> Japan is one of the only countries to have privatized parking. In Europe and North America, vast quantities of parking space is socialized: municipalities own the streets and allow people to park on them at low or zero cost. Initially with the intention of encouraging the provision of more parking spaces, Japan made it illegal to park on public roads or pavements without special permission. Before someone buys a car, they must prove that they have a reserved night-time space on private land, either owned or leased.<p>This is got to be a huge factor. Making everyone pay for "free parking" through inefficient use of space is such a waste. I strongly recommend everyone to read Donald Shoup's "The High Price of Free Parking".
Street parking makes suburbs worse, too. Almost everybody in my neighborhood has their garages piled to the ceiling with junk and parks in the street, which makes it a pain to weave through even for someone driving a compact crossover… I can’t imagine what kind of hell it is for trash and delivery drivers having to squeeze huge trucks and vans through without swiping peoples’ cars.
The main low-hanging fruit is just removing surface parking lots in American downtowns and stopping the development and expansion of highways through the same. If you did nothing else that would have a significant positive impact. For almost all communities those surface parking lots are economic extracts from the community. They're woefully underpriced for tax purposes too.
Makes you consider the cost of anything that is “free”
That won’t fix the cost of rail in America, which is the main reason America doesn’t have better rail. Look at California high speed rail or light rail in Seattle. They have insane costs per mile, are still very over budget, falling behind schedule, and basically are forever grifts. The availability of parking is unrelated to these issues. It comes back to mismanagement and corruption.
Can you explain how Seattle is an example? They’re opening new lines, Link is packed often, seems like a well used reliable service, but I only visit once or twice a year.
> Before someone buys a car, they must prove that they have a reserved night-time space on private land, either owned or leased.<p>> This is got to be a huge factor.<p>If the USA implemented that exact rule, it would change almost nothing. People already need nighttime parking for non-legal reasons.
“Japan’s liberal land use regulation makes it straightforward to build new neighborhoods next to railway lines, giving commuters easy access to city centers. It also enables the densification of these centers, which means that commuters have more places they want to go.”<p>This is the most important paragraph in the article. It can’t be overstated how ingenious Japan’s system of zoning is and how much this has benefitted their society in ways we can only dream about here in the West.
"West" when we talk about urban spaces, walk-accessible cities and public transportation is, IMHO, the wrong category. Europe and USA are very far apart.
Europe and USA are both huge places so it depends what you mean. If you compare major east coast cities - Boston, DC, and NYC to European metros like Paris/ Madrid/ Lisbon the biggest tax on the citizens is the same in that it’s impossible to build anything so a huge % of income needs to go to housing.
East coast cities were built before modern building codes.<p>Something that, for some reason, people in the states don't want to accept is that - when given the choice - the vast majority of people prefer living in dense urban environments.
OP addresses that.
Japan is <i>not</i> particularly dense, especially outside of core downtowns.<p>You see the same dynamics in London and Paris.<p>People do not "prefer to live in dense urban environments" by urbanist standards.<p>They prefer to live in dense urban environments by <i>North American</i> standards, which can still be far less dense than urbanists really want.
Well, Japan isn't much different in terms of the share of income that goes to housing: <a href="https://housingpolicytoolkit.oecd.org/2.H_conso.html" rel="nofollow">https://housingpolicytoolkit.oecd.org/2.H_conso.html</a>
Great point.<p>Granted I’m approaching it from the perspective of a tourist or business traveler, but 6/6 of the European cities I’ve been in were fully navigable for my purposes via transit. I’d probably guess half or less in the US.<p>Even in NYC or SFO, the metro areas are so large it really makes the success rates low depending on the trip.
they might mean west of japan ;)
One thing that is critical is that the country hasn't turned home ownership into an ever growing financial asset that is meant to carry the majority of one's wealth into perpetuity
Well, it did at one point, it’s just that the crash that resulted was so nasty it disabused anybody of that notion.<p>At the peak of the bubble era, just the land underneath the Imperial Palace had an estimated real estate value larger than the entire state of California.
A great video on the zoning laws in Japan if anyone wants to nerd out on them<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlwQ2Y4By0U" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlwQ2Y4By0U</a>
>how ingenious Japan’s system of zoning is<p>I'm only barely familiar with it so I ask this in good faith: is it really ingenious or is it just more permissive? My bias/priors are that the simpler and truer statement is: it can't be overstated how beneficial more permissive zoning laws are to a society.
There are other aspects beyond simply being more permissive. I recall reading for example that property transfer tax is remarkably less on bare land, enough so that when travelling in Japan you will regularly notice bare lots for sale, as it is beneficial for the seller to tear down a lot before they sell it. This sort of thing encourages churn of housing, and coupled with liberal zoning, enables an accelerated increase in denser building. Tbh it probably encourages lower construction costs since more people are doing construction.<p>IMO in this whole conversation, whether discussing any jurisdiction not just japan, impacts of zoning is an over emphasized and tax policy under emphasized (ie. almost never discussed).
From what I remember, Japanese zoning allows small shops (there's a size limit) in any residential zone.<p>That means no car trips when you run out of bread or milk.<p>Smartest property of that zoning system IMO.
You haven’t lived until you have experienced the Japanese Kombini (convenience store).
I also wonder how much the pressure filled culture of not standing out has something to do with this. My impression is Japanese are under a lot more pressure to not abuse the permissiveness of the zoning laws.
Fwiw that’s what we have in Germany, unless you live in remote places. You always have a Lidl, Aldi, or REWE you can walk or bike to.<p>No idea what our local zoning laws are
Not really the same thing. They're much larger already than most stores you'd see in urban Japan.<p>Think more in terms of small convenience stores ("Spätis" with daily necessities) everywhere. Typical distance to a store is maybe 500-1000m in Germany. In dense areas of Japanese cities it's closer to one store every 100m-200m.<p>So in Germany it'd be a 10 minute walk, while in Japan most of your "walk" would be getting downstairs.<p>The flipside of that is that selection is going to be limited compared to what you'd find in Germany.
That's a big part of it. They also do zoning mostly at the federal level, meaning local opposition isn't relevant.
Sometimes permissive zoning laws don’t actually encourage positive urban development outcomes.<p>Example: Texas<p>Zoning has to both exist and be well-designed.
Texas zoning isn't nearly as permissive as Japan's. Setbacks are a big added requirement. Minimum parking requirements too though that is changing.<p>But it would not be legal to build japanese neighbourhoods in Texas.
I bet you'd see natural market driven concentration around rail stations in Texas too, if they had a useful rail network.
Texas zoning is only “permissive” relative to other states. Relative to Japan it’s quite restrictive.
Ingenious? It's a system that endorses hyper-capitalism through sub-9m² kyosho jutaku.<p>That isn't ingenious, it's battery farming.
[flagged]
In New York, property values go up as they near transit lines. People want the option to use the public transit because it can dramatically improve access to the rest of the city.
Yeah, no surprise there. Landowners profit without doing anything when the government builds out public transport.<p>The problem is, the healthcare costs don't hit the parties responsible (i.e. governments and cheapskate landlords).
I live a 3-minutes walk from a busy train station in Switzerland and I don't even hear the trains. I also happened to live just next to it (my windows facing the rails) and that was horrible. So it's just a matter of some space and noise barriers.
> So it's just a matter of some space and noise barriers.<p>And guess what's often hotly contested. Noise barriers tend to draw complaints because they ruin the sightline, are either ugly from the start or end up being "decorated" not by good art but quick throw tags. And landlords are often too much penny-pinchers to install decent windows unless you legally require them to, which is often impossible for already constructed buildings. The landlords don't have to live with the noise after all, and in overheated housing markets people are forced to live in what they can get.
Your citations do not back up your claims. For example [3] was talking about immobility and poverty, but not about living near noisy traffic infrastructure.
Yeah there are all these studies but then the end result is that the Japanese are healthier overall so when the studies and the reality have opposite results you gotta go with the reality.
> Fight densification wherever someone tries to push it.<p>What do you really mean? On that basis, we all would live on isolated farms on the prarie.<p>Humans are social animals that live in groups, just like other primates. Humans like living in dense cities so much that they pay far more for much smaller spaces in the most dense cities.<p>That doesn't make all density good but 'fight all densification' is not a real solution. When is it good and when bad? How much desnity in those situations? Those are some of the real questions.
<p><pre><code> > "I think that though we are a railway company, we consider ourselves a city-shaping company. In Europe for instance, railway companies simply connect cities through their terminals. That is a pretty normal way of operating in this industry, whereas what we do is completely different: we create cities and then, as a utility facility, we add the stations and the railways to connect them one with another."
</code></pre>
I think this is it. The economic model incentivizes rail development. (Certainly, part of it is also cultural and legal frameworks that in the US make it very hard for this model to work)<p>Because the railway companies also participate in the economic activity at the destinations, they extract extended value from enabling mobility. Imagine if the rail operators owned a percentage of a stadium or convention center, for example. This then creates the economic incentive to build more connections to this "hub".
Kyoto station is a great example of this. It's enormous inside, with a hotel on the top, event facilities, and a ton of retail all over.<p><a href="https://www.kyotostation.com/kyoto-station-building-facilities/" rel="nofollow">https://www.kyotostation.com/kyoto-station-building-faciliti...</a>
In my travels through Japan and Taiwan, rail stops are almost always hubs of economic activity of all sorts. It's a selling point when searching for accommodations while planning trips. Easy access to food and shopping. Taiwan night markets in cities, for example, are almost always near major rail station of some kind (light, metro, train). No need to go very far to get from one point of interest to another.
> Certainly, part of it is also cultural and legal frameworks that in the US make it very hard for this model to work<p>How so? In the United States Congress granted land to railroad companies, and the companies can sell the land to finance building tracks. Many cities started as railroad stops and grew because of the railroad.
I suspect the commenter above is reflecting on 2026 USA and not 1850 USA. The past tense nature of your comment if part of the concern highlights a common recognition that there is limited evidence the country is currently capable of building.
A lot of NIMBY/racism/classism and modern reality of legal delays means that it can be costly.<p>Zoning laws is another. It's a lot of fun visiting Japan and Taiwan because you can wander around and there's a huge variation of utilization in a given block. US approach to zoning means that I rarely see similar utilization in the US.<p>Separate from this is politics.<p>I'm in the NYC metro area and we've been trying to expand access into NYC for decades.<p>You would think that this would be a no-brainer because it enables so much economic activity in both directions (NY/NJ). Yet, Chris Christie canceled the ARC project (which itself was years in the making) for optics at the time of the Tea Party.
There's an existing disused commuter rail line in NJ near the Hudson that was shut down in the 60s. It still has many of its stations and density to support rail service today but can't be reopened because of the NIMBYs. If they can't make that work, the rest of the country is mostly hopeless.
NIMBY seems to have a hard time stopping data centers. Why do they have more success stopping renewables and rail?
If we put the same amount of economic pressure on rail that data centers have...the US would have probably have almost as nice infrastructure as China and be significantly better off.
NIMBY <i>is</i> stopping data centers.<p>Maine set to become first state with data center ban: <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/09/maine-data-center-ban.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/09/maine-data-center-ban.html</a><p>Also, it's a different kind of more insidious and visceral NIMBY rooted in racism and classism.
Not sure it's a bad thing. So, they would employ maybe 30 people after they're built. Consume a lot of power and water. I'd have to see the details of a specific proposal but I'd probably vote against personally.
Yes, see the famous essay, Nimby Good When My Neighborhood by I Hyppocrit.
The public rail industry has no bribing mechanism unlike the data center industry and the fossil fuel industry. Did I write bribe? Sorry, “campaign contribution.” But sometimes also literally bribes like Tony Soprano cash in the bag.
I sometimes see the US referred to as a "post-rail" society, meaning that it has outgrown the need for rail for the more intimate, personal transportation methods we see today. I submit that, like other HN commenters say, the US doesn't need rail due to this society. How will US citizens help their friends move or do their large (in terms of volume) Costco grocery shopping without large trucks and only using rail?
I’m probably a top 5% train nerd for the U.S. I took trains to work primarily from 2012-2020, in NYC, Philly, Baltimore, and DC. I used to ride Amtrak from Baltimore to DC every morning. I love Tokyo’s train system. I go there every year and I always take the train. But when I went there with my wife and three kids, I took a lot of Ubers! You can’t fit our double stroller with big America bags of toys and snacks on a business hours subway in Tokyo.<p>Americans love choice and they love <i>stuff</i>. They fill their cars with their stuff drive around on their own schedule without having to watch a clock or think about what’s near a train line and what isn’t. (Even with Tokyo’s amazing railway network, you have to think about that!) My wife drives to three different grocery stores 20 miles apart to get exactly the products she wants. The idea of just accepting whatever brand of hamburger buns they have at the store that’s conveniently on the train line between our house and work is completely alien.<p>To live within a Japanese system, Americans would have to change a bunch of other things about their culture. We’d have to give our kids independence to take the train themselves, instead of spending every saturday driving them around to 3 different far flung activities. We’d have to learn to appreciate what’s conveniently available, instead of the exact thing we want.<p>And not even Tokyo’s amazing train network makes it convenient to juggle two working spouses and school drop off and pickup for three kids. What line is convenient to your house, both parents work, and all three kids’ schools? The Japanese don’t even try to solve that problem.
I lived for many years next to a train station in NJ. I could readily take the train in to Manhattan, but for the hours I'd be there in evenings and on weekends, it was much more convenient and faster to drive in. My town was far enough out that the cost was slightly cheaper to drive (before the congestion fee). I then had the freedom to leave at any time without concern for the schedule.
I'm fairly far out from Boston/Cambridge but I'm pretty much the same situation. Going in for a commute (or 9-5 event), the commuter rail is pretty good; I'm a 7 minute drive to the station. But it's basically unworkable for an evening event (or a day into evening event). Trains are maybe every 90 minutes outside of commuting hours and they're largely empty. I end up suffering the drive in, paying for parking as needed (which isn't an issue if I'm going in for my usual theater), and then a pretty easy drive home. Wouldn't even think about taking rail in for the weekend.
> My town was far enough out that the cost was slightly cheaper to drive (before the congestion fee)<p>Aside from culture, this is another aspect which they touch on in the article. Japan doesn't have public parking. You're only allowed to buy a car if you have access to a parking spot. Tokyo is full of lots but they're all paid lots that charge in 30-60 min increments. There's also a lot of congestion zones in Tokyo which make driving in the city very expensive. Companies that do deliveries in the city often have a company car (or fleet of such) which lets them drive to destinations.<p>Overnight workers who do spend significant times at work before/after the trains stop do drive in. Most Japanese families in Tokyo live in suburbs surrounding the city and will walk, bike, or drive to a nearest train station to commute in.
<p><pre><code> > We’d have to give our kids independence to take the train themselves, instead of spending every saturday driving them around to 3 different far flung activities.
</code></pre>
The shock! The horror!<p><pre><code> > The idea of just accepting whatever brand of hamburger buns they have at the store...
</code></pre>
How could a family possibly survive! Imagine having to eat a different <i>brand of hamburger buns</i>! Truly, America is a shining beacon of modernity and convenience where I can get the exact, precise, industrially mass produced hamburger bun.
Maybe you misinterpreted the post you replied to? I don't think they were saying this stuff is a crazy proposal, just that it will be a different way of life for most Americans. No need to be so abrasive.
You’re preaching to the choir. I loved working at a company with a company cafeteria because I hated going out into midtown manhattan every day to choose lunch. But convincing americans that all their “choice” is illusory isn’t a matter of transit policy, it’s something much harder.
Damn, we get it, USA is a dystopia. No need to keep scaring us with those stories.
The same way people in every other country do it (rental vans)<p>Rail <-> Road isn't an either or issue. It wasn't in 1850 and it isn't today. The only difference, at least in the US, is that poorly designed government intervention/policies forced low population densities.<p>Rail and other forms of public transport simply don't work with suburban sprawl. Large roadways also don't work - compare the state of US infrastructure against pretty much every other country out there - it's just that the financial bill from an unbelievable amount of deferred maintenance hasn't come due yet.
<p><pre><code> > How will US citizens help their friends move or do their large (in terms of volume) Costco grocery shopping without large trucks and only using rail?
</code></pre>
Japan happens to be the 4th largest market (by stores) for Costco (US, Canada, Mexico, Japan)<p>Apparently, it works just fine.
Rail for the US has always been more about moving goods than people. For overland long-haul freight it is significantly cheaper than trucking. Rail allows us to ship goods to places where we don’t have ports or river access. A place like Japan can make such good use of rail simply because it is so densely populated.
The US is also densely populated; when people are talking about high speed rail they are talking about connecting the major, close by metropolitan areas that most people live in.<p>The Midwest, as an example, has roughly the same size and population as France with a larger economy. In fact, if you overlay the French TGV network onto the Midwest with Chicago where Paris is, you get a pretty good approximation of where major Midwestern cities are located: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/NMr3J3gt8C" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/NMr3J3gt8C</a>
Who says anything about “only?” Japan is home to a thriving car industry.<p>If anything, right now America is tilted heavily to car-only.
People in Japan also move and go shopping.
avoiding public transport, much like the creation of suburbs and gated communities, refusing to walk anywhere, expensive private schools with the same academic output as public high schools,<p>...<p>completely makes sense when you realise it is all just an elaborate system to avoid being around the small part of the population that commit insane amounts of violent crime in the US with no motive<p>---<p>Christopher Lane, a 22-year-old Australian baseball player, was fatally shot while jogging in Duncan, Oklahoma, on August 16, 2013. Three teenagers, including convicted gunman Chancey Luna, targeted him in a random "boredom" killing. Luna received life in prison without parole, while accomplices received lesser sentences
Japanese public transport is good, but no match for the Swiss system. Outside of big cities, the coverage is spotty, and even reasonably large towns are only connected by reserved-only trains every couple of hours that get booked out days in advance. The almost complete lack of digitization is also remarkable (reservations have to be made with machines in the stations). There are other annoyances such as the public transport in Tokyo shutting down completely at midnight. In contrast, the Swiss government-owned system delivers usable connectivity to almost any human settlement, even most mountain villages. The ticket prices are also not so different, which is surprising considering the large difference of salaries in the two countries.
It's worth mentioning that swiss is a nation of 9 million, whereas Japan has 128 million people. I'm not sure how comparable it is. You probably don't need to pass through a lot of settlements for any public projects in swiss, for example.
You can make reservations online: <a href="https://www.eki-net.com/en/jreast-train-reservation/Top/Index" rel="nofollow">https://www.eki-net.com/en/jreast-train-reservation/Top/Inde...</a>
How could a route busy enough to completely fill a train every few hours not justify some kind of regularly scheduled service?
It's generally regarded that Hong Kong has the best subway in the world. There are many reasons for this, but one cannot be overstated: Hong Kong's geography. A huge portion of the city consists of long thin urban corridors sandwiched between mountains and the sea. As a result, Hong Kong need concentrate its funding on only a few subway lines to support a huge portion of the population.<p>This good article aside, I wonder if the same thing is true about Japan when we're talking about long-distance trains. Compared to France or Germany, Japan is basically a stick. A very large chunk of the populace lies on a single train line running from Kagoshima up to Hakodate, running through Fukuoka, Hiroshima, Osaka, Kyoto, Yokohama, Tokyo, Sendai, etc. So you can slap a single bullet train line there and service all of them.
I think you're broadly correct and that's definitely a reason, and I have another example to support it.<p>Mumbai too has a very similar structure (the core city is basically a peninsula that goes north-south). Our railway lines run N-S as well, with (till the recent Metros) feeder roads connecting them.<p>Mumbai is also one of the most densely populated cities in the world (#2 by some metrics).<p>Our local railways have an annual ridership of 2.26 <i>billion</i> [1]. Pretty much everyone agrees they're vital to the city.<p>1 - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_Suburban_Railway" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_Suburban_Railway</a>
The Hong Kong Metro is also very well planned, architected, and generally well run operationally. So much that the MTR corporation actually offers international consulting services. And for two decades, they have consulted with many mainland Chinese metro systems, hence it's no coincidence that the Shanghai and Shenzhen metros both look and feel very similar to HK's.
That is a good point but I think it doesn't apply everywhere.that has a similar shape. New Zealand has a similar shape but without railways interconnecting cities. You cannot cross the country, the islands, or even regions by train.<p>I think this could be a variable to contribute to a good coverage and infrastructure... but there are probably more factors involved.
The population density is probably one factor. New Zealand has 5.34 million people in 103,000 square miles. At the other extreme you have Hong Kong with 7.5 million people in 430 square miles. Each mile of track gives service to a much larger percentage of the population in Hong Kong than New Zealand. The same goes for a lot of the United States. The coastal corridors in the United States are population dense, but the interior less so.
Population density is one thing. Another issue is timing.<p>New Zealand was a really young country when railway technology came along, and didn't really have enough time or money to invest in a good railway network before other technology came along.<p>Airplanes are the perfect technology for NZ's geography, because they just fly over everything. There are actually a few places in NZ that received passenger airline service in the 30s before they received a railway connection (namely Gisborne), and many other places that never received railway connections.<p>At the same time, NZ was one of the fastest adopters of the automobiles, second only to America.<p>I think viable cars and airplanes had taken another 25 years to arrive, NZ might have had a much more complete railway network, with a much better chance of surviving intact into the modern era.
Population density is not accidental. HK has towers and greenery vs Anglophone culture which is to build homes sprawled into the greenery.
didn't NZ have a decent inter-city train service in the past but no longer does bc cars won out in the end?
Yes. You get a lot of bang for your buck as far as the number of people served. Hong Kong is less than half the area of Rhode Island, but the populations are 7.5 million for Hong Kong and 1.1 million for Rhode Island. Small area plus high population density is the situation where trains are most valuable.
Geography like that does help a lot, it’s part of the reason it’s so easy to do really good high-speed rail in Italy over somewhere like Germany that is way more spread out. But it’s only half the picture, you also need the political will to get it built!
The population density of Italy 201/km2 is lower then population density of Germany 241/km2, so from point of view of density, Germany should have more high-speed rail than Italy.<p>But because cars are major German export driver and car manufacuring is major employment in Germany, anything competing with cars has not much political support.<p><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merz-pledges-to-resist-2035-eu-electric-car-switch/a-74296747" rel="nofollow">https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merz-pledges-to-resist-2035-eu...</a><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschlandticket" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschlandticket</a>
Density is not that important. It's the distribution. Japan for example has most of the population concentrated close to coast.<p>Italy has a few major population centers south of dome but sparsely populated otherwise.<p>And so on...
<i>The population density of Italy 201/km2 is lower then population density of Germany 241/km2, so from point of view of density, Germany should have more high-speed rail than Italy.</i><p>That would be if kilometers of rail tracks scaled linearly with population density per unit area. My guess (based on no research at all) is it’s more that there’s a population density tipping point, and after reaching it rail development dramatically increases. I do also think you’re right about the influence of the German car industry.
I'm sure geography helps, but it's certainly not the driver for good train service design. Cities in Japan are definitely not laid out in thin lines, and there's not just a few routes in any given city. I was living in Nagoya back in high school, and its train lines are <i>sprawling</i>.<p>Side note, there actually isn't one shinkansen from Kagoshima to Hakodate, that route would take you on 5 different shinkansen lines: Kyushu, Sanyo, Tokaido, Tohoku, and Hokkaido. But I get your point.
That’s arguably irrelevant to anything except the Shinkansen.<p>Switzerland has 8m people. Bay Area has 8m people. Switzerland is 1/4th as densely populated as the Bay Area (4x the size) yet they have 10x better transportation
The Swiss public transport system is a century-plus old at this point. Compare pictures of the Zurich tram system in the early 20th century with today - squint your eyes and you won't notice any difference.<p>That said, I'm willing to bet that San Fransisco and the surrounding communities had comparable public transportation in the 19th and early 20th century. While I can't speak for the bay area, you can still find exposed tram tracks in many US cities - Philadelphia, for instance.<p>The US's move from having the best to arguably the worst public transportation system in the world among developed countries is a lesson in disastrous government policy.
California is also like this for the most part. Bay Area has 8 m, Los Angeles area has 17 m, and San Diego area has 3 m. 28 out of 39 live in those three. Straight line.
With relatively little between the Bay Area and LA to serve as a viable customer base. Hence, a lot of the problems getting California HSR going. Imagine you had the Boston area and the Washington DC area and took out NYC and Philadelphia in the middle. You'd have the same issue. The Acela isn't the fastest rail service (in part because NYC <i>is</i> in the middle but Boston to NYC and NYC to DC are a lot more practical than the whole route. I did it once when I wasn't in a hurry but it was because I could afford the time.
This is a great article, but I think it’s hard to ignore that Japan’s culture of harmony is a big part of why they were able to choose sensible regulations that benefitted everyone. We struggle to pass even the most sensible land use reforms because entrenched interests want to remain entrenched even if it hurts the system overall.
So America's culture of individual liberty is why people don't have the freedom to build whatever they want on the land that they own?
American's culture of me, me, me, now, now, now is why.<p>If it doesn't benefit the individual almost immediately they're strongly opposed.<p>They want the benefits of strong infrastructure but let someone else build it without inconveniencing ME or costing ME a dime.<p>It is a culture that teaches greed is good and society should be built around all gain no cost.
> They want the benefits of strong infrastructure but let someone else build it without inconveniencing ME or costing ME a dime.<p>Which is what the Japanese have. private railways
As an American, I always hear all these weird stories about New York and its subway system. All the random busker type nonsense, the petty crime and the “mugger wallet” type jokes. Not to mention the major crimes that make the news.<p>I’d rather not deal with it? Yes I know roads are dangerous. I’d still rather not deal with the expected culturally imposed insanity that the Japanese curiously seem to lack.
> All the random busker type nonsense, the petty crime and the “mugger wallet” type jokes.<p>Most of this is stories. Yeah there are buskers but tbh I like buskers. Music in the public square is a plus not a minus even if it's not my personal preference of music.<p>Subway crime rates are around 2-4 incidents per million rides. There was a spike during covid and it started to rapidly trend down afterwards. That corresponds with economic desperation during that period pretty cleanly.<p>But that 2-4 incidents per million rides is roughly comparable to the crime rates at gas stations, etc. The difference is that density is lower so you just see it less often. It happens just about as frequently but you are less likely to witness it because you are less likely to be present when it happens to somebody else at a gas station.<p>> I’d still rather not deal with the expected culturally imposed insanity that the Japanese curiously seem to lack.<p>Trust me Japan has just as much of an issue with crime on rail. Arguably they have higher rates but the Japanese police often just don't consider sexual harassment or sexual assault a serious crime and would rather brush it under the rug or otherwise deal with it outside the criminal system to avoid harming the abuser. (ex: an incident that I'm familiar with: "oh we gave the guy who assaulted you on the train your address so they could mail you a hand written apology note instead of charging them with assault")<p>And the "wacky in your face" crime (intoxicated, mental illness, etc) is still very much an issue in Japan but it's cracked down on by police in places that tourists frequently visit during the day and otherwise everyone just expects it so people who live there don't really mention it to tourists.<p>I mean hell look at Shibuya Meltdown for some of the more mild "funny" examples.<p>The only real difference between the NYC metro and the Japanese metro is that it's louder because there's not a social norm to limit talking on the train (until people are drunk ofc). Otherwise it's all the same shit and you see it all when you start commuting.
> I always hear all these weird stories<p>The weird stories, about anything, are nonsense; sensationalized to either be emotoinally compelling or even active disinformation to serve some political end (especially about American cities, especially about NYC.)<p>It's just induced fear. Just go to NY and ride the subway. Millions do all the time without any problems, without a second thought. It's really no problem and amazingly convenient. (Busking is people playing music.)<p>Of course some crime occurs among millions of people but so do lottery grand prizes and heart attacks. I've been on many subway rides without experiencing one crime or even seeing one, and much other public transit.<p>And when you do, you'll know what to think of the stories and people who tell them.
Yes, that’s exactly right. Maximal ‘individual liberty’ is my right to maximize my land’s value. My neighbors either agree to maximize theirs in a way that increases, or doesn’t hinder, mine, or they are my enemy to be litigated to death by my lawyers for damages.
It's also hard to ignore that Japan was bombed to smithereens in the 1940s and undertook a nationwide rebuilding effort that might have contributed to a more uniform approach to land use.
> because entrenched interests want to remain entrenched even if it hurts the system overall.<p>You might say it's because we live in a "low trust society," but not for the reasons the people who usually invoke that term claim.
> Japan’s culture of harmony is a big part of why they were able to choose sensible regulations that benefitted everyone.<p>Is there evidence of that? It sounds like a broad stereotype of a complex, large country by an ignorant outsider.<p>> entrenched interests want to remain entrenched even if it hurts the system overall<p>Another way to look at that is prioritzing the individual over the system, a hallmark of liberty and human rights.
the railways are excellent, but it's funny. I was <i>just</i> in Kyoto and saw flyers seemingly at every single temple opposing the Hokuriku Shinkansen extension. apparently this type of opposition has always existed (I looked at the history of trains in Japan and originally most Japanese did NOT want it at all because they thought it looked really ugly), like nimbys in USA, but such decisions are apparently federalized according to some Japanese nationals I spoke to, so the nimbys have no power.<p>USA should do the same (well, the current federal government is volatile to say, the least, but in general I think it'd be improvement).
They still have influence in Japan. The maglev train has been delayed for years because a small portion passes through Shizuoka, and the local government wouldn't approve construction due to it making no stops in the prefecture and potentially affecting water supplies there.<p>This delayed the opening of it from 2027 to 2035 at the earliest.<p>Shizuoka as a whole is unusually screwed by the Shinkansen system. Large cities like Hamamatsu, with 800k people, are passed over by a lot of the Hikari (mid-speed Shinkansen), and the Nozomi (high speed Shinkansen) passes through the prefecture with zero stops whatsoever. However, it stops it cities like Tokuyama, with a whopping population of 100k.
It's a bit ridiculous to imply Tokuyama gets better shinkansen service than Hamamatsu, because it has Nozomi service.<p>Looking at the schedule towards Tokyo for Monday, April 27th:
Tokuyama has:
4 16 car Nozomi trains to Tokyo
19 8 car Kodoma/Sakura trains to Shin-Osaka
9 8 car Kodoma/Sakura to Okayama<p>Hamamatsu has:
31 16 car Kodoma to Tokyo
19 16 car Hikari to Tokyo<p>Keep in mind the fastest Kodoma seems to only take around 1 hr 40 mins to Tokyo, and the fastest Hikaru is only 1 hr 20 mins.<p>I'm sure it's nice getting a 1 seat ride to Tokyo from Tokuyama if you can get on one of the 4 Nozomis, and unfortunate you can't get a one seat ride past Shin-Osaka from Hanamatsu, but the service levels seem pretty proportionate to me.
Looking only at connections to Tokyo is a bit reductionist (difficult to believe, but yes, there are cities outside of Tokyo that people go to!). As a mere matter of geography, there are unavoidably fewer trains to Tokyo (it's on the opposite side of the island). Using that same methodology, it would be good to see how many trains from Hamamatsu have a direct connection to the biggest metropolis near Tokuyama: Fukuoka. That way we can measure which city is the best for getting to the opposite side.<p>The total number of trains with a direct connection from Hamamatsu to Fukuoka is, at least based on all the info I can find, zero.<p>Or even a much closer city that people in Hamamatsu would frequently go to: Hiroshima. Also zero direct connections without a transfer.<p>People in Tokuyama can go direct to Fukuoka and Tokyo. They can do a transfer at Osaka in the case of non-direct trains. They're very much better set up than Hamamatsu.
is this because of the federal government capitulating or is it because the small group inherently has influence structurally?
The federal government has no influence. Prefectures approve their own construction. Japan's railways are built and operated by corporations, not the government, so the federal government has zero say in the matter.
Funny how people always endlessly worry about water supply, its one of those things that is very easy to claim but very hard to prove an in 99.9% of times there really isn't an issue.
Objections to large projects exist everywhere all over the world.<p>The reason the US has such an issue with this is because of state autonomy (and corruption). Most other places in the world don’t allow subregions of the country to do whatever they want and make up laws etc
The US interstate system is incredible extensive, uniform, and well-maintained (relatively speaking). States love federal dollars, and if there were federal dollars for train lines, they'd fall over themselves to get them. That doesn't seem to happen for a lot of reasons. It seems like there are a lot of corruption problems that seem to eat up train projects, but for some reason the interstate system, though replete with plenty of boondoggles, is an unstoppable road-spreading machine.
My impression is it's more to do with being able to sue for everything under the sun and block things almost indefinitely under different forms of review, usually environmental.
Switzerland is even more regional than the US. Yet they seem to have built an excellent rail system.
We need to stop pretending it isn't corruption and conflict of interest
I am a big infrastructure nerd but I believe they are right, it does change the way idyllic landscapes and towns can look.<p>But I'm not sure it's a valid reason to block such practical projects. It's the same for cities with building height restrictions (or really very many types of restrictions). It will make an old city look a bit less romantic for sure, but also people have to live and work here. Cities aren't for looking at.
I’m not American, so only have an outsider perspective, but I’m not convinced that’s possible in the US to do the same, because the country has a completely different perspective on individual rights. Land ownership seems to be seen as something sacred that cannot be infringed in any way, meaning a small group of people who own some parts of the land can block any development that would benefit the public at large
This is mostly true until it's time to build an interstate.
<i>a small group of people who own some parts of the land can block any development</i><p>Almost all NIMBY opposition to development comes from people who do not own the land in question.
You’d think so, but in fact it’s almost the opposite! You can own your land all you want but your neighbor has a final say on what’s allowed on your land.
land rights aren't exactly a constitutional right, but the 5th amendment makes it hard to take it, so in practice would probably require a constitutional amendment.
The 5th amendment isn't exactly recent. But a lot of factors make it harder--for better or worse--to exercise eminent domain today than in the past. You could probably never reasonably build the equivalent of the interstate highway system today. (Though even at the time, there were compromises made because of strong community pushback in some cases and there was less developed space than today as well.)
Eminent domain is designed for this. People are compelled to sell.
The US is the country that originated Georgism.
[dead]
There's a 'build the Japanese train system' board game "1889" -- <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/23540/shikoku-1889" rel="nofollow">https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/23540/shikoku-1889</a> -- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Shikoku-1889-Railways-Players-Minute/dp/B0CNDDTYKN" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Shikoku-1889-Railways-Players-Minute/...</a>
Japan isn’t a federal government, so the decision can happen at the national level because prefectural and local governments zoning ability came from the national government.<p>I don’t think the federal government could de facto change this, though in practice they have levers available.
It can’t work in the US, because it’s not a society that works together for the collective good, or to raise everyone’s quality of life.<p>It’s a bunch of individuals in a dog eat dog situation who happen to live nearby.
I was just thinking about this, this morning.<p>In the US, we have had a pretty wide-open nation, for much of our history. Population density was low, and many folks were forced to be extremely self-sufficient.<p>This has resulted in a fiercely independent national zeitgeist.<p>Asian nations, on the other hand, have been very crowded, for a very long time.<p>This has resulted in a much more interdependent mindset.<p>Each has its advantages and disadvantages. There's really no nation on Earth that is as good at "ganging up" on a problem, as Japan. Korea and China are catching up quick, though. The US is very good at manufacturing footguns. We don't tend to play well with others.<p>It really is hard for exceptional people to make their way, in Japanese society, though. They have a saying "The nail that sticks up, gets hammered down."
><i>In the US, we have had a pretty wide-open nation, for much of our history. Population density was low, and many folks were forced to be extremely self-sufficient.
This has resulted in a fiercely independent national zeitgeist.</i><p>Australia is much less dense and more remote that the US (I drove 1,050 miles in Australia through the desert without seeing a vehicle or person, in the US you can’t get more than 100 miles from McDonald’s) but Australian’s work together and don’t have this “ fiercely independent “ nonsense that keeps everyone at each others throats.
I have no strong opinion on the original thesis but your fact doesn't make the point you think it does; you're right that no one lives in most of Australia, nearly everyone is concentrated together on the coast. Australia is a bit more urban than the USA overall from a population perspective, despite being vastly less dense overall due to the areas that no one lives in. So there would be fewer people to carry the cultural individualism.<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/comments/1nbrov9/australia_vs_usa_population_density_why_did_one/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/comments/1nbrov9/australi...</a>
About 9 out of 10 Americans live in cities (incl burbs) and the same holds for Australians. Sure, there's fewer notable population centers in Australia (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and you got nearly everyone), but there's also just 10x fewer people than in the US so that kind of matches too. I think the picture you link to distorts this, it does not account for the fact that there's simply way fewer Australians.<p>I'm not convinced that if there were 300m Australians, that they'd still all live in those 5 cities (with every city being 10x bigger). I think there'd be more of them.
> I'm not convinced that if there were 300m Australians, that they'd still all live in those 5 cities (with every city being 10x bigger). I think there'd be more of them.<p>I don't think so either, but because of the climate and geography, I also don't think there'd be 10x more cities, similar populations, I think you might end up with 2-3x more, really, at most.
I don’t know.<p>Most Aussies I’ve known are quite independent.<p>I really like them; maybe because we share so many traits.<p>Also, the US was where the British sent their convicts, until we had a big prison riot.
Yes, but Aussies work together for the collective good of society. High taxes. Universal Healthcare. Higher education, etc etc.<p>Aussies are friendly and kind, not locked in a dog eat dog world.
Australia also has many issues the US had. Car dependence. They also don't have high speed rail despite their cities being near perfect for it.<p>Also in Australia the waste majority of the population arrived much later and most were always attached to coastal cities. These cities were dominated by British aristocrat early on and later the British labor movement and reflects the culture of London. Australia politically was a part of Britain in many ways for 100s of years after the US had gone its own way.<p>The same is true to a lesser degree for the North East Coast in the US, arguably it works more like Britain/Australia but the South and everything West is quite different.
I think this is not a smart read of the situation. The US has built a tremendous amount of rail and other transit (eg NYC subway) back when it was an even more individualistic society than today.<p>In fact they country was clearly able to come together for the public good many times throughout their history.<p>You could consider other causes.
Most all of that old rail was done by private companies seeking to make a profit. Just like Japan. Look at nyc subway building rates after it was publicly owned. Almost zero expansion. Contractions even.
Francis Fukuyama is now arguing that the US in now a substantiantively lower trust society than it was in 1995 when he published his second book "Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity."<p>>In it I argued that trust is among the most precious of social qualities, because it is the basis for human cooperation. In the economy, trust is like a lubricant that facilitates the workings of firms, transactions, and markets. In politics it is the basis for what is called “social capital”—the ability of citizens to cohere in groups and organizations to seek common ends and participate actively in democratic politics.<p>>Societies differ greatly in overall levels of trust. In the 1990s, Harvard’s Robert Putnam wrote a classic study of Italy which contrasted the country’s high-trust north with its distrustful south. Northern Italy was full of civic associations, sports clubs, newspapers, and other organizations that gave texture to public life. The south, by contrast, was characterized by what an earlier social scientist, Edward Banfield, labeled “amoral familism”: a society in which you trust primarily members of your immediate family and have a wary attitude towards outsiders who are, for the most part, out to get you.<p><a href="https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-world-simply-does-not-trust-america?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true" rel="nofollow">https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-world-simply-does-not...</a>
I didn't realize the link but I agree with the decline in trust.<p>One obvious axis is that in 1995 (I came to the US right around then) the country had a high church attendance rate, racial homogeneity, % of people who are parents, and % of people who were born here.<p>In the 30 years that passed all of these numbers had become <i>significantly</i> lower and obviously each factor on its own contributed to a decline in societal trust.
Same in The Netherlands. There are companies that buy plots of lands near existing rail just to massively screw over the government if they ever want to expend rail. Double digit million euro deals over small patches of land.
Alright whippersnappers, let's chat about the history of railroads in the US.<p>In the early 20th century, US rail companies were beholding a very favorable situation: high demand to run loads of heavy freight all over the country, high demand to ferry passengers all over the country, and basically no serious competitors to either revenue source.<p>Now freight revenue was never going to be transformative to the industry, but it had the benefits of being reliable, un-fussy, and fairly easy to build a financial business around. Passengers, on the other hand, offered huge revenue potential, but had the downsides of being very fussy about things like safety and comfort and timeliness, along with wanting stations in convenient places and an ever-expanding rail network.<p>Students of US business management history should be unsurprised, then, that while evaluating the market that offered reliable revenue, versus the market that wanted large capital investments, the railroads overwhelmingly chose the freight market. In other words, US the railroad companies spoke and said <i>we do not want passengers</i> loudly and clearly.<p>The thinking was: passengers can do take the wagons and busses and cars and these newfangled airplane thingies, but freight is a guaranteed market for us! So the passengers slowly migrated to other form of transportation. But the kicker was, freight <i>also</i> wanted things like timeliness and access to an expanding transport network and, shockingly for the railroad execs, <i>were willing to pay for it</i>.<p>Add about 80 years, declining rail traffic, and tons of corporate mergers, and we have the sad state of US railways today: many residents have never seen a railway expansion or shiny new rail equipment, much less a real functioning passenger train. It's easy and comfortable to say that zoning or regulations or market forces allowed US rail to languish, but that would be ignoring the part where the industry did not want the customers in the first place.
Japan also has amazing car infrastructure too! Last time I was there visiting family in the mountains, I was quite impressed by the number and quality of tunnels and spiral ramps. The highways are similarly privatized, with tolls like train fares reducing the need for government subsidies.
I love the Japanese rail system. I am retired, now, so don't travel there, anymore, but I always used to cry, after coming back to the US, and getting on LIRR trains.<p>The most amazing thing, is how on-time they are, and how <i>precise</i> their stops are. They have marks on the platform, showing exactly where the doors will open (Protip: Don't stand directly in front of the doors, when they open). I hear that this is the result of <i>human</i> drivers; not robots. Apparently, engineer training in Japan is pretty intense.
The Densha de Go game series lets you experience a bit of what it’s like to drive a Japanese train.<p>There’s also Hmmsim 2 on iOS, which may be easier to get/run.
As a European I can only dream of having such a rail system.<p>When I have to buy six individual tickets for triple digit prices to get somewhere and the train ends up slower than going by car I wonder why I would even try.
This article is dishonest about the level of privatization in the JR's.<p>Yes, they're private companies, and they do diversification like investing in real estate around their rail cooridors to grow towns and grab people looking to do some shopping in their adjacent department store as passengers are walking through the stations. This is transit-oriented development at its best. (Also, ask google why land property lines in the US western states often look like big checkerboards)<p>But there's no mention of the Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency (JRTT). That's the government entity that builds many new Shinkansen lines. It then leases them to the JR companies at a fixed rate for 30 years. This keeps massive construction costs off the private companies' balance sheets.<p>Or when they do need large capital spends, there's no mention of the Fiscal Investment and Loan Program (FILP) which provides loans in the form of low-interest credit backed by government guarantees. Their creditors are effectively lending to the Japaneese government, not the JR company.<p>Is that kind of system really privatized? It's hybridized at best, and it shows that you really need government support of some sort to push country-scale infrastructure like this forward. Sorry free-market absolutists.
It is not at all dishonest to talk about their privatization.<p>It’s dishonest to hand wave it away while pretending that because there are government controls for construction and financing that it would go even better if it was more government or “more hybridized”. With no source, just opinion.<p>No one that has ever had to switch blue to red to green in toyko just cash, buying a new ticket at each stop only to go a couple miles, has ever forgotten how privatized Japans railways are.<p>I expected to see comments about how good it is, how most people love it, how it’s highly privatized, and of course about how to make it better with more government.
You misunderstand me... I'm not saying the privatization is a bad thing, handwaving it away, or saying lets throw government at it. I'm merely pointing out that in a 4,000 word essay trying to explain all the factors that let Japan have such a good railway system, there's a huge amount of emphasis on the privatization part, and zero mention of all the public sector subsidies that enable the entire system.<p>It's fine to talk about the efficiency of the private operators. No problem there. The dishonesty is in omitting any discussion of how the tracks that the whole system depends are built with heavy government support. Without that, one could be forgiven for reading that article and thinking "oh, just privatize it and you'll be as successful as Japan."<p>I think the take-away here should be more along the lines of what a working public-private partnership can look like and what roles each can play. I'd love to see a 4,000-word article that compares this model to the regional transit authority models we have in the US.
Did you miss this paragraph? They <i>do</i> talk about the subsidies from the national and prefectural governments.<p>> Carefully designed public subsidies also play a useful role. Although Japanese railways do not receive subsidies for day-to-day operations, they do receive government loans and grants for capital investments. These are typically tied to public priorities, such as disability access or earthquake-proofing, or to projects that have large spillovers that the railway company would be unable to internalize, like removing level crossings, or elevating at-grade railways or trams in order to reduce road congestion and accident risk. Generally, the local prefectural government will match the contribution of the national government. Larger new build projects are subject to lease back or debt-payment conditions that fare revenue is expected to pay back.<p>Unless this was added after the fact, I think this is mostly an issue of careful reading. To me, the article absolutely says that it's a hybridized system like you mention.
The article is great and very informative. But I feel there's a general vibe of "privatizations are great". For example, they do mention that privatizations didn't work in Argentina (they were a total mess and the total railway went from something like 50k kilometers to two thirds of that - if) but they don't mention enough of it - or other cases - to understand which regulations and why worked the way they did. It feels too much like it's all about integrating corporations, and that's it.
I'm not surprised that the article has that vibe and that you noticed it. Works in Progress, the magazine that published the article, is notorious for having a preference for market-oriented solutions, "laissez faire" policies and neoliberalism. They are open about it. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
In the West some private equity company would be buying these up, selling off the land and separate businesses, and screwing the rail passengers for all they can, until the whole thing sinks in a sea of debt. Then repeating the formula.
> This liberal zoning system is reinforced by private access to city planning powers. Thirty percent of Japan’s urban land has been subject to land readjustment, where agreement among two thirds of residents and landowners in an area is enough to allow its replanning, including compulsorily taking and demolishing land for amenities and infrastructure.<p>I think this is the key paragraph because (like it or not) a lot of Americans would be philosophically opposed to this sort of process (the Kelo decision on eminent domain notwithstanding.)
I’m glad the article confronts the “culture versus policy” argument. But I think it overlooks the degree to which policy reflects culture. Japanese rail policy reflects a combination of Big Government regulation and privatization that has no significant constituency in the U.S.<p>In the U.S., the folks who like public transit would never go for having rail stations be owned by conglomerates that get nearly half their profit from retail and real estate activities adjacent to the stations: <a href="https://www.patiencerealty.com/post/the-story-of-how-privatization-and-real-estate-transformed-the-japanese-railway-industry" rel="nofollow">https://www.patiencerealty.com/post/the-story-of-how-privati...</a>. It makes perfect economic sense. Transit creates a positive value for the land around each station. Having the rail operators own the station gives them a stake in the value created and incentivizes them to prioritize good rail service that brings people to the hotels and retail the companies own near the stations. But Americans are ideological, not pragmatic, and an idea like that is DOA here.
Dupe of <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47677481">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47677481</a>
I’d think Japan being a long, skinny, population dense country has to help. There’s just more potential in every km of rail laid.
I have a hard time believing China doesn't make the list with how much rail they have.
The good thing that happened seems to be that China has essentially 10xed the Japan railways template. I wonder how bad a car centric China would've had been.
successful train lines in Japan are all built between CBD and some spots / attractions. Odakyu: odawara / hakone, Seibu: chichibu, keiou: Takao, toukyuu: Nikko / kinugawa, nankai: Takao.<p>Tourists spots are usually in the mountains and the CBD is near the sea. And residential area is developed between them along the lines so the trains carry bidirectional passengers to work or relax on the same line, higher utilization keeps ticket fare low.
Japan has some of the best infrastructure anywhere. It will be interesting to see if they can keep it that way with their population changing and becoming more geriatric.
one thing worth pointing out is that the legacy private railways work because they were never nationalized and had decades to quietly buy up land around stations before it was worth anything. That's really hard to replicate from scratch. This model is great in dense cities but even Japan is still struggling with rural lines
Exactly. Tokyu's model of building a train line from the city center to rural areas and then building suburban developments in the rural areas the line traverses doesn't work in already built-up areas. Hence, there are still publicly-owned lines in areas where that model doesn't work. A great example is the Yokohama Municipal Subway. It is publicly owned and serves areas that were generally already built before the subway line was built.
In Japan there's a cross party political consensus that public transport projects are a net positive for society. That's important when you have work which could take a decade or more to complete - the Chuo maglev project for instance will be complete when my kids are approaching adulthood and they're still not in primary school. I often wonder what we might be able to do in New Zealand (where I'm from) if we had the money and population to support it. But then I remember that one of the two major political parties always cancels or scales back anything ongoing which is public transport related, every single time they're elected, so nothing ever gets done.
the article didn't even compare with China railways, that's weird.
I've been in Kyushu, in the south.<p>Japanese railways are indeed amazing, but it should be pointed out that peripheral routes are being dismissed everywhere in the country side, often isolating people and killing places.<p>Infrastructure is also dated in many places.<p>It's not a criticism to Japan, I think they are just facing the fact that many people move to the cities and the country is on a population decline as well.<p>They are facing this very masterfully.
I love how the bar graph didn’t include China because China is such a small place, basically a rounding error.
Russian or Chinese one way better.
When was the last time you had to travel between Moscow and St Petersburg? Sapsan trains are <i>always</i> sold out from my experience. And those night trains don't always fit your needs, although they are plentiful and dirt cheap. They are supposedly building a dedicated high-speed rail line, but I don't have much faith in that, especially in the current situation.
Countries like Japan seem to make policy that serves the people.<p>Other countries decisions serve politicians, corporates, the rich, and maybe possibly finally, the citizens.<p>Here in Melbourne a city of 5 million people we don’t have a train from the airport to the city despite decades of political talk about it. But why not? Because the Airport Coporation makes vast unfathomable profit on car parking. What’s most important? Just look around.
like many other places, there is a airport bus in Melbourne as I recall. there is (or was) a train from Melbourne to Canberra too (with a short bus transfer on the Canberra side). it was <i>very</i> difficult to figure out how to buy a ticket for it!
most of the japanese railway system is private. their 2 largest companies are some of the largest publicly traded companies in the world.
Works in progress also had a great article recently (also discussed on hacker news) about how Japanese railways are private, profit earning real estate development corporations. [1]<p>Unfortunately, people from western countries have very negative views toward the privatization of mass transit despite the wild success that Japan has experienced. The model makes so much sense: if trains are just a way to get people to the real estate that you developed, then you’re going to make sure that the trains AND the destinations are really nice, which also turns out to be very lucrative (at least in densely populated areas) as a cherry on top.<p>And even worse, like this commenter above alludes to, it is trendy in the West to believe that real estate developers are evil, and that corporations that make money are sucking the life out of society. This kind of degrowth populism pretty much guarantees that the successful Japanese model is out of reach for most countries, because it is exactly the pursuit of profit that makes Japan’s system so nice - not some edicts from a benevolent and extremely capable government.<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47762060">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47762060</a>
> Unfortunately, people from western countries have very negative views toward the privatization of mass transit despite the wild success that Japan has experienced<p>Japanese culture would frown heavily on enshittifying the transit experience to earn more profit. Western culture mass transit is already often shitty, and I cannot imagine how shit it would become if a for profit corporation took it over and started to squeeze it to make more money
I know why Japan has such good railways, and I can also tell you that this blog article doesn't mention any them.
Japanese are the original micro-optimisers. Kaizen.<p>South Koreans then took over. In between were the
Taiwanese.<p>The next wave will be mainland China.
I honestly had no idea they’re so libertarian-capitalist. I figured it was government-led, government-run.
[dead]
[dead]
Because they have bad something else.
The introduction lost me. To quote: "Japan’s vast railway network", but it does not address the mouse in the room. Japan is approximately the size of California with a population density that is three times that of California. I would argue that a comparison of rail systems without addressing those critical issues may be interesting but isn't really informative. The issues are complex.