From my perspective infrastructure is politically driven in the US. Projects are debated for decades, over this time changes are made to placate some groups and buy the support from other groups, and create jobs for some politician, until it baloons into something that is many billions of dollars. Then it is built as a one off mega project. At this point it should be killed but this is seen as the only way to get stuff done.
Things like CAHSR instead of agreeing on a goal and deciding we should have a CA-wide rail system, so then establish a division of Caltrans which we fund to incrementally build/acquire/run a network through ROW acquisition, running DMUs on the routes in the mean time, making it compatible with existing systems, etc. instead becomes one giant $60b acquisition that is master planned for a multi decade time frame to be built almost entirely as a stand alone system the benefits of which can't really be enjoyed until decades in the future.
Admittedly, that belief was driven by the repercussions of failed bets on the future. Just look at pension contributions and retirement returns from the 60s to the 80s.
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}.
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.)
Things like CAHSR instead of agreeing on a goal and deciding we should have a CA-wide rail system, so then establish a division of Caltrans which we fund to incrementally build/acquire/run a network through ROW acquisition, running DMUs on the routes in the mean time, making it compatible with existing systems, etc. instead becomes one giant $60b acquisition that is master planned for a multi decade time frame to be built almost entirely as a stand alone system the benefits of which can't really be enjoyed until decades in the future.