High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[Busy Bee]

Yeah there's a lot wrong there, but I guess its the enthusiasm that counts. I welcome any passionate dialogue about HSR with open arms, even it may sometimes be ill informed or absurdly starry eyed (see the long red line through the west where no one lives).

[M II A II R II K]

Instead of transfers it should at least be interlined. For instance there’s no direct Buffalo to NYC route, particularly if the Golden Horseshoe region uses it to go to NYC as well.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

(see the long red line through the west where no one lives).

Have you driven I-70 through the Rockies from Denver to Grand Junction? That entire road needs to be six lanes AND enhanced rail service and even then given the insane traffic growth I've witnessed I'm not sure how long that will last.

St. George is growing pretty fast. Las Vegas metro is closing on 3 million and is a mega tourist mecca, Denver is about to hit 3 million, Grand Junction is fast growing city, and again there are hundreds of thousands of people who live and play in the mountain cities that stretch throughout the corridor. Not to mention this would connect to SoCal a megalopolis of 20+ million people. You should also include the Colorado Front Range population into this as well.

There should absolutely by HSR from Denver along I-70 with a spur connecting SLC and Moab to Vegas and obviously LA. The rest of the red HSR heading east to Omaha, that's questionable. Maybe to Kansas City but even that likely isn't needed, at least 220MPH speeds.

[Busy Bee]

The idea of a corridor deserving 125mph electrified service on existing row, new row and or a combination of both is, to me, totally different than a corridor deserving and REQUIRING the infrastructure to get 220mph true HSR over them. I just don't see Denver to SLC through the Rockies as being that corridor. If money was no object, than hell, yeah, go for it, but... obviously we don't live in that world.

I just don't know how many people are going to be enough people to justify a high speed railway from Las Vegas to Denver over some pretty difficult terrain.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The idea of a corridor deserving 125mph electrified service on existing row, new row and or a combination of both is, to me, totally different than a corridor deserving and REQUIRING the infrastructure to get 220mph true HSR over them. I just don't see Denver to SLC through the Rockies as being that corridor. If money was no object, than hell, yeah, go for it, but... obviously we don't live in that world.

I just don't know how many people are going to be enough people to justify a high speed railway from Las Vegas to Denver over some pretty difficult terrain.

Right but connecting to LA is the bigger picture. I travel to Moab multiple times a month from LA and go the Rockies as well to relax and hike. I see tons of people from LA that I can't help but wonder how many would take the train instead of a car for leisure on top of those using it for business. I think a real HSR system through the Rockies from Denver to LA hitting population and tourist centers would be a huge hit. The cost would astronomical indeed.

[electricron]

I keep having to remind people about the sweet spot for passenger rail gaining the majority of the market share over air flights; i.e. 3 hours.
It is a world wide statistic, including America's NEC. It's not the maximum speeds that count over 3 hours distance, but the average speeds.
Salt Lake City to Denver by the Zephyr route is 570 miles, by I-80 and I-25 highways it is 521 miles.
Using the smaller number, to get between Denver and Salt Lake City within 3 hours the train would have to average 174 mph. No train in the world has an average speed that fast. Just as a single example, the world famous Eurostar between London and Paris takes 2 hours and 16 minutes to go 342 kilometers or 213 miles. It averages around 95 mph.
213 miles /2.25 hours = 94.6 mph
FYI: There are no mountain ranges for the Eurostar to navigate through between London and Paris to slow it down. At its lowest point, the Chunnel is 75 m (250 ft) deep below the sea bed and 115 m (380 ft) below sea level. We are talking about an elevation change far less than 500 feet. Moffit Tunnel elevation is 9239 feet above sea level, Denver is 5280 feet above sea level, and Salt Lake City is 4226 feet above sea level. We're discussing an elevation change of 3959 feet at a minimum, and 5013 feet at a maximum.
9239 - 5280 = 3959 , 9239 - 4226 = 5013
We're talking about 8 to 10 times more of an elevation change - to Moffit Tunnel. The highest elevation of I-80 in Wyoming is 8,640 feet, just 599 feet less than Moffit Tunnel.
Good luck keeping high speed trains at maximum speeds over those grades.

Assuming the Denver to Salt Lake City HSR train could average 96 mph over these 521 miles, it would take the train 5 hours and 26 minutes to make the trip. Significantly more than the sweet spot of 3 hours to compete with airlines. That's the equivalent distance and times for Acela between Boston and D.C. where Amtrak's market share is ??????????%.
Per https://www.planetizen.com/node/58061
Ron Nixon describes how Amtrak travel in the Northeast, the nation's busiest corridor, took off after the introduction of Amtrak's high-speed Acela train in 2000. Prior to its introduction, the nation's train service had 37% of the travel between NY and D.C. and 20% between NY and Boston. The mode share has jumped to 75% and 54% respectively, greatly boosted by the tightening of airport security after Sept. 11, 2001 which added long waits and inconvenience to air travel.
Per https://www.railpassengers.org/site/...les/3480/1.pdf
Passenger trips per length 2019
0- 99 mi 14.6%
100- 199 mi 26.9%
200- 299 mi 56.6%
300- 399 mi 1.2%
400+ mi 0.6%
FYI: Boston to D.C. is 457 rail miles and around 7 hours.
If 56.6% of Amtrak Acela travelers can get close to 75% market share, what do you think the market share would be for 0.6% of Acela travelers?
1%? It is so bad Amtrak does not publicize it.

Which brings us back to why I added this response. 500+ miles between major city pairs through the Rocky and Wasatch Mountain ranges is too far for a practical high speed rail line. Golly, 500+ miles between major city pairs would be too far to be practical on the Northeast Corridor too.

Do not confuse the 457 mile NEC route between Boston and D.C. with the shorter NEC city pairs routes of NYC and D.C. and NYC and Boston. The ridership results based on distance and time are far, far different even on the NEC.

And the same would be true over the 421 miles between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas, over the 540 miles between Denver and Omaha, over the 518 miles between Reno and Salt Lake City, and over the 782 miles between Eugene and Salt Lake City. Stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Too far is still too far.

Well, someone will surely argue that these distances are not too far if they could get the average speeds of the trains higher. So, how fast would a train have to average for the above examples to meet the 3 hours sweet spot.
421/3 = 140 mph average
540/3 = 180 mph average
518/3 = 172 mph average
782/3 = 260 mph average
Let's remind everyone once again the world famous Eurostar between London and Paris averages 96 mph.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by electricron

I keep having to remind people about the sweet spot for passenger rail gaining the majority of the market share over air flights; i.e. 3 hours.
It is a world wide statistic, including America's NEC. It's not the maximum speeds that count over 3 hours distance, but the average speeds.
Salt Lake City to Denver by the Zephyr route is 570 miles, by I-80 and I-25 highways it is 521 miles.
Using the smaller number, to get between Denver and Salt Lake City within 3 hours the train would have to average 174 mph. No train in the world has an average speed that fast. Just as a single example, the world famous Eurostar between London and Paris takes 2 hours and 16 minutes to go 342 kilometers or 213 miles. It averages around 95 mph.
213 miles /2.25 hours = 94.6 mph
FYI: There are no mountain ranges for the Eurostar to navigate through between London and Paris to slow it down. At its lowest point, the Chunnel is 75 m (250 ft) deep below the sea bed and 115 m (380 ft) below sea level. We are talking about an elevation change far less than 500 feet. Moffit Tunnel elevation is 9239 feet above sea level, Denver is 5280 feet above sea level, and Salt Lake City is 4226 feet above sea level. We're discussing an elevation change of 3959 feet at a minimum, and 5013 feet at a maximum.
9239 - 5280 = 3959 , 9239 - 4226 = 5013
We're talking about 8 to 10 times more of an elevation change - to Moffit Tunnel. The highest elevation of I-80 in Wyoming is 8,640 feet, just 599 feet less than Moffit Tunnel.
Good luck keeping high speed trains at maximum speeds over those grades.

Assuming the Denver to Salt Lake City HSR train could average 96 mph over these 521 miles, it would take the train 5 hours and 26 minutes to make the trip. Significantly more than the sweet spot of 3 hours to compete with airlines. That's the equivalent distance and times for Acela between Boston and D.C. where Amtrak's market share is ??????????%.
Per https://www.planetizen.com/node/58061
Ron Nixon describes how Amtrak travel in the Northeast, the nation's busiest corridor, took off after the introduction of Amtrak's high-speed Acela train in 2000. Prior to its introduction, the nation's train service had 37% of the travel between NY and D.C. and 20% between NY and Boston. The mode share has jumped to 75% and 54% respectively, greatly boosted by the tightening of airport security after Sept. 11, 2001 which added long waits and inconvenience to air travel.
Per https://www.railpassengers.org/site/...les/3480/1.pdf
Passenger trips per length 2019
0- 99 mi 14.6%
100- 199 mi 26.9%
200- 299 mi 56.6%
300- 399 mi 1.2%
400+ mi 0.6%
FYI: Boston to D.C. is 457 rail miles and around 7 hours.
If 56.6% of Amtrak Acela travelers can get close to 75% market share, what do you think the market share would be for 0.6% of Acela travelers?
1%? It is so bad Amtrak does not publicize it.

Which brings us back to why I added this response. 500+ miles between major city pairs through the Rocky and Wasatch Mountain ranges is too far for a practical high speed rail line. Golly, 500+ miles between major city pairs would be too far to be practical on the Northeast Corridor too.

Do not confuse the 457 mile NEC route between Boston and D.C. with the shorter NEC city pairs routes of NYC and D.C. and NYC and Boston. The ridership results based on distance and time are far, far different even on the NEC.

And the same would be true over the 421 miles between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas, over the 540 miles between Denver and Omaha, over the 518 miles between Reno and Salt Lake City, and over the 782 miles between Eugene and Salt Lake City. Stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Too far is still too far.

Well, someone will surely argue that these distances are not too far if they could get the average speeds of the trains higher. So, how fast would a train have to average for the above examples to meet the 3 hours sweet spot.
421/3 = 140 mph average
540/3 = 180 mph average
518/3 = 172 mph average
782/3 = 260 mph average
Let's remind everyone once again the world famous Eurostar between London and Paris averages 96 mph.

Well, the counterargument here is the Chinese HSR. For example, between Xian and Zhengzou (323 miles), the fastest schedule is 1:47, or an average a bit above 180 mph.

Shanghai to Beijing is 819 miles, with the fastest schedule between them at 4:18, or an average of 190 mph (this has just one stop, in Nanjing). Note that this is about the same distance as NYC to Chicago, and it's not all flat (though probably flatter than NYC to Chicago).

Of course just because it's possible doesn't mean it's worth it, but over something like the flat midwest, 150 mph+ averages should be pretty achievable. I agree that between DEN and SLC , the cost for high-speed would be prohibitive (basically a super long base tunnel would be required).

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Well, the counterargument here is the Chinese HSR. For example, between Xian and Zhengzou (323 miles), the fastest schedule is 1:47, or an average a bit above 180 mph.

Shanghai to Beijing is 819 miles, with the fastest schedule between them at 4:18, or an average of 190 mph (this has just one stop, in Nanjing). Note that this is about the same distance as NYC to Chicago, and it's not all flat (though probably flatter than NYC to Chicago).

Of course just because it's possible doesn't mean it's worth it, but over something like the flat midwest, 150 mph+ averages should be pretty achievable. I agree that between DEN and SLC , the cost for high-speed would be prohibitive (basically a super long base tunnel would be required).

In China, they run enough trains to run separate expresses, throughs, and all stop trains. The no stop and one stop trains can go 813 miles in 4.5 hours averaging 180 mph, but the more common multiple stop trains take 6 hours to travel that 813 miles averaging 135 mph. How many of their passengers riding the trains ride the train the entire 813 miles, or do most get on and off at Nanjing? Amtrak Regional and Acela trains do not stop at every station, but they certainly stop at more than one along the way. Do you foresee Amtrak running a HSR line between Chicago and New York City that does not stop at least in Albany, Rochester, Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Toledo and South Bend along the way? I do not. Therefore, you will not see HSR trains in the USA averaging 180 mph. Pre pandemic, Amtrak was going to test and run some non-stop Acela trains between NYC and D.C, - never-the-less the vast majority of the Acela trains would still be making multiple stops along the way.

But at 4.5 or 6 hours, these trains still lose market share to airlines because of that world wide sweet spot of 3 hours. Planes in China are as full as trains.
500 mph average speeds over longer distances is hard to compete against even with 180 mph average speed trains.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by electricron

In China, they run enough trains to run separate expresses, throughs, and all stop trains. The no stop and one stop trains can go 813 miles in 4.5 hours averaging 180 mph, but the more common multiple stop trains take 6 hours to travel that 813 miles averaging 135 mph. How many of their passengers riding the trains ride the train the entire 813 miles, or do most get on and off at Nanjing? Amtrak Regional and Acela trains do not stop at every station, but they certainly stop at more than one along the way. Do you foresee Amtrak running a HSR line between Chicago and New York City that does not stop at least in Albany, Rochester, Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Toledo and South Bend along the way? I do not. Therefore, you will not see HSR trains in the USA averaging 180 mph. Pre pandemic, Amtrak was going to test and run some non-stop Acela trains between NYC and D.C, - never-the-less the vast majority of the Acela trains would still be making multiple stops along the way.

But at 4.5 or 6 hours, these trains still lose market share to airlines because of that world wide sweet spot of 3 hours. Planes in China are as full as trains.
500 mph average speeds over longer distances is hard to compete against even with 180 mph average speed trains.

If by some miracle Amtrak built a base tunnel under the Appalachians, I could totally imagine Amtrak running Chicago to NYC stopping only in Philadelphia for some runs. If it was under 5 hours from downtown to downtown, it would have a significant fraction of market share. Best case downtown to downtown time by air is at least 4 hours, so even a 5 hour train would be time-competitive and obviously more convenient. I think air traffic between Chicago and NYC pre-pandemic was over 6k/day each way, so you could probably fill several non-stop daily trains easily enough.

I think Alon Levy came to a similar conclusion here:
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2...ed-rail-redux/

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

If by some miracle Amtrak built a base tunnel under the Appalachians, I could totally imagine Amtrak running Chicago to NYC stopping only in Philadelphia for some runs. If it was under 5 hours from downtown to downtown, it would have a significant fraction of market share. Best case downtown to downtown time by air is at least 4 hours, so even a 5 hour train would be time-competitive and obviously more convenient. I think air traffic between Chicago and NYC pre-pandemic was over 6k/day each way, so you could probably fill several non-stop daily trains easily enough.

I think Alon Levy came to a similar conclusion here:
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2...ed-rail-redux/

The problem with running express non-stop trains out of New York City is the limited capacity of Pennsylvania Station. LIRR and NJT also use that station, and believe it or not, far exceeds the passenger ridership of Amtrak.
There's only so many trains Amtrak can send to New York City.
Here's the data proving my point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsy...w_York_City%29
The breakdown of Penn Station's ridership:
Commuter and intercity rail comprise about 355,000 daily weekday passengers.
LIRR has an average of 233,340 daily weekday passengers.
NJ Transit has an average of 93,305 daily weekday passengers.
Amtrak has an average of 28,487 daily passengers, when annual totals are averaged.
The two subway stations have a combined average of approximately 200,000 daily weekday passengers. However, this only includes entries and not exits.
The remainder of the ridership, around 75,000 passengers, may use other transportation such as buses, taxis, or ride-sharing, and may include passengers exiting from the subway.

Keeping the subway and other surface transportation modes out of the total, the total commuter and intercity ridership per weekday is 354,132. Some math follows:
LIRR = 233,340/354,132 = 0.6589 x100 = 65.9%
NJT = 93,305/354,132 = 0.2634 x100 = 26.3%
Amtrak = 28,487/354,132 = 0.0804 x100 = 8.0%

If we added the 200,000 subway ridership to the total, Amtrak's percentage would drop to 5.1%
28,487/554,132 = 0.0514x100 = 5.1%
Yes, 1 in 20 passengers using Pennsylvania Station every weekday are riding Amtrak trains.

Additionally, Shanghai Railway Station has 30 platforms, Bejing West Railway Station has 18 platforms, Pennsylvania Station has 11 platforms.

[ardecila]

Penn Station is slated to get a platform expansion and even after that it has room for future growth with through-running/regional rail. Admittedly it is a crunch now but that won't always be the case.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I just don't know how many people are going to be enough people to justify a high speed railway from Las Vegas to Denver over some pretty difficult terrain.

There is also a conspicuous terrain problem with N/S rail between Michigan/Ohio/Pittsburgh and Atlanta. If the money truly appeared to do big-time rail, I could see Ohio/Michigan acting to block the whole shebang if the only southern HSR link is built between Louisville and Nashville.

By comparison, Detroit>Atlanta or Cleveland>Atlanta would encounter the super-hilly terrain from roughly Lexington, KY south through all of eastern Tennessee.

We'd essentially see a repeat of the late-1800s railroad battle between Louisville and Cincinnati, where Louisville was able to take advantage of its relatively flat straight shot to Nashville, which I don't believe had any tunnels, versus the Cincinnati Southern Railway, with originally had 27 tunnels and several major bridges over the same distance between Lexington and Chattanooga.

There is no passenger rail on the Cincinnati Southern, so the whole thing is a bit of a mystery, but I doubt, given the consistently difficult terrain, that anything about 125mph could be consistently maintained.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

After scrolling through these maps and reading a bunch of speculation on what *could* be built, I decided to draw a line-by-line rail plan for the Eastern United States. It's loosely based on some of Alon Levy's stuff, but makes some adjustments--mostly stemming from incorporating upgraded inter-regional rail into the system as well.

The crux of the plan is hourly service and integrated timed transfers on all the regional lines--which requires some new ROW for many of them, some electrification, and some double-tracking--but not HSR-quality right of way. The goal was to serve every single urban area of at least 100,000 within 5 hours of New York, Chicago, or Atlanta. With like four exceptions, I think I pulled it off. I don't pretend this is realistic, but I think starting with an integrated final network in mind is important.

Too often, inefficient plans are made on a piecemeal basis and don't account for how everything can fit together in a final network.

Anyway, here ya go:


Link for high-def: https://imgur.com/a/pcYgMJm

[Pedestrian]

According to a letter I received today from the Igh Speed Rail Alliance, Congressman Moulton's bill would invest $41 billion/year in high speed rail. Last July the House actually passed the "Moving Forward Act" that would invest $11 billion per year in AMTRAK and other railroad improvements. In the context of a Biden $2 trillion infrastructure package, these seem like reasonable sums. The question is the fate of the infrastructure bill.

[nito]

Originally Posted by electricron

Using the smaller number, to get between Denver and Salt Lake City within 3 hours the train would have to average 174 mph. No train in the world has an average speed that fast. Just as a single example, the world famous Eurostar between London and Paris takes 2 hours and 16 minutes to go 342 kilometers or 213 miles. It averages around 95 mph. 213 miles /2.25 hours = 94.6 mph

I think you’ve taken the distance from London to Paris as the crow flies; but the actual route taken by Eurostar is indirect; the alternative would have been a rather improbable 100km+ underwater tunnel. Add together the distance of HS1, the Channel Tunnel (which has a 160kph speed limit) and LGV Nord, and you get to a distance of around 491km, which represents average journey speeds of 137mph/216kph.

As for whether trains can go faster than that, the average HS2 journey speed between London Euston and Birmingham Curzon St is pencilled in at 186mph/300kph. HS2 (including the tunnels) are being built to handle 360kph operation.

However before even contemplating a route between Denver and Salt Lake City, what would the demand be to justify the cost?

Originally Posted by electricron

FYI: There are no mountain ranges for the Eurostar to navigate through between London and Paris to slow it down. At its lowest point, the Chunnel is 75 m (250 ft) deep below the sea bed and 115 m (380 ft) below sea level. We are talking about an elevation change far less than 500 feet. Moffit Tunnel elevation is 9239 feet above sea level, Denver is 5280 feet above sea level, and Salt Lake City is 4226 feet above sea level. We're discussing an elevation change of 3959 feet at a minimum, and 5013 feet at a maximum.
9239 - 5280 = 3959 , 9239 - 4226 = 5013 We're talking about 8 to 10 times more of an elevation change - to Moffit Tunnel. The highest elevation of I-80 in Wyoming is 8,640 feet, just 599 feet less than Moffit Tunnel. Good luck keeping high speed trains at maximum speeds over those grades

This is precisely why tunnels are used; they avoid all that unnecessary change in elevation.

Originally Posted by electricron

The problem with running express non-stop trains out of New York City is the limited capacity of Pennsylvania Station.

The problem with New York Penn can be summarised in three parts:
(i) The lack of access tracks to the station, not just under the Hudson but also the East River. New York is an outlier relative to its international peers in number of approach tracks (a geographical and historical legacy issue).
(ii) Inadequate platform widths that are both unsafe and limit passenger flows.
(iii) Terminating services, which results in increased dwell-times is inefficient and soaks up platform capacity.

What New York and the states dependent upon the NEC really need is a simple new commuter rail tunnel linking New Jersey and Long Island, thereby removing a lot of the commuter traffic heading into the station. A remodelling of platforms: fewer but wider, would put the station in a good place.

On a side note, Beijing West and Shanghai Hongqiao have 18 and 30 track-serving platforms respectively, relative to the 21 at New York Penn.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by nito

I think you’ve taken the distance from London to Paris as the crow flies; but the actual route taken by Eurostar is indirect; the alternative would have been a rather improbable 100km+ underwater tunnel. Add together the distance of HS1, the Channel Tunnel (which has a 160kph speed limit) and LGV Nord, and you get to a distance of around 491km, which represents average journey speeds of 137mph/216kph.

I got my data for the Eorostar trains directly from a website selling Eurostar tickets at
https://www.thetrainline.com/en-us/t...ondon-to-paris

I have never invent data out of nowhere.
Trainline.com may, but not me.
May I ask where you got your data from?

Stop arguing red herrings. Whereas distances and average train speeds are contributors to my argument, they are not the main part of my argument. Time was the crux of my argument, specifically 3 hours, the point from which ridership or market share for trains drops like a rock when competing with planes. The distance between city pairs will vary depending upon the average speeds of the trains, but 3 hours does not change. At some point, the distances between city pairs are too great for even extremely fast HSR trains. Denver to Salt Lake City, New York City to Chicago are just a few examples where this is true.

[M II A II R II K]

Another Fantasy

[202_Cyclist]

This would be a great map but it needs a spur to West Virginia to get the approval of Joe Manchin. Also, why isn't there an extension from Boston to Portland, ME?

[nito]

Originally Posted by electricron

I got my data for the Eorostar trains directly from a website selling Eurostar tickets at https://www.thetrainline.com/en-us/t...ondon-to-paris I have never invent data out of nowhere. Trainline.com may, but not me. May I ask where you got your data from?

I’m not faulting you, but the Trainline figure is literally the distance as the crow flies from London to Paris. The actual route taken by Eurostar is along HS1 (108km), the Channel Tunnel (50km) and LGV Nord (333km) = 491km. A comparison with HS2 makes more logical sense as the tunnels are built to handle 360kph operation.

Originally Posted by electricron

Stop arguing red herrings. Whereas distances and average train speeds are contributors to my argument, they are not the main part of my argument. Time was the crux of my argument, specifically 3 hours, the point from which ridership or market share for trains drops like a rock when competing with planes. The distance between city pairs will vary depending upon the average speeds of the trains, but 3 hours does not change. At some point, the distances between city pairs are too great for even extremely fast HSR trains. Denver to Salt Lake City, New York City to Chicago are just a few examples where this is true.

Time most certainly plays a part in defining the viability of a HSR service; assuming a near direct route and no stops, using HS2’s journey speeds (186mph/300kph), New York to Chicago would be possible in under 4hrs, Denver to Salt Lake City somewhere north of 2hrs. Actual journey times factoring in geography, stops, etc… would add anywhere from a few minutes to an hour.

Journey times are not always the defining statistic to drive HSR. Spain has built the second largest HSR network, but AVE ridership is half that of say Avant West Coast, which is a single non-HSR intercity operator running on one mainline route. There needs to be the demand to justify routes, whether that is capturing share from other transport modes or generating new journeys; which Eurostar achieved on both accounts. 777mn domestic air journeys are made annually in the US, the majority of these will be between nodes where HSR isn’t economical, however focusing on core transport corridors and between city pairs would make sense. New York to Chicago could make some degree of sense, but I’m not sure Denver to Salt Lake City would

[SFBruin]

Every city north of Boston is relatively small, so I doubt that there would be a market for HSR there.