Sloppiness ... you have a point ... I've seen many a public works project start with a vaguely defined concept that ends up much more expensive than expected once you make enough people happy enough that it can happen ... but that should be expected! At the concept stage (where HSR was at when the bond issue was run), any cost estimate is a WAG and should have at least 100% contingency added. More if you don't have prior experience (overseas stuff is OK only as proof of concept). In this case, the contingency wasn't explained to the people voting for the project, the project was defined so tightly that there was no flexibility to address reality as the concept developed, and no real attempt was made to integrate it with the overall transportation system. It should also have been made clear that, as with many very large projects, the voters would be asked to kick in more later on - you can't lock up $40-50B at one pop on the basis of magic marker lines on a map, and $10B or so every 10 years or so (maybe not entirely from bonds if something else can be sold) isn't out of line for this type of work. So yes, there was sloppiness, or at least inability to deal openly with those making the decision probably because of fear that nobody in the electorate could think as big as the project needs. Unfortunately, now we're in a political place where the fear has come true: a controlling minority is unwilling to do anything (HSR or otherwise). Too bad. It was a nice idea.