Note “power outlets in every row.” This is something I liked on the Caltrain “gallery cars” when I went back to the Bay Area for a week last year. (All I had with me was a cell phone but I could recharge the battery while on the train because it has outlets in the cars.)

I'll admit, though, that I'd rather the trains be the main transport than buses, if I were to give up my car. The last time I checked, flights and trains were both more expensive than the amount of gas I would have to pay for travel out of state. And I'll personally pick a car over a bus for a long ride, because I get car-sick unless I'm the driver, and buses make me more ill than almost any other form of transport–except boats.

Note on fancier buses — they've been in the USA for years, Swaraaj. Decades ago one example I had admired from the street was Boss Bus of America. Along with excursions there are regularly scheduled runs, not only from metro areas to airports, but inter-city runs, such as a company in Upstate New York that does runs down to New York City, for example:

http://www.coachusa.com/shortline/

These may be desireable already for elderly people and also for ordinary people in wintertime who don't want to drive in winter weather.

(You can have your thread back now.)

Don't rush to imagine a dream state in this country (USA) alien to it.

The key is in the news story you quoted: “Hard economic times.”

Automobility is desired throughout the world and is especially enjoyed in the USA because of its heritage of freedom and individuality (an improvement over more backward or deprivational, oppressive collectivist societies, or merely much poorer societies at this time).

“Discovering” the bus is not much different than another phenomenon that was only changed in the last several years, but not in the way you would want or unrealistically expect, Swaraaj. The Wall Street Journal did a story in the mid-1990s about how people in the Eastern USA had greatly overpriced, poor air service, and these people overlooked another form of collective transport as an alternative, the train. (An example given was a trip from Chicago to Milwaukee; the train cost a tiny fraction of air travel and required less time overall to make the trip.) The result wasn't that people discovered trains and began riding them in the Eastern USA. Rather, they continued to fly, and eventually the lower-cost, more-modern Western USA discount airline model, and one discount airline, began serving the Eastern USA. (It was joined by other airlines concentrating primarily on the Eastern USA market, which had been poorly under-served.)

I have quite a lot of experience with riding trains (Amtrak as well as private excursion trains; on Amtrak I have sometimes taken my bicycle with me; I used to ride as much as 60 miles — 100 km — a day at one time) as well as buses, but that has never stopped me from driving, not only multi-day trips but approximately thirty trips or more over one thousand miles (that's over sixteen hundred-plus kilometers), and something like 60-80 trips over 800 miles (1,300 km or longer) in a single day. Most others I know aren't quite as enamored of such distances, but they still overwhelmingly prefer driving for most nearby inter-city travel, and for longer trips they prefer to fly to save time. (Also, Amtrak is often poor service.)

People aren't going to suddenly change to riding buses for inter-city (as well as metro area) travel en masse, or trains, either. Advocates or fans of modern high-speed rail (and I am a fan of this mode of travel) need to be realistic, particularly in the USA and Canada with its lighter population density as contrasted with western Europe, not the least to say about India-Pakistan, and its much greater distances.

People may be pleasantly surprised now that some are forced to consider taking collective transport, but that in no way leads to the conclusion they have chosen a new way of life and view of travel, and that they are abandoning their cars. (They will rightly resent any pathological efforts by people in government to try to make people, other than those in government, of course, change in this manner, such as punitive new fuel or motor-vehicle taxes and other attempts at properly-loathed social engineering.)

Keep things in perspective. It's nice to know that attention and improvements are being made to Greyhound inter-city buses. (This is particularly true if there ever is sanity in Washington and the subsidy of money-losing small-market air travel is ended.) It's even nice to conceive of an improved rail network with feeder buses serving every place else, as well as having metro transit extensions to adjacent metro areas. But it's not going to be a mass change of lifestyle and preference, from automobility to mass transport. (Only once our population gets highly aged and some drivers become incompetent would there be any switch, and this would merely be of necessity, not due necessarily to personal preference.) It's simply good to know that bus service is improving, and who knows, could someday be an intelligent object of stimulus and other measures (positive measures) by the federal government (even a train-bus network on the ground similar to, say, Mexico, as well as India-Pakistan).

And of course, the real story is that the economy here continues to be in bad shape, which is why more people are taking the bus or considering (having to do) it. “Hard economic times.” That's the real story.