Интегрированное письмо TOEFL

📖 Текст для чтения

The introduction of high-speed rail (HSR) systems in the United States has been a topic of debate for decades. Proponents argue that HSR would bring significant economic, environmental, and social benefits. First, HSR would stimulate economic growth by creating jobs during construction and operation, and by boosting tourism and business travel between connected cities. For example, the construction of the California HSR project is projected to create over 100,000 jobs, and similar projects in Europe and Asia have shown that HSR corridors increase local business activity. Second, HSR is environmentally friendly because it reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to cars and airplanes. A study by the International Energy Agency suggests that HSR emits about 30 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometer, whereas cars emit about 120 grams and airplanes about 150 grams. Thus, shifting passengers from these modes to HSR would help combat climate change. Third, HSR would alleviate congestion on highways and at airports, leading to shorter travel times and reduced delays. By providing a fast and reliable alternative, HSR could attract passengers who currently drive or fly, thereby reducing traffic jams and the need for expensive airport expansions. These three benefits—economic growth, environmental protection, and congestion relief—make a compelling case for investing in HSR in the U.S.

🎧 Лекция

The points in the reading about high-speed rail are overly optimistic and ignore critical drawbacks. First, while HSR does create jobs, these are often temporary and concentrated in the construction phase. Once built, operational jobs are relatively few, and the long-term economic benefits are uncertain. For instance, the much-touted job numbers from California's project are speculative and have been revised downward over time. Moreover, HSR can actually harm local economies by drawing business away from smaller towns and concentrating activity in major hubs, which is not a net gain. Second, the environmental argument is flawed when considering the full life cycle. Constructing HSR requires massive amounts of concrete and steel, which produce enormous emissions during manufacturing and installation. A comprehensive life-cycle assessment from the University of California found that HSR construction emissions can offset any operational savings for decades. Additionally, if HSR is not powered by renewable energy, as is often the case, its emissions may be comparable to modern cars. Third, the congestion-relief claim is exaggerated. HSR only helps on specific corridors, but it does little to reduce overall highway congestion because many trips are not between city centers—they are suburban to suburban or short distance. Furthermore, airport congestion is not significantly reduced because HSR competes mainly with short-haul flights, which account for a small fraction of airport traffic. In fact, the investment in HSR might divert funds from more effective solutions like improving bus networks or expanding existing rail systems.