The article has a much more realistic analysis: there is no public will and money in the US to push for that kind of project. > "The uncomfortable reality is t

The article has a much more realistic analysis: there is no public will and money in the US to push for that kind of project. > "The uncomfortable reality is that we can't agree on what to build -- transit or highways, dams or water conservation technology. And we don't want to pay for it." The power of regulations and NIMBy-ism is a symptom of the weakness of the government to really get being an infrastructure project, not the cause. China on the other hand is fully committed, but they start from nothing, so they have to build everything anyway. That's not the case in the US, and at some point, as bad as current service is, the cost benefit of massive infrastructure project get more complicated. For example, does the Bay Area really need massive improvement to compete ? It is on top of its game, despite its weaknesses. Unless you go full China (with the consequences) you will not build enough transport, enough housing and transport enough low paid workers to man all those new coffee shops, hospitals, schools, ... that are needed to support an even more desirable Bay Area. Maybe it is time to think about something else. For example it is not normal that the Bay Area still work using the same pattern than in the 70's. Technology has evolved exponentially since then. A lot of people met their wife online, keep their friendship across continent online. Grand-Parents see their grand children more often than they could in the 70's, despite having them on the other side of the country. But workplace is still a massive building somewhere with thousands of people sharing an employer. And the irony, is that you take the bus packed full with people from your own company but you need to video conference to talk to the other people of your team.