This is discouraging. I can’t tell whether due dilligence was done with the public or not, but it seems like it was. I know the damaging effects transportation infrastructure can have (see I-35, Austin, Texas), but I sure wish this could be settled out of court and not slow high-speed rail down in California. This section is particularly troubling:
“Overall for the state, high-speed rail brings tremendous opportunities, but what would the benefits be for a stop in Redwood City?” Foust asked. “We don’t know yet if this would be an economic advantage.”
Really? You’re not sure whether making it easier to get to your city would be a good thing?