Ernest and Rich have it about right.

This nonsense that Barbara Boxer has been fed is coming from some folks who are apparently far less interested in a viable, cost effective, and "sustainable" investment in a high speed rail system, than with filling a gold plated contractor's public trough. We need a versatile, well integrated passenger rail system (like, by the way, Europe actually has?) with a variety high speed and connecting integrated service types serving the varied short to mid distance corridor market opportunities.

Politicians, and to some degree an uninformed public, are wowed by the "maximum speed" phenomena, and don't understand the real economic decision making process of the countries that are doing high speed rail successfully. Most people hear of these "speed records" from the media and assume that these are the normal or average operating speeds. These are often "test runs" for "speed records" with specially tricked out empty trains. They could never afford to sustain the actual cost to operate at those speeds for regular commercial high speed service.

One of the European firms interested in investing actual "private" money in our trains (and one that has successfully built and financed them in Europe) noted to me that they were not interested in the 200+ system for most of our corridors because going from 160-170 top range to the 200-220 top range over doubled construction and operating costs. This require up to 4 times more energy, increased maintenance, and as a result, much higher fares, which actually reduced ridership, and thus revenues. Marginal costs for that speed differential simply exceed marginal revenues, for a suboptimal return on investment.

Some lines in Europe do get to these 200+ speeds, but only on a handfull of wide open rural segments. Most of the portion of the trip through Brittany, on the TGV, is on segments of the Legacy network at slower (but not slow) speeds, as an example. Construction costs for those speeds through an area like that would be prohibitive, and due to cultural and environmental sensitivities, would generate massive public opposition. Similarly none of these systems operate into or out of urban centers at those maximum speeds, because the construction cost would be astronomical.

High and higher speed rail is a very viable idea for many American corridors, if done right, and in the right conditions. The danger is that it won't be. And, then it could become a costly and wasteful boondoggle.