No.

People won't pay the money when they can fly.

The reason high speed rail isn't a thing here is because the USA is a large country that is relatively sparsely populated compared to the regions in which high speed rail is used. The population density is too low in the US.

The size of Europe is only slightly larger than the US, but it has almost twice the people. China is a bit smaller than the US but has about 4 times the people.

We have a relatively high speed corridor on the east coast where the population density makes it viable.

They're trying to do it in California, but our population density is not sufficient to support it. It's a giant boondoggle for our local politicians to receive bribes and kickbacks from construction and design companies. In 2015 the projected costs for the "high speed train" (which they have since admitted wouldn't be all that high speed) was $10 billion and they were going to offer tickets for around $70 from LA to SF. The current estimate to complete the system is $100 billion and they haven't even really started so you can probably double this number. Do you think they're still going to offer $70 tickets when the costs will be over 10 times the initial estimate? Would you pay over $100 each way for a ticket on a train that'll take you 3 hours in travel time when the cost is closer to $60-$100 round trip for a 1 hour plane ride?