The term Minimum Viable Product has been cliched to death, but the key word is “Viable”. The current first product isn’t viable.
Replies
I don’t know enough to be sure, but when I looked at this last year, revenue service between Fresno and Bakersfield—and nothing else—looked attainable and compelling. Lots of population, poor alternatives, massive speedup possible. Get that going and extend from there.
aug 31, 2025, 1:00 am • 1 0 • view
(And also, they have most of the right-of-way and a lot of the route built already.)
aug 31, 2025, 1:02 am • 1 0 • view
yeah but that doesn’t benefit me.
aug 31, 2025, 1:09 am • 1 0 • view
(just joking obviously. I’m open to anything that can cover its own running costs!)
aug 31, 2025, 1:10 am • 1 0 • view
Totally
aug 31, 2025, 1:38 am • 1 0 • view
That’s why they called it an Initial Operating Segment. But in all seriousness, California has really been in a pickle from the beginning: 1) your two main metro areas are cut off from the rest of the world by large mountains, which would be expensive and time consuming to build through 1/
aug 31, 2025, 1:13 am • 1 0 • view
2) a project that focuses on just one metro area (SF-Sac or LA-SD) will have political issues, as neither metro area would want the other to be prioritized first. 2/
aug 31, 2025, 1:13 am • 2 0 • view
IMO, it’s hard to imagine another plan being all that more successful and also able to really be a spine for the state to extend from. I would say that building a conventional rail connection b/w LA and Bakersfield would significantly lessen the issues w/ just focusing on a Central Valley segment
aug 31, 2025, 1:13 am • 1 0 • view
Minimum viable product would have been LA-Bakersfield, cutting at least 1.5 hours from the travel time with a transfer to the San Joaquins for points north.
aug 31, 2025, 12:59 am • 3 0 • view
yeah but a bit late for that I think?
aug 31, 2025, 1:00 am • 2 0 • view