But if new evidence comes in which changes the basis for approval (e.g. lets say you need to do some earthworks and as part of performing them it becomes apparent these earthworks will damage nearby buildings), presumably the approval can be revoked until suitable changes can be made (or if that's not possible, the approval no longer holds)? The linked Wall Street Journal appears to give more details, suggesting this went through a fast-track process (with seemingly minimum community input). I'd argue fast-tracking projects is always a bad idea, as is trying to route around community consultation (given it's likely more expensive in the long run).

> I'd argue fast-tracking projects is always a bad idea, as is trying to route around community consultation

Building infrastructure and housing in the US is painfully slow and a huge tax on everyone, almost everything should be fast tracked. We have some of the most productive economic zones in the world (SF <-> LA, Boston <-> DC corridor) and we have made it largely illegal to build housing and transit in these areas due to bureaucracy and red tape.

Do you think the high speed rail between SF and LA needs more rounds of community input?

I would take fast-tracking high speed rail over community consultation.