[Animats]

Japan's railroad system has a big geographic advantage - the country is long and narrow. The railroad system is primarily a long end to end line with short crosswise branches.[1] That's an efficient structure. The branch lines don't have to be fast. Many are still narrow gauge, at 3 ft 6 in.

The US had to fill a huge area in the railroad era. That left a lot of underutilized track once the road network got good.

[1] https://www.jrailpass.com/pdf/maps/JRP_japan.pdf

[wahern]

> the country is long and narrow

The northeast and west coast metropolitan corridors are similar, and combined have comparable populations, densities, and distances as Japan. Yet we can't even build a single high-speed line. And for all the excuses about the difficulty of building rail through developed regions, the existing rights of ways and infrastructure in both the NE and California are comparable to what everybody else has had to work with, at least in the past 50 years. The density of the NE is nothing like what you see elsewhere in the world, especially Asia, and Japan and China specifically.

It's lack of political will and ambition, period, by both the community and leadership. And excusing our inability by pointing at the hurdles, insinuating that others succeeded because they didn't face the same challenges, only perpetuates the paralysis.

[timr]

> The density of the NE is nothing like what you see elsewhere in the world, especially Asia, and Japan and China specifically.

Yeah, I defy anyone who claims the US can't build trains "because of density" to fly to Tokyo, and actually take the Seibu Shinjuku line west from Shinjuku station. Look at those buildings built right next to the tracks, for many, many kilometers. People live in those -- if the windows opened, you could reach out and touch the laundry on the balconies that overlook the tracks [1].

Compared to that (and let's be clear: that's one average line in west Tokyo), even the Acela line in the east coast is a bad joke, density-speaking. The US doesn't build decent trains because the US is corrupt and sclerotic and run by incompetent people, not because of some mythical structural advantage in Magical Asia.

[1] I have no idea how people manage to live like that -- these trains are loud, and run basically from 4AM until 1AM every day -- but it's not lost on me that the fact that people can build houses right up next to the tracks might be the true advantage of Magical Japan.

[ekianjo]

> these trains are loud, and run basically from 4AM until 1AM every day

Not that bad actually. You get used to it and even if trains are frequent they don't need 10 minutes to pass by your home.

[ButlerianJihad]

I live in a unique community which is sandwiched between a public-transit light rail line, and a freight line as well.

The light rail can run a frequency of 12-20 minutes in each direction. The freight's schedule: who really knows?

But the freight train is generally inhibited from sounding its horn or bells near residential neighborhoods. So, unless I am really paying attention while awake, I cannot detect it passing by, no matter the size.

The light rail is audible from where I sit, usually, but only just. It toots the horn mostly as it passes, but it's not disruptive or annoying to me, anyway. I sort of enjoy the white noise it all makes. There are cars that do a lot worse.

I think that the architecture here is helpful, too. The buildings are clustered around a central courtyard, and really insulated from the road noise. At any given time, there may be folks splashing in the pool, or running the jets on the hot tub, anyway.

The light rail stations are a major convenience to living here, and the train noise is absolutely the least of our worries!

[timr]

I've heard people say that, but I find it hard to believe. I think I'd go nuts. And sure, they don't take 10 minutes to pass, but the busy lines (like the Seibu line I mentioned) are running at least 2-3 trains every 10 minutes, so they might as well be continuous.

The houses built next to the crossing points, in particular, have always boggled my mind. BING BING BING BING BING....

[Liftyee]

I noticed when I visited Japan that the crossing chimes quieten once the barriers have fully lowered.

Just another example of Japanese attention to detail and human oriented design.

[timr]

Not where I am standing right now!

(I mean, maybe you’re right in some places, but it’s certainly not everywhere. Ironically, I happened to be standing next to a completely empty crossing, gates down, bonging away, while reading your comment.)

[fooqux]

It can be a factor of many things, can it not? Seriously, if Japan was a map option in Transport Tycoon, it would be labeled "easy".

[timr]

Of course it's many things, but people who claim that the US is especially dense, or especially sparse, or especially geographically difficult (LOL!) compared to Japan (and therefore cannot build rail) are deeply unserious commenters.

More generally, any argument of the form "the US is special for reason ____ and therefore rail is especially difficult here" is highly likely to be utter nonsense.

[barney54]

The U.S. can build trains and has a good rail system—for freight not passengers. It’s not obvious how Japan moves freight, but the U.S.’s rail system evolved to move freight efficiently. That is a huge difference and not necessarily the result of corruption or incompetence.

[timr]

Maybe. Japan has plenty of freight by rail, but you can’t look at (say) the California high-speed rail debacle and blame that on cargo.

[jabl]

My understanding the rail share of freight is relatively low in Japan compared to many other developed countries. Most freight moves by truck or coastal shipping. Looking at a map of Japan, most of the cities are by the coast, so I guess coastal shipping makes a lot of sense.

[aposm]

I think a big part of it is also that (partly because of the necessity of building for earthquake resistance), Japanese construction is a lot more robust than American housing, and also tends to have extremely good soundproofing on windows and doors. Actually, it's most of the rest of the world, except the US.

[tdeck]

> Japanese construction is a lot more robust than American housing, and also tends to have extremely good soundproofing on windows and doors.

This must be a different Japan than the one I'm familiar with, where exterior walls are often uninsulated and only a few inches thick and single-pane windows are still the norm in a lot of housing. I wouldn't be surprised if soundproofing were better for railroad-adjacent buildings, but compared to American homes the soundproofing here is surprisingly poor.

[timr]

> Japanese construction is a lot more robust than American housing, and also tends to have extremely good soundproofing on windows and doors.

Oh, you’re definitely engaging in Magical Japan, here.

While building standards have certainly improved in the past 20 years, the average Japanese house is built just strong enough not to fall over when someone farts. In particular, windows tend to be single pane, and you’re lucky if they block a strong wind, let alone noise.

I’m exaggerating a little, but not by much.

[Tor3]

As the sister comment said - the houses are just strong enough not to fall over in a "normal", all-the-time earthquake. Our house sways a lot under typhoons and far-away earthquakes (far away = long wavelengths). It's only relatively recent that building codes have been updated to handle real earthquakes without falling over like a house of cards. Remember the Noto earthquake Januar 1, 2024? Large areas didn't have a single house still standing.

(Which is why we're now tearing down our old house and building a new, stronger one. Post-war Japan was more concerned with a) building a lot of houses, and b) keep lots of jobs, which meant, as far as houses were concerned, building use-and-throw-away houses. Then build another. And another. And don't talk to me about sound proofing.. it's non-existing. What with no insulation in walls.)

[aposm]

When I lived in Japan it was in a relatively recent (last 10 years) but not brand new apartment block - Maybe if you are talking about a rural area or an old postwar Showa era house, sure. But either way the sound proofing is worlds better than any new construction in the US.

[Tor3]

I'm in a 20 year old two-storey apartment right now (while we're building a new house), and the sound-proofing isn't non-existing but not as bad as some other apartments I'm aware of (where you can't make a sound without the neighbors start knocking on the walls/floors, and you're privy to thing you don't actually want to hear..) - but we can hear every footstep when the neighbors walk the stairs to their upper floor. The rooms which are more distant are fine, we don't actually hear them talking. Most of the time.

[Shitty-kitty]

The advatange they have is that all 4 of their major metropolitan areas are in a straight line across flat land. The enemy of high-speed is any diviations from flat and straigh. On he accela top speed can be maintained less then 40% of the trip.

[aposm]

All the major metro areas on the Acela corridor are also on a straight line, on significantly flatter land than Japan. Notice how the Acela never spends 10+ minute periods in long, deep tunnels under mountain ranges. The Acela primarily spends most of the trip going below 100 mph because it is operating on 100+ year old infrastructure that has only ever been upgraded piecemeal as it starts to fail.

[technothrasher]

It's always feels funny to me when taking the Acela between Boston and NYC that you go screaming along at 150mph... for a small portion of track in Rhode Island. The rest of the time you're going much slower. It's almost like, why even bother for that small section?

The Shinkansen was a very different experience when I took it.

[kalleboo]

Japan isn't that flat. The Tokaido Shinkansen has 70km of tunnels (12% of the route), and for the new maglev Shinkansen, they're boring 250 km of tunnels (90% of the route!)

[socalgal2]

That's got zero to do with anything. you do not need to add rail to the whole country.

As an example SF Bay Area and Switzerland are about the same size, SF has double the population density. It has a Bay, Switzerland has mountains. Switzerland has like 10x the trains. There's no reason SF Bay couldn't too.

It's similar for most metro areas. LA used to have a huge train system. Bad insentives and government policies killed it. They're adding new ones back but they're adding them in the worst possible way, making them unprofitable and designed only for people who can't afford cars means they'll only be a money sink at best, or they'll get underfunded and decrepit at worst

[vidarh]

Even the lowest density US states have most of the population in corridors or areas with sufficient density.

E.g. Montana used to have passenger rail through the most densely populated Southern part of the state. That region has comparable density to regions of Norway that have regular rail service. (There are efforts to restart passenger service in Southern Montana)

And it's not like places like Norway have rail everywhere either - the lower threshold for density where rail is considered viable is just far lower.

The actual proportion of the US population that lives in areas with too low density to support rail is really tiny.

[kgwgk]

> As an example SF Bay Area and Switzerland are about the same size,

> SF has double the population density.

These two statements seem hard to reconcile considering that Switzerland’s population is higher.

[socalgal2]

You're right my memory was bad.

Both the SF Bay Area (not SF, the whole Bay), and Switzerland have ~8 million people.

SF Bay Area is 7K sq miles, Switzerland is ~15k sq miles

The point is still correct. Switzerland has half the density but it has amazing transporation. There's no excuse for SF Bay Area not to as well.

[Gigachad]

There is no excuse for the US’s failure. Many countries have large areas to cover. China is a similar size and has massive HSR coverage. The US could too if they didn’t waste all the money on corruption.

[Conan_Kudo]

China also has nationalized rail systems. The major reason for the failure in the US is that the rail lines are not publicly owned. The reason the rail systems never got upgraded and Amtrak couldn't deploy high speed rail everywhere (despite it being a national priority in the 70s, 80s, and 90s) is that outside of the northeast corridor, Amtrak doesn't own the lines and couldn't get the owners to allow Amtrak to upgrade them for passenger high speed rail.

[jabl]

> China also has nationalized rail systems. The major reason for the failure in the US is that the rail lines are not publicly owned.

The article we're discussing explains that Japan has the best passenger rail system in the world, and which happens to be privatized, along with privately owned track. So which one is it? Go figure.

[Philpax]

While I agree with you, their system did not start privatised, and the Shinkansens predate privatisation by some time. I don't have the evidence to justify this, but I suspect that you need national buy-in - both financially and politically - to start a HSR build-out, which could then potentially be privatised at a later stage.

[Tor3]

I believe the Japanese private rail companies also own the lines where their traffic is. This would explain a lot. There are other countries (including my native one) where the trains are run by one company and the lines are owned by another. This does.not.work. For what seems like obvious reasons. There's no economic gain for the owner of the infrastructure to spend money, quite the opposite in fact.

[KptMarchewa]

In every EU country the infrastructure company (companies) is separate from companies that operate trains, with some usually small exceptions.

[presentation]

Well, to be honest, the results in Japan and China, where that isn’t the case, have turned out to be much better.

[jabl]

Most EU countries have adopted the approach of putting the infrastructure company and the public train company under the same holding company, which is sort-of the minimum that EU regulations demand. In practice, in many countries the previous national rail company (under whatever conglomerate structure it may be operating under today) is fiercely protective of its own turf and tries to prevent new entrants, and digging their heels in implementing EU railway competition regulations. So complying with the letter of the law, but does everything in its powers to not comply with the spirit.

Then again, given the UK experience of going all-in on the "vertical separation" and privatization path, perhaps one shouldn't blame them.

[Tiktaalik]

Many of these lines were built by the public, then privatized.

[Tor3]

But maintained and extended today by e.g. JR Eeast.

[floatrock]

Calling Japan Rail privatized is a "ehhh, kinda, in some places, if you squint" kinda thing.

Technically, yes, the JR's are private companies.

But track construction is generally done by a government construction company financed with Japanese sovereign debt. The completed tracks are then long-term leased to the JR's at favorable rates.

Is it really a private company if the key capital outlay is done by the government and given to you with a sweetheart deal? ehhhhhh.... you can call the operator company private, but you're being dishonest if you call the system privatized.

[radicalbyte]

Russia is far larger and far less populated, it's an economic backwater and a cultural dead end. Yet despite that they have rail connecting their country together.

[hirako2000]

So did France. There is a common factor at play with Russia. Has little to do with the country's shape.

It's like saying certain rats solve the maze because the path is simpler. Except that the failing rats happen to have a different incentive.

[williamdclt]

> So did France. There is a common factor at play with Russia. Has little to do with the country's shape.

You'll have to make yourself clearer, I have no idea what you're implying

[hirako2000]

I implied that when a nation decides that transport infrastructure is a strategic investment, a decades long initiative, funded by the Public sector, it yields better results.

The private sector unfortunately is too short sighted, and will optimize for profit. Doesn't seem to work well for nationwide infrastructure..that being railroads, but also the internet.

[nephihaha]

Once you get past the Urals, most of Russia's development is along an east west axis until you reach Baikal and the the far east. Also as a Marxist dictatorship for some years, there was little emphasis on independent travel (cars etc)

To call Russia a "cultural dead end" is a bit much, considering all the great artists of various kinds that country has produced. In fact, you'll find that famous Russian novels like Anna Karenina and Doctor Zhivago feature trains as motifs.

[lioeters]

Great point about trains being featured in Russian novels. I imagine trains are well-represented in Japanese literature too, as well as film and maybe poetry. That's an angle I'd enjoy investigating further for other cultures. Surely the U.S. is more of a "car culture", but even offhand I can think of, for example, the novel On the Road with train-hopping having a significant role.

[nephihaha]

Japan and Russia have slightly different relationships to the train I think. Other than arterial rivers (that often flow in odd directions), the railway was the only serious way to get across Siberia for a long time. Whereas in Japan, while the railways are a source of pride, there were viable alternatives such as roads and boats.

I think US trains did have their window though. At one time they would have been the main way to get into the interior or across the continent.

[radicalbyte]

Oh Russia has created some amazing culture (Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy) but that was before they fell to the barbarians in the 1920s. After that only Lem comes to mind.. and he was either Ukrainian or Polish. Basically anyone talented and who could fled (Asimov comes to mind) because under the Soviet system, and later under Putinism the arts were a kind of wasteland. Basically the only things they did well involved little girls, drugs or board games.

It's funny as I'm quite fan of quite a few Russians, yet they're all people who either died before the Russian system was created or are those lucky enough to escape.

[nephihaha]

"The US could too if they didn’t waste all the money on corruption."

China is also corrupt, but it is a dictatorship with massive central planning. Central planning leads to wastage and human costs in many areas but it is good at producing new infrastructure.

[barney54]

What is this corruption you are talking about? What specifically are you talking about? Things you don’t like aren’t necessarily the result of corruption.

[mitthrowaway2]

It has a big geographic disadvantage too: the entire country is a mountain range. Japan's railway network relies on countless tunnels and viaducts, adding greatly to the cost, especially for high speed lines which require larger clearance and therefore larger tunnel diameters, and larger turning radii.

Geography is no excuse for the US not having better passenger rail service, especially when geography was no obstacle to the US having fantastic rail service in the 1920s.

[m4rtink]

Japan is also mostly mountains and is prone to natural disasters like earthquakes and Typhoon induced floods.

Sonce our first trip in 2017 at least two railways we rode have been damaged enough to be partially inoperable and under lengthy restoration work - Hisatsu line (washed away bridges) and Kurobe Gorge railway (bridge destroyed by earthquake).

[dandellion]

Here in Spain a huge chunk of the population lives along the coast, so obviously what we need is a radial network along the coast, with a few spokes connecting to Madrid in the center. But for whatever reason it's impossible to make any trains that go anywhere other than the capital.

[radicalbyte]

The Netherlands is a similar shape to the continental contiguous United States yet we have an excellent public transport system. Very good trains and every population has awesome cycling infrastructure.

The US could have all of this and more in their populated areas. They're the richest country in the world. Why is the infrastructure so neglected? It's clearly a choice.

[izacus]

US army can deploy air force, tankers, soldiers and all the logistics together with Burger King anywhere in the world within days and somehow people that pay for it still think a simple rail in their home turf is impossible.

[Conan_Kudo]

The question to ask is "who owns the rail lines?". That matters for having a good rail system. It's basically the same problem for why the US doesn't have fiber internet available everywhere, too.

[hirako2000]

Good parallel. An article recently explained how Switzerland has the fastest fibre optical network: all companies share the same cabling. Dig once. No need to hook the property or do anything when switching provider.

[mitthrowaway2]

For new rail at least, whoever wants to build them gets to own them, right?

I think what it comes down to is that if automobile companies had to build and maintain the roads, we certainly wouldn't have so many cars. But railway companies need to build the train lines, while competing with taxpayer funded automobile infrastructure. It's not impossible (see Japan) but also not easy.

[Conan_Kudo]

It's rarely that simple. The question has to be asked "who owns the land?" because usually the rail lines get to belong to who owns the land, even if someone else builds them.

The interstate automobile road system got built through judicious use of eminent domain. That avoided all of these issues. Amtrak doesn't have the ability to do that.

[DeathArrow]

Isn't Netherlands trying to deter from car use by laws and taxes and at the same time funneling public money into railroads and bike infrastructure?

>The US could have all of this and more in their populated areas.

Probably people in US have other priorities and that means there are other public policies.

[CalRobert]

I dunno, centre right national governments in recent years have been pretty car friendly. Driving can be cheaper for family outings. For two adults and two teens to go from Utrecht to Amsterdam and back (26 minutes each way) is €48 (with discount if you buy a flex pass monthly) or €80 without a discount. Suddenly driving is pretty competitive

[kelnos]

That ignores the ongoing costs of car ownership: parking/storage, maintenance, and the purchase price itself. Driving costs a lot more than just fuel and tolls.

[CalRobert]

Oh I know, and that's part of why this family doesn't own a car, but 1) a lot of people are not great at calculating those costs and 2) some of the costs are sunk costs.

Even so, the sticker shock of some trips on Dutch trains is unsettling. Utrecht to Rotterdam is €27.60 round trip (if using undiscounted fare). It's ~112 km (again, round trip). So for the same family you're looking at over €100 to go on a pretty minor journey.

I just want the Dutch government to fund trains more and roads less. It's kinda bizarre how there's no motorway tolls here, at least that I've encountered.

[radicalbyte]

Our car infrastructure receives more subsidy than our train and cycling infrastructure combined. There has actually been some discussion of this in some circles because, given the large environmental and social costs we shouldn't be subsidising cars at all and should be putting it all into public transport.

(we have two cars and five bikes, not counting the kids, and rarely use public transport, but I'd be behind that - as maybe then my town would get a tram system)

[gherkinnn]

Oh this again.

Then explain international train travel in Europe or China's national train network. Both fill large areas.

Conversely, the UK is long and narrow, and unlike Japan has neither earthquakes nor is it particularly mountainous and yet its train system is rubbish.

[CalRobert]

Japanese rail companies are allowed to buy land, then build infrastructure, then enjoy the increased value of said land. American rail is hobbled by the extraction of increased land values by those who already own land by the stations. Of course, freeways are similar, but people don’t mind roads losing money.

[ButlerianJihad]

The USA's westward expansion was indeed facilitated by the timely development of railroads, and so many of the cities were built around the ability to haul freight and service depots along the rail lines, much like ancient cities sprang up alongside rivers and bays because of boat shipping.

However, the United States is also a nation built upon the motor vehicle, and our much-vaunted freeway system here was built deliberately as a national defense measure that could easily move materiel and troops between cities and states, in the event of a domestic invasion or future wars on our own soil. The freeways enjoyed deep investments also due to commercial utility, and again, many cities and habitations sprang up at the nexus of various freeways, as truck-based shipping could service them as well.

I think one of the main obstacles to rail lines in the United States is our car-centrism, and many motorists of any socio-economic class really, really hate trains and public transit of any kind, and any other type of transport that may impinge on their freedom to drive wherever they want on as many highways as possible.

Therefore it is extraordinarily difficult for railways to get good rights-of-way. Amtrak is a redheaded stepchild. Commuter rail may be better respected in places where it was established, like the Eastern Seaboard, but if I asked any voter or motorist here, they would be voting against any sort of rail project whatsoever.

[ta8903]

>the country is long and narrow

This is a little counterintuitive but it does make a difference.

I recently moved from a coastal city (that is very linear) to a landlocked city spread evenly in all directions. I had naively assumed the new city would be easier to get around in, since on average places would be closer to you. But the first city has decent commuter rail, which meant I could get to the other end of the city in an hour, and use cabs for last mile connectivity.

I'm sure you can have good public transit in "round" cities too, but it is certainly more difficult to plan.

[callmeal]

>I'm sure you can have good public transit in "round" cities too, but it is certainly more difficult to plan.

You don't have to be "sure", take a look at London which is a "round" city with excellent public transit.

[mitthrowaway2]

Round cities are even better for rail. You run a line in a circle, like the Yamanote line in Tokyo, and now it has the advantage of periodic boundary conditions. Everywhere is central!

[foxyv]

It has very little to do with Japan's geography. It's actually because Japan was too poor after World War 2 to implement a road system. The rail companies were also the land developers so the train service operated at a loss and were essentially a value add to the real estate development projects.

This type of development is called TOD (Transit Oriented Development)

https://www.ur-net.go.jp/overseas/urtod.html

[presentation]

China is giant and sprawling and they are able to do it.

That said this reply doesn’t actually address much of what the article talks about, most interestingly how rail companies are private and are also real estate developers. That thought process ought to make sense to Texans or something.

[nephihaha]

There are also other factors. Heavy bombing during the war had the effect of clearing a lot of previous infrastructure so they were in effect building from scratch in some areas.