 |
Re: Sacramento-bound Starlight at Elkhorn Slough-The Short History of the Coast Ghost?
Author: BOB2
Date: 12-02-2021 - 13:32
Dr Zarkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of us have been saying this since the days of
> the Medfly (trains 17 and 18) under Moonbeam's
> first stint as governor.
The "Coast Ghost" (aka the "Spirit of California) was a "still born" project at Caltrans and Amtrak. And, almost a complete failure to properly promote and market it was part of a bigger problem with both Caltrans and Amtrak internally, with little leadership and even less cooperation to make it work.
I rode it several times to a couple of UTU Legislative meetings, and even to a TRAC conference in Sacramento, the price was right with my pass privileges, and it was more fun, but far less convenient than what seem like a couple of hundred air "commuter" trips I've made to Sacramento Airport in my second career.
The "Coast Ghost" actually was starting to build ridership, but failed to meet the most pressing 101 corridor travel needs, which was for for more frequent and reliable local daylight coach services (which LOSSAN north has partially filled in since).
The Coast line probably needs at least hourly service levels to a to and from most intermediate stations and hubs. The population density and trip generation into and out of the urban hubs is significant compared to many similar conventional and/or "higher" speed routes much of Europe, where nothing less than hourly service would be provided. An overnight train could act as an end of the day "last" though train, under that kind of "full service" Coastline scenario.
If such an overnight service was ever put back together (say if the State was to buy the line), then better marketing will be needed, including promoting the sleeper class services as geared more toward tourism and cruise clientele wouldn't hurt. And, heavily discounted overnight coach seats to college students probably wouldn't hurt either.
What all of these constructive comments seem to point at, is our lack of "system planning" for a truly effective level of both frequency and "connectivity". It is a contrast with the fixation on the massive construction "project of the week" (or maybe, the project of the "century" if we are talking about the dubious pace of the "runaway money train"), by those planning this, rather than on what kind of a rail "system" mix would best provide the kind of rail passenger "services" and reliable "connections" to and from more destinations, that the public might actually find to be the most useful for "their" travel needs.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of us have been saying this since the days of
> the Medfly (trains 17 and 18) under Moonbeam's
> first stint as governor.
The "Coast Ghost" (aka the "Spirit of California) was a "still born" project at Caltrans and Amtrak. And, almost a complete failure to properly promote and market it was part of a bigger problem with both Caltrans and Amtrak internally, with little leadership and even less cooperation to make it work.
I rode it several times to a couple of UTU Legislative meetings, and even to a TRAC conference in Sacramento, the price was right with my pass privileges, and it was more fun, but far less convenient than what seem like a couple of hundred air "commuter" trips I've made to Sacramento Airport in my second career.
The "Coast Ghost" actually was starting to build ridership, but failed to meet the most pressing 101 corridor travel needs, which was for for more frequent and reliable local daylight coach services (which LOSSAN north has partially filled in since).
The Coast line probably needs at least hourly service levels to a to and from most intermediate stations and hubs. The population density and trip generation into and out of the urban hubs is significant compared to many similar conventional and/or "higher" speed routes much of Europe, where nothing less than hourly service would be provided. An overnight train could act as an end of the day "last" though train, under that kind of "full service" Coastline scenario.
If such an overnight service was ever put back together (say if the State was to buy the line), then better marketing will be needed, including promoting the sleeper class services as geared more toward tourism and cruise clientele wouldn't hurt. And, heavily discounted overnight coach seats to college students probably wouldn't hurt either.
What all of these constructive comments seem to point at, is our lack of "system planning" for a truly effective level of both frequency and "connectivity". It is a contrast with the fixation on the massive construction "project of the week" (or maybe, the project of the "century" if we are talking about the dubious pace of the "runaway money train"), by those planning this, rather than on what kind of a rail "system" mix would best provide the kind of rail passenger "services" and reliable "connections" to and from more destinations, that the public might actually find to be the most useful for "their" travel needs.
