BusTalk :: View topic - Greyhound's suburban services: areas served (2024)

Roy:

This is quite interesting; though I knew that GREYHOUND rostered IC-41's, I had no idea that they also operated C-44's.

CONTINENTAL TRAILWAYS operated C-44 BRILLS (with rear doors), between Kansas City and Johnson County suburban areas.

Originally, MISSOURI PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY operated this route.

John

traildriver -

Oh, please! Don't start! Bear in mind the present day, lost in the woods transit districts cry and cry, and whine and whine,
they need "dedicated revenue streams" (read: our taxes) to assure continuing good works (as they define it)...

In a rather rude and tacky set of remarks, I have been heard to say: "You already have a dedicated revenue stream! Find
the User Manuals and use the installed FARE BOX devices!"

Here in Merryland, we have the ludicrous daily events of where the truly high income, career GOV employee market (check
the average household incomes) gets cut rate rail rides to and from work. The very poor in the State must pay taxes, of
course, account Fuel Tax mechanisms, so that the very comfortable don't take their business elsewhere...

.....................Vern....................

Two things,
first, to my knowledge the 'Hound had virtually no commuter operations in the East Bay, most service there passed directly from the Key System to AC Transit. The major operations were in the South and North Bay. The North Bay operations having replaced the NWP RR and passing to Golden Gate Transit. The South Bay lasting into the 70's and going to SamTrans.

Secondly I posted photos to my Flicker account of "Hound commuter buses that I have picked up around the net. I have tried to give credit where I know who took the shot. (Its about 10 times easier to post on Flicker than it is to post here in Bus Talk).

Enjoy

http://www.flickr.com/photos/buslist/sets/72157626516539646/

Al

GREYHOUND EAST BAY lines held CAL PUC and ICC Authorities. The old KEY SYSTEM didn't range all that far.
More distant points in Alameda and Contra Costs Counties served by G L commute locals. Much of the activities
based through the Oakland - 20th & San Pablo "hub" Station...

In any case, PACIFIC GREYHOUND LINES long aligned with BIG, FRIENDLY ESPEE, and in the GREYHOUND
"Charter Member" list. Many East Bay services were simply substituted highway services, in lieu ESPEE rail...

....................Vern.................

I remember otherwise. Besides all the mainline locals to Vallejo and beyond operating from the main 7th Street Greyhound Terminal, they ran commuter trips from the upper level of the Transbay Transit Terminal, alongside AC Transit to destinations such as Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Clyde, Port Chicago, Pittsburg, and Antioch.

Greyhound also started some Marin County services from the Ferry Building. They had a very strong presence in San Francisco in those years. Even WGL Headquarters were there in a building on Market Street.

GREYHOUND ran one intense operation through the Bay Area, back then in the Bad, Old Days!
Thanks for recalling the daily sights of its coaches in the Transbay Terminal building. And, indeed,
much activity through 7th Street, too.

In the era, I was also getting into Oakland in sales work, and saw activities at 20th & San Pablo.

..........................Vern.......................

Last edited by HwyHaulier on Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:13 am; edited 1 time in total

Doubtless! And, it all traced to the ESPEE RR, and its long time thinking it wanted to move near anything in the State!

Recall, noted just above the Pacific GL routes, between City and East Bay presumably directly shadowed ESPEE rail
services. I need to hit the books. I can't seem to recall whatever became of the CAL PUC and ICC Authorities held by
former Sacramento Northern RR, which had acquired the earlier Oakland, Antioch & Eastern. It had operated briefly
into the new "East Bay" (or "Trans Bay") Terminal, then ended passenger services.

In more recent times, all of it became unglued with the endless bickering with CAL PUC. The line, GL at the time, was
deadly serious when it filed for rate levels it submitted in sworn testimony! It wasn't some kind of negotiating deal,
which all too many State regulators began to use as reckless, and doomed regulation styles. When the carriers said
they needed the money, they needed the money...

.........................Vern......................

Most of Continental Trailways California routes that came from predecessor Burlington Trailways, were for interstate traffic only. These were San Francisco, and Los Angeles to Salt Lake City and beyond.
They did have intrastate traffic over much of the routes that came from Santa Fe Trailways from San Francisco and from Sacramento and points north to Los Angeles and on to San Diego.

The COTWYS Authority, San Francisco - Sacramento, "closed door" via USH-40. Implies it was an ICC "Alternate Route" and did
protect PACIFIC GL (PGL). Customary practice with Alternate Route grants. Routing "via Walnut Grove" implies the older ICC
"Service Route" ran thru there, with service authorized at all intermediate points. Pull up a YAHOO! Map routing. This replicates a
long time route that was related to Delta Steamship services!

See CALIFORNIA History at: http://web.me.com/willvdv/chirailfan/greytwys.html
This the superb and masterful work of Bill Vandervoort. Top of the list sorts out USH-40 issues, noting an old BURLINGTON.
In a note he precedes "I" it lists a former S N RR line, with no advice on disposition. Yet, proceed to bottom of list. See early S N RR
routes, subsequently acquired by PGL.

In the State "North Country" issues, it leads to a discussion of Mt. Hood TWYS. The line became involved in a shootout with PGL
about interline practices. And, yes, acknowledged TWYS quite weak in the Pacific Northwest...

..........................Vern..................

Last edited by HwyHaulier on Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:47 am; edited 1 time in total

Thanks for that link......kept me up too late!

Ain't Will's work just phenomenal! In endless entries, he traces Commercial Bus operations, route by route,
back to when we first ever saw motor carrier services! I haven't caught him at errors. I've sent commentary
in instances of questions which may arise...

Note the way he threw up his hands, more or less, in the treatment of the direct S N RR line. He couldn't
trace subsequent service with the particular Authority.

....................Vern....................

The whole story of Mount Hood Stages (Pacific Trailways) vs. Greyhound Lines still gets me angry. Greyhound really got shafted in that debacle, IMHO.

With CAL PUC matters (especially): Surely, you are aware of the long history of all this? There was a time (IIRC) about 1912, wherein muckraking,
Sinclair Lewis discovered the State Legislature was effectively owned by the Big Friendly ESPEE RR. This provocative discovery triggered much
public outrage. Suited editorial guides of Hearst Newspapers...

Fast forward. Now much too long back (late 1960s), when I worked on matters before the CAL PUC, one of the subtle "back story" issues the
perceived built in bias on anything ESPEE related. In classic, guilt by association, it is not clear whether PACIFIC GREYHOUND ever completely
appreciated it was not an "honest game" in all this before the regulatory venue. The attitudes among the regulators tended to "poison the well"
on any matters...

Those of us dealing with matters before the CAL PUC knew to pretend that we knew nothing about these (quite obvious) wired in biases. With
the MT HOOD case, another sucker game? Another quirky regulator with the OR PUC. Perception being it, too, quite wary with ESPEE, or
anyone with any possible relationship...

............................Vern........................