I wonder if it's because they originally didn't want people thinking the lines were lettered NYC-style. and now they're not concerned about that

That's what I'm sayin

No that's a fair point to be made — the politics of these decisions are often discounted. It's not just about numbers.

I doubt it's perfect anywhere, but there are plenty of places able to go into their capital infrastructure projects much more clear-eyed about whether the costs are worth the benefit than the U.S. does

I think it's possible to have a much more perfect CBA of transit projects. Plenty of other countries are able to budget for a project and then deliver it on-budget. This is the goal, and I hope the Purple Line will help the U.S. figure out what's currently broken so that we can someday get there.

of course there's a price threshold at which the Purple Line wouldn't have been worth it. but the question is when did the public know that it was going to reach that point, and could the project even be stopped at that point anyways

*BRT

given what we know about how successful it's been versus the projected costs, I think a much better course of action would be frequent express bus service on all planned BRR routes and, in certain places, conversion of existing lanes to bus lanes rather than try to acquire so much land

I think a better set of projects to look at is the Montgomery County bus rapid transit plan. because that's a larger set of projects, we can look at how successful it's been so far and then adjust whether we think it's correct to continue that course in the future. personally, I don't think it is

every time I walk across the ped bridge to Metro, I dream that the bridge directly connected with the platform instead of making people walk down and then back up again. It's not a great design to say the least

and that question is one that there wasn't a lot of information to use to answer. the opportunity for advocates to get involved at that point was not very clear.

I'm not saying that it's priceless. I'm saying that there was no way for advocates to adjust their support of the project because it was already so far underway. It was not a question of whether to support the project at that point, but how to deal with the situation we found ourselves in.

Do you mean the stairs up to the pedestrian bridge?

We know that we need to build (a lot) more projects like the Purple Line if we are going to beat traffic in growing places and fight climate change. But we need to figure out how to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible and delivers projects fast.

How can we better understand transportation projects' costs before awarding contracts? (which is a problem w/ both highways & transit btw) How can we improve the process to reduce cost overruns? How do we create processes so that projects that will bring good do not cost us so much?

Yes, lots of research! The best way to have fewer cars out and about is to not have anywhere for them to go. That's a super unpopular way to put it messaging-wise, but demonstrably true.

In my head, this would be similar to the YIMBY movement leaning into the undeniability of supply and demand in the housing market

I wonder how effective it would be for the transit movement to lean more into the 1) efficiency of transit to move people, 2) parking reform, and 3) congestion pricing as the only proven ways to get cars off the road and actually relieve traffic. But headline always being: GET RID OF TRAFFIC

Stephanie rightly identified that traffic is the #1 NIMBY concern. As much as I wish they did, people don't care about sustainability, access means nothing when most ppl have a car, and choice doesn't matter when ppl think the other choices are bad. But people HATE traffic. (I hate traffic.)