Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Intercity bus service
View on Wikipedia

An intercity bus service (North American English) or intercity coach service (British English and Commonwealth English), also called a long-distance, express, over-the-road, commercial, long-haul, or highway bus or coach service, is a public transport service using coaches to carry passengers significant distances between different cities, towns, or other populated areas. Unlike a transit bus service, which has frequent stops throughout a city or town, an intercity bus service generally has a single stop at one location in or near a city – usually at a transit interchange – and travels long distances without stopping at all. Intercity bus services may be operated by government agencies or private industry, for profit and not for profit.[1] Intercity coach travel can serve areas or countries with no train services, or may be set up to compete with trains by providing a more flexible or cheaper alternative.
The conversion of intercity road lanes into public transit only lanes can significantly increase the efficacy of the public transit system, especially when done in scale as in Israel. However, lack of enforcment can reduce the efficiency and speed of intercity buses on such lanes. The creation on scale of public transit only intercity lanes through the conversion of existing car lanes into public transit only lanes can lead to major boosts to the economy according to The Marker.
Intercity bus services are of prime importance in lightly populated rural areas that often have little or no public transportation.[2]
Intercity bus services are one of four common transport methods between cities, not all of which are available in all places. The others are by airliner, train, and private automobile.[3]
History
[edit]Stagecoaches
[edit]The first intercity scheduled transport service was called the stagecoach and originated in the 17th century. Crude coaches were being built from the 16th century in England, but without suspension, these coaches achieved very low speeds on the poor quality rutted roads of the time. By the mid 17th century, a basic stagecoach infrastructure was being put in place.[4] The first stagecoach route started in 1610 and ran from Edinburgh to Leith. This was followed by a steady proliferation of other routes around the country.[5]
A string of coaching inns operated as stopping points for travellers on the route between London and Liverpool by the mid 17th century. The coach would depart every Monday and Thursday and took roughly ten days to make the journey during the summer months. They also became widely adopted for travel in and around London by mid-century and generally travelled at a few miles per hour. Shakespeare's first plays were staged at coaching inns such as The George Inn, Southwark.[6]

The speed of travel remained constant until the mid-18th century. Reforms of the turnpike trusts, new methods of road building and the improved construction of coaches all led to a sustained rise in the comfort and speed of the average journey—from an average journey length of 2 days for the Cambridge-London route in 1750 to a length of under 7 hours in 1820. Robert Hooke helped in the construction of some of the first spring-suspended coaches in the 1660s and spoked wheels with iron rim brakes were introduced, improving the characteristics of the coach.[5]
In 1754, a Manchester-based company began a new service called the "Flying Coach". It was advertised with the following announcement: "However incredible it may appear, this coach will actually (barring incidents) arrive in London in four days and a half after leaving Manchester." A similar service was begun from Liverpool three years later, using coaches with steel spring suspension. This coach took an unprecedented three days to reach London with an average speed of eight miles per hour (13 km/h).[6]

Even more dramatic improvements to coach speed were made by John Palmer at the British Post Office, who commissioned a fleet of mail coaches to deliver the post across the country.[7] His experimental coach left Bristol at 4 pm on 2 August 1784 and arrived in London just 16 hours later.[8]
The golden age of the stagecoach was during the Regency period, from 1800 to 1830. The era saw great improvements in the design of the coaches, notably by John Besant in 1792 and 1795. His coach had a greatly improved turning capacity and braking system, and a novel feature that prevented the wheels from falling off while the coach was in motion.[7] Obadiah Elliott registered the first patent for a spring-suspension vehicle. Each wheel had two durable steel leaf springs on each side and the body of the carriage was fixed directly to the springs attached to the axles.[9]
Steady improvements in road construction were also made at this time, most importantly the widespread implementation of Macadam roads up and down the country. Coaches in this period travelled at around twelve miles per hour (19 km/h) and greatly increased the level of mobility in the country, both for people and for mail. Each route had an average of four coaches operating on it at one time – two for both directions and a further two spares in case of a breakdown en route.
Motorbuses
[edit]The development of railways in the 1830s spelt the end for the stagecoaches across Europe and America, with only a few companies surviving to provide services for short journeys and excursions until the early years of the 20th century.[10][11]
The first motor coaches were acquired by operators of those horse-drawn vehicles. W. C. Standerwick of Blackpool, England acquired its first motor charabanc in 1911,[12] and Royal Blue from Bournemouth acquired its first motor charabanc in 1913.[13] Motor coaches were initially used only for excursions.[14]


In 1919, Royal Blue took advantage of a rail strike to run a coach service from Bournemouth to London. The service was so successful that it expanded rapidly.[15] In 1920 the Minister of Transport Eric Campbell Geddes was quoted in Punch magazine as saying "I think it would be a calamity if we did anything to prevent the economic use of charabancs"[16] and expressed concern at the problems caused to small charabanc and omnibus operators in parliament.[17]
In America, Carl Eric Wickman began providing the first service in 1913. Frustrated about being unable to sell a seven-passenger automobile on the showroom floor of the dealership where he worked, he purchased the vehicle himself and started using it to transport miners between Hibbing and Alice, Minnesota. He began providing this service regularly in what would start a new company and industry.[18] The company would one day be known as Greyhound.
In 1914, Pennsylvania was the first state to pass regulations for bus service in order to prevent monopolies of the industry from forming.[19] All remaining U.S. states would soon follow.[20]
The coach industry expanded rapidly in the 1920s, a period of intense competition.[21][22] The Road Traffic Act 1930 in the UK introduced a national system of regulation of passenger road transport and authorised local authorities to operate transport services.[23] It also imposed a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) for coaches[24] whilst removing any speed limit for private cars.[25]
The 1930s to the 1950s saw the development of bus stations for intercity transport. Many expanded from simple stops into major architecturally designed terminals that included shopping and other businesses.[26] Intercity bus transport increased in speed, efficiency and popularity until the 1950s and 1960s, when as the popularity of the private automobile has increased, the use of intercity bus service has declined. For example, in Canada in the 1950s, 120 million passengers boarded intercity bus service each year; in the 1960s, this number declined to 50 million. During the 1990s, it was down to 10 million.[27]
Characteristics of intercity buses/coaches
[edit]Intercity buses, as they hold passengers for significant periods of time on long journeys, are designed for comfort. Intercity buses, also known as coaches or motor coaches are almost always high-floor buses, with separate luggage hold mounted below the passenger compartment. In contrast to transit buses, motor coaches typically feature forward-facing seating, with no provision for standing. Other accommodations may include onboard restrooms, televisions, and overhead luggage space. A sleeper bus is an example of a vehicle with optimum amenity for the longest travel times, specially adapted for passengers to sleep in.
Route and operation
[edit]An intercity coach service may depart from a bus station with facilities for travellers or from a simple roadside bus stop. A coachway interchange is a term (in the United Kingdom) for a stopping place on the edge of a town, with connecting local transport. Park and ride facilities allow passengers to begin or complete their journeys by automobile. Intercity bus routes may follow a direct highway or freeway/motorway for shortest journey times, or travel via a scenic route for the enjoyment of passengers.
Intercity buses may run less frequently and with fewer stops than a transit bus service. One common arrangement is to have several stops at the beginning of the trip, and several near the end, with the majority of the trip non-stop on a highway. Some stops may have service restrictions, such as "boarding only" (also called "pickup only") and "discharge only" (also called "set-down only"). Routes aimed at commuters may have most or all scheduled trips in the morning heading to an urban central business district, with trips in the evening mainly heading toward suburbs.
Intercity coaches may also be used to supplement or replace another transport service, for example when a train or airline route is not in service.
Intercity bus lanes
[edit]In Israel, intercity roads and highways have at times dedicated lanes which can only be used by buses. Such lanes ensure that intercity buses are not hindered by traffic jams and can dramatically improve travel times. Such improvements make public transportation more attractive which when done on scale can lead to an "extraordinary economic boost to the overall economy".[28] An example of intercity lanes in scale is the Tel Aviv metropolitan area in which the city of Tel Aviv in conjunction with the Israeli transportation ministry pushed for the establishment of such lanes. The work required to convert lanes was done over one night and required the painting of clear symbols (In Israel, yellow diamonds) which indicate that there is a public transit only lane. [29][30] The Marker reported that lack of effective enforcment has derailed the effictivness of such lanes since lack of police enforcement has led some motorists to user the lanes, thus damaging public transit efficacy.[31]
Safety
[edit]Statistically, intercity bus service is considered to be a very safe mode of transportation. For example, in the United States there are about 0.5 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles traveled according to the National Safety Council.[32]
Crashes involving intercity buses can be disastrous in their magnitude because of the large number of passengers they are capable of carrying. For example, the Kempsey bus crash in Australia on 22 December 1989 involved two full tourist coaches, each traveling at 100 km/h (62 mph), colliding head-on: 35 people died and 41 were injured.
Intercity coach travel by country
[edit]Americas
[edit]Canada
[edit]
Intercity coach service is the only public transit to reach many urban centres in Canada, and Via Rail services are very sporadic outside the Québec City–Windsor Corridor. Coach service is mostly privately owned and operated, and tends to be regionally focused. Greyhound Canada, once Canada's biggest intercity carrier, ceased operations in 2021.[33] Major operators are listed below.
- British Columbia and Alberta: BC Bus North, Red Arrow, Ebus
- Ontario: Coach Canada (Megabus), FlixBus, GO Transit, Ontario Northland
- Quebec: Orleans Express, Intercar, Limocar
- Maritime Provinces: Maritime Bus
- Newfoundland: DRL Coachlines
United States
[edit]
In the mid-1950s more than 2,000 buses operated by Greyhound Lines, Trailways, and other companies connected 15,000 cities and towns. Passenger volume decreased as a result of expanding road and air travel, and urban decay that caused many neighborhoods with bus depots to become more dangerous. In 1960, American intercity buses carried 140 million riders; the rate decreased to 40 million by 1990, and continued to decrease until 2006.[34]
By 1997, intercity bus transportation accounted for only 3.6% of travel in the United States.[35] In the late 1990s, however, Chinatown bus lines that connected New York with Boston and Philadelphia's Chinatowns began operating. They became popular with non-Chinese college students and others who wanted inexpensive transportation, and between 1997 and 2007 Greyhound lost 60% of its market share in the northeast United States to the Chinatown buses. During the following decade, new bus lines such as Megabus and BoltBus emulated the Chinatown buses' practices of low prices and curbside stops on a much larger scale, both in the original Northeast Corridor and elsewhere, while introducing yield management techniques to the industry.[34][36][37]
By 2010 curbside buses' annual passenger volume had risen by 33% and they accounted for more than 20% of all bus trips.[34] One analyst estimated that curbside buses that year carried at least 2.4 billion passenger miles in the Northeast Corridor, compared to 1.7 billion passenger miles for Amtrak trains.[36] Traditional depot-based bus lines also grew, benefiting from what the American Bus Association called "the Megabus effect", akin to the Southwest Effect,[34] and both Greyhound and its subsidiary Yo! Bus, which competed directly with the Chinatown buses, benefited after the federal government shut several Chinatown lines down in June 2012.[37]
Between 2006 and 2014, American intercity buses focused on medium-haul trips between 200 and 300 miles (320 and 480 km); airplanes performed the bulk of longer trips and automobiles shorter ones. For most medium-haul trips curbside bus fares were less than the cost of automobile gasoline, and one tenth that of Amtrak. Buses are also four times more fuel-efficient than automobiles. Their Wi-Fi service is also popular; one study estimated that 92% of Megabus and BoltBus passengers planned to use an electronic device.[34] New lower fares introduced by Greyhound on traditional medium-distance routes and rising gasoline prices have increased ridership across the network and made bus travel cheaper than all alternatives.
Effective June 25, 2014, Greyhound reintroduced many much longer bus routes, including New York–Los Angeles, Los Angeles–Vancouver, and others, while increasing frequencies on existing long-distance and ultra-long-distance buses routes. This turned back the tide of shortening bus routes and puts Greyhound back in the position of competing with long-distance road trips, airlines, and trains. Long-distance buses were to have Wi-Fi, power outlets, and extra legroom, sometimes extra recline, and were to be cleaned, refueled, and driver-changed at major stations along the way, coinciding with Greyhound's eradication of overbooking. It also represented Greyhound's traditional bus expansion over the expansion of curbside bus lines.[38]
Since 2017, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics has maintained a web map of scheduled intercity passenger bus services in the United States, named the Intercity Bus Atlas.[39]
Safety on U.S. intercity buses
[edit]On August 4, 1952, Greyhound Lines had its deadliest crash when two Greyhound buses collided head-on along then-U.S. Route 81 near Waco, Texas. The fuel tanks of both buses then ruptured, bursting into flames. Of the 56 persons aboard both coaches, 28 were killed, including both drivers.[40][41]
On May 9, 1980, a freight ship collided with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, resulting in several vehicles, including a Greyhound bus, falling into the Tampa Bay. All 26 people on the bus perished, along with nine others. This is the largest loss of life on a single Greyhound coach to date.
On March 5, 2010, a bus operated by Tierra Santa Inc. crashed on Interstate 10 in Arizona, killing six and injuring sixteen passengers. The bus was not carrying insurance, and had also been operating illegally because the company had applied for authority to operate an interstate bus service, but had failed to respond to requests for additional information.[42][43]
Security on U.S. intercity buses
[edit]Though generally rare, various incidents have occurred over time involving both drivers and passengers on intercity buses.
Security became a concern following the September 11 attacks. Less than a month later, on October 3, 2001, Damir Igric, a passenger on a Greyhound bus, slit the throat of the driver (who later survived his injuries and was hospitalized) and tried to take control of the bus, resulting in a crash that killed 7 passengers, including Igric, and injuring six other passengers. It was determined there was no connection between the September 11 attacks and this incident. Nevertheless, this raised concern.
On September 30, 2002, another Greyhound driver was assaulted near Fresno, California, resulting in two passenger deaths after the bus then rolled off an embankment and crashed.[44] Following this attack, driver shields were installed on most Greyhound buses that now prevent passengers from directly having contact with the driver while the bus is in motion, even if the shield is forced open. On buses which do not have the shield, the seats directly behind the driver are generally off limits.[45]
The growing popularity in the United States of new bus lines such as Megabus and BoltBus that pick up and drop off passengers on the street instead of bus depots has led to a rise in the perceived security of intercity buses. Megabus states that a quarter of its passengers are unaccompanied women.[34]
Asia
[edit]China
[edit]
In relatively developed regions of China where the motorway network is extensive, intercity coach is a common mean of transport between cities. In some cities, for example Shenzhen, nearly every town / district has a coach station.
Coach services can be further categorised into high speed (via motorway, Chinese: 高速客运) and low speed (via national highways, Chinese: 低速客运) services, with the latter stopping along the route to carry rural passengers.
The number of people opting for long-distance bus travel is on the decline since 2014. Partly this is due to the development of high-speed rail, with train tickets having a similar price to bus tickets, and train services often being much faster, buses are not competitive anymore. Other reasons are the increase in private car ownership and the popularity of ride-hailing.[46]
Long distance buses remain popular on routes where train tickets are quickly sold out and where the train station is located far from passenger destinations.[46]
Since 2019, new bus routes longer than 800 km (500 miles) are restricted by law.[47][48]
Hong Kong
[edit]There are numerous inter-city coach services between Hong Kong and various cities of Guangdong Province, e.g. Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Zhongshan and Zhuhai. These kinds of coaches are legally classified as a kind of non-franchised public bus, as "International Passenger Service".[49]
In addition, there are some coach services which just carry passengers between the city of Hong Kong and the border crossing at Shenzhen, without entering the city centre in Shenzhen or further. These services are termed 'short-haul cross-boundary coach service' by the Transport Department which nearly the whole journey is within the limits of Hong Kong, as opposed to 'long-haul cross-boundary coach service' which runs between cities.
Indonesia
[edit]
As an archipelagic nation, travel between Indonesian cities are done mostly through air and sea travel. Intercity railways are available primarily in Java and Sumatra, while it is not available or underdeveloped in other parts of the country. Thus the intercity bus service has become the major provider of land transportation service connecting Indonesian cities, either within an island or inter-island connected through ferry crossings.
The intercity bus operator companies in Indonesian with several major companies operating mainly in Java, Kalimantan[a], Sulawesi, and Sumatra. The longest intercity bus service in Indonesia is a route operated by Antar Lintas Sumatera (ALS) connecting Medan in North Sumatra and Jember in East Java. It is a week long bus travel covering a distance of 2,920 kilometers.[50]
The surge in intercity bus travel in Indonesia took place after the completion of Trans-Java highway section connecting Jakarta and Surabaya in 2018. During this time, some intercity bus services began operating fleet of double decker busses.[51]
Besides regular domestic public transport, there is a bus company that serves the International route such as from Pontianak, Indonesia to Kuching, Malaysia and Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam in Borneo operated by state-owned bus company, DAMRI[52] and some private operators. Another international bus service in Timor connects Kupang, Indonesia and Dili, Timor Leste.[53]
Israel
[edit]Because of the weak-developed rail network and the small size of the country and the resulting low domestic air traffic, the long-distance bus cooperative Egged is the main public transport service in the country. Because of the widespread network, Egged is considered one of the largest bus companies in the world, in part because of the long-distance bus lines. However, in recent years Israel Railways has expanded and upgraded its route network and other companies have taken over routes previously served by Egged.
Japan
[edit]Pakistan
[edit]Intercity bus transportation has risen dramatically in Pakistan due to the decline of Pakistan Railways[54] and the unaffordable prices of airplanes for the average Pakistani. Numerous companies have started operating within the country such as Daewoo Express and Niazi Express, Manthar Bus Service and have gained considerable popularity due to their reliability, security and good service.[55] Smaller vans are used for transportation in the mountainous north where narrow and dangerous roads make it impossible for the movement of larger buses.
Taiwan
[edit]Intercity bus services in Taiwan typically drive on Controlled-access highways, so they are commonly referred to as "Highway Coaches" (Chinese name:國道客運). Examples include KBus (國光客運), UBus (統聯客運), and HoHsin (和欣客運).
Turkey
[edit]Turkey has an extensive network of intercity buses. Every part of the country is served. The buses are popular, comfortable and frequent. For example, there are over 150 departures from Istanbul to Ankara each day. The level of onboard service is very high, with free drinks and snacks on long-distance routes. Notable operators including Pamukkale, Kâmil Koç, Metro, and Ulusoy. Tickets can be bought online from all of them or via bilet.com and obilet.com.
Kâmil Koç Buses Joint Stock Company was founded in 1926 by Turkish businessman Kamil Koç and is currently one of the most important bus companies in Turkey. The company, the pioneer of Turkish road transportation, was acquired by FlixBus in 2019. Kâmil Koç Buses A.Ş., which is among the 500 largest companies in, provides service with its bus terminals and branches in 60 provinces and 288 districts of Turkey The city where Kamil Koç provides the most intensive service is Istanbul.[56]
Europe
[edit]In the EU, inter-city bus service is regulated by Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009. As part of the regulation:
- carriers from all Member States should be guaranteed access to international transport markets without discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishment;
- regular services provided as part of a regular international service should be opened up to non-resident carriers (“cabotage”);
- authorization could be refused if the service would seriously affect the viability of a comparable service operated under one or more public service contracts (PSCs);
- administrative formalities should be reduced as far as possible.
According to the EU statistical pocketbook the European bus and coach fleet amount to 822,900 vehicles in 2013.
Germany
[edit]Intercity coach service in Germany became important in the decades following the Second World War, as the Deutsche Bundesbahn and the German federal post office operated numerous bus routes in major cities and metropolitan areas associated with each other. While rail was quicker and more convenient, the buses were a low-cost alternative. With the increasing prosperity of society and the growing use of the automobile, the demand fell significantly and most of these lines were abolished in the 1970s and 1980s.
One exception was traffic from and to (West-)Berlin. A long-distance bus network linking Berlin with Hamburg and several other German locations was created at the time of German division because of the small number of train services between the cities. It still exists today.
Until 2012 new long-distance bus lines could only be added in accordance with "Passenger Transportation Act" (PBefG), meaning if they did not compete with existing rail or bus lines. Since Germany – in contrast with many other European countries – has a well-developed rail network to all major cities and metropolitan areas, the domestic marketing of long-distance buses in Germany was much less significant than in many other countries.
The existing lines were often international lines as exist in almost all European countries, and for the transportation within Germany, there was a ban.[57]
In 2012, the PBefG was amended, essentially allowing intercity bus services. Thus, since 1 January 2013 Coach services have been allowed if they are longer than 50 kilometers, which led to a fast-growing market with companies like Meinfernbus, Deinbus, Flixbus, ADAC Postbus, Berlin Linien Bus GmbH and City2City.[58] Starting shortly after the establishment of the market a consolidation process occurred, which reduced the number of competing companies. ADAC Postbus became Postbus upon the ADAC leaving the cooperation. Meinfernbus and Flixbus fused to create a common company (currently the biggest operator of long-distance buses in Germany) while City2City folded operations. Ultimately market consolidation led to Flixbus operating over 90% of route kilometers offered by long distance buses in Germany. However, shortly after achieving this nigh-monopoly, it was challenged by "BlaBlaBus" a subsidiary of BlaBlaCar entering the German market.
Greece
[edit]Since Greece's rail network was underdeveloped, intercity bus travel became important in the post-war years. The main bus operator in Greece is KTEL. It was founded in 1952.
Ireland
[edit]Generally slower than rail travel with refreshment and toilet stops required on longer routes. The main operators in the country are the state owned Bus Éireann and private operators, such as JJ Kavanagh and Sons, Aircoach and Citylink. The bus service between Dublin and Belfast is provided by Bus Éireann and Ulsterbus providing frequent service, including direct connections to Dublin Airport. Some bus services run overnight.
Latvia
[edit]Latvia has an extensive network of intercity coaches connecting different cities despite that there are no motorways in the whole country. They are generally slower and more expensive than train travel, but offering a more frequent service[59] These intercity coaches have stops at villages en route, providing public transport for rural residents.
Netherlands
[edit]In the relatively small Netherlands there is a limited number of long-distance routes within the country. In 1994, the Interliner-network started with express buses on connections devoid of rail transport. Owing to high fares, a dense rail network and other reasons, the Interliner network fell apart into several different systems. In 2014, only a limited number of express buses existed as regular public transport usually under the name Qliner.
- 300 Groningen – Emmen Qbuzz
- 304 Groningen – Drachten Arriva
- 309 Groningen – Assen Qbuzz
- 312 Groningen – Stadskanaal Qbuzz
- 314 Groningen – Drachten Arriva
- 315 Groningen – Heerenveen – Emmeloord Arriva
- 320 Heereveen – Leeuwarden Arriva
- 322 Drachten – Oosterwolde Arriva
- 324 Groningen – Emmeloord Arriva
- 335 Bolsward – Groningen Arriva
- 350 Alkmaar – Leeuwarden Arriva
- 351 Alkmaar – Harlingen Arriva
- 355 Leeuwarden – Dokkum Arriva
- 361 Sassenheim – Schiphol Arriva
- 365 Leiden – Schiphol Arriva
- 380/381 Alphen aan den Rijn – Den Haag Arriva
- 382 Boskoop – Den Haag Arriva
- 383 Krimpen aan den Ijssel – Den Haag Arriva
- 385 Sassenheim – Den Haag Arriva
- 386 Oestgeest – Den Haag Arriva
- 387 Utrecht – Gorinchem Arriva
- 388 Utrecht – Dordrecht Arriva
Besides of regular public transport, a number of international bus companies serves Netherlands.
| Company | From | To | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regiojet | Amsterdam Den Haag Rotterdam | Veel plaatsen in Europa | |
| Flixbus | Amsterdam | Germany, Belgium, United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Austria, Czech Republic, Romania | |
| Ouibus | Amsterdam | Belgium, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain | |
| IC-Bus (DB, Arriva) | Amsterdam | Germany |
Norway
[edit]Norway has long-distance bus routes within the country. They operate in barely inhabited areas, including mountains, and affect[clarification needed] the construction of a comprehensive railway network. Except in the Oslo area, Norway has only a rather sparse rail network, which extends north of the Arctic Circle to Fauske and Bodø, and to the north of Narvik with a connection to the Swedish rail network. In addition to this network, they provide public passenger transport by many more companies[clarification needed] within Norway than airlines, shipping lines (including the Hurtigruten) and bus lines, including many long-distance bus lines.
The buses used in the north of the country (especially in the county of Finnmark) have both a passenger compartment and a freight compartment in the rear: many remote villages are connected to the outside world only by these buses, thus achieving a large part of the cargo[clarification needed] by bus to the city.
Switzerland
[edit]Switzerland has an extremely dense network of interconnected rail, bus and ship lines, including some long-distance bus lines. Although Switzerland is a mountainous country, the rail network is denser than Germany's. Switzerland is an exception to the rule that long-distance bus lines are established especially in countries with inadequate railway network, or in areas with low population density. Some of the railway and main bus routes on Italian territory also serve to shorten the distance between Swiss towns. From Germany lines run from Frankfurt am Main, Heidelberg, Karlsruhe to Basel and Lucerne.
Long-distance bus services in Switzerland:
- Saas-Fee – Brig – Simplon Pass – Domodossola ("Napoleon Route" a rail connection to Locarno)
- Lugano – Menaggio on Lake Como – Tirano rail connection to St. Moritz and Chur
- St. Moritz – Chiavenna – Menaggio on Lake Como – Lugano. ("Palm Express")
- Chur – Thusis – Splügen GR – San Bernardino GR – Bellinzona
- Davos – Zernez – Mals (Malle)
- Disentis / Muster – Bellinzona
- Flüelen – Andermatt – Airolo – Bellinzona
United Kingdom
[edit]There is an extensive network of scheduled coach transport in the United Kingdom. However, passenger numbers are a fraction of those travelling by rail.[60] Coach travel companies often require passengers to purchase tickets in advance of travel, that is they may not be bought on board. The distinction between bus and coach services is not absolute, and some coach services, especially in Scotland, operate as local bus services over sections of route where there is no other bus service. National Express Coaches has operated services under that name since 1972. Megabus started in 2004 and Greyhound UK in 2009. There are many other operators. Receipts in 2004 were £1.8 billion (2008 prices) and grew significantly between 1980 and 2010. Ulsterbus connect places in Northern Ireland which are no longer on the railway network.
Former Yugoslavia
[edit]Intercity bus travel in Serbia, as well as in other countries of former Yugoslavia, is very popular in proportion to travel by rail and air. In some regions, data has shown that intercity bus routes have transported over ten times the number of passengers carried by intercity trains on the same competing routes.[61] It has been a trend around Serbia and the Balkan region that small towns and some villages have their own flagship bus carrier, often branded with the last name of the family whose owner runs that bus company. Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, and Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, have very large central bus terminals that operate 24 hours a day. The largest intercity bus operator in the whole region is Lasta Beograd which operates from Serbia to many countries in Europe.
Poland
[edit]Major intercity bus services in Poland include the international company FlixBus, Polish operators like Sindbad and Polonus, and regional services such as PKS (Polskie Koleje Państwowe). Other notable companies include Agat, Leo Express, and regional operators like Szwagropol and Majer Bus, which serve specific areas.
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ Or also called Borneo by the international world.
References
[edit]- ^ Traffic and Highway Engineering By Nicholas J. Garber, Lester A. Hoel, page 46
- ^ Effective Approaches to Meeting Rural Intercity Bus Transportation Needs. Transportation Research Board. 2002. ISBN 9780309067638. Retrieved 2012-10-29 – via Google Books.
- ^ Transportation Statistics Annual Report (1997) edited by Marsha Fenn, page 175
- ^ "History of transport and travel".
- ^ a b M. G. Lay (1992). Ways of the World: A History of the World's Roads and of the Vehicles That Used Them. Rutgers University Press. p. 125.
- ^ a b "Coaching History". Archived from the original on 2018-05-04. Retrieved 2014-01-12.
- ^ a b "The Mail Coach Service" (PDF). The British Postal Museum & Archive. 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-01-02. Retrieved 21 July 2008.
- ^ The Postman and the Postal Service, Vera Southgate, Wills & Hepworth Ltd, 1965, England
- ^ Adams, William Bridges (1837). English Pleasure Carriages. London: Charles Knight & Co.
- ^ Anderson, R.C.A. and Frankis, G. (1970) History of Royal Blue Express Services David & Charles Chapter 1
- ^ Dyos, H. J. & Aldcroft, D.H. (1969) British Transport, an economic survey Penguin Books, p.225
- ^ "W.C. Standerwick: 1911-1974". www.petergould.co.uk.
- ^ Anderson, R.C.A. and Frankis, G. (1970) History of Royal Blue Express Services David & Charles p.28
- ^ Anderson and Frankis (1970) p.32
- ^ Anderson & Frankis, p.41
- ^ "Punch, or the London Charivari, Volume 159, August 18th, 1920 by Various".
- ^ "Corporation Profits Tax". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). 27 April 1920.
Mr. BILLING: the poor people who cannot afford a motor-car and who go out occasionally in charabancs—are being taxed £84 a year, according to the seating capacity. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that represents about 25 per cent. greater than the capital cost of the vehicle?... The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir E. Geddes): Will the hon. Gentleman send me a workable scheme?
- ^ The streamline era Greyhound terminals: the architecture of W.S. Arrasmith By Frank E. Wrenick, page 99
- ^ The best transportation system in the world: railroads, trucks, airlines ... By Mark H. Rose, Bruce Edsall Seely, Paul F. Barrett, page 46
- ^ Deregulation and the future of intercity passenger travel, John Robert Meyer, Clinton V. Oster, p. 169
- ^ Flitton, D.(2004) 50 Years of South Midland Paul Lacey ISBN 0-9510739-8-2, p.41
- ^ The best transportation system in the world: railroads, trucks, airlines ... By Mark H. Rose, Bruce Edsall Seely, Paul F. Barrett, page 45
- ^ "The initial crisis of bus service licensing 1931–34" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-28. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
- ^ "Before The London Transport Identity". Bus World. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
- ^ "Speeding". UK Motorists. Archived from the original on 2009-08-29. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
- ^ Suburbanizing the masses: public transport and urban development in ... By Colin Divall, Winstan Bond, pages 270, 285
- ^ Making public transport work By Mark Bunting, page 13
- ^ ""מערכת תחבורתית נגישה ואפקטיבית היא מנוף כלכלי אדיר למשק"". The Marker (in Hebrew).
- ^ זגריזק, אסף (2022-08-10). "על חשבון כלי רכב פרטיים: נתיבי העדפה חדשים יסומנו בגוש דן". Globes. Retrieved 2025-10-23.
- ^ "מהיר לעיר מתקדם: נת"צים נוספים יוקצו בגוש דן". Yedioth Ahronot (in Hebrew).
- ^ "הרשויות לא אוכפות את איסור הנסיעה על נתיב תחבורה ציבורית — ומפסידות מיליונים. ומי מקבל אישור לעקוף את הפקק?". The Marker (in Hebrew).
- ^ "Visions for the Future..." Dec. 6, 2007 by the Passenger Rail Working Group quotes "National Safety Council Injury Facts 2002", p. 128
- ^ "Greyhound Canada shutting down all bus service permanently". CBC News.
- ^ a b c d e f Austen, Ben (2011-04-07). "The Megabus Effect". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Archived from the original on April 11, 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2013.
- ^ Transportation Statistics Annual Report (1997) edited by Marsha Fenn, page 7
- ^ a b O'Toole, Randal (29 June 2011). "Intercity Buses: The Forgotten Mode". Policy Analysis (680).
- ^ a b Schliefer, Theodore (2013-08-08). "Bus travel is picking up, aided by discount operators". Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved 25 August 2013.
- ^ "Greyhound System Timetable June 25th, 2014". Retrieved 14 June 2014.[permanent dead link]
- ^ "About the Intercity Bus Atlas". bts.gov. BTS. Retrieved 19 April 2025.
- ^ Carlton Jackson, "Hounds of the Road", accessed November 2, 2008
- ^ Allen Richards, "My Turn: He's still walking tall, and grateful to be alive" Archived 2010-04-13 at the Wayback Machine, Daily Breeze, October 21, 2008, accessed Nov. 2, 2008
- ^ "6 Dead in Fatal Arizona Bus Crash". CBS News. March 5, 2010.
- ^ "Bus in fatal Arizona crash operating illegally". CNN. March 6, 2010.
- ^ Knife attack on California bus BBC.co.uk, October 1, 2002, date accessed: May 28, 2008
- ^ Greyhound faces lawsuits over '01 wreck Passengers say line kept quiet about attacks on drivers[permanent dead link], from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, accessed May 28, 2008
- ^ a b "坐大巴的人越来越少,城际客运巴士开往何处?" [With fewer and fewer people taking buses, where do intercity passenger buses go?]. 界面新闻. 2019-09-01. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
- ^ "交通运输部规章" [Ministry of Transport Regulations].
- ^ "交通运输部关于印发《道路客运接驳运输管理办法》的通知". www.zgsyb.com. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
- ^ "Transport Department - Brief description of NFB services". Archived from the original on 2015-12-31. Retrieved 2016-01-26.
- ^ "Daftar Perusahaan Bus yang Punya Trayek Terjauh di Indonesia". kumparan (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2021-07-16.
- ^ Media, Kompas Cyber (2020-10-13). "Ini Daftar Bus AKAP Double Decker via Tol Trans Jawa". KOMPAS.com (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2021-07-15.
- ^ "Bus Damri punya trayek luar negeri". kumparan.com (in Indonesian). Retrieved 19 April 2022.
- ^ Ernesto, Yufen. "2 Bus Rute Kupang-Dili Mulai Ngaspal, Penumpang Rindu Timor Leste". detik.com (in Indonesian). Retrieved 27 May 2023.
- ^ "Decline of Pakistan Railways... By Sundus". Paktribune.
- ^ "The System of Local Buses in Pakistan". 9 December 2011.
- ^ "Kamil Koç Istanbul Branches and Phone Numbers" (in Turkish). Kamil Koç Istanbul Branches. Archived from the original on 2024-10-08. Retrieved 2024-10-08.
- ^ "Jahrzehnte auf der Standspur: - WELT". DIE WELT.
- ^ Personenbeförderungsgesetz: § 42a Personenfernverkehr
- ^ For example, between Riga and Daugavpils, there are 7 coach departures throughout the day with ticket price at approximately €9, with journey taking approximately 4 hours, and 3 train departures with ticket at approximately €7.25, with journey taking approximately 3 hours. [1].
- ^ Statistics Travel Division (2008-04-01). "Public Transport: UK National Statistics Publication Hub". Statistics.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 2012-11-13. Retrieved 2012-10-29.
- ^ [2] Subotica.com (Serbian): AUTOBUS POPULARNIJI OD VOZA. Retrieved January 25, 2013
Intercity bus service
View on GrokipediaIntercity bus service consists of regularly scheduled bus transportation for the general public that operates on fixed routes with limited stops, connecting multiple urban areas over distances typically exceeding local commuting ranges, distinguishing it from commuter or intracity services.[1][2][3] These services utilize motorcoaches designed for comfort on longer journeys, offering an economical alternative to rail or air travel, with fares often 60 to 85 percent lower than comparable options on select routes.[4] Originating in the early 20th century, such as initial scheduled operations in 1913 in the United States, intercity buses expanded significantly post-World War I, filling gaps in rail networks and serving rural-to-urban connectivity.[5] In recent years, U.S. ridership has rebounded to approximately 50 million passengers annually as of 2023, approaching pre-pandemic levels at 85-90 percent recovery despite route consolidations, driven by low-cost operators and curbside models that prioritize efficiency over traditional terminals.[6][7] Globally, major operators like FlixBus and National Express dominate, leveraging technology for dynamic routing and partnerships with local fleets to expand networks across Europe and beyond, underscoring buses' role in sustainable, high-capacity ground transport amid rising fuel costs and urban density pressures.[8][9]
History
Pre-Motorized Origins
The earliest forms of scheduled intercity passenger transport were horse-drawn stagecoaches, which emerged in Europe during the 16th century and became regular services in the 17th century, predating motorized vehicles and serving as direct precursors to modern bus systems.[10] These vehicles facilitated travel between cities by carrying paying passengers on fixed routes with timetables, often combining passenger service with mail or light cargo delivery.[11] The first documented scheduled stagecoach route operated in 1610 between Edinburgh and Leith in Scotland, marking the inception of public coach services in Britain.[10] Longer intercity routes followed in England, with the London to York service beginning in 1653 and initially requiring about 14 days to cover the approximately 200-mile distance, accommodating up to 14 passengers per coach.[11] A fortnightly extension to Edinburgh started in 1658, charging £4 per passenger for the extended journey, which exceeded 10 days.[11] Stagecoaches relied on a relay system, traveling in segments of 10 to 15 miles between coaching inns where teams of four horses were swapped to maintain momentum.[10] Early average speeds hovered around 5 miles per hour, limited by poor roads and rudimentary suspension, but improved to 8 miles per hour by the mid-18th century with innovations like steel springs and turnpike roads.[10] For instance, the 1673 London to Exeter route took 8 days, while by 1754, the Manchester to London "Flying Coach" reduced its time to 4.5 days.[10] These services expanded across Britain, with 42 regular coach routes linking major cities by 1797, operated by innkeepers and specialized proprietors who managed horse relays and fares.[10] Continental Europe saw parallel developments, with coach travel originating from Hungarian and German designs in the late 15th to early 16th centuries, though systematic scheduled intercity operations lagged behind Britain's until the 18th century.[11] Stagecoaches dominated long-distance land travel until the rise of railways in the 1830s, providing essential connectivity despite discomforts like overcrowding and exposure to weather.[10]Motorization and Early Expansion
The transition to motorized intercity bus services began with the development of the first practical internal combustion engine omnibus by Karl Benz in 1895, which featured a single-cylinder gasoline engine producing 2 horsepower and accommodated eight passengers over short distances. This innovation addressed the limitations of horse-drawn stagecoaches, such as slow speeds averaging 5-8 mph and dependency on animal power, by enabling higher reliability and reduced operating costs once roads improved. The vehicle was deployed by the Netphener Omnibus-Gesellschaft in Germany shortly after its order in December 1894, marking the initial commercial application of motorized public road transport.[12][13] Scheduled motorized bus operations emerged soon after, with the world's first public transport line using such a vehicle opening on March 18, 1895, in Germany, initially covering urban routes but laying groundwork for longer intercity applications. In Europe, early adoption focused on charabancs—open-top motorized coaches—for excursions between towns, with operators like those in England transitioning from horse-drawn vehicles by the 1910s as engine durability advanced through multi-cylinder designs and pneumatic tires. These vehicles typically seated 20-30 passengers and operated at speeds up to 20 mph on improved macadam roads, outpacing stages by reducing travel time between cities like London and provincial centers by 30-50%. By 1914, sturdier chassis and enclosed bodies mitigated weather exposure, fostering viability for fixed schedules over distances of 50-100 miles.[14][15][16] In the United States, intercity motorization accelerated in the 1910s, starting with entrepreneurs using modified touring cars and sedans for point-to-point service between rural communities and nearby cities, often covering 20-50 miles at fares competitive with railroads. Improved federal and state road investments, including the 1916 Federal Aid Road Act allocating $75 million for highways, enabled this shift by providing surfaces capable of sustaining heavier vehicles without frequent breakdowns. By 1920, the U.S. hosted approximately 1,200 bus lines operating 15,000 vehicles that transported 172 million passengers annually, primarily on intercity routes supplanting less flexible stagecoaches. Expansion continued into the late 1920s, with intercity bus passenger miles surpassing 7 billion by 1929, driven by enclosed coaches offering amenities like cushioned seats and baggage compartments, which attracted budget-conscious travelers amid rising automobile ownership. This period saw consolidation among small operators, as mechanical reliability—bolstered by standardized parts from manufacturers like Fageol and Mack—reduced downtime from over 50% in early models to under 10%.[17][18]Mid-20th Century Regulation and Growth
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 extended Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) oversight to interstate bus carriers, mandating certificates of public convenience and necessity for route operations, rate approvals, and restrictions on competition to stabilize the industry against cutthroat pricing observed in the 1920s and early 1930s.[19][18] This framework persisted through the 1940s and 1950s, transforming intercity buses from railroad challengers into regulated entities with limited entry, which proponents argued prevented service disruptions while critics later contended it stifled innovation and efficiency.[18] Post-World War II demand surged as gasoline rationing ended and economic recovery boosted mobility, with long-distance bus passenger-miles doubling from 13.6 billion in 1941 to 26.9 billion in 1945 amid automobile shortages and rail overcrowding.[17] Regulated stability enabled carriers like Greyhound to invest in modern fleets, including streamlined "Silversides" coaches, and expansive terminal networks, supporting peak ridership in the late 1940s before automobile dominance eroded market share.[17] By the mid-1950s, intercity buses accounted for 36 percent of rural passenger transport, underscoring their role in connecting non-urban areas under ICC-protected routes.[19] The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 indirectly pressured the sector by facilitating car travel, yet regulated fares kept buses competitively priced for budget-conscious passengers through the decade, with companies operating over 2,000 vehicles by 1960 to serve declining but still substantial volumes.[17] ICC enforcement also addressed issues like segregation in terminals, issuing rulings against discriminatory practices in interstate facilities starting in the 1950s, though compliance varied.[18] Overall, mid-century regulation fostered predictable operations amid growth, setting the stage for later reform debates over economic stagnation.[18]Deregulation Era and Market Shifts
In the United States, the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 significantly eased federal oversight of intercity bus operations, allowing carriers greater flexibility in routing, pricing, and entry while requiring approval only for significant service reductions.[20] This followed the Motor Carrier Act of 1980's deregulation of trucking and aimed to foster competition amid declining ridership, which had dropped from 143 million passengers in 1960 to 54 million by 1980 due to rising fuel costs and competition from air travel.[18] Initial effects included a surge in new entrants, with over 200 applications for authority filed in the first year, but many rural and small-town routes were curtailed as operators prioritized profitable urban corridors, leading to a net loss of service in less dense areas.[21] Market consolidation accelerated as dominant players like Greyhound Lines expanded through acquisitions, notably purchasing Trailways' operations in 1987 after Interstate Commerce Commission approval, which reduced the number of major national carriers from two primary competitors to effectively one integrated entity controlling about 80% of the market.[22] Greyhound's strategy involved dropping unprofitable stops, prompting complaints from smaller operators that this entrenched its dominance and isolated communities, with intercity bus departures from towns under 50,000 population falling by up to 50% in some states by 1983.[23] Overall industry revenues stagnated, with net operating income plummeting 56.8% from $132 million in 1980 to $57 million by 1982, reflecting intensified price competition on express routes but vulnerability to economic downturns and labor disputes, including Greyhound's 1983 strike that halted service nationwide.[24] In the United Kingdom, the Transport Act 1980 deregulated express coach services effective October 1980, removing quantity licensing restrictions and enabling unrestricted entry for non-local services, which spurred a rapid expansion in competition.[25] New operators, including National Express subsidiaries and independents, introduced innovative low-fare express routes between major cities, increasing coach mileage by 50% within the first year and passenger numbers by over 20 million annually by 1982, with fares dropping up to 30% on competitive corridors like London to Scotland.[26] This "coach boom" shifted market focus toward high-speed, point-to-point services using motorways, diminishing reliance on rail feeders, though rural intercity links saw limited growth due to persistent local regulation.[27] These deregulatory shifts globally emphasized efficiency gains through competition, with similar reforms in countries like Australia and parts of Europe post-1980s promoting express-oriented models, but often at the cost of subsidized rural access.[18] In practice, the era marked a transition from regulated monopolies to contestable markets, yielding lower urban fares and vehicle utilization improvements—such as higher load factors from dynamic scheduling—but exacerbating service disparities, with U.S. rural routes declining further into the 1990s before niche low-cost revivals.[22] Empirical analyses indicate that while entry barriers fell, exit rates among new carriers exceeded 70% within five years, underscoring the sector's sensitivity to fuel prices and asymmetric information in route profitability.[28]Contemporary Trends and Innovations
In the post-COVID era, intercity bus services have demonstrated robust recovery, with U.S. ridership reaching approximately 85% of pre-pandemic levels by early 2025, driven by low-cost curbside operators capitalizing on inflationary pressures and consumer preference for affordable travel alternatives to air and rail.[29][30] Operators like FlixBus expanded through partnerships with over 50 regional carriers, emphasizing dynamic scheduling and pricing to optimize fleet utilization amid fluctuating demand.[31] This growth is bolstered by demographic shifts, including increased travel by immigrants and foreign-born residents, contributing to an expanding national market projected to sustain capacity increases on high-demand routes. Digital innovations have transformed operational efficiency and passenger experience, with widespread adoption of mobile ticketing, real-time GPS tracking, and integrated booking platforms enabling seamless distribution channel consolidation.[32][33] Companies such as OurBus leverage address verification technologies for precise pickups, reducing no-shows and enhancing reliability on over 300 daily routes.[34] Contactless payment systems and AI-driven analytics further support dynamic pricing and route optimization, allowing operators to respond to real-time demand while minimizing empty runs, though industry-wide digitalization lags behind aviation due to fragmented private operators.[35][36] Sustainability efforts focus on fleet electrification and efficiency upgrades, with intercity electric bus pilots emerging in regions like the U.S. Pacific Northwest and Europe, where regulatory incentives have propelled electric bus sales from under 2% of EU totals in 2018 to 19% in 2024.[37][38] In India, where 40% of intercity trips span 250-300 km—aligning with current battery ranges—over 9,700 electric buses were registered by 2024, signaling potential for broader adoption despite charging infrastructure constraints.[39][40] These advancements position intercity buses as a cost-efficient, lower-emission alternative for medium-haul travel, though scalability depends on grid expansions and battery cost reductions.[41][42]Operational Features
Vehicle Specifications and Design
Intercity buses, often referred to as motorcoaches, typically feature dimensions optimized for highway travel and passenger capacity, with average lengths of 39 feet 4 inches (12 meters), widths of 8 feet 4 inches (2.55 meters), and heights of 12 feet 6 inches (3.81 meters).[43] These specifications accommodate 44 to 49 seats plus one driver, though variations exist; for instance, the MCI D4500 model measures 45 feet 5 inches (13.84 meters) in length, while the MAN Lion's Intercity variants range from 11.7 to 13.7 meters.[44][45] Widths generally adhere to 2.55 meters to comply with road regulations, enabling efficient lane usage without excessive sway.[43] Propulsion systems predominantly rely on diesel engines for reliability and range, such as the MAN D15 six-cylinder inline unit with 9-liter displacement, delivering 206 to 265 kW (280 to 360 horsepower) and torque of 1,200 to 1,600 Nm.[45] Rear-mounted or underfloor configurations minimize noise and vibration in passenger areas, with common rail injection for fuel efficiency.[46] Emerging electric models, like the Volvo 7900, offer lengths up to 18 meters in articulated form with gross vehicle weights of 30,000 kg, supporting battery-electric drives for reduced emissions amid regulatory pressures.[47] Fuel tanks, often 300-500 liters, are mounted securely to withstand maneuvers, as per manufacturer standards. Design emphasizes aerodynamics, safety, and comfort to enhance operational economics and occupant protection. Streamlined silhouettes with low-drag coefficients—achievable down to 0.29 through optimized exteriors—reduce fuel consumption by up to 60% compared to older models.[46][48] In the US, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 227 mandates rollover structural integrity for buses over 10,000 pounds GVWR, requiring roofs to withstand dynamic crash tests without excessive intrusion.[49] European designs align with ECE Regulation 66, incorporating similar rollover protections and low-entry floors for accessibility.[50] Interiors feature adjustable, ergonomic seating to mitigate driver fatigue, low-noise insulation, and modular layouts for luggage storage, balancing capacity with amenities like climate control.[51] Double-deck configurations, common in regions like the UK, increase capacity to over 80 passengers but require heightened stability engineering.[52]Route Development and Scheduling
Route development for intercity bus services begins with demand forecasting, often employing statistical models to estimate ridership based on factors such as population density between origin and destination cities, economic ties, and travel patterns derived from census data or historical ridership.[53] In rural areas, these models incorporate variables like household income, vehicle ownership rates, and proximity to employment hubs to predict potential usage, revealing that services thrive where alternatives like personal cars are less viable due to cost or distance.[53] Planners evaluate connectivity to major hubs, ensuring routes link underserved regions to urban centers while accounting for competition from rail or air travel, which can limit viability for distances exceeding 300 miles where speed differentials favor rivals.[54] Key considerations include infrastructure access, such as highway capacity and terminal availability, alongside safety assessments for route alignment to minimize accident risks from high-speed intercity travel.[55] Regulatory approvals, particularly in federally subsidized U.S. programs under the Federal Transit Administration, require demonstrations of public need and financial sustainability, often necessitating partnerships with states to subsidize unprofitable segments serving populations under 50,000. Demand-driven approaches, informed by agent-based simulations, optimize route selection by testing scenarios for ridership thresholds, with empirical data showing that routes achieving at least 20-30 passengers per trip on average sustain operations without heavy subsidies.[56] Scheduling follows route establishment, utilizing optimization algorithms to set frequencies and timings that balance operational costs against passenger convenience under variable travel times caused by traffic or weather.[57] Models integrate stochastic elements, such as probabilistic delays, to generate timetables that minimize fleet idle time while ensuring connections at transfer points, with frequencies typically scaled to peak demand—hourly on high-volume corridors like those exceeding 100 daily passengers and daily on lower-demand routes.[57] In practice, carriers like those in Taiwan employ integer programming to assign vehicles to schedules, reducing total mileage by up to 15% compared to manual planning by synchronizing departures with modal interchanges.[58] Advanced techniques incorporate real-time data from GPS tracking to refine schedules dynamically, though base planning relies on multi-commodity flow models that treat passengers as flows across networks to maximize load factors above 60% for profitability.[59] In the U.S., intercity schedules have seen frequencies increase on express routes post-2010 deregulation remnants, with platforms like Greyhound offering 2-4 daily options on major axes due to aggregated demand from online bookings, though rural links often limit to 1-2 per day to control costs. These processes prioritize causal factors like elasticity to fare and time, ensuring schedules reflect empirical wait tolerance, typically under 30 minutes for competitive edges over informal alternatives.[60]Passenger Handling and Amenities
Passenger ticketing for intercity bus services is commonly managed through online booking systems, telephone reservations, or purchases at terminals or curbside locations, enabling advance seat guarantees and reducing on-site queues.[4] Operators require passengers to arrive at boarding points 15 to 30 minutes before departure to facilitate identity verification, ticket scanning via mobile apps or printed confirmations, and luggage loading, with delays potentially resulting in forfeited seats due to traffic restrictions at pickup zones.[61] Boarding procedures prioritize safety by directing passengers to signal approaching buses, disembark alighting riders first, and utilize low-floor designs or lifts for wheelchair access, while prohibiting standing in aisles during motion except in designated standee lines on certain vehicles.[62] [63] Luggage handling allows one carry-on bag per passenger for overhead or under-seat storage, plus one checked suitcase stored in undercarriage compartments, with excess items incurring fees based on weight or size; federal regulations mandate that checked baggage be available for retrieval within one hour of bus arrival, classifying delays beyond this as lost property.[61] [64] Drivers enforce rules against hazardous materials in bags, such as flammables, to mitigate fire risks during transit. For passengers with disabilities, services provide priority boarding, securement spaces for mobility aids, and assistance from trained staff or companions, including accommodations for service animals under transport guidelines.[65] Onboard conduct is regulated to ensure safety, with drivers briefing riders on prohibitions against smoking, alcohol consumption, and disruptive device use at trip outset, alongside securement of loose items to prevent injuries from sudden stops.[66] Common onboard amenities enhance comfort for long-haul travel, including air conditioning, reclining seats with adjustable headrests designed for static, vibration, and activity support, and lavatories equipped with toilets, sinks, mirrors, soap alternatives, and waste disposal.[67] [64] [68] Many operators now provide power outlets at seats for device charging and free Wi-Fi for connectivity, fostering a productive environment with features like tray tables on premium routes.[4] [69] Food and beverage options vary, from self-provided snacks to onboard vending or stops at rest areas, though full meals are rare outside luxury services. These elements, while not universally standardized, reflect adaptations to passenger demands for affordability and utility over air travel equivalents.[4]Economic Dynamics
Industry Structure and Competition
The intercity bus industry features a regionally varied structure shaped by deregulation levels, with competitive dynamics favoring operators leveraging network scale and digital platforms in liberalized markets. In the United States, the 1982 Bus Regulatory Reform Act dismantled interstate route monopolies, enabling new entrants and yielding fare reductions of 30-45% on competitive corridors by the late 1980s, though rural routes often retained limited service. Consolidation has since concentrated operations among fewer entities; FlixBus's 2021 acquisition of Greyhound Lines established it as the dominant provider, operating a network connecting over 5,000 destinations and capturing the largest share of scheduled services amid a market valued at $7.1 billion for scheduled and charter buses in 2025.[70][71][30] In Europe, liberalization effects differ by nation, promoting oligopolistic rivalry on dense routes while peripheral areas exhibit natural monopolies with elevated fares. Germany's 2013 market opening spurred FlixBus's expansion, fostering intermodal pressure on rail and generating annual welfare gains of €1-2 billion EU-wide through expanded supply and pricing discipline. The United Kingdom's post-1980 deregulation similarly boosted service frequency and competition on major axes, though econometric analysis reveals persistent price premiums on low-density links due to insufficient rival entry, underscoring scale economies that deter fragmentation.[72][73][74] Regulated markets like Spain employ "competition for the market" via route auctions, where open tendering correlates with lower fares compared to legacy or regional concessions, enhancing efficiency without full deregulation. Globally, platform-based models—exemplified by FlixBus partnering with local fleets rather than owning assets—reduce capital barriers, intensifying price competition but prompting mergers that stabilize networks, as observed in France post-2015 reforms. This hybrid structure sustains growth, with intercity bus travel projected to expand from $20.4 billion in 2025 to $28.4 billion by 2030, driven by competitive pressures in deregulated segments.[75][76][8]Pricing Mechanisms and Cost Efficiency
Intercity bus operators primarily employ distance-based pricing, zonal pricing, and origin-destination (O/D) pricing models, with increasing adoption of dynamic pricing to optimize revenue. Distance-based pricing charges fares proportional to route length, often incorporating factors such as the number of stops and service frequency, which significantly influence ticket costs on long-distance routes.[77][78] Zonal and O/D models segment markets by geographic zones or point-to-point pairs, allowing flexibility in competitive urban corridors where fares can undercut rail or air by 60-85% on comparable routes.[4] Dynamic pricing, borrowed from airlines, adjusts fares in real-time based on demand, capacity, and competition, enabling operators to maximize yields during peak periods while filling seats at lower rates off-peak; for instance, algorithms integrate ridership data and market trends to boost profits without fixed schedules.[79][80] Cost efficiency in intercity bus services stems from low marginal operating costs per passenger-mile, particularly when achieving high load factors, though the industry exhibits limited economies of scale beyond small output levels. Marginal costs vary by service type, with express routes benefiting from fewer stops and higher speeds, but overall scale economies diminish at larger firm sizes due to fixed infrastructure and labor constraints.[81][82] Buses deliver approximately 152 passenger-miles per gallon of fuel, outperforming single-occupancy vehicles and enabling fares as low as 0.22 per passenger-mile in competitive U.S. markets.[83][56] Relative to rail, buses require fewer personnel per passenger-mile, contributing to lower total costs, though efficiency hinges on utilization rates often exceeding 50% in dense corridors to offset variable expenses like fuel and maintenance.[84] Regulatory and market factors further enhance cost efficiency by minimizing capital intensity compared to rail or air, with operators leveraging standardized vehicles and flexible routing to adapt to demand fluctuations. In unsubsidized segments, profitability relies on fare revenues covering 100% of costs in high-density routes, while subsidies in rural areas can distort efficiency by sustaining low-ridership services.[85] Empirical analyses confirm buses' advantage in energy use, with emissions around 0.17 pounds per passenger-mile, supporting their role as a low-cost mode when load factors exceed break-even thresholds.[4] Innovations in technology, such as route optimization software, continue to reduce non-fuel costs, though persistent challenges like fuel price volatility—evident in 2022 when diesel averaged over $5 per gallon—underscore the need for hedging and efficiency measures.[83]Regulatory Impacts and Policy Debates
In the United States, intercity bus services faced stringent economic regulation under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, which granted the Interstate Commerce Commission authority over routes, rates, and entry, effectively creating protected monopolies that stifled competition and innovation while shielding operators from market pressures.[86] This framework contributed to industry stagnation, as carriers prioritized high-density corridors and resisted adjustments to declining demand, exacerbating financial losses amid rising automobile ownership and subsidized rail competition.[18] The Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 marked a pivotal deregulation shift, easing entry barriers, permitting route abandonments for unprofitable services, and simplifying rate approvals to foster competition and financial viability.[87] Post-1982 deregulation yielded mixed economic impacts: new entrants proliferated initially, driving fare reductions on competitive routes by up to 30-40% in some markets and spurring service innovations, yet overall industry ridership and route mileage continued to decline, with rural and small-town access eroding as operators exited low-volume areas lacking cross-subsidization from profitable lines.[22] By 1992, intercity bus service availability had fallen further, contradicting expectations of revitalization, as deregulation exposed carriers to unsubsidized competition from airlines and Amtrak without addressing underlying modal shifts toward personal vehicles.[88] Empirical analyses indicate that while deregulation lowered operating costs through flexible pricing and scheduling, it accelerated consolidation and service rationalization, reducing network density by prioritizing efficiency over universal coverage.[89] In Europe, regulatory approaches diverged by nation, with early UK deregulation in the 1980s inspiring liberalization elsewhere, such as Sweden in 1998 and Germany's 2013 market opening, governed broadly by EU Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 establishing common access rules for international services.[75] These reforms boosted intercity bus market shares in liberalized countries, with Germany's post-2013 entry of low-cost operators like FlixBus increasing competition and ridership during rail disruptions, as evidenced by a 20-30% uptick in bus bookings during major strikes.[90] However, impacts included uneven service expansion, favoring urban corridors while peripheral regions saw limited gains without compensatory subsidies.[77] Policy debates surrounding intercity bus regulation center on tensions between market efficiency and public access, particularly in low-density areas where deregulation enables cost savings but undermines connectivity reliant on cross-subsidies.[21] Proponents argue deregulation enhances consumer welfare through lower fares and innovation, as seen in U.S. route flexibility and European entrant-driven growth, yet critics highlight exacerbated rural isolation, with U.S. small towns losing over 50% of service post-1982 and calls for targeted subsidies like Section 5311(f) funds to mandate intercity links.[85] [91] Ongoing discussions question re-regulation risks versus subsidy distortions, noting that unaddressed advantages for air and rail competitors perpetuate bus market contraction, with empirical evidence suggesting hybrid models—deregulated cores with subsidized feeders—could balance equity and viability without reverting to pre-reform monopolies.[92] Recent U.S. analyses as of 2025 emphasize reforming federal funding to prioritize intercity buses for underserved demographics, countering narratives of inevitable decline by underscoring their role in multimodal integration.[85]Safety Profile
Empirical Safety Metrics
Intercity bus services demonstrate empirically low fatality rates when measured per billion passenger-miles traveled, particularly in developed nations with robust data collection. In the United States, the bus fatality rate stands at 0.11 deaths per billion passenger-miles, a figure substantially lower than that for passenger vehicles at approximately 7.3 deaths per billion passenger-miles.[93][94] This disparity arises from factors including professional driver training, vehicle design standards, and controlled operating environments, though it exceeds commercial aviation's rate of 0.07 deaths per billion passenger-miles.[93]| Mode of Transportation | Fatalities per Billion Passenger-Miles (U.S., recent decade average) |
|---|---|
| Commercial Aviation | 0.07 |
| Buses | 0.11 |
| Passenger Trains | 0.43 |
| Passenger Vehicles | 7.3 |
Incident Analysis and Mitigation
The Bus Crash Causation Study, conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), analyzed 39 crashes involving 40 cross-country and commuter buses, finding that driver-related factors, such as inattention, fatigue, and following too closely, contributed to 66% of incidents, while vehicle defects and environmental conditions played lesser roles.[100] Motorcoaches, typical of intercity services, comprised over half of the buses in these crashes, with outcomes including approximately 50 annual fatalities and under 1,000 injuries across such operations in the U.S.[101] Fatigue emerges as a recurrent causal factor, particularly in long-haul routes, where extended driving hours exceed physiological limits, leading to microsleeps or delayed reactions; for instance, analyses of Greyhound incidents attribute a majority of collisions to driver drowsiness, often exacerbated by inadequate rest compliance.[102] High-profile intercity bus overturns and collisions frequently stem from loss of control due to speeding on curves or tire failures under load, as documented in National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigations; a 1987 intercity bus rollover on Interstate 95 killed five after the driver failed to negotiate a curve at excessive speed, highlighting inadequate speed adaptation to road geometry.[103] Ejections during rollovers amplify fatalities, with 14 of 17 occupants ejected in a separate 1987 head-on collision, underscoring vulnerabilities in unrestrained seating and vehicle stability.[104] Statistically, intercity buses account for a small fraction of bus-related fatalities—32 in 2015 out of 257 total—yet their multi-passenger capacity results in clustered casualties, drawing scrutiny despite lower per-mile risk compared to automobiles.[105] Mitigation efforts emphasize regulatory enforcement of hours-of-service limits, mandating no more than 10-11 hours of driving per day with mandatory breaks, as enforced by FMCSA to curb fatigue; violations persist but have declined with electronic logging devices introduced in 2017. Pre-trip inspections and periodic vehicle maintenance protocols, required under FMCSA standards, address mechanical failures like brake or tire issues, which contributed to fewer than 10% of causation study crashes but remain preventable through rigorous compliance.[100] Technological advances, including electronic stability control systems and forward collision warning mandated for new buses since 2019, reduce rollover risks by 20-30% in simulations, while driver training programs focusing on hazard recognition—recommended post-NTSB probes—enhance response to dynamic road threats. Operator accountability, via safety ratings and audits, further incentivizes proactive risk assessments, though lapses in company oversight, as seen in international cases, underscore the need for consistent global standards.[106]Regulatory Frameworks and Technological Advances
Regulatory frameworks for intercity bus safety primarily enforce standards on vehicle design, operator qualifications, maintenance, and operational practices to mitigate risks such as crashes, rollovers, and fatigue-related incidents. In the United States, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) administers regulations under 49 CFR Parts 300-399, which mandate safety fitness ratings for motor carriers every three years, hours-of-service limits to prevent driver fatigue, and compliance with vehicle inspection and maintenance protocols for commercial motor vehicles carrying passengers.[107] [108] The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) complements these through Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), including a 2021 rule on bus rollover structural integrity that requires roofs and sidewalls to withstand deformation in crashes, reducing intrusion into occupant compartments during overturns.[50] Internationally, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) establishes standards adopted by many countries, particularly in Europe and Asia. UNECE Regulation No. 107 governs buses and coaches in categories M2 and M3 (vehicles with more than eight passenger seats), specifying requirements for seating, emergency exits, and structural integrity to enhance occupant protection.[109] Recent updates include a 2023 regulation mandating integrated child restraint systems in buses for safer child transport, reflecting ongoing harmonization efforts to address vulnerabilities in high-occupancy vehicles.[110] These frameworks prioritize empirical crash data, with UNECE provisions drawing from frontal impact tests under Regulation No. 29 to ensure cab and body integrity in collisions.[111] Technological advances have integrated advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) into intercity buses, enabling real-time hazard detection and automated interventions to avert collisions. Automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems, which apply brakes autonomously to mitigate forward crashes, represent a core ADAS feature researched by NHTSA for heavy vehicles, with potential to reduce crash rates by up to 47% according to U.S. Department of Transportation analyses.[112] [113] Collision avoidance technologies, such as those using cameras and radar for blind-spot monitoring and forward collision warnings, have been trialed in transit buses, demonstrating efficacy in urban and highway scenarios through passive alerts and active steering corrections.[114] Manufacturers like Volvo Buses have deployed updated active safety suites as of 2024, incorporating enhanced AEB, lane-keeping aids, and pedestrian detection tailored for coaches, which process sensor data to prevent underride or side-swipe incidents common in intercity travel.[115] Telematics and electronic stability control systems further advance safety by monitoring vehicle dynamics and driver behavior, integrating with regulatory mandates like digital tachographs in the EU for accurate hours-of-service logging since 2004.[116] Pilot projects for large transit vehicles emphasize ADAS for smooth acceleration/deceleration, reducing rollover risks on intercity routes by stabilizing high-center-of-gravity buses during evasive maneuvers.[117] These technologies, while promising, require rigorous validation against real-world data to confirm causal reductions in incident rates beyond correlational studies.Environmental Footprint
Energy Use and Emissions Data
Intercity buses typically exhibit energy intensities ranging from 0.4 to 0.8 megajoules per passenger-kilometer (MJ/pkm), based on operational data from the United States and Australia that account for highway speeds and average occupancies.[118] This metric reflects diesel-powered coaches operating at load factors of approximately 50-70 passengers, with efficiency improving at higher utilization rates due to economies of scale in shared propulsion. Vehicle-level fuel economy for motorcoaches averages 6 to 8 miles per gallon (mpg), translating to 200-350 passenger-miles per gallon when adjusted for typical seating capacities of 40-60 occupants.[119] [120] Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from intercity bus services averaged 0.15 pounds per passenger-mile in 2019, according to analyses incorporating fuel combustion and upstream processes, though estimates vary by study methodology and assumptions about load factors.[121] Equivalent figures from other assessments include 0.081 pounds per passenger-mile (36.7 grams) in 2019 data focused on tailpipe emissions and 0.12 pounds per passenger-mile in 2023 evaluations.[121] [121] In European contexts, coach emissions are often reported below 20 grams CO₂ per passenger-kilometer, reflecting potentially higher average occupancies or stricter fuel standards.[122] These values encompass primarily diesel fleets, with non-GHG emissions such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter reduced in modern engines compliant with standards like Euro VI or EPA 2010.[121]| Metric | Value (US Data, ~2019) | Source Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Energy Intensity | 0.4–0.8 MJ/pkm | Derived from operational averages; higher end for partial loads[118] |
| CO₂ Emissions | 0.15 lb/p-mile (≈42 g/pkm) | Includes intercity motorcoaches; lower than transit buses at 0.95 lb/p-mile[121] |
| Vehicle Fuel Economy | 6–8 mpg | Diesel coaches; passenger-adjusted higher with occupancy[119] |
Efficiency Relative to Competing Modes
Intercity buses achieve higher energy efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger-kilometer (pkm) than private automobiles and aircraft, owing to their capacity to carry 40-60 passengers, which distributes fuel consumption across multiple occupants. In 2019 European data, buses consumed roughly half the energy per pkm compared to passenger cars, while domestic air transport required over ten times more energy per pkm than rail or buses.[123] This advantage stems from economies of scale in vehicle operation, though actual efficiency depends on load factors; intercity buses typically operate at 50-70% occupancy, outperforming solo-driven cars but underperforming when sparsely loaded.[124] Compared to automobiles, intercity buses reduce emissions by leveraging higher ridership; a 2023 analysis found buses 550% more fuel-efficient per passenger than cars, with typical CO2 emissions of 30-50 grams per pkm for diesel motorcoaches versus 120-170 grams per pkm for average-occupancy cars.[125] U.S. Department of Energy reports confirm that bus travel emits substantially less per passenger-mile than single-occupancy vehicles, equivalent to about 110 grams CO2 per pkm for buses based on 2019 averages, though this rises with lower loads or older fleets.[126][127] Rail transport edges out buses in efficiency, particularly electrified lines, with emissions as low as 10-35 grams CO2 per pkm versus 30-100 grams for buses, per aggregated reviews of global datasets.[128] The International Energy Agency notes rail's one-fifth the emissions of air per pkm, and buses align closer to rail than to aviation when accounting for intercity routes under 500 km, where planes incur high takeoff penalties.[128] However, buses surpass rail in flexibility for low-density routes, maintaining competitive footprints without extensive infrastructure.[129] Aviation remains the least efficient for medium-haul intercity travel, emitting 150-250 grams CO2 per pkm, far exceeding buses due to fuel-intensive ascent and lower effective load factors on shorter flights.[130] Lifecycle analyses, including infrastructure, reinforce buses' relative merits over planes but highlight rail's lead in electrified systems with renewable grids.[131] Transitioning buses to biofuels or electrification could narrow gaps with rail, potentially halving emissions to 15-40 grams per pkm in low-carbon scenarios.[129]| Transport Mode | Approximate CO2 Emissions (g/pkm) | Key Factors Influencing Efficiency | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercity Bus | 30-110 | Load factor (50-70%); diesel fuel | [132][127] |
| Passenger Car (avg. occupancy) | 120-170 | Solo driving increases to 200+; gasoline/diesel | [130][123] |
| Rail (electrified) | 10-35 | High loads; grid decarbonization | [128][130] |
| Airplane (short/medium haul) | 150-250 | Takeoff fuel; radiative forcing multiplier | [130][128] |