The problem with focusing on "one train", a "coast daylight", we're stuck in the position of not looking at the need for all day "daylight service", with both local and express, with stops not based on having "one train" to service "all" "city pairs".

We are not really planning for what is "needed" to serve the corridor with the most effective and efficient level of rail passenger service. We are planning for one train, to serve every need on the line, and to fulfill every political "promise" for better "access" to each community that desires service.

And, maybe doing this with faster, and more "frequent", "all day" "daylight" passenger rail "service", using the multiple train "express and local" model of operations, we find used all over the world, might just be better. Because it would meet the real quality and quantity of rail passenger service "demands" in this corridor from the likely base of "consumers" who would use it. Something that the entire 101 corridor desperately needs.

With a plan for all day "daylight" service, rather than a "plan" for just one slow train a day, we would also make better use of those investments in track and infrastructure to do it right. Which I would see as necessary to achieve that "quality" of rail passenger service, for the poor beleaguered travelers and taxpayers, some stuck in traffic right this minute, in the 101 corridor.