...would clarify that it's being compared against all other subway building occurring
Sure, but it's not that kind of article. The title is rhetorical, rather than conveying a demonstrated fact.
The article isn't about some study that establishes with certainty that it is actually the most expensive length of track, anywhere in the world, ever, in real terms.
Sure it seems plausible given the facts conveyed in the article, but the world is big and the history of rail is fairly long, and the article is not describing an exhaustive comparison with every other railway ever built.
So it seems reasonable for dang to decide that the original title is a little too baity for HN.
Sure, but it's not that kind of article. The title is rhetorical, rather than conveying a demonstrated fact.
The article isn't about some study that establishes with certainty that it is actually the most expensive length of track, anywhere in the world, ever, in real terms.
Sure it seems plausible given the facts conveyed in the article, but the world is big and the history of rail is fairly long, and the article is not describing an exhaustive comparison with every other railway ever built.
So it seems reasonable for dang to decide that the original title is a little too baity for HN.