No, I'm saying there is no such thing as "two identical systems where one costs X, and the other costs 2X".

The "X cost system" is worse than the "2X system". That's why it's cheaper.

The "X" system is slower or carries less passengers or runs less often or goes to less places, or gets stuck in traffic, or is less reliable, or changes it's routes.

--

It's like comparing a WalMart Netbook to a MacBook Pro and saying "they're both 'identical' computers, why are we spending 2X on the MacBook Pro?".

We spend the extra cash because they aren't identical, the 2X one is better.

You said the cost itself was a benefit. What you're describing here is when the extra cost allows for other features which are benefits.

With your notebook computer analogy, the extra cost of a MacBook Pro is not a benefit. The benefits are all the various things that are better about it, with the extra cost being worth it to have those benefits. The only way you'd say the extra cost of a MacBook Pro was itself a benefit would be if you wanted to show off how rich you are or something equally silly.

The context of calling the cost a benefit was in picking between reasonable and competitively-priced options. You're not arguing against the point that it's a commitment to better transit, you're trying to pull a cheap gotcha.

I'm not trying to pull a gotcha anything. I'm legitimately trying to understand the point that was being made. The point looked to me to be that spending more money is by itself a benefit because it represents a greater commitment. I then verified that I was understanding correctly, and was told that this was not in fact what was intended.

No, the comment is saying that front-loading a large cost is good, because once you make that right of way you'll have good service that's much safer from budget issues.