We love trains and are happy users of Amtrak’s Acela Express. Generally speaking, there’s limited jostling, commendable customer service and an on-time record that is superior to our experience with air travel.

 

That said, we can’t help fretting about the nation’s high speed rail plans as set forth in the Recovery Act, as well as other federal legislation.  Having digested the blistering results of a California audit and the recently released GAO report on the topic, the implementation issues alone are alarming.

 

Like the Act’s weatherization and broadband programs, its high speed rail investment presents just the kind of challenges you might expect when funding levels soar sky high.  The $8 billion in stimulus funding and a $2.5 billion 2010 appropriation for intercity rail projects created a federal funding stream that is 87 times the amount that the federal government spent through the regular appropriation process in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

 

Among the multiple issues to be resolved are liability concerns; obstacles that stem from Buy American requirements; multiple capacity issues in both the state and federal government; and the need to build partnerships among many diverse stakeholders. As the GAO writes, “Learning ways to build support, secure funding, obtain equipment and effectively manage rail services will be even more crucial to states developing high speed rail because they will face long time frames, high costs and a lack of experience in the U.S. passenger rail market for all stages of developing and managing these new passenger rail services.”

 

The oversight structure will be crucial. For example, in April, California Auditor Elaine Howle took the state’s high speed rail authority to task for lax management and a shaky funding plan that relies on optimistic assumptions. The audit questioned spending decisions and noted that the program manager’s progress reports had been inaccurate and inconsistent. It also criticized the authority for a lack of follow up to see that contractors had completed the work in their workplans.

 

Going forward, a lot will rest on the Federal Railroad Administration’s adherence – and states’ adherence -- to the kinds of successful grant management practices that the GAO has outlined in past reports. Agreements with states are now being developed that, ideally, will provide the basis for strong monitoring and oversight. As the GAO writes: “More passenger rail service, especially services at higher and high speeds, will require new safety rules, constant public capital investment and operating subsidies and balance with freight rail service and the rest of the national transportation system – and currently only some of these elements are in place.”

 

If efforts to get people and goods from one place to another quickly and efficiently are to stay on a solid path, rail plans will require even more funding from both the federal government and the states, and need to attract private partners as well. California, for example has some $43 billion in planned high-speed rail projects, but at this point only knows where about a third of that money is coming from.

 

As the states attempt to keep rolling, even after the stimulus dollars have run out, the roles of federal, state and local governments are going to have to be determined .The Federal Railroad Administration has developed a preliminary strategic vision for high speed rail, but has not yet defined goals or stakeholder roles and has not yet made recommendations for future action. Much of this may be clarified in a new version of the strategic plan in September. But even if it is, plenty of questions will remain as the states develop plans of their own – plans that are currently entirely absent in many places.     

 

A PUZZLING ADDENDUM: We know this may seem trivial, but there’s one issue that confuses us. These Recovery Act passenger-rail projects continue to all get lumped under the “high speed rail” umbrella. California’s plans probably qualify as “high speed” or at least “higher speed.” But a great deal of the money is going to improve conventional passenger rail service. We don’t think that’s a bad idea. But aren’t we misleading people with the “high speed” rubric?