I'm pretty sure it was Mr. Kopp that inserted the "connections" language to allow HSR money to be spent on transit. No proof of that, but it feels right considering the times.

The travel time bogey has always been a problem. It was intended to address a non-issue: competition with air travel between SFO and LAX (the real competition is the road trip). Also to make it unlikely (conspiracy theory warning) that HSR would ever be delivered, so all the money could eventually be claimed for transit and the "bookends."

With HSR equipment of the early 1990s, the bogey would have forced using a direct I-5 route with minimal or no Valley service or connection with Amtrak. By bumping speeds up to more than 200mph (is anybody other than China doing that in regular service, even now, for significant distances?) and redefining endpoints (San Jose=SF, Burbank=LA) and fudging the bogey (2:30, which somebody with no luggage can still do on Southwest as long as you don't include a transfer to downtown - to be comparable, HSR time would need to include transfers to the airports), a route that serves more people (with expresses for flyover) became possible. Notice I didn't say feasible (as in, reasonable price for the service provided, which was never going to be the case anyway - you want first class you have to pay for it - and did anybody with a double-digit IQ *really* think that the whole project could be done for $10bil?), just possible.

But yes, Bob, as long as those provisions are in the statute (which requires voter approval to change), we're stuck with them and moving HSR to Altamont won't be done. I don't see any reason not to support a tunnel big enough for HSR equipment, though, much like Caltrain electrification is being done to support HSR traffic someday.