What you say here is really, really important. It is what structural inequity is all about. No one *intends* for bad things to happen, yet they do. It's a structural problem, not a problem of individual motivations or scheming. I was objecting to your questioning of motives, not to your statements about outcomes.
I ABSOLUTELY question the motives of whoever keeps routing transit lines through the path of least resistance. I feel like these engineers and "boards" are motivated to do the easiest possible thing, not the best thing.
The first meeting should go like this:
Option 1:
Putting aside "takings", politics and neighborhood groups, the best TRANSIT route is this and then follow that up with a list/map of everything that would need to be demoed to make that work.
Option 2:
Thinking ONLY about money, the best route is this.
Again, from the outside, it appears that the determinations have been made ahead of time to choose option 2 (through existing rail ROW and green space) and the rest of the process is just a matter of convincing everyone that isn't a civil engineer that the cheapest route is the "only one that works."
I know that it is never this simplistic in the end but why start by giving up?
Most of my frustration is that the default position is that we can only build light rail or streetcars IF, we don't affect car traffic in ANY WAY, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!
Takings:
I need to learn more about what the objections are to demolition to make transit lines work. A big part of my architecture thesis studied the divisive nature of highways in an urban environment and obviously we have some egregious examples of highway expansion in this region (Rondo, etc.). I get that blowing through neighborhoods to build highways is an awful policy. With that said, light rail is not a highway and from what I've seen, we aren't talking about clear-cutting neighborhoods for light rail lines - we are talking about widening ROW on a few blocks, losing a few houses, losing yards, etc. I understand there are emotional scars from highway expansion (especially among people of color) but I'm an idealist and I think there HAS to be a way to demonstrate the value that light rail brings and that it is the exact OPPOSITE of highway expansion - growth v destruction.
I own an SFH (my second),I have a family and I'm an architect - if anyone should form a connection to a home it should be me. If I lived on Penn and my house were on the chopping block, I feel like I would absolutely welcome this line if it meant moving a few blocks. If I got market value for my home, I would not bat an eyelash about moving to a nearby location to take advantage of an incredible amenity. I live in an area of Minneapolis that is relatively transit starved and I have a higher tolerance for change and progress understanding that it comes at a cost.
I understand that not everyone thinks like I do so I need to understand why people are not willing to move. Are they not getting demonstrable market value for their home? Is there a dramatic difference from one block to the next (especially considering the end result - a new transit line/stop)? I lived in north after undergrad and I worked on one of the Green Homes North projects - there are great sites/value available in north.
I clearly don't understand what motivates people to object to moving. Give me market value for my home, and maybe a moving stipend in exchange for a light rail line/stop in my neighborhood and I'm out. I'd welcome any links, books or study on what I am missing.
That said, I don't think I even said, "SWLRT is done, let's do better on Bottineau."...
Bottineau is a difficult one. I support the final plan but only because lots of folks on the Northside support it. I've always said Broadway should have been the alignment but the reality is we all got in too late to make that happen.
I could probably dig up the back and forth in the SWLRT where this was said but putting aside scorekeeping, the statement that you make here is what is so disheartening and supports what I am saying - why should "we have to get in early" to get the best possible transit route? Your comment points up the fact that the default is rail ROW and green space and that we have to get in some kind of line early to fight AGAINST that mindset! This idea enrages me!
I would have been equally happy with Broadway/Penn because again, many people on the Northside supported that. The neighborhoods were split 50/50 on the alignmnent question. But almost everyone in those meetings agreed the line is important to the Northside. They also agreed that they need much better regular route service.
Here is where we deviate significantly. You say "equally happy" which I take to mean that you view the current alignment as equal to Broadway/Penn. Neighborhoods split 50/50 sounds like there was hope for a better alignment - until engineers cried "too hard, too expensive" and/or the fear/uncertainty/doubt about selling a house and moving to get a transit line was the tipping point leading to the alignment that we have now.
"...the line is important" should never have been in doubt if policymakers are doing their job but this sets up a false dichotomy - a choice between NO TRANSIT, and a bad alignment. From the outside, the choice should HAVE BEEN, a good (albeit more expensive) alignment and a bad alignment.