Live data from Hacker News

Why Japan has such good railways

worksinprogress.co

541–550 of 609 posts

Re: Why Japan has such good railways

#541

The real reason Japan has such good railways has to do with politics. Japanese politicians were unable to create jobs (and collect bribes) with military spending due to post war constitutional restrictions, so instead of a military industrial complex they created what some have dubbed the "construction state". That's why they have cisterns under Tokyo which can handle a 400 year flood, and more germane to this discus…

This is completely ignoring the entire piece. Zoning, rail companies having large real estate interest and revenue, profitability, vertical integration, public policy. If having train service to remote areas and 400-year flood prevention systems are signs of dysfunction, things are going pretty great. Not all public utilities have to be profitable on their own.

I'm not ignoring the piece at all. What I'm saying is the underlying reason Japan built so much rail has nothing to do with what the author is claiming.

And yes, overbuilding infrastructure is a sign of dysfunction. The money to build all that stuff came from people who would have stimulated the economy in other ways, and it isn't free to maintain what you've built. It's really inefficient to build a rail line and then shut it down because you can't afford to maintain it.

Re: Why Japan has such good railways

#542

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.

California has a similar population density to France, which has a generally decent railway network. It's not really an excuse.

Re: Why Japan has such good railways

#543
post #334

So every time a post about successful public transit comes up, we get the full gamut of responses: - "This wouldn't work in the US because of X". X is usually land area. Ok, but what about China? - "We should fix some [corner case]" like the cost of parking; - "It's too expensive here". Why is it expensive? The key theme from all of this is central planning . You might be tempted to say that Japanese railways are pri…

The Chinese high speed rail network is completely utterly insane. Funny, the overhead line equipment (power lines) looks identical to the high speed lines in Europe!

... I mean, wait, what would you _expect_ it to look like? Overhead lines look much the same everywhere (except overhead lines for trams, which sometimes get weird).

Re: Why Japan has such good railways

#545
post #258

> The Midwest was once criss-crossed by a network of ‘interurbans’, essentially intercity trams. In the United States, these lines have vanished They just "vanished"! Man, I hate it when that happens. You leave a railroad outside with out a lid on it for too long and it just, you know, evaporates! What a drag... What an amazing evasion of reality/truth, another classic use of the passive voice...

The actual lines would be essentially useless today; they kind of _do_ evaporate if not maintained. The important thing is whether the right of way had been preserved. Irish Rail is currently reopening an old line. The first step is ripping up the whole thing and laying a new one; the existing one, closed 25 years ago, is unusable. (For that matter, at time of closing, it was virtually unusable; I think it had a speed limit of 20kph or something for safety reasons.) They degrade badly if not maintained.

Re: Why Japan has such good railways

#546

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.

California has a similar population density to France, which has a generally decent railway network. It's not really an excuse.

France has a density (pop/km²) of 122, similar density countries include Poland, Azerbaijan, Sierra Leone, Egypt (how are consistent are the rail systems across those countries?). US has a density of 37.

California specifically has a density of 94 (29% lower), which puts it near Spain, Timor-Leste, Moldova and Cuba.. California is doing OK for it's position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...

Re: Why Japan has such good railways

#547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't help that under-main-roof garages seem to be designed to only just fit small to medium sized cars despite the significant, rampant inflation of car sizes over the past few years. My family tend to opt for smaller cars, because we're practical and don't have the faulty 'keeping up with the Joneses' gene, which means we can fit two cars in a two car garage. We may still be in the majority, but it feels like…

UMR?

Under main roof

Apologies, I meant to add the acronym where first said under main roof.

Re: Why Japan has such good railways

#548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't help that under-main-roof garages seem to be designed to only just fit small to medium sized cars despite the significant, rampant inflation of car sizes over the past few years. My family tend to opt for smaller cars, because we're practical and don't have the faulty 'keeping up with the Joneses' gene, which means we can fit two cars in a two car garage. We may still be in the majority, but it feels like…

I don't suppose you have Ford F350s in your area? You could put that Ranger in the glove box.

Don't see them very often, thankfully. We're not the US yet - there is still hope!

Re: Why Japan has such good railways

#549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are already de-densified (which is why I find your below comment bizarre) The US is rapidly densifying, and this will get _worse_ as the population starts shrinking in earnest. Japan leads the way here, its population has been going down for a while. Yet Tokyo now is in a real estate bubble. > Can you point to a single elected official in an American city that has a plan of reducing density in their city? I'm cu…

> The US is rapidly densifying, and this will get _worse_ as the population starts shrinking in earnest. Japan leads the way here, its population has been going down for a while. Yet Tokyo now is in a real estate bubble. There are a lot of factors that go in to real estate prices, and I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to compare Tokyo to any city in America besides New York in just about any aspect. > Plenty of ci…

> There are a lot of factors that go in to real estate prices, and I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to compare Tokyo to any city in America besides New York in just about any aspect.

Yes, it absolutely makes sense. The trend is simple: you build rail transit, you get unaffordable housing. Go on, try to find a counter-example.

> Name one. That's not the same thing as NIMBY. No city is actively against growth.

Princeton, Texas.

> It's the same thing, and it goes very well with your thesis that the US is rapidly densifying. As it densifies congestion gets worse, adding transit takes away additional cars that would otherwise be on the road.

No, it does NOT take cars off. A car that is on the road, stays on the road. Cars are _vastly_ superior to any transit mode on average, so people almost never give them up.

You basically need to make your streets impassable before people start switching from cars to transit.

> In Seattle whatever transit exists is gone, now those people would drive cars, ergo congestion increases. This seems very obvious.

Then people would out-migrate, companies will close dense offices, and congestion will relax.

> Ok and do you not see what the problem is with this argument? I could just say, I'm paying $150k more in taxes for a new highway being built somewhere that won't go anywhere near me or I won't drive on.

Except that I'm _also_ paying for all the highway construciton and maintenance in direct user fees ( https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructur... ). A transit user does NOT pay for my use of highways, I do.

And to give you some perspective, one mile of this failrail will cost about the same as construction of 1000 miles of modern 6-lane freeway. The entire project will cost about the same as the total highway spending for entire WA for 15 years.

> Third - Most Americans aren't buying cheap cars.

As I sa

> Weird. I took a "single trip on transit" and it was less than $5 in New York. See I can just pull numbers out of my ass and apply them without any good reason too.

That's because transit riders in the US (or Europe for that matter) never pay the full fare cost, it's always subsidized.

And the ~$20 number is easy to get. For example, MTA: 1.15 billion annual rides (2023), total _operating_ budget $19.2B. Divide one number by another. And this does not include all the new subway construction cost, which is harder to account for.

> The US population is not shrinking.

It will within 1-2 years: https://www.prb.org/news/u-s-population-growth-is-slowing-to...

And even before that, the rate of growth for large cities has been outpacing the population growth for the last 2 decades.

> People want to live there - that's my best guess.

They don't. Most people would prefer to live in suburbs, but they HAVE to live in dense cities.

Re: Why Japan has such good railways

#550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't help that under-main-roof garages seem to be designed to only just fit small to medium sized cars despite the significant, rampant inflation of car sizes over the past few years. My family tend to opt for smaller cars, because we're practical and don't have the faulty 'keeping up with the Joneses' gene, which means we can fit two cars in a two car garage. We may still be in the majority, but it feels like…

Or maybe big vehicles which are inefficient from the point of view of physics (bigger = more energy to move around), take more space and damage the road more (more heavy, more bad for road) should be banned or taxed accordingly instead of having the law change the size of garages ?

I'd be happy with all of the above.
Post reply on HN