I'd start by saying that illegible writing should be a disqualifier for comparison of speed. Slow down until it's legible!
Some factors affecting which writing method is fastest for you, (while remaining legible to others and your later self, include which one you use the most, and drippiness of the ink. Runny ink (or paint!) can be more prone to blotches, soak-through, and other blemishes, especially when printing, lending itself better to constant movement and cursive.
You may find that a hybrid of semi-joined and unjoined lettering fastest. I do not recommend shorthand if someone else will have to read it; shorthand is notoriously variant between practioners.
Anecdata from people I've talked to or my own experience about writing faster than cursive users in our cohorts won't help anybody much. Nor will my discovery that straight-stroke runes allowed me to keep up when taking notes from a particularly fast-talking history teacher. So, about the request for links… (-:
The link I reached for returned 404, and isn't in Archive.org (one truncated PDF file, which won't open), so I went digging. Wellll… raking, more like. Mostly, I found articles and posts claiming either "cursive is faster" or "no conclusive evidence for any claimed benefits of cursive". Consequently, I turned to:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cursive
Of the 7 relevant-seeming papers I've read so far, and another 4 grepped, I'm seeing (1) tiny cohorts with either no significant speed difference or small improvement with cursive, (2) usually turned out to be testing the wrong thing (like how fast a cohort's speed with one method improved, without comparison to any other method; or whether teaching one or another method affected the subjects' ability to read in general), (3) sometimes no attempt to account for legibility.
For me, all the extra loops and curves seem to conspire to make me fit less writing in the same space and use more ink/pencil/whatever.