Your complaint about demanding excessive speed where a little compromise would be useful, with CAHSR, is valid but misses the point. The system's design criteria were politically determined - in particular the travel time bogey - and require that "blended" operation be minimized. Also, conventional rail in the US generally, and Calif in particular, is really unsuitable for most HSR use; the huge number of grade crossings, alone, makes it difficult.

Yes, I know there are grade crossings on Caltrain, a lot, but fewer than there once were. Grade separations have been done, and with continued funding (there's that word again: $funding$) will continue to be done where politically feasible (some towns don't want them for some reason). Unfortunately, Metrolink isn't as blessed with density and such to help with the cost of grade separating, easing curves, enlarging or replacing tunnels, etc. that would make blended HSR *as presently defined for California* use feasible.

Use in blended operation also means the HSR trains have to meet grade crossing collision protection requirements. Can't use off the shelf European or Japanese stuff like Brightline (fully separated by being in the freeway median) can. So CAHSR trains will be bigger and heavier than what Brightline uses. Which means they'll need more power than Brightline will. They'll look a lot like what Amtrak runs on Acela, I think, with all that implies. The alternative is to build an entirely new railroad that's fully grade separated, without a convenient freeway to put it in. Which is what they're doing and what costs so stinking much.

It's probably too late to go back to the voters and get a more realistic speed limit and budget (less of the former and more of the latter). So I don't expect to see any more than a Central Valley amusement park ride for the foreseeable future. I would love to be proven wrong, but I really don't expect to live long enough to see it producing useful transportation service.