4 ms·

That's leaving out the part where they were privatized and the government ate the entire cost of building the infrastructure up to that point

• midoridensha 4y ago
  Perhaps, but the claim was that 100% of transit systems "lose money". Japan's systems don't lose money (any more): they're profitable. They take in more money from ridership than they cost to run. I'm not sure it's really possible to have a totally profitable transit system of any kind, when accounting for all the infrastructure construction and acquisition costs. I don't think even a roadway system would work, if people had to pay-per-use. The cost would just be too high and people at the bottom wouldn't be able to use it, and then the whole society would just collapse, or you'd have people use it without paying like you see in a American cities now (faregate-jumping).
  • amrocha 4y ago
    Idk, that feels like an accounting trick to me. Sure, it's technically profitable now, but only because they get to reap the benefit of a network effect without paying for it. I agree with you though, profitability is an impossible goal simply because the benefits of an extensive rail network can't be captured by fares alone. It's the perfect case for taxation and public investment.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]