[sonnyblarney]

I think the answer is that we just have all sorts of different systems of governance, optimized for different things.

UK underground is ancient, it's part of the fabric of culture, the UK is the birthplace of real rail, maybe they just have a centralized org to pull that off. Maybe they have a historical entente with unions. Maybe for whatever reasons there's less graft. Maybe it's just not politicized. Maybe it's just a lot easier for 'right of way' - or there are ample underground facilities. Maybe they just make things smaller (ie stations) so it's easier.

I find these situations are very enlightening, because it doesn't boil down to a scrum vs. waterfall or static vs. reactive kind of thing ... it's just 'really complicated'.

It's also very frustrating obviously and makes one very cynical of all of the dopes in charge.

I would love to vote for a super competent non-populist city administrator who said 'these are the operational reforms I am going to make', i.e. a leader who's not actually a politician.

[retiredcoder]

I sort of believe that past a certain scale, a leader will have to be political to both get things done and maintain decision power. Even, if everyone agrees in one goal, which is impossible, the execution is rarely an easy division of labour.