Soaring knowledge, why is there no high-speed rail in the United States?
The US "Washington Post" website recently published an article entitled "Why the United States will never have a high-speed rail", which is summarized as follows:
California likes to take the lead in the future of the state. In 2008, the state's voters determined that the high-speed rail is the future. In November of that year, they approved the issuance of $9 billion in bonds to launch one of the most ambitious government infrastructure projects in US history: a $33 billion bullet train connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles.
For years, optimists have hawked thousands of Californians to quickly, comfortably and environmentally consciously travel between the two main population centers of the state. At the same time, pessimists are cold-eyed about rising expected costs. According to the latest statistics, the budget has exceeded $75 billion, and everyone can see that it is still rising.
Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom called on the state to reduce the project to a lower-cost railroad that crossed the Central Valley when it first published its State of the Union address on February 12. California voters can no longer carry their wallets. But voters in other places should pay close attention, because what happened in California reflects the dangers of any rail project in the United States and even any project that attempts to rebuild the US infrastructure.
1, distance
In other parts of the world, the distance between major population centers is much closer. The proximity of big cities is almost a prerequisite for the construction of high-speed rail. This is why they have high-speed rail and we don't. Imagine the cost of building a railroad from New York to Los Angeles – or to Chicago, Houston or Phoenix.
2, wealth
Of course, there are indeed several urban agglomerations in the United States that seem to have the conditions to build a railway. But we didn't build high-speed rail between these cities, but we had an express train. It took eight hours from Washington to Boston, and it was like a sand hammer. Why didn't we build something better? Because the real high-speed rail needs a straight route: you don't want to make a sharp turn at 300 mph.
Building a newer, better, and more straight railway line requires the government to buy all the land between the land and the land, and to dismantle everything that happens to be blocked. Because we are very, very rich, there is no longer a farmland between A and B. There are a lot of high-value real estate, which is very expensive to buy.
- Legal proceduralism
For historical reasons, the US legal system provides citizens with a veto point that is unique and can be used to obstruct government projects. As a result, any infrastructure project that is larger than a painted school building has to compete for results through years of evaluation and court litigation, or spend money to buy opponents, or more likely to do both.
4, the cost
The cost of building a US infrastructure project is much higher than anywhere else. The rightists like to blame the union; the "leftist" likes to blame consultants who are overpriced. But they are all arguing about symptoms rather than sticking to them.
California has thoroughly demonstrated all of these conditions. The part of the railway built at a lower cost is not close to where people live, but through a central valley with a lower land price and a relatively small lobbying group. The really useful part of this route – the end point – heralds endless legal and political challenges and huge costs. The two destinations are 400 miles apart - it's too far away to connect. (Source: Reference News)