
Not sure I entirely agree with this analysis. First off, the Seattle stop for BoltBus is right beside the Chinatown light rail station. IIRC it shouldn't be too difficult for someone to wait for their bus while out of the rain. The Portland stop looks a little less welcoming, I will admit.As a Seattle resident and frequent Cascades/Starlight rider, I will predict that this will be gone within a year. Yes, similar services have managed to survive elsewhere, but I dont think it will work here. One of the most obvious reasons is the WEATHER. I rains here from October through June. I seriously doubt passengers will be willing to stand in the open in the rain waiting for a bus more than once. In addition, it RAINS here, and that tends to slow down the traffic on I-5. This route will go through several cities where the commute starts @ 6 AM and ends at 8 PM. Throw road construction, a military convoy to JBLM, or an accident into the mix and you will be lucky to make it between SEA & PDX on I-5 in a bus in under 4 hours. They dont call this trip "The Slog" for nothing. The popular "Shuttle Express" airport van service tried a similar van service, going door to door no less between the two cities a couple years ago. Its gone.
Smart travellers between Seattle and Portland use AMTRAK and will continue to do so.
Enter your email address to join: