Wouldn't it be nice if we had a system prior to the USA?
I don't think we need to view it (and I'm not suggesting you meant this) as a one-upmanship sort of thing.
I do think we need to move in this direction; and the real disappointment for me has been the lack of strategic planning and incremental advancement.
A lot of rail infrastructure that exists today can be upgraded in a manner compatible with HSR without delivering HSR in the near future.
Assembling passenger rail/state-owned corridors, adding track capacity, slowly moving towards universal grade separation, reducing curves where possible where that would allow increased speeds with conventional rail, and accommodate HSR in the future.
The clearest benefits are Ottawa-Montreal and Toronto-KW, and we should start there while making strategic advances through out the higher volume (current or likely) rail network.
We keep stumbling because studies present all or nothing visions that are exceedingly pricey, and politicians kick the proverbial can down the road.
Really, in many respects, not so different from Toronto's need for more subways (over time) where instead of discussing building an extension in one, two or three station increments, its six stations all at once, at twice the price, and the timeline.
Breaking things down into manageable timelines and costs allows for progress towards a longer-term goal.
We need to do that so that we can better manage land use, travel times, environmental responsibility, etc.
GO Expansion/RER does do some of this (or may do some of this); but there are places where a fulsom future-proof is not being contemplated even now.
(ie. VIA should have a dedicated track in the LSE corridor built at the same time GO lays the 4th track for their operations)
That would be a cost-efficient move that builds towards an HSR future.
