6 ms·

I'm a Tokyo local and yes, this is real. Even I find it uncomfortable. On the Yamanote Line during rush hour, trains come every 2-3 minutes and it can still loo

by tnk0 5mo ago

I'm a Tokyo local and yes, this is real. Even I find it uncomfortable. On the Yamanote Line during rush hour, trains come every 2-3 minutes and it can still look close to this. That said, most people's daily commute isn't this extreme -- it depends heavily on the line and direction. The tradeoff most Tokyo residents accept is: 30 minutes of crowded train vs. hours stuck in traffic with nowhere to park.

tuna74 5mo ago
There is ample parking everywhere in Japan, you just have to pay for it.
ericmay 5mo ago
The OP is missing that you do the same thing you just do it in a car in a congested highway with your road rage, spend a lot of money, and all of that to avoid the impression of a subway ride that would never happen in an American city except maybe New York because these cities obviously lack population density at the scale of Tokyo. Oh and you get in car crashes and die. This isn’t an anti-car rant. I’m actually trying to just get folks who don’t want to drive and shouldn’t be driving off the road so we can save money and do more with the infrastructure we already have while restoring economic bases and entrepreneurship to our non-coastal cities. It is quite literally a win for everyone except bloated highway departments and their downstream contractors.
- cyberax 5mo ago
  That's because subways are a dead end. They need to be removed entirely, and the dense cities need to be de-densified. That's the long-term plan. > I’m actually trying to just get folks who don’t want to drive and shouldn’t be driving off the road so we can save money and do more with the infrastructure Can we PLEASE just stop with the "saving money" and "off the road" nonsense? Please. Adding transit does NOT reduce congestion (see: .https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/7/does-building-transit-reduce-traffic-congestion https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/7/does-buildi... ). And it is NOT cheaper than owning a car. If you dream of rail going to every city block like in NYC, then you should think about its other side effects: toxic densification, unaffordable housing, depopulation.
  - ericmay 5mo ago
    > That's because subways are a dead end. They need to be removed entirely, I certainly agree subways aren't the way of the future, at least in America. Too expensive and, frankly, unnecessary. We are already de-densified (which is why I find your below comment bizarre) > and the dense cities need to be de-densified. That's the long-term plan. Can you point to a single elected official in an American city that has a plan of reducing density in their city? I'm curious. > Can we PLEASE just stop with the "saving money" and "off the road" nonsense? Please. > Adding transit does NOT reduce congestion (see: .https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/7/does-buildi https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/7/does-buildi... ). And it is NOT cheaper than owning a car. Well, no, I won't stop because it's true and arguments to the contrary are faulty for various reasons. For example, suggesting that transit doesn't reduce congestion misses the fact that you can't count future growth that didn't occur. Every single person riding transit would be driving, if there was no transit. It's just logically false. It's also ignoring the fact that growth and congestion and transit typically go hand-in-hand. > And it is NOT cheaper than owning a car. The only way for this to be true is to ignore all of the factors of car ownership. Even then it's probably still false. > If you dream of rail going to every city block like in NYC, then you should think about its other side effects: toxic densification, unaffordable housing, depopulation. No I don't. Also NYC is the most populous city in America so depopulation here as an argument yet again makes 0 sense. Housing is unaffordable precisely because of the density and demand, which go hand-in-hand.
    - cyberax 5mo ago
      > We are already de-densified (which is why I find your below comment bizarre) The US is rapidly densifying, and this will get _worse_ as the population starts shrinking in earnest. Japan leads the way here, its population has been going down for a while. Yet Tokyo now is in a real estate bubble. > Can you point to a single elected official in an American city that has a plan of reducing density in their city? I'm curious. Plenty of cities are resisting the density increases, NIMBYs are holding the line. > Well, no, I won't stop because it's true and arguments to the contrary are faulty for various reasons. For example, suggesting that transit doesn't reduce congestion misses the fact that you can't count future growth that didn't occur. Again. Transit does NOT reduce the congestion. This is a simple observable verifiable fact. You can say that transit enables more density (true), but it does NOT reduce congestion. > Every single person riding transit would be driving, if there was no transit. And there would be fewer of these people. > The only way for this to be true is to ignore all of the factors of car ownership. Even then it's probably still false. In Seattle, I'm going to end up paying $150k in taxes/fees for the failrail line that will go nowhere near me. This is literally more than a lifetime of owing a cheap car. But even if we just look at operating costs of transit, a single trip on transit is about $20. This ends up being about equal to the IRS deduction for car depreciation for the average trips. > No I don't. Also NYC is the most populous city in America so depopulation here as an argument yet again makes 0 sense. Look at the fertility rate for people in dense city cores vs. suburbs. > Housing is unaffordable precisely because of the density and demand, which go hand-in-hand. Indeed. Now think about this: the total US population is shrinking. NYC is growing. What is happening? Hint: look at Japan.
rootusrootus 5mo ago
I have a hard enough time dealing gracefully with moderately congested trains in a place like DC. How do you coordinate your positioning so you can get off at the correct stop if the train gets packed this tightly?
- cassepipe 5mo ago
  From another city where things can get quite packed on some lines at rush hour: People in front of the door know that people will get out so they step outside to let the flow out and are the first ones to get back in, giving them the opportunity to go further inside so that they don't have to do it at every stop. Might even get a seat at some point (the longer the travel, the most likely to get a seat) I have been stuck in commute traffic for hours, 30 minutes of that is infinitely preferable. Also if it's really too packed, just wait 2 minutes for the next one
  - rootusrootus 5mo ago
    Thanks for the explanation. Someone else thought my question was impertinent, I'm happy you spent the time to educate me. I've never had to deal with public transit as congested as Tokyo, not even close. Hell, even on Portland light rail I find it stressful to try and navigate my way to the right place on the train to get off at my stop if I started my journey while the train was fairly empty. > I have been stuck in commute traffic for hours, 30 minutes of that is infinitely preferable. Can't argue with that. I won't ever have another commuting job again. I go into the office once a month, and after driving 45 minutes each way just because my company felt like our office needed to be in the most congested area of Portland, at the end of that day I thank my lucky stars that it's only once a month.
  - cyberax 5mo ago
    > Also if it's really too packed, just wait 2 minutes for the next one Except that the next one will be just as crowded.
    - cassepipe 5mo ago

by tnk0 5mo ago

tuna74 5mo ago

There is ample parking everywhere in Japan, you just have to pay for it.

ericmay 5mo ago

The OP is missing that you do the same thing you just do it in a car in a congested highway with your road rage, spend a lot of money, and all of that to avoid the impression of a subway ride that would never happen in an American city except maybe New York because these cities obviously lack population density at the scale of Tokyo. Oh and you get in car crashes and die. This isn’t an anti-car rant. I’m actually trying to just get folks who don’t want to drive and shouldn’t be driving off the road so we can save money and do more with the infrastructure we already have while restoring economic bases and entrepreneurship to our non-coastal cities. It is quite literally a win for everyone except bloated highway departments and their downstream contractors.

cyberax 5mo ago
That's because subways are a dead end. They need to be removed entirely, and the dense cities need to be de-densified. That's the long-term plan. > I’m actually trying to just get folks who don’t want to drive and shouldn’t be driving off the road so we can save money and do more with the infrastructure Can we PLEASE just stop with the "saving money" and "off the road" nonsense? Please. Adding transit does NOT reduce congestion (see: .https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/7/does-building-transit-reduce-traffic-congestion https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/7/does-buildi... ). And it is NOT cheaper than owning a car. If you dream of rail going to every city block like in NYC, then you should think about its other side effects: toxic densification, unaffordable housing, depopulation.
- ericmay 5mo ago
  > That's because subways are a dead end. They need to be removed entirely, I certainly agree subways aren't the way of the future, at least in America. Too expensive and, frankly, unnecessary. We are already de-densified (which is why I find your below comment bizarre) > and the dense cities need to be de-densified. That's the long-term plan. Can you point to a single elected official in an American city that has a plan of reducing density in their city? I'm curious. > Can we PLEASE just stop with the "saving money" and "off the road" nonsense? Please. > Adding transit does NOT reduce congestion (see: .https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/7/does-buildi https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/7/does-buildi... ). And it is NOT cheaper than owning a car. Well, no, I won't stop because it's true and arguments to the contrary are faulty for various reasons. For example, suggesting that transit doesn't reduce congestion misses the fact that you can't count future growth that didn't occur. Every single person riding transit would be driving, if there was no transit. It's just logically false. It's also ignoring the fact that growth and congestion and transit typically go hand-in-hand. > And it is NOT cheaper than owning a car. The only way for this to be true is to ignore all of the factors of car ownership. Even then it's probably still false. > If you dream of rail going to every city block like in NYC, then you should think about its other side effects: toxic densification, unaffordable housing, depopulation. No I don't. Also NYC is the most populous city in America so depopulation here as an argument yet again makes 0 sense. Housing is unaffordable precisely because of the density and demand, which go hand-in-hand.
  - cyberax 5mo ago
    > We are already de-densified (which is why I find your below comment bizarre) The US is rapidly densifying, and this will get _worse_ as the population starts shrinking in earnest. Japan leads the way here, its population has been going down for a while. Yet Tokyo now is in a real estate bubble. > Can you point to a single elected official in an American city that has a plan of reducing density in their city? I'm curious. Plenty of cities are resisting the density increases, NIMBYs are holding the line. > Well, no, I won't stop because it's true and arguments to the contrary are faulty for various reasons. For example, suggesting that transit doesn't reduce congestion misses the fact that you can't count future growth that didn't occur. Again. Transit does NOT reduce the congestion. This is a simple observable verifiable fact. You can say that transit enables more density (true), but it does NOT reduce congestion. > Every single person riding transit would be driving, if there was no transit. And there would be fewer of these people. > The only way for this to be true is to ignore all of the factors of car ownership. Even then it's probably still false. In Seattle, I'm going to end up paying $150k in taxes/fees for the failrail line that will go nowhere near me. This is literally more than a lifetime of owing a cheap car. But even if we just look at operating costs of transit, a single trip on transit is about $20. This ends up being about equal to the IRS deduction for car depreciation for the average trips. > No I don't. Also NYC is the most populous city in America so depopulation here as an argument yet again makes 0 sense. Look at the fertility rate for people in dense city cores vs. suburbs. > Housing is unaffordable precisely because of the density and demand, which go hand-in-hand. Indeed. Now think about this: the total US population is shrinking. NYC is growing. What is happening? Hint: look at Japan.

rootusrootus 5mo ago

I have a hard enough time dealing gracefully with moderately congested trains in a place like DC. How do you coordinate your positioning so you can get off at the correct stop if the train gets packed this tightly?

cassepipe 5mo ago
From another city where things can get quite packed on some lines at rush hour: People in front of the door know that people will get out so they step outside to let the flow out and are the first ones to get back in, giving them the opportunity to go further inside so that they don't have to do it at every stop. Might even get a seat at some point (the longer the travel, the most likely to get a seat) I have been stuck in commute traffic for hours, 30 minutes of that is infinitely preferable. Also if it's really too packed, just wait 2 minutes for the next one
- rootusrootus 5mo ago
  Thanks for the explanation. Someone else thought my question was impertinent, I'm happy you spent the time to educate me. I've never had to deal with public transit as congested as Tokyo, not even close. Hell, even on Portland light rail I find it stressful to try and navigate my way to the right place on the train to get off at my stop if I started my journey while the train was fairly empty. > I have been stuck in commute traffic for hours, 30 minutes of that is infinitely preferable. Can't argue with that. I won't ever have another commuting job again. I go into the office once a month, and after driving 45 minutes each way just because my company felt like our office needed to be in the most congested area of Portland, at the end of that day I thank my lucky stars that it's only once a month.
- cyberax 5mo ago
  > Also if it's really too packed, just wait 2 minutes for the next one Except that the next one will be just as crowded.
  - cassepipe 5mo ago