...wait, what? The Japanese providers have rail-real estate syncretism, which isn't the same as "real estate before anything else."
-
-
Replying to @alon_levy
my point is that these companies would be viable if they were only in real estate, but not viable if they were only in rail
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
I don't think that's true. For nearly all private railroads, both divisions are profitable, though real estate has higher margins.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alon_levy
no, not the profitability--what I mean is they *need* ownership of their own land (at minimum) to do justice to their rail
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh @alon_levy
if they were renting their stations, etc, from other landowners they'd be screwed
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Well, if we're talking about station facilities, then every subway in the world owns real estate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alon_levy
ya but subways are hardly the only kind of transit out there, you know?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Very different from the transportation-real estate synergy that exists in Japan and Hong Kong.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @380kmh
Amtrak has small concessions within Penn Station, and makes no effort to e.g. encourage office space growth near the station.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
right, so...they think of themselves as a rail company, not as developers--the opposite is viable, both is best
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.