Civilization only works because most people, most of the time, are civilized. And that's even counting the people stealing cables and pipes out of the walls for the scrap metal. Most people don't see any profit for themselves in random destruction, beyond maybe the immediate lulz. But in the never-ending battle between order and chaos, chaos has by far the easier victory conditions.
Newark Airport has been open since the 1920s; the monorail to the train station was only added in 2000. JFK opened in 1948 as Idlewild; the AirTrain connection to Jamaica only opened in 2003. The taxi and transport industry had lobbied against easy train connections from the early days. I compare and contrast with the European airports I have passed through incorporating train stations directly underneath the terminals.
One must also assume that since the new tracks will have to be totally new, they will have an excuse not to follow existing tracks into the old center city stations along highly expensive rights-of-way, but will instead stop at new stations outside of cities . . . maybe at airports, to take advantage of at least *some* infrastructure. This would be OK if there were better local connections, except in the US many airports have no connections to their cities; the three New York City area airports, for example, despite being in one of the best mass transit centers in the country, were never fully connected to the existing local commuter train lines. And bus service is laughable.
I'm convinced that most of the problems with US broadband aren't political. They're simply a result of the typical American just being a moron.
I think you're missing a connection here. It is precisely because of the second that the first is permitted to happen. The soi-disant "service providers" convince the political powers that they are doing the best for the price; the political powers don't have the technical knowledge to see through the lies; and the typical American, having even less knowledge, doesn't push his government to push the providers. (Besides, the few have convinced the many/morons that "standards" are a bad thing, rather than the only way to maintain interoperability.) (See also "The Marching Morons", Cyril Kornbluth, 1951)
Now, Do you also close the bathroom door when you are home by yourself, and know for certain that nobody is there to see? Again, I'll bet the answer is "Yes". Why? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE? Oh, right, you have nothing to hide, so why are you hiding? The guilty hide when none pursueth! How easy it is to infer guilt!
Now if only it were as easy for religious people to be tolerant of letting others be as they want to be, as I can be of them . . . It's all about whether one is imposing one's views on others (which, again, is what I agree with you about).
Maybe it's because I belong to a very minority religious denomination myself, and maybe because I'm not strident about it, but I just don't see baking a regular cake as causing a crisis of conscience, especially if it's your business (not a personal favor or a hobby). It's not like they were looking for a vulgar design or shape, just a normal (if colorful) tiered cake, right? That's not a religious icon worthy of protection.
I wonder if anyone would turn down an order for three birthday cakes . . . and some dowels . . .