purple line 2027??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was cringeworthy watching members of the nimby CC groups being interviewed on stopping the Purple Line. Glad it’s going forward!

Have you not read the news? It’s not going forward. There is not defined completion date. It’s a white elephant. An albatross. An absolute joke of a waste of money.

PP is denying actual current reality.

Show me the construction progress reports over the past 12 months. There has been almost no progress. It is not current moving forward. There is no defined completion date at this time. Talk about denying reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was cringeworthy watching members of the nimby CC groups being interviewed on stopping the Purple Line. Glad it’s going forward!

The issue was that it was going to cost a huge amount of money to build the Purple Line, and the projections were that very few people were going to use it, and this was pre-pandemic. Like few enough that just putting a few buses would be cheaper and less impactful to the environment. But politicians like construction and contracts so we have the current situation.

The decisions in THREE lawsuits contradict your assertion.

And the decision of the voters who canned the Governor who supported buses.

In what election in your fevered mind was the Purple Line an election issue?

I’m presuming that you’re referring to Ehrlich? If you think your dumb transit project was the reason that he lost, I’m just not sure what planet you live on.

I didn’t say that was the reason that he lost. But he preferred buses, and he lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was cringeworthy watching members of the nimby CC groups being interviewed on stopping the Purple Line. Glad it’s going forward!

The issue was that it was going to cost a huge amount of money to build the Purple Line, and the projections were that very few people were going to use it, and this was pre-pandemic. Like few enough that just putting a few buses would be cheaper and less impactful to the environment. But politicians like construction and contracts so we have the current situation.

The decisions in THREE lawsuits contradict your assertion.

And the decision of the voters who canned the Governor who supported buses.

In what election in your fevered mind was the Purple Line an election issue?

I’m presuming that you’re referring to Ehrlich? If you think your dumb transit project was the reason that he lost, I’m just not sure what planet you live on.

DP. It was certainly an election issue at the county level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was cringeworthy watching members of the nimby CC groups being interviewed on stopping the Purple Line. Glad it’s going forward!

The issue was that it was going to cost a huge amount of money to build the Purple Line, and the projections were that very few people were going to use it, and this was pre-pandemic. Like few enough that just putting a few buses would be cheaper and less impactful to the environment. But politicians like construction and contracts so we have the current situation.

The decisions in THREE lawsuits contradict your assertion.

And the decision of the voters who canned the Governor who supported buses.

In what election in your fevered mind was the Purple Line an election issue?

I’m presuming that you’re referring to Ehrlich? If you think your dumb transit project was the reason that he lost, I’m just not sure what planet you live on.

DP. It was certainly an election issue at the county level.

Nope. This is a really bizarre claim. Ehrlich was not “canned” by MD or Moco voters with the Purple Line as an election issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was cringeworthy watching members of the nimby CC groups being interviewed on stopping the Purple Line. Glad it’s going forward!

The issue was that it was going to cost a huge amount of money to build the Purple Line, and the projections were that very few people were going to use it, and this was pre-pandemic. Like few enough that just putting a few buses would be cheaper and less impactful to the environment. But politicians like construction and contracts so we have the current situation.

The decisions in THREE lawsuits contradict your assertion.

And the decision of the voters who canned the Governor who supported buses.

In what election in your fevered mind was the Purple Line an election issue?

I’m presuming that you’re referring to Ehrlich? If you think your dumb transit project was the reason that he lost, I’m just not sure what planet you live on.

DP. It was certainly an election issue at the county level.

Nope. This is a really bizarre claim. Ehrlich was not “canned” by MD or Moco voters with the Purple Line as an election issue.

Truly bizarre that we have supposedly two separate people with the same misperception. Haven’t heard anything on this since. O’Malley won in 2006 on Purple Line referendum in MoCo is certainly an interesting take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was cringeworthy watching members of the nimby CC groups being interviewed on stopping the Purple Line. Glad it’s going forward!

The issue was that it was going to cost a huge amount of money to build the Purple Line, and the projections were that very few people were going to use it, and this was pre-pandemic. Like few enough that just putting a few buses would be cheaper and less impactful to the environment. But politicians like construction and contracts so we have the current situation.

The decisions in THREE lawsuits contradict your assertion.

And the decision of the voters who canned the Governor who supported buses.

In what election in your fevered mind was the Purple Line an election issue?

I’m presuming that you’re referring to Ehrlich? If you think your dumb transit project was the reason that he lost, I’m just not sure what planet you live on.

DP. It was certainly an election issue at the county level.

Erlich wasn't a governor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Erlich wasn't a governor.

Robert L. Ehrlich Jr, governor of Maryland, 2003-2007: https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/former/html/msa12125.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was cringeworthy watching members of the nimby CC groups being interviewed on stopping the Purple Line. Glad it’s going forward!

The issue was that it was going to cost a huge amount of money to build the Purple Line, and the projections were that very few people were going to use it, and this was pre-pandemic. Like few enough that just putting a few buses would be cheaper and less impactful to the environment. But politicians like construction and contracts so we have the current situation.

The decisions in THREE lawsuits contradict your assertion.

And the decision of the voters who canned the Governor who supported buses.

In what election in your fevered mind was the Purple Line an election issue?

I’m presuming that you’re referring to Ehrlich? If you think your dumb transit project was the reason that he lost, I’m just not sure what planet you live on.

DP. It was certainly an election issue at the county level.

Nope. This is a really bizarre claim. Ehrlich was not “canned” by MD or Moco voters with the Purple Line as an election issue.

The Purple Line was an election issue in the county elections for county government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was cringeworthy watching members of the nimby CC groups being interviewed on stopping the Purple Line. Glad it’s going forward!

The issue was that it was going to cost a huge amount of money to build the Purple Line, and the projections were that very few people were going to use it, and this was pre-pandemic. Like few enough that just putting a few buses would be cheaper and less impactful to the environment. But politicians like construction and contracts so we have the current situation.

The decisions in THREE lawsuits contradict your assertion.

And the decision of the voters who canned the Governor who supported buses.

In what election in your fevered mind was the Purple Line an election issue?

I’m presuming that you’re referring to Ehrlich? If you think your dumb transit project was the reason that he lost, I’m just not sure what planet you live on.

DP. It was certainly an election issue at the county level.

Nope. This is a really bizarre claim. Ehrlich was not “canned” by MD or Moco voters with the Purple Line as an election issue.

The Purple Line was an election issue in the county elections for county government.

The claim was that voters “canned” Ehrlich over the Purple Line. The claim is 100% false. It never happened because it was not an election issue when Ehrlich ran for re-election in 2006.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The claim was that voters “canned” Ehrlich over the Purple Line. The claim is 100% false. It never happened because it was not an election issue when Ehrlich ran for re-election in 2006.

No, the claim (not made by me) was that the voters "canned the Governor who supported buses." Which is true. Nobody was claiming that the voters canned the governor BECAUSE the governor supported buses. The voters chose O'Malley over Ehrlich, and O'Malley supported light rail, and now here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The claim was that voters “canned” Ehrlich over the Purple Line. The claim is 100% false. It never happened because it was not an election issue when Ehrlich ran for re-election in 2006.

No, the claim (not made by me) was that the voters "canned the Governor who supported buses." Which is true. Nobody was claiming that the voters canned the governor BECAUSE the governor supported buses. The voters chose O'Malley over Ehrlich, and O'Malley supported light rail, and now here we are.

So you are saying that the the the statement was a non sequitor, divorced from the discussion regarding endorsement of the project? I guess I can accept that the person who made that statement was just spouting irrelevant nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2024

Not a chance. I was one of the subcontractors on the project. Due to the disputes between the state and PPP venture, contract for the whole project was voided about a year ago. Everything has to go back to bid, new contractors found, etc. All due to the spurious lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2024

Not a chance. I was one of the subcontractors on the project. Due to the disputes between the state and PPP venture, contract for the whole project was voided about a year ago. Everything has to go back to bid, new contractors found, etc. All due to the spurious lawsuits.

Industry publications state that factors were at play unrelated to the lawsuits, like pace of land acquisition, changes to regulations and changes to 3rd party agreements were all equally reasons for termination of the agreement leading to the settlement.

https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/infrastructure/article/21164229/purple-line-settlement-reached-fluor-out-of-p3

[Anonymous]

There is no completion date and once they have one you can probably add another year or two.

[Anonymous]

Sorry NIMBYs. The PL is coming. Hopefully it runs over your backyards for karma.