Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Don’t be fooled by high-speed rail

Published

1 week ago

6 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Randal O’Toole

Rail advocates admit that trains can’t compete with airliners over long distances or with cars over short distances but claim there is a middle distance – supposedly around 150 to 800 kilometers – in which rail has an advantage over its competitors. That would be true only if the trains were almost 100 percent subsidized.

The Canadian government is considering spending $6 billion to $12 billion to introduce what it calls “high-frequency trains” between Toronto and Quebec City. Though some media reports have described these as high-speed trains (which generally means trains capable of going 250 kilometers per hour), they won’t be. Building such a rail line would easily cost $60 billion and probably much more.

Passenger-train advocates argue that Canada needs to join the international race to have the fastest trains in the world. But this is a race Canada can afford to lose because the country has something that is faster and far less costly: jet airliners.

High-speed trains were already obsolete in 1964, when Japan started operating its first bullet trains. Six years before that, Boeing had introduced the 707 and Douglas the DC-8, both of which cruised four times faster than the early bullet trains and twice as fast as the fastest trains in the world today.

Aside from speed, airliners also have a huge cost advantage because they don’t require a lot of expensive infrastructure between cities. While airports are infrastructure, the only infrastructure airliners really need are paved runways and perhaps a Quonset hut for ticket agents, baggage handling, and a waiting room—which is all that some of Canada’s more remote airports have.

Today’s big-city airports with huge concourses, shops, and jetways were built up over time and mostly paid for out of ticket fees. In contrast, rail advocates want taxpayers to put up tens of billions of dollars before a single wheel turns in the hope that trains that are slower than flying, less convenient than driving, and more expensive than both will somehow attract a significant number of travelers.

Rail advocates admit that trains can’t compete with airliners over long distances or with cars over short distances but claim there is a middle distance – supposedly around 150 to 800 kilometers – in which rail has an advantage over its competitors. That would be true only if the trains were almost 100 percent subsidized.

Air Canada and its competitors currently offer more than three dozen flights a day between Toronto and Montreal with fares starting at $118, less than 25 cents per passenger-kilometer. Fares on VIA Rail Canada averaged 68 cents per passenger-kilometer in 2022, and more than half of its costs are subsidized. People are simply not going to ride high-speed trains in large numbers if those trains cost far more than airlines, buses, or driving.

Amtrak’s only high-speed train, the Acela, collected fares of CN$1.80 per passenger-kilometer in 2022, and while Amtrak claims it covers its operating costs, all of its infrastructure costs are paid for by taxpayers. Amtrak brags that it carries more passengers in the Washington-New York corridor than the airlines, but cars and buses in this corridor carry well over 10 times as many intercity passengers as Amtrak.

The other argument rail advocates make is that high-speed trains will offer shorter downtown-to-downtown times than airlines in some markets. But most people neither work nor live downtown. Toronto and Montreal each have three commercial airports and residents are more likely to be near one of those airports than downtown.

Finally, rail proponents claim that high-speed trains will emit fewer greenhouse gases than cars or planes. But as usual they ignore the construction costs—that is, the billions of kilograms of greenhouse gases that would be emitted to build a high-speed rail line. It is likely that operational savings would never recover this cost, especially since it would be far less expensive to power jets and automobiles with biofuels.

One thing is certain: building high-speed or even high-frequency rail will require lots of workers. Far from being a benefit, Canada is currently suffering a labour shortage that is not expected to end soon. If the government decides to spend billions on a rail line, it will only make the costs of housing, cars, and just about everything else rise even faster.

China, Japan, and Spain have practically wrecked their economies by spending too much on high-speed trains. Just because other countries are foolishly building high-speed rail lines doesn’t mean Canada should do so any more than the country should spend billions on other obsolete technologies such as telegraphs, electric typewriters, or slide rules. Taxpayers should tell the government not to waste money on such boondoggles.

Randal O’Toole is a transportation policy analyst and author of Building 21st Century Transit Systems for Canadian Cities. (20 pages) March 12,2024.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Energy / 3 hours ago

Market Realities Are Throwing Wrench In Biden’s Green Energy Dreams

ESG / 4 hours ago

Tennessee Taking Lead In Protecting Civil Rights And Free Enterprise—And Stopping Political Debanking

Economy / 6 hours ago

‘Gambling With The Grid’: New Data Highlights Achilles’ Heel Of One Of Biden’s Favorite Green Power Sources

Business

When politicians gamble, taxpayers lose

Published on May 2, 2024

By

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Jay Goldberg

Trudeau and Ford bragged about how a $5 billion giveaway to Honda is going to generate 1,000 jobs. In case you’re thinking of doing the math, that’s $5 million per job.

Politicians are rolling the dice on the electric vehicle industry with your money.

If they bet wrong, and there’s a good chance they have, hardworking Canadians will be left holding the bag.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford announced a $5-billion agreement with Honda, giving another Fortune 500 automaker a huge wad of taxpayer cash.

Then Trudeau released a video on social media bragging about “betting big” on the electric vehicle industry in Canada. The “betting” part of Trudeau’s statement tells you everything you need to know about why this is a big mistake.

Governments should never “bet” with taxpayer money. That’s the reality of corporate welfare: when governments give taxpayer money to corporations with few strings attached, everyday Canadians are left hoping and praying that politicians put the chips on the right numbers.

And these are huge bets.

When Trudeau and Ford announced this latest giveaway to Honda, the amount of taxpayer cash promised to the electric vehicle sector reached $57 billion. That’s more than the federal government plans to spend on health care this year.

Governments should never gamble with taxpayer money and there are at least three key reasons why this Honda deal is a mistake.

First, governments haven’t even proven themselves capable of tracking how many jobs are created through their corporate welfare schemes.

Trudeau and Ford bragged about how a $5 billion giveaway to Honda is going to generate 1,000 jobs. In case you’re thinking of doing the math, that’s $5 million per job.

Five million dollars per job is already outrageous. But some recent reporting from the Globe and Mail shows why corporate welfare in general is a terrible idea.

The feds don’t even have a proper mechanism for verifying if jobs are actually created after handing corporations buckets of taxpayer cash. So, while 1,000 jobs are promised through the Honda deal, the government isn’t capable of confirming whether those measly 1,000 jobs will materialize.

Second, betting on the electric vehicle industry comes with risk.

Trudeau and Ford gave the Ford Motor Company nearly $600 million to retool a plant in Oakville to build electric cars instead of gasoline powered ones back in 2020. But just weeks ago, Ford announced plans to delay the conversion for another three years, citing slumping electric vehicle sales.

Look into Ford’s quarterly reports and the danger of betting on electric vehicles becomes clear as day: Ford’s EV branch lost $1.3 billion in the first quarter of 2024. Reports also show Ford lost $130,000 on every electric vehicle sold.

The decline of electric vehicle demand isn’t limited to Ford. In the United States, electric vehicle sales fell by 7.3 per cent between the last quarter of 2023 and the first quarter of 2024.

Even Tesla’s sales were down 13 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared to the first quarter of 2023.

A Bloomberg headline from early April read “Tesla’s sales miss by the most ever in brutal blow for EVs.”

There’s certainly a risk in betting on electric vehicles right now.

Third, there’s the question of opportunity cost. Imagine what else our governments could be doing with $57 billion?

For about the same amount of money, the federal government could suspend the federal sales tax for an entire year. The feds could also use $57 billion to double health-care spending or build 57 new hospitals.

The solution for creating jobs isn’t to hand a select few companies buckets of cash just to lure them to Canada. Politicians should be focusing on creating the right environment for any company, large or small, to grow without a government handout.

To do that, Canada must be more competitive with lower business taxes, less red tape and more affordable energy. That’s a real recipe for success that doesn’t involve gambling with taxpayer cash.

It’s time for our politicians to kick their corporate welfare addiction. Until they do, Canadians will be left paying the price.

Continue Reading

Business

WEF panelist suggests COVID response accustomed people to the idea of CBDCs

Published on May 1, 2024

By

Central Bank of Bahrain governor Khalid Humaidan

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

When asked how he would convince people that CBDCs would be a trusted medium of exchange, Bahrain’s central bank governor said that COVID made the digital transformation ‘something of a requirement’ that had ‘very little resistance.’

Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will hopefully replace physical cash and become fully digital, a central banker tells the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Speaking at the WEF Special Meeting on Global Collaboration, Growth and Energy Development on Sunday, Central Bank of Bahrain governor Khalid Humaidan told the panel “Open Forum: The Digital Currencies’ Opportunity in the Middle East” that one of the goals of CBDC was to replace cash, at least in Bahrain, and to go “one hundred percent digital.”

Humaidan likened physical cash to being an antiquated “analogue” technology and that CBDC was the digital solution that would hopefully replace cash:

“I thank this panel and this opportunity. It forced me to refine my thoughts and opinions where I’m at a place comfortably now that I’m ready to verbalize what I think about CBDC,” said Humaidan.

If we think cash is the analogue and digital currency is the form of digital – CBDC is the digital form of cash – today, clearly we’re in a hybrid situation; we’re using both.

We know in the past when it comes to cash, central bankers were very much in control with all aspects of cash, and now we’re comfortable to the point where the private sector plays a big role in the printing of the cash, in the distribution of the cash, and with the private sector we use interest rates to manage the supply of cash.

The same thing is likely to happen with CBDC. Yes, the central bank will have a role, but at some point in time – the same way we don’t call it ‘central bank cash’ – we’re probably going to stop calling it central bank digital currency.

“It’s going to be a digital form of the cash, and at some point in time hopefully we will be able to be one hundred percent digital,” he added.

When asked how he would convince people that CBDC would be a trusted medium of exchange, Bahrain’s central bank governor said that people were already used to it and that COVID made the digital transformation “necessary” and “something of a requirement” that had “very little resistance.”

“Right now, many of our payments are digital. The truth is, I said that we’re in a hybrid model; there’s less and less use of cash,” said Humaidan.

I think from predominantly digital with a little physical, I think the transition to fully digital is not going to be a stretch.

People are used to it, people have engaged in it and certain circumstances did help. Its adoption rates increased because of COVID.

“This is where contactless started to become something of a necessity, something of safety, something of a requirement, and because of that there is very little resistance; trust is already there,” he added.

Meanwhile, European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde has been going around the world telling people that the digital euro CBDC would not eliminate cash, and that cash would always be an option.

Speaking at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Summit in March 2023, Lagarde said that a digital currency will never be as anonymous as cash, and for that reason, cash will always be around.

“Is it [digital euro] going to be as private as cash? No,” she said.

A digital currency will never be as anonymous and as protecting of privacy in many respects as cash, which is why cash will always be around.

If people want to use cash in some countries or in some transactions, cash should be available.

“A digital currency is an alternative, is another means of payment and will not provide exactly the same level of privacy and anonymity as cash, but will be pretty close in terms of complete neutrality in relation to the data,” she added.

A WEF Agenda blog post from September, 2017, lists the “gradual obsolescence of paper currency” as being “characteristic of a well-designed CBDC.”

Last year at the WEF’s 14th Annual Meeting of the New Champions, aka “Summer Davos,” in Tianjing, China, Cornell University professor Eswar Prasad said that “we are at the cusp of physical currency essentially disappearing,” and that programmable CBDCs could take us to either a better or much darker place.

“If you think about the benefits of digital money, there are huge potential gains,” said Prasad, adding, “It’s not just about digital forms of digital currency; you can have programmability – units of central bank currency with expiry dates.

You could have […] a potentially better – or some people might say a darker world – where the government decides that units of central bank money can be used to purchase some things, but not other things that it deems less desirable like say ammunition, or drugs, or pornography, or something of the sort, and that is very powerful in terms of the use of a CBDC, and I think also extremely dangerous to central banks.

The WEF’s Special Meeting on Global Collaboration, Growth and Energy Development took place from April 27-29 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

“Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy restricts almost all political rights and civil liberties,” according to D.C.-based NGO Freedom House.

In the kingdom, “No officials at the national level are elected,” and “the regime relies on pervasive surveillance, the criminalization of dissent, appeals to sectarianism and ethnicity, and public spending supported by oil revenues to maintain power.”

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Trending

X