• evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    That doesn’t appear to be good journalism. The article does not mention that the reason they want to move the location of the tunnel is to remove the biggest bottleneck on the northeast corridor, and redoing the current tunnel location keeps that bottleneck. Removing that bottleneck would have huge benefits to public transit on the eastern seaboard.

    Additionally, they mention “train emissions”, but don’t mention that the trains that would use the tunnel are all electric. The only time there would be any emissions would be in the case of a fire, which is very uncommon in passenger trains. The highway and other busy streets in the area are a far bigger problem.

    Overall, it seems like standard nimby-ism.

    • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Overall, it seems like standard nimby-ism.

      I would agree if the US government didn’t have a history of bulldozing predominantly Black neighborhoods in the name of infrastructure and instantly omitting white affluent neighborhoods.

      While this project doesn’t seem to do it at first glance can you blame black ppl of instantly distrusting the US government motives?

      • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah, definitely. Baltimore also has a good record of combatting that in the case of highway 70, too. In this case, though, it’s just tunneling under that neighborhood, not carving a path through it. Oddly enough, further down the track, there are ~20 people getting displaced (might have already happened), but that’s in a different neighborhood, and I think that would have happened no matter where the tunnel was moved.