I really don't get what you think "infrastructure" is or why, with all the good things about alternative energy use out there you're harping on this particular point -- that switching to electric cars wouldn't "require new infrastructure" -- but at least here in California, if you switched a significant number of gas cars to electric ones, you'd immediately see the need for "new infrastructure" in the guise of electric plants, because we're already on the hairy edge of not having enough.
Unless less what you mean is "electric filling stations" which completely ignores all of the "infrastructure" required to make an additional amount available and the "infrastructure" required to make things like time-of-day pricing available to consumers.
And of course there's that nasty little problem of utility companies who have refused to provide power on uneconomic terms: what will PG&E do when a significant number of consumers change their energy consumption patterns? No one knows.
You present your case as though only an idiot would have anything to say about your slam-dunk proposal. Well, color me an idiot then.
---
And I"m not even going to say anything about what kind of "infrastructure" would be required to provide "better than Euro-quality mass transit nationwide" . . .
/jordan