I don't see it's main benefit as a people-mover.The problem that all advocates of high speed rail have is they are like the Germans invading Russia, they look at a map and have no clue just how far you are talking about. High speed rail is incredibly expensive, in all aspects. Land to build it on, the rails themselves, the trains and yes the electricity to run them. I see high speed rail linking key cities in the East some day and maybe Los Angeles and Seattle in the distant future. But coast to coast? Highly doubtful. I just see this as a nice opportunity to engage in some graft and corruption.
How much was the Big Dig supposed to cost? How much di it cost in the end?
That's the problem folks.
I don't think it would get the ridership
I take the Acela between New York and Boston and New York and DC. Both routes see high ridership but are on the fringe of the tradeoff between time and conenience. If you have a choice between a flight to Chicago taking two hours and a high speed train taking six, you will take the plane
The future of rail is the demise of long haul trucking, hopefully. That's what rail is needed for: moving goods around the country. And large distribution areas in hub cities for offloading onto trucks for local/regional delivery.
This would cut way down on our oil consumption by getting so many of those 18 wheelers off the highways, make the roads safer, make the roads last longer, result in cleaner air, and less cost at the pumps for our cars.