Comment by socalgal2
8 hours ago
> ~public~ transit is not a good business model.
~public~ transit can be a good business model if it's setup correctly. The majority of Japan's 100 train companies are setup such that they own both trains and complementary interests. Office buildings, shopping centers, super markets, apartments. The better their trains are the better their other businesses do by delivering people to them. The better their other businesses are the more people want to use their trains.
https://ir.tokyu.co.jp/ja/ir/news/auto_20251111595684/pdfFil...
I think you and the person you are responding to are saying the same thing?
I don't think they literally meant public transit can't be profitable in any scenario, they meant that it takes a conscious choice to put money into transit with the intention of reaching some second benefit, which is a pretty good comparison to this topic too.
The public transit by itself is a money loser compared to alternatives, but by having it in place you get other benefits that make it worth it overall.
This reminds me of the way ski resorts work in the US. One company builds the ski resort (losing) but also develops all the real estate around it (winning). It only works if it's a resort worth living near.
Or casinos, which are the reverse. Build hotels, entertainment etc (losing) to support traffic to your casino (winning)
Why company? In France, ski resorts are often built by local authorities, not companies.
That's just not the sort of thing the US believes in.
Rail was a dominant industry in the USA when railroad companies were able to exploit their unique control over property during westward expansion.
It's fair to note that Japan's private rail networks have often been joint public/private investments, but I don't think that negates your point.
I think public transit is something the public should invest in, profitable or not, as a service to ourselves (the public). But it can also be done profitably in certain circumstances.
I think trying to get the incentives right is important and that "public" transit rarely gets it right. It relies on politicians to fund it and they have so many strings being pulled on that they can rarely give it the funding it needs. It will always show up as an expense and as such there will always be an incentive to cut funding to "lower the expense". If they ever have a surplus it will be syphoned off to something else instead of invested.
Of course many cities have great "public" (run by the government) transportation for some definition of "great" but many have issues of funding. IIUC, NYC and London are both seriously underfunded. Conversely, AFAICT, these private Japanese trains in a city of a comparible size are not. If you don't want to compare to Tokyo, then compare to Osaka
https://www.keihan.co.jp/corporate/ir/individual/
https://www.hankyu-hanshin.co.jp/docs/integratedreport2025_j...
While public transit is a good business model, corrupt public transit is an even better business model. The amount of public funds that some US public transit funnels away is astounding.
Yup. North American public transit is frequently a terrible business model because North American land use is designed to push everyone’s daily destinations further and further apart, making all transportation more expensive, and making transit uncompetitive with anything else.