Zoom in for precise route information and click on the lines for source references.
This map illustrates dozens of high speed rail projects under state government consideration today, some of which will soon receive funding from the stimulus bill.
The colors indicate the seriousness of planning for the corridors. Red lines represent projects that are partially funded or providing high-speed operation today; pink lines are under intensive state planning and likely to be among the first to receive stimulus funds; green lines are far off but not inconceivable; and blue lines are very unlikely to be built in the next few decades.
The term “high speed rail” tends to be used loosely in this country, but most of the corridors on the map would be incremental upgrades of existing track, increasing speeds to 110 mph. One notable exception is the proposed brand new connection between San Francisco and Los Angeles, which promises 220 mph trains and which received approval last November from the voters for a $10 billion bond release to begin construction.
Many of the projects fall within the approved high speed corridors laid out by the president last week (compare with with ten approved corridors on the map after the jump). But others–including lines linking Wichita to Albuquerque and Omaha to Chicago–do not.
(Also of possible interest: This recent chart comparing HSR projects around the world)
Yonah Freemark is an independent researcher currently working in France on comparative urban development as part of a Gordon Grand Fellowship from Yale University, from which he graduated in May 2008 with a BA in architecture. He writes about transportation and land use issues for The Transport Politic and The Infrastructurist.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
This is the best information I’ve seen compiled on where the true likely High speed rail projects will be in this country. Instead of looking at the government map of potential corridors, this user made map looks at how much local governments are committing to these projects. I think that the administration is much more in sync with the interests of local governments communicated on the user map for making funding decisions than they are with their official corridor map. Nice job. I’d love to see greater detail with proposed alignments for where the track would actually be improved.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Agreed, interesting map. Gets to the imagination and gets people thinking, “why there,” as well as “why-not there?” as lamented by the Matthew Yglesias link under Daily Dig just below this post.
It would be useful to include a by-line or a source tag for the information used to determine the ’seriousness of planning’ presented here, though. For example - I’m familiar with both the North Carolina and Texas efforts and would categorize them both on the same level - as wants, with some university level studies, but not quite at the level of State studies. (Unless you are going to count the Texas’ Trans-Texas Corridors thing which got the kibosh last year. I wouldn’t.)
Also, the illustrated routes for Texas shown on the google overlay are clearly different from rail map shown at the president’s press conference announcing High-Speed Rail corridors for study funding. As the Yglesias link (again) in fact bemoans, there is no link shown between Dallas and Houston on the Presidential map, yet a version of such a connection, elsewhere referred to as the Texas triangle is clearly shown on the google overlay presented here.
But densities to support HSR in Texas? Ouch. And never mind that when you zoom in on the map it shows the linkup for the Texas triangle in Temple. Temple, Texas? I would like to see the reasoning there.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
David -
Click on the route lines — that offers some additional information.
For instance, regarding your question about Temple, TX: http://www.thsrtc.com/
-Jebediah
April 21st, 2009 at 10:37 am
[...] A cool map of high speed rail in the US and related information Infrastructurist [...]
April 21st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
[...] at the Infrastructurist they’ve made this useful zoomable map of various high-speed rail proposals including the official DOT corridors but also some other [...]
April 21st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Yes, America is Dense Enough for High Speed Rail….
President Obama unveiled his strategy for high speed rail (HSR) yesterday. Infrastructurist has a good overview of what’s on the table at the national level.
Others who have more expertise in transportation engineering are better sources of the c…
April 21st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
A very interesting map, and I am looking forward to what routes actually do get implemented in the coming years. Particularly if funding for them becomes more structured and consistent in the various TEA bills that will make their way through Congress and the speed begins to approach true high speed rail. One, or rather two, issues I have with the more hopeful map, though. Why does it continue with the notion of segregated corridors when there are obvious nexus points which would provide secondary ‘hubs’ with much greater redundancy and accessibility to areas across the country without much cost.
The Midwest, Texas, and Gulf Coast corridors could seemingly all connect to each other at Nashville, TN. The Texas pathway, which would have to travel the longest extension, would entail bringing Memphis into the system as well. Certainly not the most burgeoning metropolis, but hardly an area that should be overlooked when bringing it into the fold would have those great secondary benefits. The same, though to a lesser degree, with connecting the Midwest corridor and the North East corridor by connecting Pittsburgh with Philadelphia. I doubt you’d get many people riding from Chicago to New York given the distance, but the range would be competitive for someone starting out in Cleveland. Or Pittsburgh, for that matter. The 500-600 mile radius governing what to connect with where economically certainly needs to be taken into account, but it shouldn’t be rigidly fixed only at Chicago and New York, ignoring the needs of people in between to go to areas in between. Though not to complain about it too much since, as a Chicagoan, I’ve got mine, Jack.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
[...] The Infrastructurist has a map of dozens of high-speed rail projects under consideration by state governments today, some of which are eligible for stimulus funds. The colors indicate the seriousness of planning for the corridors. Red lines represent projects that are partially funded or providing high-speed operation today; pink lines are under intensive state planning and likely to be among the first to receive stimulus funds; green lines are far off but not inconceivable; and blue lines are very unlikely to be built in the next few decades. [...]
April 27th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
[...] One Infastructuralist’s stance –bringin mass transit to the US of A. I bet it’ll be the end of my lifetime before something like this is truly reality–with 150+mph rail service spread across the country. [...]
May 4th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Egads, all of this hoopla over “upgrading track to 110 mph” ?
How utterly meaningless, and typical of the new administration.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
[...] from the voters last November for a 10$ billion bond release to begin construction. Please visit Infrastructurist.com to view a map of proposed rails. “Red lines represent projects that are partially funded or [...]
June 4th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Since both of my granfathers worked for the railroad, and as a child, I was thrilled to take train trips with my family, I am excited to see that someone is finally seeing the advantage of an HSR. My concern is this. Rail travel (even HSR) is far from a new technology, and once the infrastructure is developed, technology advantages will come. I believe that what we will see is what we call in project management, analysis paralysis, and that five years from now no rail will be laid due to conflicting interests on where the rails go. Our current Interstate system is far from perfect, but had we analized it for twenty years, our economy would not have grown as rapidly as it has. The momentum is now, and unless the American people can see tangible progress, our short attention span will move us on to the next greatest thing. While looking at the shortest distance between two points, we could be concurrently thinking about building more green and vertical business/residential areas adjacent to the new HSR infrastructure. Amtrak has not been successful because they are forced to run routes for which there is no known need. I hope we don’t repeat that mistake to gratify some congressperson.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:21 am
I see our great state of Iowa, once referred to as “The Crossroads of America,” didn’t make the cut! Our people were busy electing a President and they’ll go down in history maybe with honorable mention, too late to cut deals now. Oh well!
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Yeah, but I don’t think Iowans would want a highspeed rail line if they had to pay the cost of deploying it. Per citizen, it would be quite expensive when compared to the major metro areas where millions of people live.
July 27th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
[...] [...]
July 28th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
[...] [...]
January 27th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
[...] http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/04/20/a-map-of-proposed-high-speed-rail-projects-in-the-us/ [...]
January 28th, 2010 at 8:05 am
[...] wrote: Compare Burlington Northern Santa Fe’s route map with the map of proposed high speed rail projects competing for $8 billion in federal stimulus funding and you can get a sense of some of the [...]
January 28th, 2010 at 10:39 am
[...] wrote: Compare Burlington Northern Santa Fe’s route map with the map of proposed high speed rail projects competing for $8 billion in federal stimulus funding and you can get a sense of some of the [...]