priznut

priznut t1_ja164q1 wrote

Lol dude it’s still better than nothing.

When I lived in Boston, I had to switch from one line to another system. A smelly trolley to the shaky box cars we know. And that’s just some of the switches you have to make.

I’d take what Brentwood had thank you.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your points. I do.

Regardless I feel folks are spoiled.

Also Napa does need better transit. But it is what it is and folks fought it.

If Bart to Brentwood is a shit show my commutes in Boston were a diarrhea box filled with vomit.

I’ll happily take crappy bart over many metro train systems.

2

priznut t1_j9zmr4l wrote

Ugh did the japanese bullet train go way over budget?

Because I remember clearly it went waaaaaaaaaaay over budget.

Infrastructure projects are complicated projects that involve major public and private planning, development and cooperation.

I’m pretty sure most major projects go over budget or deal with problems as they deploy.

Some infrastructure projects just straight up fail (see places in the Middle East that don’t complete).

Y’all expect too much.

5

priznut t1_j9zjqdu wrote

I think you are way to short sighted on this.

Itd been proven that local access to transit systems pushes populations to other areas.

Like in California (where its too many people in the main bay area and LA). The incentive is to have other larger towns and cities across the I-5 absorb more of the population.

Which is happening, when Caltrain was established people started to move further south of San Jose. When bart finished their line further into the suburbs the home values for Brentwood went up as people bought homes knowing they have transit systems.

If the high speed rail completes people will move further out for cheaper homes.

Folks keep thinking trains don’t alter populations are not seeing the bigger picture.

2