There's a bunch of claims in the article that are misleading or just wrong.
> Core rail operations are profitable for every Japanese private railway company
Only the urban, legacy private railways that benefited from the "build a suburb and trains to it" system. Rural lines, private or not, all hemorrhage money, as do many of the newer private lines (often built by government and private only in name).
> Japanese cities have the lowest residential density in Asia
This is because Japanese "cities" (市) are administrative units, not actual cities. Particularly in the rapidly depopulating countryside, it's common for a bunch of dying villages that can't afford to duplicate their services anymore to get more or less forcibly merged into a "city" like Miyoshi in Shikoku that, in satellite view, looks like untouched forest:
> The urban area of Tokyo, the densest Japanese city, has a weighted population density less than that of many European cities,
This is only true for Tokyo Prefecture, which encompasses a vast slab of mountains. Actual Tokyo (23-ku) packs in over 15k people/km2, 50% more than inner London (10k) and nearly 2.5x Greater London (6k).
"The Japanese love cars, but they take trains because they have the best railway system in the world"
That's exactly it. It's not because of some cultural bias or whatever.
I'm in Japan. I use trains because it's so very easy and it's so very reliable. It's simply the best option for travelling. If I wish to go to Tokyo? I check a website quickly, I look up the best connection for my schedule (easy to find), I may pay in advance, or not. I take my bicycle and go ten minutes to the nearest station, park the bicycle in the bicycle parking there, and off I go. As it's a small station I change to a limited express train (where I've booked a seat) after ten minutes, then, after another forty minutes I reach a big station and I switch to the Shinkansen and I'm off to Tokyo. I'm relaxed all the time. I buy a coffee on the train, and/or I buy coffee and lunch at the station and bring on the train.
Every other way of getting there is way more complex, and would take way more time.
Maybe some trains could be more redneck coded somehow? Steam trains with sweaty stokers and buffalo shooting from the windows of course had plenty of that, but how to bring something from that aesthetic to the present? Bar carriage with sports screens still sounds still a bit passive and cliche. Maybe a gym car? There are already kid and pet cars after all at least here. In German trains you get a real glass pint for your beer, I think that's a big plus.
Riding the the train daily is the norm in the eastern United States. The urban density and shorter distances between metros allows it to be affordable.
The US is massive... riding the train between most cities is dramatically more expensive than flying and takes most of a day if not multiple days between cities.
I used to commute weekly between two cities in Texas and it was a 2 hour flight. (Houston - Lubbock)
As do some European high speed trains. I make it a point to book first class (or equivalent) tickets as that often comes with lounge access at the stations - which lets you mostly avoid the rampant pickpocketing and other petty crime that absolutely infests many European train stations.
IMHO cultural bias (and practicality, geographic and economic (low car ownership post-WW2)) is there in Japan, which led to a particular development model, which lends itself to non-car-centric infrastructure.
Contrast: Okinawa, where the US (cultural?) influence is higher and that has highways everywhere and where public transit is apparently not that good.
> Also, is not the population density fairly high? There's not as much land to spread in low-density car centric suburbs like there is in (say) the US.
LOL no. Outside of the big neighborhoods of the big cities, Japan is endless urban sprawl. I know because I live in a small Japanese city of 40k people and it's just detached houses, small 2-story apartment buildings, a big box stores. Public transportation is almost non-existant and I need to drive my car everyday for everything.
How many folks live inside versus outside the Tokyo-Osaka-Fukuoka rail corridor (Tokaido/Sanyo Shinkansens)? Saoporo is probably the next-largest city outside of that stretch.
Tokyo is relatively dense but it's nothing like what you expect from movies or from visiting there for a few days. The majority of people live in buildings 3 storeys or less (above 3 storeys there are a lot more requirements). There's a ton of detached houses even. The overall density of the 23 wards is slightly less than Paris.
When visiting you tend to visit some of the busiest areas and also spend a lot of time on the train. It's tiring and it seems so busy. But since almost every neighbourhood has all amenities and there is no single CBD, when you live there, you realise how much of Tokyo is an endless sea of small apartment buildings with small islands of restaurants and businesses around train stations, plus a handful of larger islands.
The article talks about the railways developing areas around Tokyo. This is actually very interesting and the way it sprawled[1] outwards towards places like Yokohama. Railways made commuter towns with amenities and commuter lines to those towns at the same time, and rented and sold real estate in those towns. Over time the areas in between the terminus of each of these lines (usually Shibuya or Shinjuku) and each town filled in until what you see today.
[1] I think the debate about whether or not Tokyo is/has urban sprawl depends on your definition. If you take it to mean expanding with lower density on the outskirts, it definitely "sprawled", although today it's more filled in. If you take it to mean unplanned low-density, car-centric expansion, it didn't "sprawl" that much. I've seen the terms car-centric sprawl and train-centric sprawl used to discuss the differences.
Yeah, I know that half the population lives in either the Greater Tokyo Area or the Keihanshin area. But you still have the other half scattered all around the country.
And even within those areas, when you move to the outskirts it is not so dense. Take the train from Narita to central Tokyo and tell me what you see.
>Are there not a lot of toll roads in Japan as well?
There are, but at least wherever I've been driving or been a passenger, there are alternative roads which are just fine. In general slower, but every so often the toll roads are congested for miles due to a combination of roadwork and a LOT of traffic, which makes them slower than the alternative roads during those times.
As for cars - the Japanese aren't against cars. Many of my neighbors have two cars, particularly dual-income households. And they take very good care of them, as a rule. More than I would - to me a car is just a utility. Not for the Japanese.
And people love driving too, at least outside the major cities.
Population density: Technically I live in a town with some 300,000 people. But it used to be nearly a dozen towns until 2006, when Japan decided to do some major restructuring and in many areas a bunch of smaller towns were thrown together to become a larger one. So we're really spread out..
Seoul is like this too. People look at the transit system and think it’s a model for car-less living. And while it’s fantastic, many Seoulites also love their cars. Those massive clusters of dense highrise apartment buildings you see everywhere? Most sit atop vast underground garage complexes.
In the villages (村) you don't need to, but anything bigger than that yes, you need a parking lot.
The procedure for the permit in my city is maddening, you need to draw a map of your general area and your parking lot BY HAND, and then several days later a police guy will go there to confirm it visually. They have not invented GIS yet...
On the JR line in Tokyo, standing with a friend who motions to me with his glance to a salaryman standing next to us. "Hand-stitched suit", my friend whispers. Which is when I notices this guy's "threads" (literally).
Perhaps not Warren Buffett, but no doubt an executive of some stature riding with the rest of us plebes.
Convenience & simplicity aside, how expensive is it? Not necessarily compared to driving, but just in general. When I went to Japan a long time ago, I remember being kinda shocked at the cost compared to the JR Pass for tourists (which included the Shinkansen), but part of that was to give tourists a huge incentive to spend some money outside of Tokyo, I'm sure, but I remember some fares feeling expensive for people just to head into the city for a night out...
I don't think it's expensive, but then again I'm comparing it to train prices in Northern Europe, which is just painful. There, I'm used to pay for the ticket through gritted teeth. In Japan I can pay for a ticket + limited express (better train w/booked better seat) for a 45 minute ride for what I would pay for a pint of beer at home. Totally worth it. The Shinkansen for a 90 minute ride is not cheap, say ten beers.. Northern Europe beer prices, mind.
At my native home my bicycles are insured, now through my home insurance (part of the furniture, kind of), but at one point one of my electric bicycles was too expensive for that and required additional insurance. As soon as the price dropped a bit I could drop that extra insurance.
As the comment above said, in Japan a bicycle is registered to a person when you buy it. Even the second hand bikes from recycle shops. And there _is_ a theft problem.. but not everywhere. I sometimes don't bother with locking my bicycle outside the shopping mall, here (in my town in Japan). Nobody steals bicycles here. There was a time when a particular gang of teenagers would steal scooters though.. the 50cc ones. A friend's scooter was stolen. The police found the culprits and he got his scooter back.
But not much problems with bicycles. Unlike in my town back home. Now that I'm here I would not be surprised if, when I go back, I find that someone broke into my garage and stole the bicycles.
It's not insuring the bike itself, it's insuring damages for accidents while riding it.
If you run into someone on your bike, you're on the hook for their medical costs (yes even in Japan's universal health care system, it's not single-payer), loss of income, etc.
Insurance will pay for that. It's now legally required to hold bicycle insurance in most cities in Japan when riding for this reason, similar to requiring basic car insurance.
That's new to me, and something I have to check. Wow. I assume this must be new, I'm 100% certain my (Japanese) wife hasn't heard about anything like that.
Though even if you're getting an hybrid assist bike, if you're paying much more than 1500$ for a commuter, probably overpaying [1200 from the manufacturer]
The subway system in Kyoto (Karasuma line) is operated by the local government. I visited during the busiest time of the year (Gion matsuri), and the trains were not overcrowded, were frequent and arrived on the dot. The subway system is nicely air conditioned which was pleasant as I visited during a heatwave.
I'm mostly in favor of privatization, but this is an example where the local government provide an exceptional service which is in no way inferior to the privately operated ones.
Japan's railroad system has a big geographic advantage - the country is long and narrow. The railroad system is primarily a long end to end line with short crosswise branches.[1]
That's an efficient structure. The branch lines don't have to be fast. Many are still narrow gauge, at 3 ft 6 in.
The US had to fill a huge area in the railroad era. That left a lot of underutilized track once the road network got good.
The northeast and west coast metropolitan corridors are similar, and combined have comparable populations, densities, and distances as Japan. Yet we can't even build a single high-speed line. And for all the excuses about the difficulty of building rail through developed regions, the existing rights of ways and infrastructure in both the NE and California are comparable to what everybody else has had to work with, at least in the past 50 years. The density of the NE is nothing like what you see elsewhere in the world, especially Asia, and Japan and China specifically.
It's lack of political will and ambition, period, by both the community and leadership. And excusing our inability by pointing at the hurdles, insinuating that others succeeded because they didn't face the same challenges, only perpetuates the paralysis.
> The density of the NE is nothing like what you see elsewhere in the world, especially Asia, and Japan and China specifically.
Yeah, I defy anyone who claims the US can't build trains "because of density" to fly to Tokyo, and actually take the Seibu Shinjuku line west from Shinjuku station. Look at those buildings built right next to the tracks, for many, many kilometers. People live in those -- if the windows opened, you could reach out and touch the laundry on the balconies that overlook the tracks [1].
Compared to that (and let's be clear: that's one average line in west Tokyo), even the Acela line in the east coast is a bad joke, density-speaking. The US doesn't build decent trains because the US is corrupt and sclerotic and run by incompetent people, not because of some mythical structural advantage in Magical Asia.
[1] I have no idea how people manage to live like that -- these trains are loud, and run basically from 4AM until 1AM every day -- but it's not lost on me that the fact that people can build houses right up next to the tracks might be the true advantage of Magical Japan.
I live in a unique community which is sandwiched between a public-transit light rail line, and a freight line as well.
The light rail can run a frequency of 12-20 minutes in each direction. The freight's schedule: who really knows?
But the freight train is generally inhibited from sounding its horn or bells near residential neighborhoods. So, unless I am really paying attention while awake, I cannot detect it passing by, no matter the size.
The light rail is audible from where I sit, usually, but only just. It toots the horn mostly as it passes, but it's not disruptive or annoying to me, anyway. I sort of enjoy the white noise it all makes. There are cars that do a lot worse.
I think that the architecture here is helpful, too. The buildings are clustered around a central courtyard, and really insulated from the road noise. At any given time, there may be folks splashing in the pool, or running the jets on the hot tub, anyway.
The light rail stations are a major convenience to living here, and the train noise is absolutely the least of our worries!
I've heard people say that, but I find it hard to believe. I think I'd go nuts. And sure, they don't take 10 minutes to pass, but the busy lines (like the Seibu line I mentioned) are running at least 2-3 trains every 10 minutes, so they might as well be continuous.
The houses built next to the crossing points, in particular, have always boggled my mind. BING BING BING BING BING....
(I mean, maybe you’re right in some places, but it’s certainly not everywhere. Ironically, I happened to be standing next to a completely empty crossing, gates down, bonging away, while reading your comment.)
The nearest crossings where I live indeed stop the chimes when the barriers have been lowered. This doesn't actually make much of a difference really, because the train arrives only a few seconds after, and, because it's a local line, there are never more than three cars in the train so it passes very quickly.
Not that I'm bothered by the chimes at all. And grandson loves them.
Of course it's many things, but people who claim that the US is especially dense, or especially sparse, or especially geographically difficult (LOL!) compared to Japan (and therefore cannot build rail) are deeply unserious commenters.
More generally, any argument of the form "the US is special for reason ____ and therefore rail is especially difficult here" is highly likely to be utter nonsense.
The U.S. can build trains and has a good rail system—for freight not passengers. It’s not obvious how Japan moves freight, but the U.S.’s rail system evolved to move freight efficiently. That is a huge difference and not necessarily the result of corruption or incompetence.
My understanding the rail share of freight is relatively low in Japan compared to many other developed countries. Most freight moves by truck or coastal shipping. Looking at a map of Japan, most of the cities are by the coast, so I guess coastal shipping makes a lot of sense.
I think a big part of it is also that (partly because of the necessity of building for earthquake resistance), Japanese construction is a lot more robust than American housing, and also tends to have extremely good soundproofing on windows and doors. Actually, it's most of the rest of the world, except the US.
> Japanese construction is a lot more robust than American housing, and also tends to have extremely good soundproofing on windows and doors.
This must be a different Japan than the one I'm familiar with, where exterior walls are often uninsulated and only a few inches thick and single-pane windows are still the norm in a lot of housing. I wouldn't be surprised if soundproofing were better for railroad-adjacent buildings, but compared to American homes the soundproofing here is surprisingly poor.
> Japanese construction is a lot more robust than American housing, and also tends to have extremely good soundproofing on windows and doors.
Oh, you’re definitely engaging in Magical Japan, here.
While building standards have certainly improved in the past 20 years, the average Japanese house is built just strong enough not to fall over when someone farts. In particular, windows tend to be single pane, and you’re lucky if they block a strong wind, let alone noise.
As the sister comment said - the houses are just strong enough not to fall over in a "normal", all-the-time earthquake. Our house sways a lot under typhoons and far-away earthquakes (far away = long wavelengths). It's only relatively recent that building codes have been updated to handle real earthquakes without falling over like a house of cards. Remember the Noto earthquake Januar 1, 2024? Large areas didn't have a single house still standing.
(Which is why we're now tearing down our old house and building a new, stronger one. Post-war Japan was more concerned with a) building a lot of houses, and b) keep lots of jobs, which meant, as far as houses were concerned, building use-and-throw-away houses. Then build another. And another. And don't talk to me about sound proofing.. it's non-existing. What with no insulation in walls.)
The advatange they have is that all 4 of their major metropolitan areas are in a straight line across flat land. The enemy of high-speed is any diviations from flat and straigh. On he accela top speed can be maintained less then 40% of the trip.
That's got zero to do with anything. you do not need to add rail to the whole country.
As an example SF Bay Area and Switzerland are about the same size, SF has double the population density. It has a Bay, Switzerland has mountains. Switzerland has like 10x the trains. There's no reason SF Bay couldn't too.
It's similar for most metro areas. LA used to have a huge train system. Bad insentives and government policies killed it. They're adding new ones back but they're adding them in the worst possible way, making them unprofitable and designed only for people who can't afford cars means they'll only be a money sink at best, or they'll get underfunded and decrepit at worst
There is no excuse for the US’s failure. Many countries have large areas to cover. China is a similar size and has massive HSR coverage. The US could too if they didn’t waste all the money on corruption.
It has a big geographic disadvantage too: the entire country is a mountain range. Japan's railway network relies on countless tunnels and viaducts, adding greatly to the cost, especially for high speed lines which require larger clearance and therefore larger tunnel diameters, and larger turning radii.
Geography is no excuse for the US not having better passenger rail service, especially when geography was no obstacle to the US having fantastic rail service in the 1920s.
Japan is also mostly mountains and is prone to natural disasters like earthquakes and Typhoon induced floods.
Sonce our first trip in 2017 at least two railways we rode have been damaged enough to be partially inoperable and under lengthy restoration work - Hisatsu line (washed away bridges) and Kurobe Gorge railway (bridge destroyed by earthquake).
Here in Spain a huge chunk of the population lives along the coast, so obviously what we need is a radial network along the coast, with a few spokes connecting to Madrid in the center. But for whatever reason it's impossible to make any trains that go anywhere other than the capital.
The Netherlands is a similar shape to the continental contiguous United States yet we have an excellent public transport system. Very good trains and every population has awesome cycling infrastructure.
The US could have all of this and more in their populated areas. They're the richest country in the world. Why is the infrastructure so neglected? It's clearly a choice.
Then explain international train travel in Europe or China's national train network. Both fill large areas.
Conversely, the UK is long and narrow, and unlike Japan has neither earthquakes nor is it particularly mountainous and yet its train system is rubbish.
Japanese rail companies are allowed to buy land, then build infrastructure, then enjoy the increased value of said land. American rail is hobbled by the extraction of increased land values by those who already own land by the stations. Of course, freeways are similar, but people don’t mind roads losing money.
The USA's westward expansion was indeed facilitated by the timely development of railroads, and so many of the cities were built around the ability to haul freight and service depots along the rail lines, much like ancient cities sprang up alongside rivers and bays because of boat shipping.
However, the United States is also a nation built upon the motor vehicle, and our much-vaunted freeway system here was built deliberately as a national defense measure that could easily move materiel and troops between cities and states, in the event of a domestic invasion or future wars on our own soil. The freeways enjoyed deep investments also due to commercial utility, and again, many cities and habitations sprang up at the nexus of various freeways, as truck-based shipping could service them as well.
I think one of the main obstacles to rail lines in the United States is our car-centrism, and many motorists of any socio-economic class really, really hate trains and public transit of any kind, and any other type of transport that may impinge on their freedom to drive wherever they want on as many highways as possible.
Therefore it is extraordinarily difficult for railways to get good rights-of-way. Amtrak is a redheaded stepchild. Commuter rail may be better respected in places where it was established, like the Eastern Seaboard, but if I asked any voter or motorist here, they would be voting against any sort of rail project whatsoever.
This is a little counterintuitive but it does make a difference.
I recently moved from a coastal city (that is very linear) to a landlocked city spread evenly in all directions. I had naively assumed the new city would be easier to get around in, since on average places would be closer to you. But the first city has decent commuter rail, which meant I could get to the other end of the city in an hour, and use cabs for last mile connectivity.
I'm sure you can have good public transit in "round" cities too, but it is certainly more difficult to plan.
Like: you can actually change the lightbulbs for the headlights of the Series 0 train while it being underway - there is a service hatch that opens to a human-sized service area accessible from the driver's cabin which allows such repairs.
It’s fascinating to read but I have a hard time imagining a public western railway provider could evolve into a train based mega corporation doing real estate and health services.
> At its most extreme, three separate commuter lines compete for the traffic between Osaka and the port city of Kobe, running in parallel, sometimes fewer than 500 meters apart.
Sometimes fewer than 100 meters apart. Or connecting to each other's with a bridge.
It's a good article, but I think the "it's not culture, just good governance" idea is a little hand wavy. The two bleed into each other greatly. The fact that houses are more disposable and wealth is less intergenerational in Japan does a lot to tamp down the NIMBY issues that plague e.g. the UK.
The UK is so far gone that the transport authority in it's largest city can't revamp stations or do add-on development without literal years of hand wringing. And even then it's often rejected or reduced in the end.
These mixed companies can be very confusing to tourists especially. I'm always answering questions from tourists who are confused why they can't buy a ticket to where they want to go.
The article correctly identifies positive externalities of railways:
> The railway can capture the value it creates for me by charging me a fare, but it cannot capture the value it creates for those at my destination. As transport infrastructure creates benefits that produce no revenue for providers, free markets rarely build enough of it.
…but then very confusingly argues that railways should be profitable, including on per-passenger basis. A profitable transport system with positive externalities is inevitably either too expensive or under-investing (or maybe both) with respect to maximising the total economic productivity. Ancillary monopolies in real estate and retail might offset that somewhat, but only to an extent.
Similarly, I don't understand why the article speaks positively of the closure of 83 "loss-making lines". The lines being loss-making for the rail company doesn't mean they aren't improving total productivity, as the very same article argues!
Further, they mention the over-crowding in Tokyo later on
> Tokyo’s infamously crammed trains are a symptom of underpriced rush hour traffic
…but somehow blame it on the price being too low, and not under-investment into more capacity by the commercial companies! People commuting less because they can't afford it would be bad for the businesses on the other side of their commute!
I suppose this is the centre-right ideological slant of Works in Progress showing, which is a bit of a shame when it leads to those self-contradictions in the usually quite rigorous publication.
What is seldom mentioned in these conversations is that the United States has a very good rail system—-for freight. That’s what the U.S. system did well, not passengers. From the article it isn’t obvious how Japan moves freight, but they obviously aren’t moving a lot of freight on the Shinkansen.
> the most striking institutional feature of Japanese rail is that it is privately owned by a throng of competing companies.
Knowing the author I knew it was going to be his main argument before even opening the blog post. And it's obviously wrong, these companies don't compete with one another, they all have a local monopoly. (The article itself acknowledges that and even acknowledges the organizational benefits of such monopolies, but the author could refrain himself from praising the virtue of competition nonetheless…)
156 comments
> Core rail operations are profitable for every Japanese private railway company
Only the urban, legacy private railways that benefited from the "build a suburb and trains to it" system. Rural lines, private or not, all hemorrhage money, as do many of the newer private lines (often built by government and private only in name).
> Japanese cities have the lowest residential density in Asia
This is because Japanese "cities" (市) are administrative units, not actual cities. Particularly in the rapidly depopulating countryside, it's common for a bunch of dying villages that can't afford to duplicate their services anymore to get more or less forcibly merged into a "city" like Miyoshi in Shikoku that, in satellite view, looks like untouched forest:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/tRtdQisJCUMsqivv7
> The urban area of Tokyo, the densest Japanese city, has a weighted population density less than that of many European cities,
This is only true for Tokyo Prefecture, which encompasses a vast slab of mountains. Actual Tokyo (23-ku) packs in over 15k people/km2, 50% more than inner London (10k) and nearly 2.5x Greater London (6k).
That's exactly it. It's not because of some cultural bias or whatever.
I'm in Japan. I use trains because it's so very easy and it's so very reliable. It's simply the best option for travelling. If I wish to go to Tokyo? I check a website quickly, I look up the best connection for my schedule (easy to find), I may pay in advance, or not. I take my bicycle and go ten minutes to the nearest station, park the bicycle in the bicycle parking there, and off I go. As it's a small station I change to a limited express train (where I've booked a seat) after ten minutes, then, after another forty minutes I reach a big station and I switch to the Shinkansen and I'm off to Tokyo. I'm relaxed all the time. I buy a coffee on the train, and/or I buy coffee and lunch at the station and bring on the train.
Every other way of getting there is way more complex, and would take way more time.
The US is massive... riding the train between most cities is dramatically more expensive than flying and takes most of a day if not multiple days between cities.
I used to commute weekly between two cities in Texas and it was a 2 hour flight. (Houston - Lubbock)
>>
"The Japanese love cars, but they take trains because they have the best railway system in the world"> That's exactly it. It's not because of some cultural bias or whatever.
Are there not a lot of toll roads in Japan as well?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressways_of_Japan#Tolls
Also, is not the population density fairly high? There's not as much land to spread in low-density car centric suburbs like there is in (say) the US.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Populati...
IMHO cultural bias (and practicality, geographic and economic (low car ownership post-WW2)) is there in Japan, which led to a particular development model, which lends itself to non-car-centric infrastructure.
Contrast: Okinawa, where the US (cultural?) influence is higher and that has highways everywhere and where public transit is apparently not that good.
> Also, is not the population density fairly high? There's not as much land to spread in low-density car centric suburbs like there is in (say) the US.
LOL no. Outside of the big neighborhoods of the big cities, Japan is endless urban sprawl. I know because I live in a small Japanese city of 40k people and it's just detached houses, small 2-story apartment buildings, a big box stores. Public transportation is almost non-existant and I need to drive my car everyday for everything.
>
LOL no. Outside of the big neighborhoods of the big cities, Japan is endless urban sprawl.And how many people live in those areas?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Urban_di...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_weighted_density
Half the population lives in Tokyo (40M), Osaka (19M), and Nagoya (10M); one-third in the Greater Tokyo Area.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg5XHN_25HQ&t=7m38s
How many folks live inside versus outside the Tokyo-Osaka-Fukuoka rail corridor (Tokaido/Sanyo Shinkansens)? Saoporo is probably the next-largest city outside of that stretch.
When visiting you tend to visit some of the busiest areas and also spend a lot of time on the train. It's tiring and it seems so busy. But since almost every neighbourhood has all amenities and there is no single CBD, when you live there, you realise how much of Tokyo is an endless sea of small apartment buildings with small islands of restaurants and businesses around train stations, plus a handful of larger islands.
The article talks about the railways developing areas around Tokyo. This is actually very interesting and the way it sprawled[1] outwards towards places like Yokohama. Railways made commuter towns with amenities and commuter lines to those towns at the same time, and rented and sold real estate in those towns. Over time the areas in between the terminus of each of these lines (usually Shibuya or Shinjuku) and each town filled in until what you see today.
[1] I think the debate about whether or not Tokyo is/has urban sprawl depends on your definition. If you take it to mean expanding with lower density on the outskirts, it definitely "sprawled", although today it's more filled in. If you take it to mean unplanned low-density, car-centric expansion, it didn't "sprawl" that much. I've seen the terms car-centric sprawl and train-centric sprawl used to discuss the differences.
And even within those areas, when you move to the outskirts it is not so dense. Take the train from Narita to central Tokyo and tell me what you see.
>Are there not a lot of toll roads in Japan as well?
There are, but at least wherever I've been driving or been a passenger, there are alternative roads which are just fine. In general slower, but every so often the toll roads are congested for miles due to a combination of roadwork and a LOT of traffic, which makes them slower than the alternative roads during those times.
As for cars - the Japanese aren't against cars. Many of my neighbors have two cars, particularly dual-income households. And they take very good care of them, as a rule. More than I would - to me a car is just a utility. Not for the Japanese. And people love driving too, at least outside the major cities.
Population density: Technically I live in a town with some 300,000 people. But it used to be nearly a dozen towns until 2006, when Japan decided to do some major restructuring and in many areas a bunch of smaller towns were thrown together to become a larger one. So we're really spread out..
>
There are, but at least wherever I've been driving or been a passenger, there are alternative roads which are just fine.And there are alternatives to the Interstate highway system in the US, but the since the Interstates have no tolls everything is build around them.
The procedure for the permit in my city is maddening, you need to draw a map of your general area and your parking lot BY HAND, and then several days later a police guy will go there to confirm it visually. They have not invented GIS yet...
> “An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather one where even the rich use public transport.”
Perhaps not Warren Buffett, but no doubt an executive of some stature riding with the rest of us plebes.
(I agree with the trains. I love the trains.)
As the comment above said, in Japan a bicycle is registered to a person when you buy it. Even the second hand bikes from recycle shops. And there _is_ a theft problem.. but not everywhere. I sometimes don't bother with locking my bicycle outside the shopping mall, here (in my town in Japan). Nobody steals bicycles here. There was a time when a particular gang of teenagers would steal scooters though.. the 50cc ones. A friend's scooter was stolen. The police found the culprits and he got his scooter back. But not much problems with bicycles. Unlike in my town back home. Now that I'm here I would not be surprised if, when I go back, I find that someone broke into my garage and stole the bicycles.
If you run into someone on your bike, you're on the hook for their medical costs (yes even in Japan's universal health care system, it's not single-payer), loss of income, etc.
Insurance will pay for that. It's now legally required to hold bicycle insurance in most cities in Japan when riding for this reason, similar to requiring basic car insurance.
This government page lists the 34 prefectures where insurance is mandatory https://www.mlit.go.jp/road/bicycleuse/promotion/index.html
https://www.aventon.com/products/soltera-2-5-ebike?variant=4...
I'm mostly in favor of privatization, but this is an example where the local government provide an exceptional service which is in no way inferior to the privately operated ones.
The US had to fill a huge area in the railroad era. That left a lot of underutilized track once the road network got good.
[1] https://www.jrailpass.com/pdf/maps/JRP_japan.pdf
> the country is long and narrow
The northeast and west coast metropolitan corridors are similar, and combined have comparable populations, densities, and distances as Japan. Yet we can't even build a single high-speed line. And for all the excuses about the difficulty of building rail through developed regions, the existing rights of ways and infrastructure in both the NE and California are comparable to what everybody else has had to work with, at least in the past 50 years. The density of the NE is nothing like what you see elsewhere in the world, especially Asia, and Japan and China specifically.
It's lack of political will and ambition, period, by both the community and leadership. And excusing our inability by pointing at the hurdles, insinuating that others succeeded because they didn't face the same challenges, only perpetuates the paralysis.
> The density of the NE is nothing like what you see elsewhere in the world, especially Asia, and Japan and China specifically.
Yeah, I defy anyone who claims the US can't build trains "because of density" to fly to Tokyo, and actually take the Seibu Shinjuku line west from Shinjuku station. Look at those buildings built right next to the tracks, for many, many kilometers. People live in those -- if the windows opened, you could reach out and touch the laundry on the balconies that overlook the tracks [1].
Compared to that (and let's be clear: that's one average line in west Tokyo), even the Acela line in the east coast is a bad joke, density-speaking. The US doesn't build decent trains because the US is corrupt and sclerotic and run by incompetent people, not because of some mythical structural advantage in Magical Asia.
[1] I have no idea how people manage to live like that -- these trains are loud, and run basically from 4AM until 1AM every day -- but it's not lost on me that the fact that people can build houses right up next to the tracks might be the true advantage of Magical Japan.
> these trains are loud, and run basically from 4AM until 1AM every day
Not that bad actually. You get used to it and even if trains are frequent they don't need 10 minutes to pass by your home.
The light rail can run a frequency of 12-20 minutes in each direction. The freight's schedule: who really knows?
But the freight train is generally inhibited from sounding its horn or bells near residential neighborhoods. So, unless I am really paying attention while awake, I cannot detect it passing by, no matter the size.
The light rail is audible from where I sit, usually, but only just. It toots the horn mostly as it passes, but it's not disruptive or annoying to me, anyway. I sort of enjoy the white noise it all makes. There are cars that do a lot worse.
I think that the architecture here is helpful, too. The buildings are clustered around a central courtyard, and really insulated from the road noise. At any given time, there may be folks splashing in the pool, or running the jets on the hot tub, anyway.
The light rail stations are a major convenience to living here, and the train noise is absolutely the least of our worries!
The houses built next to the crossing points, in particular, have always boggled my mind. BING BING BING BING BING....
Just another example of Japanese attention to detail and human oriented design.
(I mean, maybe you’re right in some places, but it’s certainly not everywhere. Ironically, I happened to be standing next to a completely empty crossing, gates down, bonging away, while reading your comment.)
Not that I'm bothered by the chimes at all. And grandson loves them.
More generally, any argument of the form "the US is special for reason ____ and therefore rail is especially difficult here" is highly likely to be utter nonsense.
> Japanese construction is a lot more robust than American housing, and also tends to have extremely good soundproofing on windows and doors.
This must be a different Japan than the one I'm familiar with, where exterior walls are often uninsulated and only a few inches thick and single-pane windows are still the norm in a lot of housing. I wouldn't be surprised if soundproofing were better for railroad-adjacent buildings, but compared to American homes the soundproofing here is surprisingly poor.
> Japanese construction is a lot more robust than American housing, and also tends to have extremely good soundproofing on windows and doors.
Oh, you’re definitely engaging in Magical Japan, here.
While building standards have certainly improved in the past 20 years, the average Japanese house is built just strong enough not to fall over when someone farts. In particular, windows tend to be single pane, and you’re lucky if they block a strong wind, let alone noise.
I’m exaggerating a little, but not by much.
(Which is why we're now tearing down our old house and building a new, stronger one. Post-war Japan was more concerned with a) building a lot of houses, and b) keep lots of jobs, which meant, as far as houses were concerned, building use-and-throw-away houses. Then build another. And another. And don't talk to me about sound proofing.. it's non-existing. What with no insulation in walls.)
As an example SF Bay Area and Switzerland are about the same size, SF has double the population density. It has a Bay, Switzerland has mountains. Switzerland has like 10x the trains. There's no reason SF Bay couldn't too.
It's similar for most metro areas. LA used to have a huge train system. Bad insentives and government policies killed it. They're adding new ones back but they're adding them in the worst possible way, making them unprofitable and designed only for people who can't afford cars means they'll only be a money sink at best, or they'll get underfunded and decrepit at worst
Geography is no excuse for the US not having better passenger rail service, especially when geography was no obstacle to the US having fantastic rail service in the 1920s.
Sonce our first trip in 2017 at least two railways we rode have been damaged enough to be partially inoperable and under lengthy restoration work - Hisatsu line (washed away bridges) and Kurobe Gorge railway (bridge destroyed by earthquake).
The US could have all of this and more in their populated areas. They're the richest country in the world. Why is the infrastructure so neglected? It's clearly a choice.
Then explain international train travel in Europe or China's national train network. Both fill large areas.
Conversely, the UK is long and narrow, and unlike Japan has neither earthquakes nor is it particularly mountainous and yet its train system is rubbish.
However, the United States is also a nation built upon the motor vehicle, and our much-vaunted freeway system here was built deliberately as a national defense measure that could easily move materiel and troops between cities and states, in the event of a domestic invasion or future wars on our own soil. The freeways enjoyed deep investments also due to commercial utility, and again, many cities and habitations sprang up at the nexus of various freeways, as truck-based shipping could service them as well.
I think one of the main obstacles to rail lines in the United States is our car-centrism, and many motorists of any socio-economic class really, really hate trains and public transit of any kind, and any other type of transport that may impinge on their freedom to drive wherever they want on as many highways as possible.
Therefore it is extraordinarily difficult for railways to get good rights-of-way. Amtrak is a redheaded stepchild. Commuter rail may be better respected in places where it was established, like the Eastern Seaboard, but if I asked any voter or motorist here, they would be voting against any sort of rail project whatsoever.
>the country is long and narrow
This is a little counterintuitive but it does make a difference.
I recently moved from a coastal city (that is very linear) to a landlocked city spread evenly in all directions. I had naively assumed the new city would be easier to get around in, since on average places would be closer to you. But the first city has decent commuter rail, which meant I could get to the other end of the city in an hour, and use cabs for last mile connectivity.
I'm sure you can have good public transit in "round" cities too, but it is certainly more difficult to plan.
Like: you can actually change the lightbulbs for the headlights of the Series 0 train while it being underway - there is a service hatch that opens to a human-sized service area accessible from the driver's cabin which allows such repairs.
> At its most extreme, three separate commuter lines compete for the traffic between Osaka and the port city of Kobe, running in parallel, sometimes fewer than 500 meters apart.
Sometimes fewer than 100 meters apart. Or connecting to each other's with a bridge.
Maybe it's a carry on though "This is the third article we have released from Issue 23".
The UK is so far gone that the transport authority in it's largest city can't revamp stations or do add-on development without literal years of hand wringing. And even then it's often rejected or reduced in the end.
> The railway can capture the value it creates for me by charging me a fare, but it cannot capture the value it creates for those at my destination. As transport infrastructure creates benefits that produce no revenue for providers, free markets rarely build enough of it.
…but then very confusingly argues that railways should be profitable, including on per-passenger basis. A profitable transport system with positive externalities is inevitably either too expensive or under-investing (or maybe both) with respect to maximising the total economic productivity. Ancillary monopolies in real estate and retail might offset that somewhat, but only to an extent.
Similarly, I don't understand why the article speaks positively of the closure of 83 "loss-making lines". The lines being loss-making for the rail company doesn't mean they aren't improving total productivity, as the very same article argues!
Further, they mention the over-crowding in Tokyo later on
> Tokyo’s infamously crammed trains are a symptom of underpriced rush hour traffic
…but somehow blame it on the price being too low, and not under-investment into more capacity by the commercial companies! People commuting less because they can't afford it would be bad for the businesses on the other side of their commute!
I suppose this is the centre-right ideological slant of Works in Progress showing, which is a bit of a shame when it leads to those self-contradictions in the usually quite rigorous publication.
> the most striking institutional feature of Japanese rail is that it is privately owned by a throng of competing companies.
Knowing the author I knew it was going to be his main argument before even opening the blog post. And it's obviously wrong, these companies don't compete with one another, they all have a local monopoly. (The article itself acknowledges that and even acknowledges the organizational benefits of such monopolies, but the author could refrain himself from praising the virtue of competition nonetheless…)