[Bulkington]

More broadly, systemically, the states still manage highway projects, for instance. The US federal government just funds them--although post-earmark programs (TIGER grants, federal freight projects legislation) have tried to address this. But, yes, there is no long-term plan because the federal funding system isn't set up that way. {Supply chain guy pet peeve; see also 'cooruption' comment below}.

A certain portmanteau describes it perfectly:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clusterfuck

[erentz]

Oh yeah, you're right about the federal funding screwing things up. Again this gets turned into a political tool used by the federal government. Witness the issues with this current administration screwing with funding for mass transit in Seattle and Caltrain in the Bay Area. Things that have been planned for a long time being thrown off the rails due to politics.

The obvious solution here is for the federal government to have less of a role in infrastructure spending. It should only be infrastructure that is nationally or regionally strategic. The rest should be handled by the states. In turn the budget (and thus federal tax) should be reduced by this amount for the states to pick up with their own taxes. (Don't get me wrong I'm not a full libertarian states rights type person but in this case it's pretty cut and dry situation where states should handle their own infrastructure planning.)