Latest news with #HSRA
News18
12-08-2025
- Politics
- News18
Independence Day 2025: Essay Writing Tips And Ideas For 15th August School Competition
Independence Day essay writing: Get inspired this I-Day with essay writing tips and topics for students. Explore India's freedom journey, heroes, and patriotic themes for 15 August Independence Day essay writing tips for students: On the 79th Independence Day, schools across India will be organising cultural programs and dance performances to celebrate the patriotic fervour felt by citizens and create awareness among young minds about India's great freedom struggle. While the traditional pre-Independence Day function remains a common form of 15th August celebrations in schools, many educational institutes also arrange essay competitions for students to take part in. Through these competitions, students learn about our freedom fighters and how the democratic and secular country we live in today came to be despite 200 years of British dominance. Here are some of the tips and essay ideas that students can follow and give their best shot at winning their school prize for Independence Day. An essay detailing how the British colonial rule began in the mid-18th century and expanded aggressively through the East India Company before it was first challenged by the Revolt of 1857. Figures like Bahadur Shah Zafar, Rani Lakshmi Bai and Mangal Pandey fought with bravery against the British army and awakened the nationalist sentiment against the white narcissists, laying the foundation for the freedom struggle. Writing on Freedom Fighters While unsuccessful, the Revolt of 1857 laid the groundwork for civil resistance led by several of our political leaders and revolutionaries. Students can write an essay on how Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) leaders such as Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad gave the British a taste of their own medicine by opting for violence to protect the rights of the citizens from unlawful practices. They may also focus on the peaceful civil resistance movements led by Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, including the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920), Salt March (1930) and Quit India Movement (1942). Students are also advised to learn and write about Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, among other leaders, to truly expand their understanding of the freedom struggle and underline how youth can take inspiration and take part in the national welfare today. Role of Women In the Independence Struggle The brave women of India were not behind and fought for the country's Independence with equal courage. Students can write an essay on how the journey and bravery of Rani Lakshmi Bai during the 1857 Revolt inspired women across the country to take part in the freedom movement. Whether it is Sarojini Naidu, who broke stereotypes as a poet, speaker, and political leader, or Kasturba Gandhi for her participation in civil disobedience movements alongside her husband. Students can also write about Aruna Asaf Ali for fearlessly leading protests and becoming a national icon during the Quit India Movement. About the Author Nibandh Vinod Nibandh Vinod is a seasoned journalist with 26 years of experience, specializing in covering events, festivals, and driving SEO content for A tech-savvy person, Nibandh works closely with a young More Stay updated with the latest education! Get real-time updates on board exam results 2025, entrance exams such as JEE Mains, Advanced, NEET, and more. Find out top schools, colleges, courses and more. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Mint
06-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Mint
Why writer Yashpal's feminism provokes thought 50 years on
The plot of Dada Comrade, the Hindi communist writer Yashpal's (1903-76) debut novel (originally published in 1941), was informed by the events of his own tumultuous youth. As an idealistic young student in Punjab in the 1920s, Yashpal joined the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) alongside revolutionaries like Chandrashekhar Azad and Bhagat Singh. Some of his colleagues, however, did not appreciate the young Yashpal's romance with the 16-year-old Prakashvati Pal (later his wife) because they viewed marriage and domesticity as obstacles in the road to revolution. After a group of HSRA members unsuccessfully attempted to assassinate Yashpal in 1930, the organisation was torn asunder and never really reunited, mirroring the rift between Yashpal and Azad. These events are fictionalised to varying degrees in the book, and the female lead Shailbala is based on aspects of Prakashvati. In the introduction to her 2022 English translation of Dada Comrade, scholar Simona Sawhney had written, 'Today, many readers may question the ways in which Yashpal conceived of equality, revolution and gender. Yashpal's feminism, for instance, is not the same as mine, but that does not prevent me from recognizing it as a feminism: a discourse that wrestled, in its own way, with questions of gender, sexuality, power and equality." Sawhney's introduction sought to contextualise Yashpal's unique and complex engagement with gender politics. This endeavour is more fully realised in the recently released essay collection, Yashpal: On Gender and Revolutionary Thought, published by Orient BlackSwan and edited by Sawhney alongside Kama McLean. The 17 essays collected here are based on some of Yashpal's best-known works: novels like Divya (1945), Gita (1946), Manushya Ke Roop (1949), short stories like Holi Ka Mazaak ('The Holi Joke') and Tumne Kyun Kaha Main Sundar Hoon? ('Why Did You Say I Am Beautiful?'), as well as landmark essays from the journal Viplav, which the writer founded in the 1940s. Three different essays, of course, are devoted to his magnum opus Jhootha Sach, a novel published in two parts in Hindi over 1958-60, and translated into English as a single, 1,100-page novel by his son Anand under the name This is Not That Dawn in 2010. What makes Yashpal such a compelling subject of study from both literary and the historiographic points of view? (Sawhney and McLean, after all, are professors of literature and history, respectively.) For one, he was one of the rare male Indian writers of his era—and this is doubly true for Hindi literature—who not only centred women's stories, but through dark humour and satirical techniques, exposed the collective complicity of Indian society in the oppression of women. Set in the 1st century BCE, Divya follows a high-born woman who decides to become a prostitute after realising that she is living in a gilded cage and that, in several meaningful ways, the courtesans and prostitutes of the era have more agency than her. This is Not That Dawn begins on the following tragicomic note, where a pair of daughters-in-law are trying their level best to 'perform" grief to the satisfaction of the men around them. 'Both daughters-in-law were present when the old woman breathed her last. The elder told the younger to announce the death of their mother-in-law with a scream of unbearable pain, mindful of the ritual at the hour of terrible grief. The younger one was at such a loss that she could not do this right. To observe the tradition properly, the elder went to the window herself and cried out in the required loud, heart-rending voice, as an eagle might cry in agony when pierced with an arrow." Second, as some of the essays in On Gender and Revolutionary Thought prove, Yashpal's engagement with gender issues was also reflective of the way his overall politics evolved with time. Xiaoke Ren, in his essay Narrative Critique of the Congress Rule in Yashpal's 'Jhootha Sach', shows us how the writer's caricatures of self-centered, predatory politicians use gender relations to underline Yashpal's views on power and its corrupting influence. In Jhootha Sach, the protagonist Tara Puri, a Partition refugee and rape survivor from Lahore now building a new life in Delhi, is crudely propositioned by a politician who promises her that he can get her a job working in the movies—suggesting, additionally, that Punjabi women ('free with their bodies") like herself have done very well in that industry. The implications about both Tara, in particular, and Punjabi women, in general, are painfully clear. A bittersweet and touching portrayal of Yashpal and Prakashvati's marriage is provided by their son Anand in Yashpal, My Father, which is the last entry in the book. Francesca Orsini, in her essay On Her Own Terms: Viplav, Women and Prakashvati Pal, describes how Prakashvati charted her own intellectual path through essays in the journal Viplav. Orsini's entry is particularly interesting because Dada Comrade, the female lead Shailbala isn't really allowed by Yashpal to develop revolutionary strands of thought by herself—both her romantic and political awakenings follow the lead of her beloved, Harish (based on Yashpal himself). My favourite essay in the collection, however, is Punjabi Refugee Women in Urban Spaces in 'Jhootha Sach' by Ritu Madan, because it looks at the bigger picture presented by Yashpal's portrayals of Punjabi female refugees in 1950s Delhi. We see how they are viewed with suspicion initially. Many of them are unfamiliar with the gendered social mores of Delhi, especially in terms of what to wear at which place, which lanes are to be avoided after dark, et cetera. But once a section of educated, driven refugees manage to place themselves in 'respectable", often English-speaking jobs, their 'foreign" bodies (alluring and a-threat-to-the-social-fabric in equal measure) acquire the blunting, assimilatory edge of the white collar. These women, then, have a hand in shaping the very foundation of Delhi's modernity, a modernity that gives them a place in society, but under strictly demarcated terms. Madan writes, 'As Delhi is transformed in the novel from refugee city to capital city by the labour of the Partition migrants who settle into new homes and occupations, Punjabi migrant women become increasingly invisible in the city. By discipling their bodies into 'normative femininity', they forfeit unconditional access to public space, and inhabit it purposefully, for education, employment or shopping. As they occupy the city with their disciplined bodies, waiting at bus stops in their clean and starched saris to reach places of work where they labour honestly (…), these Punjabi women redefine the city as the modern and developing capital of a new country." The emphasis on educated, upper-caste characters in Yashpal's corpus, however, is also the key to understanding the limitations of his feminism. As Sawhney explains in her own essay (which opens the book), upper-caste protagonists like Tara from Jhootha Sach encounter two kinds of supporting characters quite often—the oppressed lower-caste woman who is usually a peer, and the bitter, long-suffering woman who's usually from a generation above. Both these recurring 'types" in Yashpal's fiction are flat, unconvincing portrayals because they seem to exist only to further the education of the young, educated, idealistic upper-caste protagonist. 'If education is the single most important factor shared by the women protagonists of Yashpal's novels, it is also what sets them apart from other women, including their own mothers and aunts who are never able to provide guidance or support to these young women," as she argues. Aditya Mani Jha is a writer based in Delhi.
The Guardian
01-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Australian high-speed rail has barely left the station – some experts say a new US project shows a better way
Progress has been slow on the proposed high-speed rail line between Sydney and Newcastle since the establishment of the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) in 2023, and the federal government is yet to commit to building the megaproject. But some experts say there may be a cheaper and easier way to do it, pointing to a US example of what can be achieved. The Newcastle-Sydney high-speed rail line is estimated to cost at least $30bn and take well over a decade to build. The HSRA has spent its infancy developing yet another business case, starting with Sydney-Newcastle, to ultimately form part of a Melbourne-Brisbane line in the second half of this century. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Geotechnical drilling has begun to determine how to tackle the mammoth task of traversing the Hawkesbury River with services that can reach a top speed of 320km/h. Meanwhile, Infrastructure Australia is evaluating its business case and will shortly make a recommendation. By contrast, a longer line linking the eastern outskirts of Los Angeles with Las Vegas at similar speeds is being built for a fraction of the cost and time. The private-led Brightline West represents an approach that is in many ways the polar opposite of how Labor is pursuing the technology in Australia, experts say. With construction estimates soaring, experts are now questioning if Australia is letting perfect be the enemy of good and risking a cost blowout that would crush the chance of the line ever being built. The HSRA plans to establish a service between central Sydney and Newcastle's Broadmeadow, running end-to-end in an hour, with a stop at Gosford. The journey on the existing Newcastle-Sydney line takes about 2.5 hours, almost half an hour longer than an express service achieved in the mid-20th century. The HSRA chief executive, Tim Parker, wants to build dedicated dual tracks so that high-speed trains won't have to interact with slower trains, a contrasting approach to how high-speed rail expanded in most countries. Spain's high-speed train, for example, shares sections of track with slower services. While it must slow down in certain sections, this philosophy presents an opportunity to roll out fast train technology in stages and more cheaply. Not only is building a dedicated line more expensive, the Sydney-Newcastle corridor will require an engineering feat to construct what would be the world's longest rail tunnel to allow trains to cross the Hawkesbury River without compromising speed. 'They've picked a starting stretch that is the hardest and most expensive part of the entire east coast,' says Garry Glazebrook, an associate professor at the University of Technology Sydney. The business case has not yet been made public, but the price tag is expected to be eye-watering. Modelling for the New South Wales government's 2019 plan to build a line without federal help reportedly predicted it would cost about $30bn and take 12 years to build just the first stage from Gosford through the Hawkesbury to a station at Sydney Olympic Park – a cheaper option than Central. The costs proved too great. The then Perrottet government abandoned the plan at the end of 2022. Brightline West broke ground in April 2024. Despite covering a 315km point-to-point distance – nearly three times as long as Newcastle-Sydney – construction is expected to be completed swiftly, with services for the 2hr 10min trip to be operating in time for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. The project's most up-to-date budget is US$12.5bn (about A$19.5bn), already overrun from a 2020 estimate of US$8bn, but still a fraction of the cost of the Australian proposal. Brightline West – owned by Fortress Investment Group – is funded by a mix of equity, private finance, federal government grants and California and Nevada state-issued tax-exempt bonds for private ventures in the public interest. It is entirely unrelated to the California state government's plan for an LA-San Francisco line, which has been held up as an example of disastrous infrastructure projects in the US. Approved in 2008, no track has yet been laid and cost estimates have more than tripled to US$128bn. Donald Trump has vowed to block federal funds previously promised to the LA-San Francisco project, but administration officials appear satisfied with Biden-era commitments to the Brightline model. Those costs and timeframe may appear ambitious, but Brightline has already established a Miami-Orlando line that reaches 200km/h – just shy of the high-speed definition. The first section, between Miami and West Palm Beach, broke ground in 2014 and was in service by 2018. Brightline West's impressive price tag and timeframe are only achievable through several compromises. Most of the line will initially run along a single track with passing loops , reducing speed accordingly. It will also share its corridor with the Interstate 15 Highway. The track will be built down the I-15's median strip, with trains travelling alongside road traffic, similar to a number of existing rail lines in Perth. This delivers serious savings. Building just one track is cheaper, and land acquisition and permissions are streamlined. Perhaps the greatest compromise is that Brightline West will terminate in Rancho Cucamonga, on the eastern outskirts of LA. While avoiding costly construction in built-up urban areas, passengers will need to connect to existing, slower rail to make the 67km journey to Union station in the heart of the city's downtown. Building anything in Australia is expensive, and rail even more so. Alon Levy is the co-lead of the transportation and land use program at New York University's Marron Institute, and researches why construction costs differ between countries. He believes Newcastle-Sydney already has unnecessary costs baked in thanks to overly prescriptive demands from government. 'It's a foolish requirement this early on to not share any tracks with commuter lines,' Levy says. 'You leave less space for the experts to find cheaper workarounds and drive innovation.' Australia's rail industry is another problem, Levy believes. Australian governments rely heavily on consultants for infrastructure planning, a symptom of the hollowing out of departments of expertise. 'This problem is common in Anglosphere governments,' Levy says. They bring in outside consultants who work on one thing then disband and the expertise vanishes.' Levy believes an Australian government – either the commonwealth or NSW – should establish a 'public sector consultant unit' for rail expertise, which it can then provide to other states to work on their projects at cost, a model successfully proven in France and Italy. The profit motive of companies such as Brightline can also bring down costs by pushing the limits of what is possible. 'They go out to the market and challenge their suppliers … to push the technical limits, so trains can move through difficult stretches and save the company from spending billions moving dirt around,' one rail source who requested anonymity says. 'But in Australia, governments want already proven technology, they want a safer bet that is future-proofed, and that often means being overengineered and double the cost necessary. It's always got to be the gold standard.' Rail unions also increase construction and operating costs. 'Unions have enormous say, it's just the way we work in Australia,' Glazebrook says. Union pressure is broadly seen as having pushed NSW to build new metro tracks for driverless trains with a private operator. A separate rail source, unable to be named due to their work, said the new metro extension under Sydney harbour could not have been built had it been subject to existing Sydney Trains union agreements, due to the line's gradient. Herein lies a catch-22, Glazebrook says. By adopting the proven European approach – staged building using existing tracks already subject to union agreements – construction and operation are beholden to stringent standards that increase the cost and timeframes of projects. Building dedicated tracks is a way to bypass such pressures and can allow for the automation of driving and fewer staffing requirements, saving money on operations once the line is running. But construction costs will soar. 'You throw everything together and you get a real bloody mess,' Glazebrook says. Experts are now questioning if Newcastle-Sydney is the smartest place to start. Glazebrook still backs the proposal put by his group, Fastrack Australia, for the HSRA to begin by upgrading the Sydney-Canberra line in stages to high-speed capability. Its easier terrain makes it lower-hanging fruit, even if trains don't run along the Federal Highway's median strip. Others say Canberra-Sydney more closely resembles the value proposition of Brightline West – the potential to capture market share where air or car trips have dominated. Taxpayers currently foot the huge travel bill of bureaucrats and politicians flying between Canberra and Sydney. The existing train service takes about four and a half hours – a 90-minute high-speed alternative could attract that business to rail instead. The existing Newcastle-Sydney service – ticketed at $11 – takes only an hour and a half longer than the proposed high-speed trip. While local rail experts are not proposing to copy Brightline's model exactly, most agree there are attitudes worth adopting to avoid Australia's high-speed rail ambition being shelved. 'We don't want to let perfect be the enemy of the good,' Glazebrook says.
Miami Herald
13-05-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Why Is US High-Speed Rail Taking So Long?
High-speed rail has been touted as one of the top priorities by many politicians in the U.S., but despite almost two decades of talk, the country's top projects are barely taking off. In the past 20 years, in which countries like China have laid more than 25,000 miles of high-speed rail track, the top U.S. projects have barely gotten started, causing the technology's top proponents to ask the big question: What's taking so long? The largest high-speed rail project being worked on is in California, where 500 miles of track are planned to connect San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego. Originally approved by voters in 2008, the project is only ready to start laying track this year, after costs spiraled from $40 billion to as high as $128 billion. The smaller-scale Texas high-speed rail project, which would connect Dallas with Houston over 240 miles, was first proposed in the 2000s but has yet to break ground, despite partnerships with investors from Japan who have a proven track record with bullet trains. On their current timelines, neither project is set to become fully operational before 2030, meaning from beginning to end, their planning and construction will take more than two decades, assuming there are no further delays. One of the biggest barriers the projects face is political opposition. Infrastructure projects are costly, take a long time to yield any benefit, and the nature of high-speed rail means that a lot of stakeholders in a variety of locations need to be on board. In the U.S., that consensus does not exist. The California high-speed rail system has faced repeated attempts from local legislators to shut it down, with many California Republicans fearing that the project is a money pit with no end. As recently as this February, state legislators have called on Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump to put a stop to the project, with an open letter condemning high-speed rail reading: "Promised to be completed by 2020 with a price tag of $34 billion, HSRA's projected budget ballooned to over $128 billion. "Voters were told that more than 20 percent of the project would be privately funded. Instead, taxpayers face the reality of single-handedly funding massively inflated costs for a project that many will never use or see completed. By all metrics, the High-Speed Rail is a colossal failure." Texas' project faces a similar issue, with the state Legislature having misgivings over the transparency of Texas Central Rail, the company spearheading the Houston-Dallas line. In April, the state's transportation committee held multiple meetings on the project's finances while the wider Legislature debated whether or not funding should be revoked. On top of that, the projects have to deal with the position of the federal government, which, for the last eight years, has see-sawed between support and hostility. During his first administration, Trump branded high-speed rail as a "green disaster" and a "waste" and demanded that California return $3.5 billion in federal funding allocated for its project. The Biden administration reversed the approach in 2020, only for Trump to then reverse it back this year, cutting off all future federal funding and prompting Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to initiate a review into whether the project complied with funding requirements. The impact of the legislative hurdles is being felt at the construction site. "The [California] project has faced many challenges, including right-of-way acquisition, pre-construction activities like third party agreements to relocate utilities in the system's path, various permitting requirements under state and federal law, time consuming and redundant state and federal environmental review processes, legal challenges related to those reviews, and a lack of full project funding which has resulted in costly delays and inefficient delivery," a spokesperson for the California High-Speed Rail Authority told Newsweek. "The Authority has taken measures to mitigate schedule related to right-of-way acquisition based on lessons learned, including staged delivery process where major construction begins only after right-of-way has been acquired." One of the other biggest delays facing U.S. high-speed rail is the very ground it's being built on. Before shovels can even touch the soil, landowners, environmental agencies and local authorities need to be consulted and convinced that the project can go ahead, and for such long-term and complex constructions, that can be a tough sell. "High-speed rail is extraordinarily complicated to engineer for and severely disrupts the terrain upon which it operates," John Sitilides, a federal affairs adviser to ReRoute the Route, the business and civic coalition opposing the current Texas project model, told Newsweek. "It has a profoundly detrimental effect on the environment and as such often requires a dense and lengthy federal regulatory NEPA review to protect the public. "Also, private project backers often try to value-engineer the route and project to save money, even when this approach may not result in the best outcome for transportation users, the environment, landowners or the general public. This cheap approach will often receive needed pushback from governing authorities, landowners, and other affected parties in the form of lawsuits and required changes. For example, the original backers of the proposed Texas project chose what they thought was the cheapest route to construct on, even though it did not best serve the public or advance the goal of transporting people efficiently and cost-effectively." For property owners along the route of any proposed rail network, their relationship with the construction project becomes antagonistic, as legislators are able to prevent private development in areas that the trains might need to pass through. In response, landowners dig in their heels and drag out the process as long as possible. "High-speed rail destroys property, period," Sitilides said. "The only properties that benefit are terminal sites. Every other property is irreparably harmed by being bisected or severely impacted with no cross access. "Landowners who receive no benefit resist these takings of their property by inept project planners who have no clear path to financing their project, yet can thwart or prevent the use and development of private lands by landowners along the route for many years, as has occurred in Texas since 2015 with no end in sight. "Publishing a proposed 'route' harms property values along or adjacent to that route for hundreds of miles, whether in California or in Texas, even if the project ultimately is never built. It is similar to an inverse condemnation or a taking without an actual taking. "There will be natural resistance from landowners, taxpayers, and the general public in such scenarios that government bureaucrats easily neglect or dismiss, much to their eventual dismay and consternation." Despite the setbacks, the California and Texas projects maintain an optimistic outlook. "California's high-speed rail program continues to deliver on its promise to build a fully electrified, high-speed rail system between the Bay Area and Los Angeles-creating jobs and economic opportunity, supporting housing affordability, and laying the foundation for a modern, connected transportation network that serves all Californians," a spokesperson for the authority told Newsweek. Texas' project struck a similar tone when approached by Newsweek, thanking the first Trump administration for its original approval. A Texas Central spokesperson said: "No other state can match Texas' healthy, 'can-do' business environment-or better understands how to meet the needs of its people. The first Trump Administration gave this project the greenlight and, unfortunately, it got hung up in Biden Administration politics. "We're proud to once again be moving forward under President Trump," the spokesperson said. "Texas Central is shovel-ready. The project will improve mobility and safety for Texans, create significant new jobs, and accelerate economic growth in the Lone Star State." For both projects, construction is only just beginning, and the political opposition isn't going anywhere. Related Articles How California's High-Speed Rail Progress Compares To TexasGavin Newsom Attacks Trump Over High-Speed Rail Threat: 'Reckless'California High-Speed Rail Hits New MilestoneCalifornia High-Speed Rail Reaches 'Momentous Milestone' 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Newsweek
13-05-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Why Is US High-Speed Rail Taking So Long?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. High-speed rail has been touted as one of the top priorities by many politicians in the U.S., but despite almost two decades of talk, the country's top projects are barely taking off. In the past 20 years, in which countries like China have laid more than 25,000 miles of high-speed rail track, the top U.S. projects have barely gotten started, causing the technology's top proponents to ask the big question: What's taking so long? All Aboard In America The largest high-speed rail project being worked on is in California, where 500 miles of track are planned to connect San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego. Originally approved by voters in 2008, the project is only ready to start laying track this year, after costs spiraled from $40 billion to as high as $128 billion. The smaller-scale Texas high-speed rail project, which would connect Dallas with Houston over 240 miles, was first proposed in the 2000s but has yet to break ground, despite partnerships with investors from Japan who have a proven track record with bullet trains. On their current timelines, neither project is set to become fully operational before 2030, meaning from beginning to end, their planning and construction will take more than two decades, assuming there are no further delays. Federal And Local Opposition One of the biggest barriers the projects face is political opposition. Infrastructure projects are costly, take a long time to yield any benefit, and the nature of high-speed rail means that a lot of stakeholders in a variety of locations need to be on board. In the U.S., that consensus does not exist. The California high-speed rail system has faced repeated attempts from local legislators to shut it down, with many California Republicans fearing that the project is a money pit with no end. As recently as this February, state legislators have called on Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump to put a stop to the project, with an open letter condemning high-speed rail reading: "Promised to be completed by 2020 with a price tag of $34 billion, HSRA's projected budget ballooned to over $128 billion. "Voters were told that more than 20 percent of the project would be privately funded. Instead, taxpayers face the reality of single-handedly funding massively inflated costs for a project that many will never use or see completed. By all metrics, the High-Speed Rail is a colossal failure." A map of the Houston-Dallas high-speed rail system, designed by Texas Central. A map of the Houston-Dallas high-speed rail system, designed by Texas Central. Texas Central Texas' project faces a similar issue, with the state Legislature having misgivings over the transparency of Texas Central Rail, the company spearheading the Houston-Dallas line. In April, the state's transportation committee held multiple meetings on the project's finances while the wider Legislature debated whether or not funding should be revoked. On top of that, the projects have to deal with the position of the federal government, which, for the last eight years, has see-sawed between support and hostility. During his first administration, Trump branded high-speed rail as a "green disaster" and a "waste" and demanded that California return $3.5 billion in federal funding allocated for its project. The Biden administration reversed the approach in 2020, only for Trump to then reverse it back this year, cutting off all future federal funding and prompting Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to initiate a review into whether the project complied with funding requirements. The impact of the legislative hurdles is being felt at the construction site. Why Is U.S High-Speed Rail Taking So Long? Why Is U.S High-Speed Rail Taking So Long? Newsweek illustration/ Getty Images "The [California] project has faced many challenges, including right-of-way acquisition, pre-construction activities like third party agreements to relocate utilities in the system's path, various permitting requirements under state and federal law, time consuming and redundant state and federal environmental review processes, legal challenges related to those reviews, and a lack of full project funding which has resulted in costly delays and inefficient delivery," a spokesperson for the California High-Speed Rail Authority told Newsweek. "The Authority has taken measures to mitigate schedule related to right-of-way acquisition based on lessons learned, including staged delivery process where major construction begins only after right-of-way has been acquired." The Lay Of The Land One of the other biggest delays facing U.S. high-speed rail is the very ground it's being built on. Before shovels can even touch the soil, landowners, environmental agencies and local authorities need to be consulted and convinced that the project can go ahead, and for such long-term and complex constructions, that can be a tough sell. "High-speed rail is extraordinarily complicated to engineer for and severely disrupts the terrain upon which it operates," John Sitilides, a federal affairs adviser to ReRoute the Route, the business and civic coalition opposing the current Texas project model, told Newsweek. "It has a profoundly detrimental effect on the environment and as such often requires a dense and lengthy federal regulatory NEPA review to protect the public. "Also, private project backers often try to value-engineer the route and project to save money, even when this approach may not result in the best outcome for transportation users, the environment, landowners or the general public. This cheap approach will often receive needed pushback from governing authorities, landowners, and other affected parties in the form of lawsuits and required changes. For example, the original backers of the proposed Texas project chose what they thought was the cheapest route to construct on, even though it did not best serve the public or advance the goal of transporting people efficiently and cost-effectively." For property owners along the route of any proposed rail network, their relationship with the construction project becomes antagonistic, as legislators are able to prevent private development in areas that the trains might need to pass through. In response, landowners dig in their heels and drag out the process as long as possible. A map showing California's proposed high-speed rail network from February 2021. The initial operating segment, between Merced and Bakersfield, is expected to begin services between 2030 and 2033. A map showing California's proposed high-speed rail network from February 2021. The initial operating segment, between Merced and Bakersfield, is expected to begin services between 2030 and 2033. California High Speed Rail Authority "High-speed rail destroys property, period," Sitilides said. "The only properties that benefit are terminal sites. Every other property is irreparably harmed by being bisected or severely impacted with no cross access. "Landowners who receive no benefit resist these takings of their property by inept project planners who have no clear path to financing their project, yet can thwart or prevent the use and development of private lands by landowners along the route for many years, as has occurred in Texas since 2015 with no end in sight. "Publishing a proposed 'route' harms property values along or adjacent to that route for hundreds of miles, whether in California or in Texas, even if the project ultimately is never built. It is similar to an inverse condemnation or a taking without an actual taking. "There will be natural resistance from landowners, taxpayers, and the general public in such scenarios that government bureaucrats easily neglect or dismiss, much to their eventual dismay and consternation." Future Of U.S. High-Speed Rail Despite the setbacks, the California and Texas projects maintain an optimistic outlook. "California's high-speed rail program continues to deliver on its promise to build a fully electrified, high-speed rail system between the Bay Area and Los Angeles—creating jobs and economic opportunity, supporting housing affordability, and laying the foundation for a modern, connected transportation network that serves all Californians," a spokesperson for the authority told Newsweek. Texas' project struck a similar tone when approached by Newsweek, thanking the first Trump administration for its original approval. A Texas Central spokesperson said: "No other state can match Texas' healthy, 'can-do' business environment—or better understands how to meet the needs of its people. The first Trump Administration gave this project the greenlight and, unfortunately, it got hung up in Biden Administration politics. "We're proud to once again be moving forward under President Trump," the spokesperson said. "Texas Central is shovel-ready. The project will improve mobility and safety for Texans, create significant new jobs, and accelerate economic growth in the Lone Star State." For both projects, construction is only just beginning, and the political opposition isn't going anywhere.
