The Infrastructurist has a good summation of the For and Against of high-speed rail. They also have a slough of links throughout the article that I haven't reproduced here.

In Case You’re Just Joining Us: The High-Speed Rail Debate

Against HSR
Opponents of high-speed rail usually begin — and often end — by asking about the money. Citing concerns over financing, several Republican candidates for governor have threatened to halt rail projects. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie actually did cancel the ARC transit tunnel (for a few hours, anyway). Wisconsin candidate Scott Walker (he of NoTrain.com) recently called high-speed rail “yet another example of President Obama’s failed stimulus policies that are bankrupting our nation.” A recent review of California’s high-speed rail concluded that the line can’t support its own costs: ridership forecasts are too high, and operating expenses too low. Charles Lane cites “Amtrak’s consistent money-losing” in arguing that cars, buses, and planes carry travelers more efficiently, and at lower cost. Along those lines, Randal O’Toole says interstates provide 4,000 miles of travel per American, whereas high-speed rail would give 300 “at best.” One of several reasons why high-speed rail “will likely fail on its own lack of merits,” argues Sam Staley of the Reason Foundation, is that America is simply too vast — filled with “sparsely populated areas” unsuited for bullet trains.

For HSR
Those in favor of high-speed rail see the light at the end of the tunnel. As Ezra Klein points out, now is a prime time to invest in infrastructure — with cheap construction costs and borrowing that’s “never been lower.” True, trains don’t always pay for themselves, concedes Paul Krugman, but cars also drive on roads maintained by tax dollars. A permanent trust or bank for rail money might correct this long-standing funding imbalance, says Andy Kunz, head of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association. Anyway, economics don’t tell the whole story. High-speed rail can “ease the pressure” on roads and airways, says a new bipartisan report. A balanced transportation system protects the environment and ensures “that future generations have the ability to move freely,” writes AltTransport. It also reduces dependency on foreign oil, reminds Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. Besides, if Amtrak’s latest figures reflect true behavioral change — this year it set records for riders and revenue — then rail’s time may finally have arrived. As for traversing the vast United States, Robert Yaro contends that “70 percent of Americans” live in a dense megaregion “perfectly suited” to bullet trains.

Middle of the Tracks
Still others stray a bit from the master storyline of good versus evil. Economist Jan Brueckner recognizes that much is appealing about high-speed rail but also knows that transportation “habits are hard to change.” Keith Poole of University of Georgia believes a better solution is “improving existing rail lines in cooperation with the freight railroads.” Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institute says that we should build high-speed rail in some cases, but a better general question is “how we are going to make the transition to a low-carbon economy and what type of infrastructure investments help get us there?” High-speed rail is all well and good, says Peter Pantuso, head of the American Bus Association, but boosting the “intercity bus industry … makes economic, environmental and policy sense” too.

My take is that we don't even seem to have the political will to maintain our low-speed rail tracks, our highways and our sewers, so how can we expect to fund, build and maintain high-speed bullet trains across multiple administrations?

Have you noticed that the cost of a barrel of oil has risen from bouncing around the high $70s to the low $80s? I'm not predicting that is a trend, but uncertainty makes it tough to rely on traffic as usual. Tom Whipple keeps us up-to-date on the possibilities.

As the projected demand for oil pushes to ever higher levels in the coming months, the issue of another economy-killing price spike arises. Washington tries to look at the bright side with EIA administrator Richard Newell telling a press conference that OPEC production will “increase over the next year or two” which “should keep prices from rising dramatically. Some OPEC ministers however are already talking of $90 to $100 oil which is not that far away. OPEC has decided to hold its production steady while urging members to adhere to quotas already in place.

While the Saudis and their Gulf brethren say they have spare capacity, many OPEC members are pumping close to flat out. So long as China keeps booming, the coming year may be the test of just how far up global production can go.

The general strike in France has left 10 of the country’s 12 refineries without workers. If the strike is not settled soon, fuel shortages should start next week.

At this point, I'd be happy to see more freight lines to replace the long haul trucks that rely on cheap diesel fuel, and more regular speed intercity rail to replace the intercity buses that also rely on cheap diesel fuel. But make no mistake - in the not-too-distant future, we will wish we had built more rail. And if the cost of jet fuel becomes prohibitive again, we will wish we had built high-speed rail.

But long range planning is not the strength of a plutocracy masquerading as a republic.