Most agencies I've worked for have some restriction on employment, by contractors, which you have had recent relationships with, for a certain period of time. Other agencies do not. The relationship is often indirect, so there is generally not considered to be a conflict. This allows for the revolving door, in which, folks are often employed, which often appear to have clear "moral" conflict of interest, but no actual "legal" conflict of interest. It is another "perk" often enjoyed by bureaucrats and politicians, as a reward to those who've "done right" by those able to offer such employment.

Alternatively, these are also often the most accomplished, qualified and effective professionals in their respective fields, and, as such, "in demand"...at firms seeking these qualifications.

I've experienced both of these "breeds" in my career... I've been one of those...... And, since you don't get a lifetime pension, for just a few years in public service, you still might just have to work for a living.....

As to contracts and funding, I always used language in contracts that made all such agreements contingent on funding availability, and subject to termination, under such conditions. Policies and politicians come and go, and that protects the public. The problem is eliminated when one has a full funding agreement, and this may be the case here, and this is just Elaine, jerking the chain, to make some folks in Congress happy. So, sometimes, it's just a press release.....full of spin....and "fury"...."signifying nothing"....

And, yes, as I noted in an earlier post, while I am not opposed to "wiring up" Caltrain, and do see this as a reasonable use of HSR funds, it is not necessary for the performance needed to achieve higher ridership,

As has been noted this increased ridership can be, and often is, done all over the world with longer trains., more frequent trains, with a much higher HPT ratio......