The property rights one always bothers me; it seems to me that if you're right where a necessary transport link needs to be, you should of course be fairly compensated, but ultimately you shouldn't have any say/choice in the matter.

Ridiculous obstacles like this are, IMO, a major part of why the US is seemingly completely paralyzed when it comes to constructing any major transit projects.

The US government does have the power to seize private property for the public's benefit, it's called Eminent Domain [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

One problem is that historically it somehow turned out that poorer, blacker people tended to be the ones in the way of big transportation projects. A lot of the backlash has roots in real abuses.

How many would benefit vs how many are inconvenienced? Seems like the beneficiaries easily outnumber the few who lose out.

Another benefit would be that people would pay much greater attention to local politics. You would need to make sure that the bus road goes through your neighbor's house, not your house. Whoever ignores the local democracy, loses their house; that is a powerful incentive for participation. What could possibly go wrong?

Easily said if you’re not one of the latter category, I suppose.

I am all for the compulsory purchase of property for very large infrastructure projects like this. Protection of worker safety is less negotiable.

Pertinent to this discussion, if you haven’t seen the wonderful Aussie film ‘The Castle’, you should.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpqT_l7QcBM

Property rights still exist but since it only became a concept about 80 years ago lots of property still belongs to the government and they can generally give you something worth more than your current property.