There are a number of factors that I think are interrelated (amongst others). It is worth noting that the first missionary presences in the Americas did follow the old practice of creating a liturgical local language: thus the missions and the works of the missionary saints in, for example, Alaska.
You rightly say that there has been little or no effort to create a liturgical English but I have to ask what is the cause of that not happening? Again it has been rightly pointed out that usually it was through the efforts of the jurisdiction that brought Orthodoxy into a region that Orthodoxy was translated into the “local” language. In most of the western world it seems to be the very non-canonical situation that exists with the many competing jurisdictions.
The arrival in the colonial regions of North America, however, was something different. Rather than arriving in a place that had no Christian language / vocabulary / worshipping tongue (vis-a-vis Christianity), the arrival of the Church in North America was met with various colonies that not only had a Christian religious English, but indeed formed a great deal of their cultural identity around it. The American colonies were populated by people of largely religious motivation. When Orthodox missionaries arrived, they faced something different than what had been experienced in most traditional missionary environments throughout history (and this is a fact not often enough considered when pondering the 'language question'): namely, there already was a Christianity in the region, but not Orthodox Christianity; and there already was language used to speak of the Christian God, but not in an Orthodox context or framework. This was a radically different situation than, for example, Sts Cyril and Methodius creating a language for Orthodox worship amongst a people who had never had a Christian background and did not have a language of Christian reference -- and again, this is something almost never considered when speaking of language and Orthodox mission in the English-speaking world.
What did this mean? It meant that, in part, there was not the same perceived need for the creation of language in practical terms. There were already English versions of the Scriptures. There were terms that already referred to the Christian God. There was a tradition of prayerful language, of liturgical language (largely imported from England) -- and at that stage in the development of English, there was still a much stronger sense of this. Such things could be employed, taken up, used -- and so they were.
However, the source of these 'ready-made' alternatives to a specifically created Orthodox liturgical English, was in a religious culture that was far removed from Orthodoxy. The Scriptural translations, for all that might commend them in some regards, were largely the fruits of reformation-inspired ideologies of the sacred word and its accessibility; religious language reflected the piety of the age and mentality, and so on. So what was being taken up for Orthodox usage was actually a language rooted in religious visions and practices quite foreign to an Orthodox approach.
This became more obvious as the decades and centuries progressed, for the ideology that had produced the English of that age was one of reform, of independent intellectual assent, of conceptions of understandability, accessibility, scholarly focus, etc., that meant it would naturally ever be changing as those understandings developed and changed themselves. In a mindset where scholarly focus is the key to a good text, it is only to be understood that changing scholarly understandings and academic discoveries would require changed ('improved', 'clarified', 'more accurate') texts. In a mindset where essentially Protestant ideals of prayer and worship reflect a vernacular mentality, it is only to be understood that language and texts would require to be changed as the vernacular changed; etc.
The result of this was that the language being used by the Orthodox Church began to be more and more divorced from a language that actually reflects the Church's vision and understanding -- of language, of theology, of beauty, of worship. An example of this might be the fact that of the modern translations into English of the Holy Scriptures, there is really not one that could be called suitably Orthodox in anything but a sense of express oikonomia. It is also visible in the multiple understandings of Christian English language today, of the multiple versions of it, with multiple vocabularies, grammatical approaches, styles, etc.
I say all this by way of suggesting that it really isn't a question that has, at its root, the question of differing jurisdictional approaches within Orthodoxy in the English speaking world. Of course, the problem has been much compounded by this; and today it is a great hindrance in trying to move forward.
INXC, Hieromonk Irenei