Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokyodude | Hacker News Reader

> Figuring out how to improve transit isn’t like curing cancer or inventing a quantum computer, either. There are good, viable models of transit systems that already exist in cities that look a lot like U.S ones. They are successful both at attracting riders and at being financially viable, from places that have more in common with American cities than one might expect

If that's the case then you'd think some company would step in to grab that "financially viable" market

Tokyo's transit system is run by multiple companies. There are at least 10 different train companies many of which also run bus services. AFAIK they are hugely profitable. Many of them also open retail spaces and office spaces in and around the stations they run.

View on HN

The value of transit isn't the fact you rode on it, but the fact you get somewhere you want to go. Tokyo rail companies, and those of many other countries as well (Hong Kong comes to mind), also hold the ability to build shopping and apartments on the stations they build (if you've been, you've probably been to Atré, Lumine, Kirarina, Tokyu etc. station malls, and you've probably spent money in them), which more than reimburses the cost of the rail itself, because ultimately the point of riding a train is to get somewhere—and if the transit companies get the ability to own that "somewhere" themselves, it becomes immediately obvious how valuable transit is.

In the case of San Francisco, hopefully the State of California Bill AB 2923 [1] passes—that's one step in realizing this model of integrated transit, housing, and commercial development, that just makes sense.

[1] https://sf.curbed.com/2018/8/24/17778648/ab-2923-bart-housin...

Germany's Hauptbahnhofs are awesome. I saw a circus troupe preform inside one. They setup on the bottom floor and did acrobatics and you could watch them from the main floor a couple levels up.

The problem is that transit has huge upfront capital cost and regulatory risk. Even Tokyo Metro told investors that it would not build new lines after building the Fukutoshin Line.

You need lots of capital, for a payoff that is quite a long time away, and face potential litigation from any busybody (at least if you're in America), not to mention your competitor is usually the free public roads, run by an entity who also regulates you. There are simply better investment opportunities elsewhere.

Is it possible that's because Tokyo Metro is not run like say Tokyu or Seibu or Tobu where those companies have the more diversified system where they invest in the retail space around the station? AFAIK Tokyo Metro has none of that which could be one reason why they are not doing as well.

Are there really? Some tech companies have hundreds of billions in the bank and nowhere to put it. And probably have the lobbyists and political connections to grease the wheels and get things done for a favorable environment.

Hell, even conservatives might go along as long as the government is giving tax breaks to "job creators".

Tech, so far, has not demonstrated any interest in actually investing in things outside the tech sphere. There's private philanthropy going on (Gates Foundation), but very little in the way of interest in domestic civics. No one has done anything comparable to the Vanderbilts and Carnegies launching universities.

There are fundamental differences, anyways. Tech can be scaled up without much interference or perceived negative impact to neighbors, and tech's main roadblock has been tech itself. Transit's main roadblock is politics, not technology; people are loath to raise more taxes, people don't like "those characters" having easier access on the train, they'd never ride a train so why should they pay taxes for one, etc.

TX Central has been trying to launch a high speed rail project for years now, and they've mostly received a never-ending stream of lawsuits for their troubles.

> There are at least 10 different train companies many of which also run bus services. AFAIK they are hugely profitable. Many of them also open retail spaces and office spaces in and around the stations they run.

These things are not incidental; a pretty huge chunk of their revenue is their property portfolio, which also reinforces transit demand, because people want to get to the properties around their stations.

In America, this integrated approach was not really a thing for major rapid transit systems. Where it was tried, it was the streetcar systems that built out low-density suburbs, but these suburbs did not generate enough money to recuperate the lifecycle cost when the streetcars reached EOL and needed replacement. And "fixing" it for current rapid transit systems would need ridiculous amounts of eminent domain, since all that land is now owned by other people; and the transit agencies with barely any capital to maintain their physical plants simply don't have the means to provide fair compensation to property owners.

Japan's rail system was made profitable by transferring all of its debt to the Japanese taxpayers.

> 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).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_National_Railways#His...

> Tokyo's transit system is run by multiple companies. There are at least 10 different train companies many of which also run bus services.

I find this interesting because it's a stark contrast to NYC. NYC is of the only cities in the country where PT is so pervasive that most people can get around on PT alone, but they tried that same exact model back in the day, and it failed miserably leading to the creation of the MTA.

The special thing about Tokyo's rail system is not that it's private, but that the railroads are the primary landowners around the rail stations, which was never true in New York.

Rail infrastructure benefits both the passengers who ride it, and the businesses whose workers and customers ride to their premises on the infrastructure. Traditionally, rail systems can only recover from the passengers. That leaves a large positive externality accruing to the businesses, which the rail operator cannot recover.

The Japanese model solves that problem by allowing the rail operator to capture value from both ends of the transaction. It charges fees to passengers, but also charges rent to all the businesses built near rail lines.

> The special thing about Tokyo's rail system is not that it's private, but that the railroads are the primary landowners around the rail stations, which was never true in New York.

They also don't have the TWU, whose unchecked corruption would be capable of destroying the public transit system of any city in any country, given the opportunity.

NYC's system was (partially) developed by two private companies. It was quite successful for a while, although they did make the choice not to also be property developers, which is how Tokyo's companies make an income.

Then a populist decided that he should build a municipal subway system to drive the other two out of business so that the city could buy them out, and the rest is history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Subway_System

To be fair, it failed in part because fares were frozen without being subsidized.

Of course, the fare freeze happened for a good reason: a city where people can't afford to get around is a city whose economy can't operate. (Let that be a warning to today's MTA leaders.)

But if you freeze fares without subsidy during a period of inflation, the operators can't afford to operate, and the system fails.

I'm not knowledgable about this, but does New York MTA own/commercialize the land above their stations or just the tracks/right of way? I always felt like in NYC it was really odd how the stations are usually really tiny and don't really have any stores or vendors except those tiny convenience stores on the platforms, and a few really crappy looking shops sprinkled in big stations like Times Square. Stands in stark contrast to the ones in Tokyo where I'm living now, where the station malls are amongst the nicest and the vendors within the fare gates are plentiful, name-brand businesses (think stuff like Muji and Kinokuniya) and quality restaurants.

Is the Port Authority owned Oculus at WTC an exception to the rule, or am I misinterpreting how the MTA works?

If my understanding is correct that MTA doesn't own that land, then imagine how fast and efficiently they would have built the 2nd Av subway if they also knew they could funnel millions of people to whatever revenue machines they built on every station along the way.

The MTA generally doesn't own the land above the tracks, and your last paragraph succinctly explains the differences in financial incentives to build rail between New York and Tokyo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com