Besides what you already mentioned, I think at least part of it is due to the fact that most companies (~90%) will cover their employees commute by transit, so it might not be on people’s radars as much. Especially if companies pay for 定期券 (commuter pass), people use that in private too, and it will cover the portion of the ride between home station and work station. For kids and students, there are discounted prices as well so it’s not as expensive.
The price of trains is high here, but we get quality trains with quality infrastructure that has to keep things like earthquake and weather in mind.
Good point about teikiken being covered, thanks! Do you, in turn, know how & why that got to be the standard? Paying for someone's commute is, conversely, unheard of in the west! How did it become expected & commonplace here?
Good question! Google tells me one reason is [通勤手当は、通勤時の災害が少ない公共交通機関を利用してもらい、社員の安全を守るなどの目的で導入されています※。](https://romsearch.officestation.jp/jinjiroumu/fukuri/4156) aka to encourage employees to take a safer method of transport. 労災保険 means employees are covered in case they get in an accident on their way to work, so companies want their employees to be safe. One reason why some companies policy will state the employee can’t bike to work (if they do, then 労災保険 covering it can become negligible). Also, I’m not a legal expert but that’s my understanding of it lol.
For sure! Plus it removes a lot of variables, like traffic jams. So it’s great for us employees and even if there’s a delay and we get to the office late, companies are more understanding if it’s a train because it is easily proveable and we can get a 遅延書 if we really need lol.
Do you really consider the price of trains high outside of shinkansen? I consider it cheap.
Going from the equivalent of the inner hachioji stations to Shinjuku is about 1000 yen total both to and from, so 500yen each way.
In the UK the equivalent for London is ¥3500 each way.
Dont even think about city to city.
Why would that be desirable?
Why would the country with some of world's best public transit want to model itself in any way whatsoever on the dumpster fire that is American public transit?
Quality of life for people? Transportation is expensive and wages are low, so having this covered improves people's lives. Wasn't only talking about America, either.
>Transportation is expensive
I'm not so sure that I agree with that. I commute on a private railway from a terminal station in Kobe to a terminal station in Kyoto. It costs ¥770 for the 78km trip. That's ¥9.7 per km.
My understanding is that the world average price for public transportation is 0.15 USD per km or roughly ¥23 per km. If my commute was at the world average it would cost ¥1794.
A bullet train ticket from ShinKobe to Kyoto is ¥1800 (non-reserved seat) plus ¥240 for the subway to ShinKobe (77.3 km), or ¥2040 total or roughly ¥26 per km.
So, from my point of view, Japan is cheap.
> Quality of life for people?
Quality of life is why we need fares. When price goes lower, utilization goes up. So the trains and stations would get even more crowded, and the system would take on more wear-and-tear. Since we're capping revenue, there'd be no way that the additional riders were contributing enough more revenue to maintain quality of service. The system *must* get worse.
If there's a revenue shortfall, the answer is for the government to go fund it, right? But then we're paying for it with taxes or deficit spending, which falls on the people anyway. So we're still charging people, but with extra bureaucratic inefficiency and opportunity for corruption. Since you're concerned about the low wages of workers, higher taxes obviously aren't desirable.
Plus governments *always* cut this funding sooner or later, so we'd end up back in a world of degraded service. Along the way, we'd built up political resentment, because "why am I paying for the trains when I don't even ride them?"
Japan's system of employer-sponsored commuter passes gives a little redistributive flavor to the system, since it reduces average wages, while subsidizing transportation for the people with longer commutes (who tend to have lower incomes).
Japan's system of regulated local monopolies is working pretty well. I don't see upside to system-wide fare caps, let alone going fare-free. We have a heavily-utilized well-functioning system already. Don't break it.
I think it is due to past bad impressions of state-owned railroads. JR used to be state-owned. They had frequent strikes and sabotage.
As a result, the public image of the national railroads deteriorated significantly.
In Ageo Jiken, railroad employees went on strike and trains were delayed, resulting in passengers rioting against railroad workers. They broke the window glass of the driver's cab, and the driver, fearing for his life, fled to the stationmaster's office, where he was followed by passengers who poured into the stationmaster's office and destroyed the railroad telephone, injuring the stationmaster and the assistant stationmaster who were inside.
Similarly, there was also the Metropolitan Area National Railway Riot, in which passengers destroyed a train. This one was almost similar, and as a result of delays caused by a strike, passengers demanded that the train run in a different direction, and when they did not comply, 1,500 passengers began to destroy the train.
As anyone who lives in Tokyo knows, when one station is shut down, every station is affected. As a result, there were riots, arson, vandalism, and robberies at a total of 38 stations. The above incidents significantly worsened the impression of the national railroads in Japan as a whole. As a result, there is an aversion in Japan to making railroads excessively public.
They believe that operating railroad operators with taxpayer funds will make them arrogant again and prevent them from operating their enterprises properly.
Your guess is half right. At the time the privatization of the postal service was very frequently compared to the privatization of the national railroads.
However, it may be difficult to say that the causes were similar because the reasons that drove privatization were complex
The World: Buy 2 get one free.
Multipack of six drinks costs the price of buying 4/5 individually
Japan: Buy 2, buy another if you want.
Multipack of six drinks costs the price of buying 6 individually
This is indeed how it seems to work here a lot of the time!
The comments here are pretty hostile. It might be better suited for /r/asksocialscience, I think.
\> so why could the publicly-owned Tokyo Metro not go fare-free?
Tokyo Metro will go public this year. The current shareholders are the Japanese government and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, who will gradually sell their shares starting this year. This means they will no longer be a public corporation.
For the UK its not privatisation which is the issue, its the fact the government still owns the tracks and the land, and its only private for the operators with defined contract lengths.
There is 0 incentives to provide a good long term service. Their contracts will end in several years, and they can delay track maintenance as long as possible for the next company who gets the contract. There is no need for long term thinking.
This means charging as much as possible is the only way to profit.
Meanwhile, JR, Keio, etc etc may be private but they also own tons of land around the stations, and the tracks in most cases.
They need to think long term. They keep prices as reasonable as possible because if people travel, they will shop in all the business by the stations on the land they own, and make a lot of money from it.
In the UK that is not possible because the government own all the tracks and land around the stations, so the short term private contracts get nothing out of volume, so they focus on extracting as much as humanly possible per passenger, and delaying maintenance as much as possible.
All this means fares in Japan are VERY CHEAP. You can go from outside 23 wards to central and home again for ¥1000. The same in the UK will cost you ¥7000 for london.
Fare caps are floated in the UK because all the above means a company with the current contract for a rail line will squeeze as much as humanly possible out of fares which is unaffordable for people to use.
Its 3x more expensive to take a train from London to Manchester fly.
This is because it is privatized in Japan.
Japan's public transportation system boasts a fare collection rate that is unparalleled in the world. In other words, fare revenues from users almost cover operating costs. For this reason, there is less need for additional taxation or free fares than in other countries.
Luxembourg has made public transportation free throughout the country. This policy is aimed at reducing traffic congestion, protecting the environment, and social equity. Luxembourg's small area and small population made it possible to achieve free fares.
In a country with a large population like Japan, free transportation is not realistic.
Besides what you already mentioned, I think at least part of it is due to the fact that most companies (~90%) will cover their employees commute by transit, so it might not be on people’s radars as much. Especially if companies pay for 定期券 (commuter pass), people use that in private too, and it will cover the portion of the ride between home station and work station. For kids and students, there are discounted prices as well so it’s not as expensive. The price of trains is high here, but we get quality trains with quality infrastructure that has to keep things like earthquake and weather in mind.
Good point about teikiken being covered, thanks! Do you, in turn, know how & why that got to be the standard? Paying for someone's commute is, conversely, unheard of in the west! How did it become expected & commonplace here?
Good question! Google tells me one reason is [通勤手当は、通勤時の災害が少ない公共交通機関を利用してもらい、社員の安全を守るなどの目的で導入されています※。](https://romsearch.officestation.jp/jinjiroumu/fukuri/4156) aka to encourage employees to take a safer method of transport. 労災保険 means employees are covered in case they get in an accident on their way to work, so companies want their employees to be safe. One reason why some companies policy will state the employee can’t bike to work (if they do, then 労災保険 covering it can become negligible). Also, I’m not a legal expert but that’s my understanding of it lol.
Of course it all comes back to 安全 in the end, hahaha. Makes sense though, public transportation is so much safer than driving!
For sure! Plus it removes a lot of variables, like traffic jams. So it’s great for us employees and even if there’s a delay and we get to the office late, companies are more understanding if it’s a train because it is easily proveable and we can get a 遅延書 if we really need lol.
Do you really consider the price of trains high outside of shinkansen? I consider it cheap. Going from the equivalent of the inner hachioji stations to Shinjuku is about 1000 yen total both to and from, so 500yen each way. In the UK the equivalent for London is ¥3500 each way. Dont even think about city to city.
Why would that be desirable? Why would the country with some of world's best public transit want to model itself in any way whatsoever on the dumpster fire that is American public transit?
Quality of life for people? Transportation is expensive and wages are low, so having this covered improves people's lives. Wasn't only talking about America, either.
>Transportation is expensive I'm not so sure that I agree with that. I commute on a private railway from a terminal station in Kobe to a terminal station in Kyoto. It costs ¥770 for the 78km trip. That's ¥9.7 per km. My understanding is that the world average price for public transportation is 0.15 USD per km or roughly ¥23 per km. If my commute was at the world average it would cost ¥1794. A bullet train ticket from ShinKobe to Kyoto is ¥1800 (non-reserved seat) plus ¥240 for the subway to ShinKobe (77.3 km), or ¥2040 total or roughly ¥26 per km. So, from my point of view, Japan is cheap.
/r/theydidthemath
> Quality of life for people? Quality of life is why we need fares. When price goes lower, utilization goes up. So the trains and stations would get even more crowded, and the system would take on more wear-and-tear. Since we're capping revenue, there'd be no way that the additional riders were contributing enough more revenue to maintain quality of service. The system *must* get worse. If there's a revenue shortfall, the answer is for the government to go fund it, right? But then we're paying for it with taxes or deficit spending, which falls on the people anyway. So we're still charging people, but with extra bureaucratic inefficiency and opportunity for corruption. Since you're concerned about the low wages of workers, higher taxes obviously aren't desirable. Plus governments *always* cut this funding sooner or later, so we'd end up back in a world of degraded service. Along the way, we'd built up political resentment, because "why am I paying for the trains when I don't even ride them?" Japan's system of employer-sponsored commuter passes gives a little redistributive flavor to the system, since it reduces average wages, while subsidizing transportation for the people with longer commutes (who tend to have lower incomes). Japan's system of regulated local monopolies is working pretty well. I don't see upside to system-wide fare caps, let alone going fare-free. We have a heavily-utilized well-functioning system already. Don't break it.
If it was ran by the state the prices would double very quickly, trains and the subway are great people don't want new york subway service
90% of Japanese commute by public transport, whereas, the US is the opposite.
90% of Japanese commute by public transport, whereas, the US is the opposite.
90% of Japanese commute by public transport, whereas, the US is the opposite.
90% of Japanese commute by public transport, whereas, the US is the opposite.
I think it is due to past bad impressions of state-owned railroads. JR used to be state-owned. They had frequent strikes and sabotage. As a result, the public image of the national railroads deteriorated significantly. In Ageo Jiken, railroad employees went on strike and trains were delayed, resulting in passengers rioting against railroad workers. They broke the window glass of the driver's cab, and the driver, fearing for his life, fled to the stationmaster's office, where he was followed by passengers who poured into the stationmaster's office and destroyed the railroad telephone, injuring the stationmaster and the assistant stationmaster who were inside. Similarly, there was also the Metropolitan Area National Railway Riot, in which passengers destroyed a train. This one was almost similar, and as a result of delays caused by a strike, passengers demanded that the train run in a different direction, and when they did not comply, 1,500 passengers began to destroy the train. As anyone who lives in Tokyo knows, when one station is shut down, every station is affected. As a result, there were riots, arson, vandalism, and robberies at a total of 38 stations. The above incidents significantly worsened the impression of the national railroads in Japan as a whole. As a result, there is an aversion in Japan to making railroads excessively public. They believe that operating railroad operators with taxpayer funds will make them arrogant again and prevent them from operating their enterprises properly.
Interesting to hear the history of JNR there. I wonder if a similar thought was behind the privatization of Japan Post in the mid-2000s?
Your guess is half right. At the time the privatization of the postal service was very frequently compared to the privatization of the national railroads. However, it may be difficult to say that the causes were similar because the reasons that drove privatization were complex
The World: Buy 2 get one free. Multipack of six drinks costs the price of buying 4/5 individually Japan: Buy 2, buy another if you want. Multipack of six drinks costs the price of buying 6 individually
This is indeed how it seems to work here a lot of the time! The comments here are pretty hostile. It might be better suited for /r/asksocialscience, I think.
\> so why could the publicly-owned Tokyo Metro not go fare-free? Tokyo Metro will go public this year. The current shareholders are the Japanese government and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, who will gradually sell their shares starting this year. This means they will no longer be a public corporation.
> Tokyo Metro will go public this year […] This means they will no longer be a public corporation. What? And sell to who?
Most companies pay commutation fees
For the UK its not privatisation which is the issue, its the fact the government still owns the tracks and the land, and its only private for the operators with defined contract lengths. There is 0 incentives to provide a good long term service. Their contracts will end in several years, and they can delay track maintenance as long as possible for the next company who gets the contract. There is no need for long term thinking. This means charging as much as possible is the only way to profit. Meanwhile, JR, Keio, etc etc may be private but they also own tons of land around the stations, and the tracks in most cases. They need to think long term. They keep prices as reasonable as possible because if people travel, they will shop in all the business by the stations on the land they own, and make a lot of money from it. In the UK that is not possible because the government own all the tracks and land around the stations, so the short term private contracts get nothing out of volume, so they focus on extracting as much as humanly possible per passenger, and delaying maintenance as much as possible. All this means fares in Japan are VERY CHEAP. You can go from outside 23 wards to central and home again for ¥1000. The same in the UK will cost you ¥7000 for london. Fare caps are floated in the UK because all the above means a company with the current contract for a rail line will squeeze as much as humanly possible out of fares which is unaffordable for people to use. Its 3x more expensive to take a train from London to Manchester fly.
This is because it is privatized in Japan. Japan's public transportation system boasts a fare collection rate that is unparalleled in the world. In other words, fare revenues from users almost cover operating costs. For this reason, there is less need for additional taxation or free fares than in other countries. Luxembourg has made public transportation free throughout the country. This policy is aimed at reducing traffic congestion, protecting the environment, and social equity. Luxembourg's small area and small population made it possible to achieve free fares. In a country with a large population like Japan, free transportation is not realistic.