Comment by wolvoleo
10 hours ago
To be fair, most countries have due to privatisation and people getting wealthier and buying cars. In my country a ton of lines have closed down too and ourv population only grows.
10 hours ago
To be fair, most countries have due to privatisation and people getting wealthier and buying cars. In my country a ton of lines have closed down too and ourv population only grows.
> To be fair, most countries have due to privatisation
Japan's system is almost entirely private and is best in the world by nearly every metric. We (the people) do not owe support to depopulated areas. If you choose to live in the boonies the government is not required to build or maintain roads, tracks, sewers, power to your place. Funds are not infinite.
Japan's private system works because the government mostly got out of the way and let them build and run complementary businesses. Most other countries either make them public, and then they eventually are underfunded and are prevented from expanding/responding, OR, if they do let them be private they find some other way to cripple them like by disallowing other interests.
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-japan-has-such-good-rai...
This take is hilariously misinformed. Japan's long-distance network was almost entirely public until JNR was privatized in 1987, and its successors the JRs continue to be for all intents and purposes controlled by the government.
Some not-very-light reading about the rise and fall of JNR:
https://www.substack-bahn.net/p/aura-of-success-the-first-ye...
https://www.substack-bahn.net/p/the-death-and-privatization-...
https://www.substack-bahn.net/p/the-death-and-privatization-...
Or, more commonly, they have:
1. The public pay for and build the lines and prove market demand.
2. Decades later some 'fiscal conservatives' get elected.
3. Who then privatize them for a sweetheart deal to their friends.
4. Who then proceed to squeeze every penny they have out of the public, while foregoing expansion and service quality.
With an end result of everyone getting to pay through the nose for shit service, while profits accrue up. And nobody's building any competing lines, because rail is a textbook example of a natural monopoly, and it's hard to compete on capex with someone who got a full rail network by buying it, fully built out[1].
Nobody with a lick of sense will ever lend you the 100 billion dollars you need to open a from-scratch competitor, if you ever want to eat into the incumbent's margins. The incumbent knows this.
---
The rail company is the poster child for either a crown corporation, or at most, a 'customer-facing services outsourced on a fixed-term-contract'.
---
[1] Bonus points for rules around eminent domain changing at some point in the past century and a half, making it actually impossible to build a competing line today.
Closing lines in the 90s would be unusual; the big spurt of line closures was generally _far_ earlier in most places, generally 50s or 60s.
It was because until the 90s in Holland public transport was seen as a community service, not a business so even lines with limited traffic were served. During the 90s the neoliberal craze began where everything had to be a market.
>people getting wealthier and buying cars
Haha, my experience is people buying cars feel poorer, not wealthier. Car payments, maintenance, insurance, taxes, fuel... and as soon as you finish paying it off, it's basically EOL. Time to start paying for the next one.
Unfortunately when you live in a place (like most American cities) where they’re largely built under the assumption people will drive everywhere, a car is essentially required. It’s expensive owning and maintaining a car, but it also feels demoralizing dealing with limited public transportation and neighborhoods that aren’t walkable. There are walkable metro areas in the United States, but they tend to be very expensive, sometimes more expensive than living in a suburb or exurb and dealing with the cost of commuting. I grew up poor; dealing with hour-long bus waits, late buses, multiple transfers, and limited choices is a powerful motivation to save up for a car.
Well yes but this is a choice. In a place with good public transport and alternative road modes people just use cars a lot less.
The thing is in the US cars are traditionally a huge part of the economic engine. So they get preference. You see something similar in Germany though not nearly as bad.
> as soon as you finish paying it off, it's basically EOL
The average age of a car on the road in the US today is now more than 11 years. The average new car loan is just less than 6 years. Beyond that, it's all just a different set of trade-offs. Aside from living somewhere truly dense with fantastic public transit and only going places reachable by said transit, owning a car means less time spent on transportation, and infinitely more flexibility on where you go. Lots of people prefer the lifestyle. Even in Europe cars remain quite popular.
True but at least where I'm from it's a huge status symbol. Every time a neighbour gets a new car the whole street is jealous and talking about it.
I personally find driving very stressful and wasteful of my time so I hate cars. Even when I had one from work. In fact that was worse because they only give you a work car because the job involves loads of driving. Even though the tax man wanted lots of money for something I didn't even want in the first place.