RTD's $4.7 billion FasTracks plan is still in its infancy, but a recent study predicted costs could run more than 50 percent higher than original estimates.

Staff writer Kevin Flynn recently noted that a flurry of change orders already have been issued, and many more are expected as time goes by.

For instance, the light rail stop at Union Station will now be a long 2 1/2-block hike from the commuter trains instead of adjacent to them; the two tracks planned for part of the West Corridor will be reduced to one; trains and platforms will be shortened; the light rail on the northwest Gold line could be shifted to commuter rail or street cars - just to name a few.

Changes occur, of course, during any massive project. The question is, how many changes are too many? Could cutbacks and shortcuts, the truncation or even elimination of a major line for cost reasons prompt some sort of public protest?

Two options are possible. Either someone could challenge the project in court or opponents could go back to the voters and ask them to repeal the tax. Indeed, backers of FasTracks challenged their foes many times during the 2004 campaign to do just that. So far they haven't, nor are they likely to unless things get much worse.

Lawsuits are difficult. Ballot-issue drafters have learned over the years to be suitably vague, to avoid being charged with breach of contract. The 2004 ballot issue, for instance, made no mention of "light rail," only "fixed guide way mass transit."

Of course, the verbal and written campaign promises used by promoters of the project have no legal standing and can't be used against them later.

The courts have been invited into bond issue disputes on occasion. One Colorado case of note occurred a half-century ago.

In May 1955 Denver voters approved an $8.7 million bond issue authorizing numerous street and traffic control projects. But after the vote, officials decided that one of them, the 15th Street viaduct over railroad tracks in the Platte bottoms, was undesirable and even hazardous. They decided to spend the money on a lower priority project: widening University Boulevard near the Denver Country Club.

But City Auditor Thomas Currigan, who like all auditors in those days desired to become mayor, refused to sign off on it since it went against the voters' will.

The city administration sued to compel his cooperation. But the trial court sided with Currigan. The viaduct project may have been difficult, said the judge, but not impossible. He declined to force Currigan to sign a contract for a project not specifically authorized by voters.

In 1961, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed his ruling. "The projects are not interchangeable and . . . the priority called for in the ordinance must either be ahered to or the project abandoned," said the high court.

True, it's an ancient case and hardly a man is left alive.

But wait. At least one of them is. It's none other than attorney Ben Klein. He represented Currigan (who later did in fact become mayor) and he won.

It's the same Ben Klein who later was elected to the RTD board and served three times as its chairman.

He's still around, still practicing law, still keeping an eye on RTD. He spent most of his time feuding with other board members and management, and takes a dim view of FasTracks.

He's not likely to be suing anytime soon, but others are watching too.

Footnote: One thing the RTD dare not do when faced with shortfalls in the FasTracks budget is cut back on bus service. One promise it did make in the ballot issue was "increased bus service," probably to make urban voters more supportive of a rail project primarily designed as a subsidy for suburban riders. The Los Angeles transit district, which cut bus service when faced with rail overruns a decade ago, was successfully sued by a populist bus riders group.

blakep@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5119.