High-speed rail along the I-5 freeway would have moved people between San Francisco and Los Angeles quickly but ignored California's Central Valley region. Now, France is struggling to sustain train service to its intermediate cities.

There are good reasons to criticize the California High-Speed Rail project, not the least of which is the state inspector general's damning July 31, 2026 conclusion that the High-Speed Rail Authority "obscured basic facts about the project".

Rejecting SNCF's advice is not reason for criticism. Apparently, French rail consultants thought the I-5 freeway would have been the perfect route. Americans who are inclined to agree probably don't know much about France's system of government or the conditions that prevailed when SNCF launched its "Train à Grande Vitesse", let alone about perennial rail woes in France.

High-speed rail along I-5 certainly would have moved people between San Francisco and Los Angeles quickly, but choosing that route would have left everybody in between unhappy. Political support from either coastal or Central Valley communities was necessary. The Central Valley has more people, more jobs, faster growth, more growth potential, and a greater need for economic development, so planning stations there made sense.

At one time, SNCF could just draw a straight line between two French cities and put an intermediate station with a big parking lot and some bus service in the middle of nowhere. Look up "la Gare des betteraves", the station among the beet fields.

SNCF was accustomed to generous French government, and later European Union, funding for high-speed rail lines (LGV, "lignes à grande vitesse"). France is not federal. Its government is highly centralized. SNCF was an extension of the national government. What SNCF decided on, was built.

In the USA, for better or for worse (it is not the intent of this article to judge any of the following interest groups), a farmer who hopes to sell at a higher price, the mayor of a town who does not want trains passing through, an environmental group, and an anti-tax watchdog can stall a state-level project for years. Fundamental opponents can choose any of these interests as a foil. Given inflation, and time limits for spending grant money, if you want to stop something from ever being built, delaying it is good enough.

The worst that SNCF officials had to contend with in the halcyon days of the TGV was genteel national political debate, periodic strikes, and occasional embarrassment from popular protests.

American firms and managers know the rules in the USA. I don't forgive the HSRA for delays or cost overruns, all foreseeable. I do recognize the importance of including Central Valley stations. I-5 was a political non-starter and the route that the HSRA ultimately chose requires many bridges, but less expensive routes could have served the same Central Valley stations.

I was curious how the HSRA justified such a convoluted Central Valley route, so I tried to retrieve the environmental impact report. An EIR lists alternatives considered. The Central Valley EIR was finished in 2018, but the HSRA hasn't gotten around to posting it. Only the table of contents is online.

The latest on French high-speed service to small cities and intermediate stations is that it's threatened by the EU rail competition directive. To maximize revenue, private companies want to run high-speed trains between France's biggest cities, direct, point-to-point, no stops. Private companies plan to skim the cream. SNCF is worried that it will be left with TGV milk runs. Guess who is being asked to shoulder the higher operating losses? The French government!

There is a precedent. "Trains d'équilibre du territoire" (TET, territorial equalization trains, cf. Essential Air Service in the USA) are the conventional (non-high-speed) train services that SNCF did not succeed in canceling outright or palming off on France's newly empowered regional governments, because the trains cross too many different regions, lose too much money, or both. Subsidized by the national government, these trains use decaying rail lines, stations, locomotives, and cars. In case you don't speak French, the adjective "vétuste" sounds just like what it means.

SNCF could have provided useful advice about high-speed rolling stock. TGV technology is the gold standard in the West.

This was my response to a CalMatters editorial and an East Bay Times reprint. Thank you for reading, and for thinking. Please feel free to e-mail any comments.