That state went into a project it thought would be mostly funded with federal money, but the cost overruns that stemmed from poor oversight and shoddy construction, a convoluted design process, and planning that was not thorough enough meant that the state ended up with a boatload of unanticipated debt.
I hear what your saying but some of that was completely unavoidable. How do they oversee a project of which they have little in-house experience due to the novelty of the project? What type of planning should they have done to truly understand the scope of the utility nightmare under a historic city? On one hand, you're not wrong that they could have done better, but on the other this was a unique project that had very little precedent. I'm not partial to throwing the state under the bus because hindsight is 20/20.
