The problem isn't the users. It's usually the management. Since these public infrastructure problems always become political weapons those managing try to appea

The problem isn't the users. It's usually the management. Since these public infrastructure problems always become political weapons those managing try to appease the largest amount of people possible from the start instead of scaling back scope to a workable base that can be expanded on later. They're terrified of any backlash or criticism because the actual project works on a much longer timescale than the news cycle. People will hear about one setback, rabble rabble at whoever's been set up to be in charge in the public eye, and then that person has a stigma about them for the rest of their career while the wider public forgets about what the issue even was within three to five years. If it's an elected position that could cost them said position. If it's an appointed positing whoever leads the appointments will not choose them out of fear regarding negativity by proxy. I have seen so many good projects that would benefit a ton of people get added onto until they die before they're even out of the planning stages. And then the projects that do get greenlit are the easiest and fastest way which will cause a ton of damage both short term and long term. Like adding more lanes via narrowing the sidewalks and removing the buffer zone between the lane and the curb instead of fixing an intersection because it would mean negotiating with property owners. Or an activity park that changed prospective location so many times that sponsors abandoned it before it was even built, had so many additions and removals during planning that at one point it was closer to being a convention hall and business park, and once it was built it ended up in such a remote location that nobody goes there and they're thinking of closing it because of lack of funding.