It does not include the entire set of legacy intercity lines the US should be running, but does include all lines that I believe should get through-service to high-speed lines but note that some lines, like Minneapolis-Duluth and Charleston-Greenville, do not have through-service. Some of these lines, namely Atlanta-New Orleans and the connection from Savannah to Jacksonville, should be legacy lines if HSR does not pan out others, like Kansas City-Oklahoma City, are unlikely to be worth it.īlue denotes legacy lines that are notable for the network. This means that I expect much lower social return on investment there, so whether these lines could succeed depends on the price of fuel, trends in urban sprawl, and construction costs within the normal first-world range. Yellow denotes high-speed lines as well, but they are more marginal (in the linked tweet this is purple, but yellow is friendlier to the colorblind).

The South is intermediate, due to the rolling terrain and extensive suburban sprawl in the Piedmont. The average speed would be around 225-250 km/h in the Northeast, where the routes are all compromised by existing infrastructure, and 300 km/h in the Midwest, where flat expanses and generous rail rights-of-way into the major cities should allow the same average speeds achieved in China. Red denotes high-speed lines, with a top speed in the 300-360 km/h range, not including the occasional enforced slow zone. I’d like to go over what the map means and address questions that have appeared on Twitter. Yesterday, I tweeted this proposal for a high-speed rail network for the eastern half of the United States:

High speed rail america