2. Generally, I think that the rapid transit portions of the 2008 plan aren't clear on what they're trying to build. In fact, the maps here are part of the reason I made my own map. In my opinion, plans for new service should make clear the entire overall network or service being proposed. [[Yes, I'm heavily biased based on my interests.) This plan doesn't do that very well, and not just in terms of maps - it uses unclear [[to the public) terms like ART and BRT alongside LRT and it shows segments with multiple kinds of service and no hierarchy, e.g. "ART/LRT" or "BRT/LRT". It even shows different levels of service on the same corridor and "job connectors" that don't follow any road at all. That makes it hard to understand what will actually exist in 2035 in terms of concrete service.
As contrast I'll use the example of DC. When DC was building the Metro in the 70s/80s/90s, they literally filled in the map as they went along. People given a map in 1976 could pretty much navigate the system [[with a few minor operational alterations) as it existed when finished in 2001. Here's an example:
1977 DC Metro map.
What they didn't try to do was make a plan with lots of flexible service levels on different corridors, build a little G Street segment, and then see if five years later that justified finishing the route, or upgrading the service level, or whatever. And while I know the situation there was not equivalent to the situation here [[see below), I tend to think that in general the public is more likely to support a big ask when you have a clear vision for a useful system, even at the expense of coverage. Given that the 2008 plan finishes with a big ask - $10.5 billion dollars of capital costs over 25 years - I wish it had a much more focused presentation of what people were getting for their money.