181–190 of 609 posts
> 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 ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of NIMBY/racism/classism and modern reality of legal delays means that it can be costly. 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. Separate from this is politics. I'm in the NYC metro area and we've been trying to expan…
NIMBY seems to have a hard time stopping data centers. Why do they have more success stopping renewables and rail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People can live without a high speed train. They cannot live without a clean water supply Seems to me that the priorities are correct
Ok but here is the thing, Japan had great civil engineering for 100 years, they have made lots and lots and lots of tunnels. Japan overall has fantastic water quality and is globally known for clean and safe bathrooms. So the argument that 'new train X will destroy the water supply' really needs to be based on a whole stack of good evidence.
> Japan had great civil engineering for 100 years, they have made lots and lots and lots of tunnels. Japan overall has fantastic water quality ...
Does it? And if so, maybe that's because they make sure projects like this one don't contaminate the water supply.
> ... globally known for clean and safe bathrooms
What does this have to do with water supply? One suspects that you know very little if that's the best evidence you have.
> "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." I think thi…
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 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." I think thi…
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. https://www.kyotostation.com/kyoto-station-building-faciliti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cul…
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. 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.
> I always hear all these weird stories 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.) 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 amaz…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok but here is the thing, Japan had great civil engineering for 100 years, they have made lots and lots and lots of tunnels. Japan overall has fantastic water quality and is globally known for clean and safe bathrooms. So the argument that 'new train X will destroy the water supply' really needs to be based on a whole stack of good evidence.
The burden of proof should be on not contaminating the water supply. That is too dangerous to risk. > Japan had great civil engineering for 100 years, they have made lots and lots and lots of tunnels. Japan overall has fantastic water quality ... Does it? And if so, maybe that's because they make sure projects like this one don't contaminate the water supply. > ... globally known for clean and safe bathrooms What doe…
This is specially true when these tunnel goes along many different areas and seemingly the only that complains and believes is unsafe is also the one that is trying to get a transit station in the district.
I'm sure they have plenty of evidence on why it is safe, like historical examples and such. But how do you 'prove' this to a point a politician can't just say, sure its 99.9999% safe but we can't risk it.
> What does this have to do with water supply? One suspects that you know very little if that's the best evidence you have.
The point is that Japan tends to take safety and cleanness very seriously. And they have built many train-lines and tunnels.
At one point to you personally consider the source of a claim?
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. This good article aside, I won…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know. Most Aussies I’ve known are quite independent. I really like them; maybe because we share so many traits. 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. Aussies are friendly and kind, not locked in a dog eat dog world.