The UK is building a new high speed rail line between London (Heathrow, outside the city limits) and Edinburgh. It's 300 miles or so. And it's $50 BILLION to do this line. That's $166 MILLION per mile for high speed rail, in a country that already has extensive rail.
You must suffer some kind of reading comprehension disability.
The article you cite says that the project requires 1500 miles of track.
That's only $33 million per mile.
Furthermore, nobody's proposing 17000 miles of "state of the art" high-speed technology. The designated high-speed corridors total much less total mileage than that. Many of the projects simply propose upgrading existing Amtrak routes and eliminating bottlenecks for far less than the $33 million/mile new construction costs.
Your greatly exagerated cost estimates have no credibility.
Uhhh, they need 1500 miles to make a functional rail line between Edinburgh and London. Sidings, passes, etc. means you lay more line than just the distance. I guess that's beyond your comprehension, though!
And once again, you refuse to give a number. If my numbers are bad, Willie, then what numbers are good? Barring your own set of numbers, and a realistic counter to what I've posted, it's your word against hard references, and that means you got squat.
So put up or shut up, Willie. What's the number, and what's the source?