You don't need maglev for that, though, high-speed rail can reach those speeds.
And a big advantage of rail is that the trains can just run on conventional track and progressively go faster while portions of the track are converted to high-speed, while maglev needs a complete run of maglev track before it starts being usable.
High speed rail is often implemented using dedicated track wherever possible - either brand new or upgraded and restricted to other traffic types:
A closely sitting and smooth train wheel gets damaged pretty quickly traveling on track that is accustomed to freight traffic. That now-damaged wheel then goes on to damage the polished high speed track, which then further damages other trains' wheels in a vicious circle.
China's new high speed train network, for example, is almost all dedicated track (a large part newly constructed routes) with existing track used only where there are space constraints (for example, a city centre station).
French TGV runs on a significative amount of non-highspeed track though, and it seems to work good enough (about the same speed as China's HSR, and it has been working for decades).
I understand the TGV uses weight limitation and careful scheduling to mitigate the cost of other traffic (both wear-and-tear and scheduling), and as in the case of China also has sections of line that are unavoidably mixed, but used, as cost effective alternatives are not attractive. And I think that's the crux: a trade-off between cost and benefit. A new high-speed line is still margins cheaper than a maglev, though that's not to say I'd not like to see maglevs.
And a big advantage of rail is that the trains can just run on conventional track and progressively go faster while portions of the track are converted to high-speed, while maglev needs a complete run of maglev track before it starts being usable.