These stories always focus on the coasts.

1. The bus (or most any conventional ground transport) will be more fuel and environmentally efficient than flying because ground transport does not have to overcome the force of gravity with lift.Overcoming force takes energy, and energy in this case is developed through the burning of AvGas in a turbine.

2. Air transport is always safer than these low-cost bus routes by any measure - passenger miles traveled, passenger trips taken, number of bus miles vs number of plane miles, or number of bus trips versus number of flights.

Any way you look at it, buses are better for the environment and poorer for your chances at arriving at your destination intact. Do I think that is an overriding concern? Not sure.

3. Buses would still win for most trips under 250 miles or so as long as the two ends of the trips were close to the bus depots. If the bus depot is more than 10 or 15 miles away from your final destination, all bets are off as far as which is better - plane or bus. As with most things in transportation and shipping, it's the "last mile" that kills you.

4. Anything that would require an overnight stay in travelling versus getting there in one day via aircraft changes the math. The extra food and hotel add enough of a cost and environmental impact to at least reconsider the trip methodology.

I am putting this out there as the counterbalance to "buses are wonderful all the time." Like with most things, there are trade-offs and most of your articles would be much more convincing if they portrayed a more accurate picture. In most cases, they would still win the argument. And if they didn't win the argument, you would realize that it wasn't a great idea to begin with.

Buses as alternatives to aircraft can be a great idea in the right circumstance, BTW.

GOOD IDEA