Activists (try to) do that as well. But it's much harder to get close to a rich person or their property, than it is to do something in public spaces. They, too, have to see what they can do with their limited resources.
Next, the media coverage is very unequal, as well as reader's interest. You are much more likely to click on an article covering a potentially outrageous action, than you are to read about something which does not bother anyone. Although you can rest assured, these things are tried and done frequently.
So naturally, to the uninvolved reader, it may seem as if activists don't do anything but stupid stunts. And naturally, each outsider seems to think they have a much better grasp of strategy and what actions might make sense than the people who are actually involved in these things.
Of course, a particular action can still be silly. I just want to draw attention to biases at play, in general.
And if you really have a much better idea how to do something about the climate crisis, then go ahead and shine as an example. Not only would you author an actually impactful action (which in itself should be reason enough), you could also show all these rookie activists how to get things done. If your example is convincing, you should see less media coverage about inferior actions.
What does that mean? I'm not sure if I correctly interpret that as somewhat dismissive, as if a good train system was a given or not. It's the result of political will and investment.
A bit like when you get Zerg rushed in Starcraft and say "Well sure but that's because they built so many units early on". It's a decision, and becoming good in that metric was precisely the intent. Also not to do so is a decision. Unlike in Starcraft, the decision to neglect your public transport is not a similarly viable strategy.