Yes if you think about logically from the point of view of someone who were to live next to the rail, what you are saying makes 100% sense.  The problem is that we were sold that building the rail would help our housing issue.  What they really should have done is take all that concrete and use it to build public housing.  Maybe on a prime site where a luxury condo would have been built as that location is prime versus making these people live next the rail and the constant headaches of that location.  Seems sadistic and intentionally cruel to force ow income to have to live and raise their families next to the rail. But this is where we are at.