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
encouraging development = acting like a developer at one remove; that ridership is good but they could also use the revenue...
-
-
...from handling the development themselves, no?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hongkongers aren't happy about how the MTR gets land to develop without a competitive bidding process.
-
Yeah, that's Hong Kong's problem--too small areawise for there to be multiple transit providers
-
plenty of different private transit companies in the Tokyo area, the Nagoya area, the Osaka area, etc
-
Osaka and Nagoya both have Kintetsu - Osaka is if anything too competitive (it's the world's #2 urban rail network).
-
by "too competitive" what problems are you referring to?
-
Post-Amagasaki stories about how JR West overvalues punctuality as a competitive edge. Also, lack of coordination causing Shigaraki.
-
Amagasaki happened once fam; what is shigaraki?
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
They could, but the corruption would be immense if a public agency or private monopoly could do that.
-
what, like it is in Japan? c'mon now
-
Japan has competition! What works in a city of 35 million doesn't necessarily work in smaller cities.
-
when it comes to rail, area is a better guarantor of competition than population--HK has the population but no area
-
Tokyo's private companies cover approximate slices of the suburbs; Keio isn't competing with Keikyu, for instance...
-
...except insofar as someone living in Keio turf can move to Keikyu turf
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.