It seems to me that the premise of this article is "things have changed economically over the past 50 years, so we should change infrastructure to match". But t

It seems to me that the premise of this article is "things have changed economically over the past 50 years, so we should change infrastructure to match". But then what happens in another 50 years when things change again? Wouldn't we be locked into a more rigid infrastructure based on early 21st century economy, and then people in the future will be drawing new maps talking about how "the 7 mega-regions are not serving us well"? Regardless, it sure would be great if we had a better rail system in the US!