Japan’s vast railway network is divided between dozens of companies, nearly all of them private. The largest of these, JR East, carries more passengers than the entire railway system of every country other than China and India. Each year, JR East carries four times as many passengers as the whole British railway system, even though it has fewer kilometers of track, serves about ten million fewer people, and competes with eight other companies. Japan’s railway system turns a large operating profit and receives far less public subsidy than European and American railways.

🤔

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
14 comments in c/fuckcars@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 11 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

Honestly the biggest reason might be the population density and structure in Japan. People live and travel between large metropolises, and those are relatively close, so this makes train travel more cost-effective.

Otherwise, this "only" makes the shinkansen great. Because regional and local trains are pretty much the same as any developed country ( albeit very very punctual ). Great train networks aren't limited to Japan. European trains fare the same except some lack of punctuality, and the lack of central backbone, due to the amount of international borders. Chinese high speed rail is actually better quality-wise and more connected than in Japan, but local trains are meh and extremely crowded. Honestly it feels like the US is the outlier here, because they had decent rail and managed to fuck it up in favour of road traffic.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The author mentioned that keeping those railways around, instead of just getting rid of them for cars like the US did, allowed the cities in Japan to become that dense in the first place. It's not because Tokyo and Osaka were always this populated. Even then,

    The urban area of Tokyo, the densest Japanese city, has a weighted population density less than that of many European cities, including Paris, Madrid, or Athens.

    Of course there are plenty of people who live in Tokyo proper, like I do, but most people I know actually live on its periphery, where the density isn't as crazy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    Japan got their first trains second hand from the UK, this understandably traumatized them so much that they went on to make the best trains in the world.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    While the author correctly identifies ways the west subsidizes cars, the neoliberal prescriptions are horseshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, lots of correct observations, but also lots of wrong conclusions. I'd even argue the very first point about culture is very relevant, because japanese culture inherently puts a small bit of breaks on the aspects of capitalism that spiral out of control (they have tons of hypercapitalist issues too, though).

    I think it's correct that having private companies compete has certain advantages in railway infrastructure, if the right framework is given. Imagine someone from here was to start a railway company - they would know about induced demand, about the importance of having frequent service even at times of lower demand to enable rail as primary transport. They wouldn't have to convince rightoids that spending public money on that is worth it, they could just do it and see the results. In general the good thing about markets is that they enable less planning overhead as everyone focuses on their own thing. Loosely some sort of swarm intelligence.

    But none of that will ever work when cars are effectively subsidized and even private rail companies would still be beholden to massive political hurdles for building new lines. Though especially the latter is a real question about tradeoffs of benefit for society vs. individual preference with no single correct answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    having private companies compete has certain advantages in railway infrastructure, if the right framework is given.

    Its better than private monopolies, but no, lack of centralization has lead to really awful transfers compared to China and Korea.

    Under capitalism the ideal rail company runs zero trains, owns no infrastructure, is somehow charging rent to every other business, employs nobody, pays them nothing, and charges infinity dollars. It requires external force to fight against the pressures pushing it towards its ideal form.

    Hell the author even glosses over the "runs no trains" part in the article, saying the OG JR built too many unprofitable rural lines, as if having reliable transit isn't good in and of itself, and then explains how the JR'S land ownership is profitable, as if charging businesses rent is a social good.

    In general the good thing about markets is that they enable less planning overhead as everyone focuses on their own thing

    This is how you get 12 companies owning mass transit in 1 city that don't share timetables and have bizarre interchanges between like subway, grade-seperated streetcar, and an elevated bus.

    Japan's sucess is in spite of neoliberalism, not because of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 4 points 7 months ago

    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.

    This model was pioneered in the 1950s by what became Hankyu Railways. Hankyu’s network connects central Osaka to its northern suburbs, as well as Kyoto and Kobe. Its innovative founder Kobayashi Ichizo first built suburban housing, then a department store at the terminal station; he then created a hot spring resort, a zoo, and his own distinctive brand of all-women musical theater, the Takarazuka Revue. He also began to run bus services to and from his stations. Other companies emulated Hankyu’s example: Tokyo Disneyland is a collaboration between Disney and the Keisei Railway, while Hanshin in Osaka owns the Hanshin Tigers baseball team.

    Found it really interesting how railway companies diversify their investments and reduce risk. Smart.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    2nd finest in the world*

    Still something to be proud of.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    According to this article, John Major came so close to giving the UK a world-class railway system. A bit more deregulation and some light-handed tweaking of incentive structures would have done it.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    For HSR the shape and geography probably also plays a role. It’s stretched out and the hills limit the possible routes. Similar situation in Italy.

    It seems countries have a harder time building mesh networks for HSR.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    talks a little about the history here, and Vietnam's proposed mega HSR project.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R31yvR8f7E

    the HSR in Laos is awesome , ive ridden

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    And our service is generally getting worse and costing more. JR companies are private, for-profit companies trying to squeeze as much profit to pay their upper members crazy bonuses at the expense of the people.

  • source