you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Trains take up a lot of space, and if you want them to be useful, they need to be where the population density is high enough. That means high cost for land, often buying up big amounts of smaller lots where you have to work something out with a multitude of land owners who might not want to part with their - often prime location, because it's in the city - land. A single land owner not selling their land can grind a project like this to a halt, at least if there is hesitancy using eminent domain, which is a crowbar approach and leads to resistance to your project.

There's also interference risks. My city was building out their train network, and had to do extensive testing to make sure that the trains didn't disturb the university's experiments. An entire planned hospital was scrapped because it was too close to the tracks, and the trains would interfere with the hospital equipment.

A data centre or cameras wouldn't have the same risk, so wouldn't need to go through the same level of approval/testing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    That's a lame excuse. There are universities right next to heavy rail, with super sensitive equipment. It is all a question of shielding and vibration management. And when it comes ro vibrations, I have never heard of a highway project getting cancelled because of sensitive hospital or research eqipment, have you?

  • source
  • parent