That's how it was in Manhattan (NYC) too, and that's why the layout of the subways doesn't seem to make much sense: they were all started by competing companies

That's how it was in Manhattan (NYC) too, and that's why the layout of the subways doesn't seem to make much sense: they were all started by competing companies 100 years or more ago. The problem isn't "taking over private infrastructure to continue the service", the problem is when the government funnels money to private corporations to continue the service. If the corporation can provide the service all by itself using free-market economics (more of less, there's probably some utility regulation needed), then fine, but if they have to be propped up by the government, then they shouldn't exist and it should be nationalized. A prime example of this is the government gifting tons of money to internet providers like Comcrap to make infrastructure improvements, who then just pocketed the money and didn't make any improvements. IMO, all critical infrastructure should just be government-owned, and operated much like the USPS but with less Congressional interference. The USPS operates basically as a private company, except it's owned by the government and isn't for-profit, and is overseen by the government. Overall, it's worked pretty well except for Congress screwing around with it from time to time (like requiring them to pre-fund all employees' retirement with a law in 2006). The MTA (the company that runs public transit) in NYC works this way too. Putting the safety and security of your nation into the hands of a privately-held corporation that's only interested in profits is sheer lunacy.