Shouldn’t a high speed rail system be funded by the state? If I live in Utah (which I do) and I want to take a High Speed train ride from Ogden to Salt Lake, then catch another to St. George - why should the good folks outside of Utah fund my joyride?
The system, as-is, lacks ‘common sense’. Fly to Gatwick in Great Brittian, and get off the plane and walk to the train section of the terminal and then get on any one of 7+ trains to various destination and/or hubs. Conversely, take Am-Trak to any US Destination, then ‘good luck’ getting anywhere else without paying an arm and a let. Heck, the bus lines aren’t even permitted to service most of our airports.
Before we start something as ambitious as a rail system in the USA, we need to get the ‘basics’ down, like developing local transportation hubs, so when you reach your destination, you have a choice besides an expensive taxi ride.
Too much distance between cities in the US vs the UK. Transit makes sense in Japan, France, etc.
Why don't trains go to airports? It would make a lot of sense, for example to have a train go from DIA to the ski resorts, instead of having to take Vans to Vail. But they never build a train where it would make sense.
Finally, on the subject of high speed trains, look up the schedules for Acela Express on amtrak.com. Compare them to other trains servicing the same route. From Philly to Boston, you save all of 45 minutes taking the Acela. For a trip that takes 5 to 6 hours, that is nothing.