6 ms·

One thing I want to point out is that if I am reading the reports correctly, the JR system is actually a very profitable corporation. What would it take to get

One thing I want to point out is that if I am reading the reports correctly, the JR system is actually a very profitable corporation. What would it take to get a profitable train system in the US?

kalleboo 9y ago
Massive population density increases. JR also has a decent income from real estate. Train stations are in prime locations, and have a lot of foot traffic, so they build malls around them.
- ruddct 9y ago
  I suspect it's more of a cultural/political problem than a density problem. NYC has a considerably higher population density than Tokyo and has an abysmally expensive/inefficient rail system. American public transportation systems, even here in the densest part of the country, are easy political whipping boys. Blame whatever you'd like (cars, highways, unions, politicians, etc), it appears that Americans don't care too much about fixing their transportation infrastructure if those fixes don't involve cars.
  - GolDDranks 9y ago
    > NYC has a considerably higher population density than Tokyo It's the other way around, Tokyo has higher population density: New York City: Land area: 784 km2 Population density: 10,431 ppl / km2 The Special Wards of Tokyo: Land area: 619 km2 Population density: 15,146 ppl / km2
    - luckyt 9y ago
      This comparison seems a bit unfair -- the special wards are the most densely populated parts of Tokyo. You should compare either New York City <-> Tokyo Metro Area, or Special Wards of Tokyo <-> Manhattan.
      - timr 9y ago
        "This comparison seems a bit unfair" It's not just unfair, it's completely absurd. Tokyo sprawls like crazy, and a big percentage of the population lives in the outer wards. The special wards are high density, but expensive. As soon as you go outside of the Yamanote line, the population density of Tokyo falls dramatically (probably to Brooklyn levels). Take the train 10-15 minutes outside of that, and you find lots of detached houses and open land. Yet it's all "Tokyo", and this land area is counted when you see the huge population of the city referenced online. Tokyo has become a fantasy for people in America who think that urban density solves all problems. Most of these people have not ventured outside of the tourist regions of the city.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        To be fair, NYC technically includes Long Island. It isn’t obvious how to compare the two cities at all.
        gowld 9y ago
        Only a small part of Long Island. Are you thinking of Staten Island?
      - majormajor 9y ago
        This is an interesting comparison in its own right. Manhattan: 27,799/km2 and 59.13 km2 So that's denser than the overall special wards area, but also vastly smaller in both land and total population. Basically 1.6 million people vs 9.4 million people. Probably significantly easier to have an extensive train network when you're consistently dense for that large an area. But I would agree that the main reason the US's public transit infrastructure is lacking is just that we like our cars too much. I expect this to get even more pro-car in a self-driving-car world, too.
- gpvos 9y ago
  All around Europe train stations are turning into malls for the same reason.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- mullen 9y ago
  > JR also has a decent income from real estate This is actually a big money maker for them. Train stations are malls in many cases and JR makes a lot of money from them.
- 6t6t6t6 9y ago
  > Train stations are in prime locations In Japan, in general, the closer your land is to the station, the more expensive it is. So, therefore, the stations are on the most expensive land of each area. ;) Population density is also proportional, a lot of times, to the distance to the nearest station.
TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
It would take a complete overhaul of our political processes combined with a massively different transportation culture and an increase in population density. Lobbying at all levels maintains the status quo in the train industry, low population densities make a profitable human train transportation industry very difficult, and a culture that views those who use alternative modes of transportation as poor means even if the infrastructure was made, only the poor would use it to any reasonable extent.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  Couldn't "the culture that views alternative transportation as poor people transportation" be solved easily??? We could just make the new Transportation super expensive at first and then gradually reduce the price until the correct amount of people can participate. This is essentially how TELSA got rid of the hippie stink from electric cars. We could accelerate the transition even more by putting an Apple logo on the side of the train.
Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
The main issue is probably NIMBY.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
lmm 9y ago
Increasing population density to Japan-like levels (and also removing governmental subsidy for roads, but that's a relatively small amount). The Tokaido Shinkansen is around 520km long and connects Kobe (pop 1.5M), Osaka (2.7M), Kyoto (1.5M), Nagoya (2.3M), Yokohama (3.7M) and Tokyo (8.9M). Where could a US railway of similar length connect anything remotely like that many people?
- aquadrop 9y ago
  Boston - New York - Philadelphia - Washington San Diego - Los Angeles - Silicon Valley - San Francisco
  - jandrese 9y ago
    The Boston<->Washington line you mentioned there is one of the only reliably profitable lines for AmTrak.
    - ng12 9y ago
      And yet somehow it's more expensive and slower than flying (incl. getting to the airport and going through security).
      - jandrese 9y ago
        The Acela is more expensive than a plane ticket, but the NE Regional is usually cheaper and just about as fast as the Acela. The Acela got dicked over by some NIMBY types pretty hard and doesn't really deserve the HSR appellation.
        ng12 9y ago
        I guess it depends on which leg you're traveling but I've found flying from New York to Boston is almost always cheaper. You can get a flight from LGA to BOS two weeks ahead of time for under $60.
bhc 9y ago
Rail companies in Japan turn profit due to these factors: 1. Transportation by road in large Japanese cities is a complete nightmare. People really can't take the bus or drive if they want to arrive on time. 2. JR companies have been privatized in the 80s. They are free to set fares without political interference. 3. JR companies were allowed to shut down unprofitable lines to remote regions or demand the local governments subsidize them if they want to keep the lines running 4. Japanese rail companies own the land the stations sit on and were allowed to develop the stations into massive retail and office properties from which they earn rental income. Some rail companies even have department store subsidiaries. Even then, JR Hokkaido, which serves the relatively sparsely populated Hokkaido region, has been unprofitable for a long time.
panglott 9y ago
Intercity rail in the US was destroyed by an Iron Triangle. At present the passenger rail infrastructure is pitiful, since it hasn't had significant investment since about the 1950s. For example, back in 1999 Amtrak tried to resume passenger service between Louisville and Indianapolis by running freight and passenger cars on the same train. But since the track was so old, the trains were limited to 30 mph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Cardinal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Cardinal Try to imagine what the market is like for intercity transportation that is more expensive than driving or taking a Greyhound and yet more than twice as slow, and doesn't connect you to an effective intracity transportation network once you arrive. There weren't many passengers. Rail transportation is very important in the US, but it's all for freight, which takes up a similar proportion of rail as passenger does in other countries. Amtrak does run some profitable passenger rail lines in the US, including some places you wouldn't expect, like the Oklahoma City-Dallas line IIRC. There is an interstate connecting those cities, and the population density isn't exactly really high there so IDK.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  People transport and freight transport are typically segregated on different tracks in Europe and Japan, allowing for each to be optimized (you don’t need huge trains to carry people if you don’t have to worry about colliding with heavy freight trains!). The USA is messed up because we never did that.
  - Symbiote 9y ago
    This is only the case for the high-speed rail systems in Japan, France, Spain and possibly Germany. Other countries (e.g. Britain) share most tracks between passengers and freight, and therefore need to maintain the track to a very high standard, and run freight trains at a much higher speed than is seen in the USA. (e.g. 80km/h or 55mph for a coal train isn't unreasonable, or 120km/h = 75mph for a container train)
    - gsnedders 9y ago
      Even in Germany, much of the distance covered by their high-speed services aren't on the dedicated passenger-only high-speed track.
innocentoldguy 9y ago
One thing that prevents me from using the trains in my area is that driving takes 1/3rd the time to get to my destination. In Japan, riding the train is typically faster. Considering that I have to drive to get to the train station anyway, it just seems easier to drive to my destination. Train schedules are another issue. The slow, stop-at-every-station trains in my area only come every 15 minutes (most often late), and the express train only comes every 30 minutes during the morning and evening commutes, and then every hour outside of those times. In Japan, if I miss a train, I know another will be along in 3 to 8 minutes, so it isn't a big deal. Where I currently live, if I miss the express train, I might as well go home and call it a day. If the trains where I live came more often, were on time, and could get me to my destination faster than driving, I'd use them. Until then, it is just more convenient to drive, even though I absolutely loath driving.
Mindless2112 9y ago
> By 1987, JNR's debt was over ¥27 trillion ($280 billion at 2009 exchange rates) and the company was spending ¥147 for every ¥100 earned. By an act of the Diet of Japan, on April 1, 1987 JNR was privatized and divided into seven railway companies, six passenger and one freight, collectively called the Japan Railways Group or JR Group. Long-term liabilities of JNR were taken over by the JNR Settlement Corporation. That corporation was subsequently disbanded on October 22, 1998, and its remaining debts were transferred to the national budget's general accounting. By this time the debt has risen to ¥30 trillion ($310 billion in 2009 dollars). — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_National_Railways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_National_Railways
nezzle 9y ago
My understanding is that the car manufacturers pushed the train system to convert to combustion over electric, as combustion was less reliable/costlier to maintain/etc. Thus rail lost a significant competitive edge. So basically blame capitalism.

One thing I want to point out is that if I am reading the reports correctly, the JR system is actually a very profitable corporation. What would it take to get a profitable train system in the US?

kalleboo 9y ago

Massive population density increases. JR also has a decent income from real estate. Train stations are in prime locations, and have a lot of foot traffic, so they build malls around them.

ruddct 9y ago
I suspect it's more of a cultural/political problem than a density problem. NYC has a considerably higher population density than Tokyo and has an abysmally expensive/inefficient rail system. American public transportation systems, even here in the densest part of the country, are easy political whipping boys. Blame whatever you'd like (cars, highways, unions, politicians, etc), it appears that Americans don't care too much about fixing their transportation infrastructure if those fixes don't involve cars.
- GolDDranks 9y ago
  > NYC has a considerably higher population density than Tokyo It's the other way around, Tokyo has higher population density: New York City: Land area: 784 km2 Population density: 10,431 ppl / km2 The Special Wards of Tokyo: Land area: 619 km2 Population density: 15,146 ppl / km2
  - luckyt 9y ago
    This comparison seems a bit unfair -- the special wards are the most densely populated parts of Tokyo. You should compare either New York City <-> Tokyo Metro Area, or Special Wards of Tokyo <-> Manhattan.
    - timr 9y ago
      "This comparison seems a bit unfair" It's not just unfair, it's completely absurd. Tokyo sprawls like crazy, and a big percentage of the population lives in the outer wards. The special wards are high density, but expensive. As soon as you go outside of the Yamanote line, the population density of Tokyo falls dramatically (probably to Brooklyn levels). Take the train 10-15 minutes outside of that, and you find lots of detached houses and open land. Yet it's all "Tokyo", and this land area is counted when you see the huge population of the city referenced online. Tokyo has become a fantasy for people in America who think that urban density solves all problems. Most of these people have not ventured outside of the tourist regions of the city.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        To be fair, NYC technically includes Long Island. It isn’t obvious how to compare the two cities at all.
        gowld 9y ago
        Only a small part of Long Island. Are you thinking of Staten Island?
    - majormajor 9y ago
      This is an interesting comparison in its own right. Manhattan: 27,799/km2 and 59.13 km2 So that's denser than the overall special wards area, but also vastly smaller in both land and total population. Basically 1.6 million people vs 9.4 million people. Probably significantly easier to have an extensive train network when you're consistently dense for that large an area. But I would agree that the main reason the US's public transit infrastructure is lacking is just that we like our cars too much. I expect this to get even more pro-car in a self-driving-car world, too.
gpvos 9y ago
All around Europe train stations are turning into malls for the same reason.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mullen 9y ago
> JR also has a decent income from real estate This is actually a big money maker for them. Train stations are malls in many cases and JR makes a lot of money from them.
6t6t6t6 9y ago
> Train stations are in prime locations In Japan, in general, the closer your land is to the station, the more expensive it is. So, therefore, the stations are on the most expensive land of each area. ;) Population density is also proportional, a lot of times, to the distance to the nearest station.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

It would take a complete overhaul of our political processes combined with a massively different transportation culture and an increase in population density. Lobbying at all levels maintains the status quo in the train industry, low population densities make a profitable human train transportation industry very difficult, and a culture that views those who use alternative modes of transportation as poor means even if the infrastructure was made, only the poor would use it to any reasonable extent.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
Couldn't "the culture that views alternative transportation as poor people transportation" be solved easily??? We could just make the new Transportation super expensive at first and then gradually reduce the price until the correct amount of people can participate. This is essentially how TELSA got rid of the hippie stink from electric cars. We could accelerate the transition even more by putting an Apple logo on the side of the train.

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago

The main issue is probably NIMBY.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

lmm 9y ago

Increasing population density to Japan-like levels (and also removing governmental subsidy for roads, but that's a relatively small amount). The Tokaido Shinkansen is around 520km long and connects Kobe (pop 1.5M), Osaka (2.7M), Kyoto (1.5M), Nagoya (2.3M), Yokohama (3.7M) and Tokyo (8.9M). Where could a US railway of similar length connect anything remotely like that many people?

aquadrop 9y ago
Boston - New York - Philadelphia - Washington San Diego - Los Angeles - Silicon Valley - San Francisco
- jandrese 9y ago
  The Boston<->Washington line you mentioned there is one of the only reliably profitable lines for AmTrak.
  - ng12 9y ago
    And yet somehow it's more expensive and slower than flying (incl. getting to the airport and going through security).
    - jandrese 9y ago
      The Acela is more expensive than a plane ticket, but the NE Regional is usually cheaper and just about as fast as the Acela. The Acela got dicked over by some NIMBY types pretty hard and doesn't really deserve the HSR appellation.
      - ng12 9y ago
        I guess it depends on which leg you're traveling but I've found flying from New York to Boston is almost always cheaper. You can get a flight from LGA to BOS two weeks ahead of time for under $60.

bhc 9y ago

Rail companies in Japan turn profit due to these factors: 1. Transportation by road in large Japanese cities is a complete nightmare. People really can't take the bus or drive if they want to arrive on time. 2. JR companies have been privatized in the 80s. They are free to set fares without political interference. 3. JR companies were allowed to shut down unprofitable lines to remote regions or demand the local governments subsidize them if they want to keep the lines running 4. Japanese rail companies own the land the stations sit on and were allowed to develop the stations into massive retail and office properties from which they earn rental income. Some rail companies even have department store subsidiaries. Even then, JR Hokkaido, which serves the relatively sparsely populated Hokkaido region, has been unprofitable for a long time.

panglott 9y ago

Intercity rail in the US was destroyed by an Iron Triangle. At present the passenger rail infrastructure is pitiful, since it hasn't had significant investment since about the 1950s. For example, back in 1999 Amtrak tried to resume passenger service between Louisville and Indianapolis by running freight and passenger cars on the same train. But since the track was so old, the trains were limited to 30 mph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Cardinal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Cardinal Try to imagine what the market is like for intercity transportation that is more expensive than driving or taking a Greyhound and yet more than twice as slow, and doesn't connect you to an effective intracity transportation network once you arrive. There weren't many passengers. Rail transportation is very important in the US, but it's all for freight, which takes up a similar proportion of rail as passenger does in other countries. Amtrak does run some profitable passenger rail lines in the US, including some places you wouldn't expect, like the Oklahoma City-Dallas line IIRC. There is an interstate connecting those cities, and the population density isn't exactly really high there so IDK.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
People transport and freight transport are typically segregated on different tracks in Europe and Japan, allowing for each to be optimized (you don’t need huge trains to carry people if you don’t have to worry about colliding with heavy freight trains!). The USA is messed up because we never did that.
- Symbiote 9y ago
  This is only the case for the high-speed rail systems in Japan, France, Spain and possibly Germany. Other countries (e.g. Britain) share most tracks between passengers and freight, and therefore need to maintain the track to a very high standard, and run freight trains at a much higher speed than is seen in the USA. (e.g. 80km/h or 55mph for a coal train isn't unreasonable, or 120km/h = 75mph for a container train)
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    Even in Germany, much of the distance covered by their high-speed services aren't on the dedicated passenger-only high-speed track.

innocentoldguy 9y ago

One thing that prevents me from using the trains in my area is that driving takes 1/3rd the time to get to my destination. In Japan, riding the train is typically faster. Considering that I have to drive to get to the train station anyway, it just seems easier to drive to my destination. Train schedules are another issue. The slow, stop-at-every-station trains in my area only come every 15 minutes (most often late), and the express train only comes every 30 minutes during the morning and evening commutes, and then every hour outside of those times. In Japan, if I miss a train, I know another will be along in 3 to 8 minutes, so it isn't a big deal. Where I currently live, if I miss the express train, I might as well go home and call it a day. If the trains where I live came more often, were on time, and could get me to my destination faster than driving, I'd use them. Until then, it is just more convenient to drive, even though I absolutely loath driving.

Mindless2112 9y ago

> By 1987, JNR's debt was over ¥27 trillion ($280 billion at 2009 exchange rates) and the company was spending ¥147 for every ¥100 earned. By an act of the Diet of Japan, on April 1, 1987 JNR was privatized and divided into seven railway companies, six passenger and one freight, collectively called the Japan Railways Group or JR Group. Long-term liabilities of JNR were taken over by the JNR Settlement Corporation. That corporation was subsequently disbanded on October 22, 1998, and its remaining debts were transferred to the national budget's general accounting. By this time the debt has risen to ¥30 trillion ($310 billion in 2009 dollars). — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_National_Railways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_National_Railways

nezzle 9y ago

My understanding is that the car manufacturers pushed the train system to convert to combustion over electric, as combustion was less reliable/costlier to maintain/etc. Thus rail lost a significant competitive edge. So basically blame capitalism.