4 ms·

It's great to use as a tourist. Very easy to get where you want and top notch frequency. One thing I thought was interesting is that transit advocates in the Ca

It's great to use as a tourist. Very easy to get where you want and top notch frequency. One thing I thought was interesting is that transit advocates in the California I was visiting from push for free transit and transit sucks balls here while Japan generally was fee-paid transit and their transit ruled. I frequently travel to Hong Kong and I moved to California from London and so I looked them up and they hadn't transformed to free either. If I'm honest, I get the feeling that transit advocates in California are trying to kill transit.

simonw 2y ago
What makes you associate free transit with "trying to kill transit"?
- ano-ther 2y ago
  Not OP, but somebody still has to pay for the transit. And a "free" service is politically much more vulnerable than one that is partly being paid for by the users because it involves taxes and redistribution. It adds pressure for each (annual) budget discussion.
  - simonw 2y ago
    That "politically vulnerable" point is good. Almost all public transit ends up heavily subsidized, so the argument for free is that it's not a huge difference, and it reduces the costs involved in collecting fees / enforcement etc. But yeah, it's easier for political winds to blow against it.
    - brailsafe 2y ago
      I'd add that it wouldn't be so outlandish to assume that any superficially and widely agreeable movement might just be astroturfing, considering how cheap and easy it is to persuade people in general, but also specifically by making them think everyone else feels the same, and how often the arguments just parrot whatever the various internet personalities happen to be saying about it without any additional insight.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      It is generally not a huge difference in small systems like you find in college towns. It is a pretty substantial portion of most major transit agency budgets; BART for example has a farebox recovery of about a third. If you were to totally make it free you would need to basically increase the other sources of funding by 50%.
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago
        LA metro fairbox recovery is like 5% fwiw. Look up median income levels too on that system and you might be inclined to slash fares.
        bobthepanda 2y ago
        the argument has always been, is it better to spend that 5% on making it free, or is it better to spend that on making services more useful so that people actually switch to it? The cost is not really the reason LA Metro ridership is so low and farebox recovery is so low.
linguae 2y ago
Another big difference between transit in Tokyo versus transit in California: in Tokyo many of the lines are owned and operated by private companies. JR East used to be part of Japan National Railways, but the Japanese government privatized JNR in 1987, and it was split into several regional companies. There are other private companies that operate commuter rail lines, such as Tokyu (which played a major role in the development of Shibuya as well as suburban areas in Yokohama such as Tama Plaza), Odakyu, Keio, and Keikyu. The subway lines tend to be publicly-owned, however, such as the Tokyo Metro subway system, the Toei subway system, and the Yokohama Municipal Subway. Many of these subway lines seamlessly flow into privately-owned and operated lines from the companies previously mentioned; for example, the Tokyu Den-en-Toshi line, which connects the suburban areas of Machida and Yokohama to Shibuya, becomes the Tokyo Metro Hanzomon Line once it reaches Shibuya. Many of the private train companies have other businesses. For example, Tokyu Group (https://tokyugroup.jp/en https://tokyugroup.jp/en) operates many companies, such as department stores (including the famous Shibuya 109), hotels, grocery stores, and even a hospital. Tokyu used to own a fantastic chain of stores called Tokyu Hands, which is hard to classify but sells a variety of goods, but Tokyu sold it a few years ago.
- Avicebron 2y ago
  It's important to note that private companies in Japan didn't always function as fully independent entities from the government (obviously there is going to be rent-seeking as almost always happens), there is a pretty complicated history of post ww2 industrial + government growth that had some form of public good (or social contract whichever you prefer) baked into it. It's interesting that you mention it was privatized in 1987, which corresponds to the economic bubble that was happening from 1986 to 1991, which burst leaving a so called "lost generation" of people growing up in basically stagnation. And from what I understand the Japanese economy is still not the rocket ship it once was..
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    JNR failed mostly because it was struggling from high construction debts of Shinkansen and urban rail projects. One important part of the privatization was that the government took on this debt load to unshackle the newly private companies. Also this hasn’t happened evenly. Of the seven private JRs, one (Kyushu) is treading water and three are losing money (Hokkaido, Shikoku and Freight)
tkgally 2y ago
Most commuter train lines in Japan are part of integrated conglomerates of complementary businesses. JR East, which runs the Yamanote Line, also operates shopping malls, hotels, gyms, and other retail facilities at and near their stations. Many suburban lines, such as Tokyu and Hankyu, also have large real estate businesses along the train lines. The rail lines make the businesses more accessible, and the businesses boost rail usage. That symbiotic profitability has developed over many decades and would be very difficult to create from scratch.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  If you look at the actual profit numbers, these companies are better described as real estate companies that also run train lines (which bring people to the real estate properties, making those properties much more valuable).
morninglight 2y ago
During 18+ years of working at a Japanese company in Tokyo, my train fare to and from work was paid with a pass from the company. This was true for all our employees, and other companies offered the same perk to their employees. The pass was free and good for travel at any time along that route.
- presentation 2y ago
  That’s called a 定期券 and you can buy that yourself if you want to save some yen on your commute, though it’s only really worth it if you’re going between the stations most weekdays consistently.
lmm 2y ago
Japanese trains are de facto free for many users as employers are de facto required to pay their employees' train commute costs. So I don't know what bizarre mental leap you're making here, or why you're focusing on cost in the first place. > I frequently travel to Hong Kong and I moved to California from London and so I looked them up and they hadn't transformed to free either. Try going to Luxembourg sometime.
- golemiprague 2y ago
  [dead]
anigbrowl 2y ago
IT's irrational to argue that free transit is why CA transit is so bad, given that it's not free now.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
The funding mechanisms are different. LA metro gets a lot of funding from sales tax initiatives. Iirc the farebox only covers like 5% of the operating budget and the median rider is making less than like $25k which is why they were considering making it free.

simonw 2y ago

What makes you associate free transit with "trying to kill transit"?

ano-ther 2y ago
Not OP, but somebody still has to pay for the transit. And a "free" service is politically much more vulnerable than one that is partly being paid for by the users because it involves taxes and redistribution. It adds pressure for each (annual) budget discussion.
- simonw 2y ago
  That "politically vulnerable" point is good. Almost all public transit ends up heavily subsidized, so the argument for free is that it's not a huge difference, and it reduces the costs involved in collecting fees / enforcement etc. But yeah, it's easier for political winds to blow against it.
  - brailsafe 2y ago
    I'd add that it wouldn't be so outlandish to assume that any superficially and widely agreeable movement might just be astroturfing, considering how cheap and easy it is to persuade people in general, but also specifically by making them think everyone else feels the same, and how often the arguments just parrot whatever the various internet personalities happen to be saying about it without any additional insight.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    It is generally not a huge difference in small systems like you find in college towns. It is a pretty substantial portion of most major transit agency budgets; BART for example has a farebox recovery of about a third. If you were to totally make it free you would need to basically increase the other sources of funding by 50%.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      LA metro fairbox recovery is like 5% fwiw. Look up median income levels too on that system and you might be inclined to slash fares.
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        the argument has always been, is it better to spend that 5% on making it free, or is it better to spend that on making services more useful so that people actually switch to it? The cost is not really the reason LA Metro ridership is so low and farebox recovery is so low.

linguae 2y ago

Another big difference between transit in Tokyo versus transit in California: in Tokyo many of the lines are owned and operated by private companies. JR East used to be part of Japan National Railways, but the Japanese government privatized JNR in 1987, and it was split into several regional companies. There are other private companies that operate commuter rail lines, such as Tokyu (which played a major role in the development of Shibuya as well as suburban areas in Yokohama such as Tama Plaza), Odakyu, Keio, and Keikyu. The subway lines tend to be publicly-owned, however, such as the Tokyo Metro subway system, the Toei subway system, and the Yokohama Municipal Subway. Many of these subway lines seamlessly flow into privately-owned and operated lines from the companies previously mentioned; for example, the Tokyu Den-en-Toshi line, which connects the suburban areas of Machida and Yokohama to Shibuya, becomes the Tokyo Metro Hanzomon Line once it reaches Shibuya. Many of the private train companies have other businesses. For example, Tokyu Group (https://tokyugroup.jp/en https://tokyugroup.jp/en) operates many companies, such as department stores (including the famous Shibuya 109), hotels, grocery stores, and even a hospital. Tokyu used to own a fantastic chain of stores called Tokyu Hands, which is hard to classify but sells a variety of goods, but Tokyu sold it a few years ago.

Avicebron 2y ago
It's important to note that private companies in Japan didn't always function as fully independent entities from the government (obviously there is going to be rent-seeking as almost always happens), there is a pretty complicated history of post ww2 industrial + government growth that had some form of public good (or social contract whichever you prefer) baked into it. It's interesting that you mention it was privatized in 1987, which corresponds to the economic bubble that was happening from 1986 to 1991, which burst leaving a so called "lost generation" of people growing up in basically stagnation. And from what I understand the Japanese economy is still not the rocket ship it once was..
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  JNR failed mostly because it was struggling from high construction debts of Shinkansen and urban rail projects. One important part of the privatization was that the government took on this debt load to unshackle the newly private companies. Also this hasn’t happened evenly. Of the seven private JRs, one (Kyushu) is treading water and three are losing money (Hokkaido, Shikoku and Freight)

tkgally 2y ago

Most commuter train lines in Japan are part of integrated conglomerates of complementary businesses. JR East, which runs the Yamanote Line, also operates shopping malls, hotels, gyms, and other retail facilities at and near their stations. Many suburban lines, such as Tokyu and Hankyu, also have large real estate businesses along the train lines. The rail lines make the businesses more accessible, and the businesses boost rail usage. That symbiotic profitability has developed over many decades and would be very difficult to create from scratch.

shiroiushi 2y ago
If you look at the actual profit numbers, these companies are better described as real estate companies that also run train lines (which bring people to the real estate properties, making those properties much more valuable).

morninglight 2y ago

During 18+ years of working at a Japanese company in Tokyo, my train fare to and from work was paid with a pass from the company. This was true for all our employees, and other companies offered the same perk to their employees. The pass was free and good for travel at any time along that route.

presentation 2y ago
That’s called a 定期券 and you can buy that yourself if you want to save some yen on your commute, though it’s only really worth it if you’re going between the stations most weekdays consistently.

lmm 2y ago

Japanese trains are de facto free for many users as employers are de facto required to pay their employees' train commute costs. So I don't know what bizarre mental leap you're making here, or why you're focusing on cost in the first place. > I frequently travel to Hong Kong and I moved to California from London and so I looked them up and they hadn't transformed to free either. Try going to Luxembourg sometime.

golemiprague 2y ago
[dead]

anigbrowl 2y ago

IT's irrational to argue that free transit is why CA transit is so bad, given that it's not free now.

kjkjadksj 2y ago

The funding mechanisms are different. LA metro gets a lot of funding from sales tax initiatives. Iirc the farebox only covers like 5% of the operating budget and the median rider is making less than like $25k which is why they were considering making it free.