These arbitrary and deliberately costly performance requirements have already been pushed back in one ruling, already, modifying this "narrow" view of the "sanctity" of the voter initiative that approved the bonds for this fiasco.

I suspect that given the state's responsibility for fiscal impacts, it would outweigh these contradictory and entirely "arbitrary and capricious" speed requirements, rather than scrap the legal requirements to protect the state's finances and those of stakeholders (like say taxpayers and/or bondholders), and they'd have a pretty good case.

Now, with nonsense like this kind of minute "technical" specification written into a bond measure, do you understand how these folks abused the public trust, with this bond measure?

Meanwhile, since everything they've pissed away so far is useless, yes it would be a great, tragedy, if these angry cheated voters were to have a re-vote it down, and not "salvage" something from the taxpayer monies pissed away thus far?

Have we ever asked voters to correct a stupid mistake where they were lied to, conned, and ripped off on this scale? Maybe, we should try it? Since so many of our politicians don't seem to have the courage to admit it when things go wrong, or show much "initiative" when it comes to making these kind of changes...

We could even look at an "initiative" to force all GHG funded projects to compete on the most cost effective projects, or even tax credits back to taxpayers, for the most tons of CO2 actually reduced, instead of using it as a source of more "slop" to keep the CHSRA "trough" full, for a project with very little GHG impact on our total surface transportation CO2 or GHG emissions budget...

If electrification is a "cost effective" investment of GHG funds, great...it may be, but it is expensive. So, how does that compare to say, funding electric vehicle chargers and/or tax credits (back to actual "taxpayers" for "doing the right thing".. what a concept?) for buying EV's, or upgrading AC compressors?