As other developed countries race ahead to build high speed rail networks, the U.S. is lagging painfully behind. The result here is now sprawling cities, crushing traffic, significant air pollution, and increased transportation expenses for Americans. But why are the outcomes so different in the U.S. than in the rest of the world?

CNBC produced an in-depth report (video above) to examine some of the reasons, based on interviews with me and UC Berkeley colleague and transportation scholar Robert Cervero, among others. The piece contains some classic 1950s corporate advertisements extolling the virtues of freeways and buses and some good coverage of the various lobbies keeping our infrastructure auto-dependent.

My only quibble is that the piece repeats the false notion that city rail networks in the U.S. were systematically dismantled as a conspiracy by auto interests. The actual picture, as I detail in my book Railtown on the history of the Los Angeles Metro Rail, is much more complicated than that: it points to voter disillusionment with rail networks, coupled with rapid consumer adoption of (and preference for) private automobiles back in those early days, as the main culprit.

Still, the report does a good job presenting the difficulties funding and building high speed rail in the U.S., and it ably describes what would need to happen if the U.S. were to commit to joining the rest of the developed world by building a first-class high speed rail network.