If I had to ask “why is it so fast?” I’d turn it around and ask “Why are western systems so slow?” and posit that Western capital has an ideology that throughout matters by latency doesn’t. (As Fred Brooks puts it, “Nine women can have a baby in one month”). As an individual or a customer you perceive latency directly though, and throughout secondarily. So it comes down to empathy or lack thereof.
The magnitude to which FeliCa was faster shocked me as well when I found out. But it's not like the latency is insignificant: it's obvious how much faster people can get through a Tokyo metro gate than a London one. So clearly it must have some kind of financial impact as well, if an entire city's public transport system works slower because of it. Even ignoring empathy for a second, isn't this the kind of thing that a Western capital ideology is supposed to improve? Some food for thought.
It is not just capital but the interpersonal and bureaucratic factors.
Technically the way to think about latency is that a process has N serial steps and you can (a) reduce N, (b) run some of those serial steps in parallel, and (c) speed up the steps.
For one thing, different aspects of the organization own the N steps. You might have one step that is difficult to improve because of organizational issues and then the excuses come in... Step 3 takes 2.0 sec, so why bother reducing Step 5 from 0.5 sec to 0.1 sec? On top of that we valorize "slow food" [1] have sayings like "all good things come to those who wait" and tend to think people are morally superior for waiting as opposed to "get you ass out of the line so we can serve other customers quickly" (e.g. truly empathetic, compassionate, etc.)
Maybe the ultimate expression of the American bad attitude is how you have to wait 20 minutes to board a plane because they have a complicated procedure with 9 priority levels and they have to pay somebody to explain that if you are a veteran you are in zone 3 and if you have this credit card from an another airline that this airline acquired you are in zone 5, etc... meanwhile they are paying the flight crew to wait, paying the ground crew to wait, etc. Southwest Airlines used to have a reasonable and optimized boarding scheme but they gave up on it, I guess the revenue from those credit cards is worth too much.
[1] it's a running gag when I go to a McDonalds in a distant city that it takes forever compared to, I dunno, Sweetgreens, even "fast" food isn't fast anymore. When I worked at a BK circa 1988, we cooked burgers ahead of time and stored them in a steam tray for up to ten minutes and then put condiments on them and put them in a box on a heat chute for up to another ten minutes. Whether you ordered a standard or customized burger you'd usually get it quickly, whereas burger restaurants today all cook the beef to order which just plain takes a while, longer than it takes to assemble a burrito at Chipotle.
US govt transportation agency central planners will happily spend billions to bulldoze a neighbourhood for a freeway lane, all to shave a few hypothetical seconds off a car commute, so I don’t think the issue is that US culture isn’t interested in speed, latency, or throughput.
Airline boarding is not the only class system in play. At every level of government, even within transit agencies, transit and its customers are seen as and treated as second class citizens. The idea of investing money, time or energy to shave even scores of minutes off the commute of someone who uses a bus, often seems as if it’s an unthinkable thought in these organizations.
> American bad attitude is how you have to wait 20 minutes to board a plane because they have a complicated procedure with 9 priority levels
The purpose of the many boarding groups is IMHO, to make those in groups > 1 feel as though they're missing out on some perk that they could get if they paid more. It's an intentional class system where some are encouraged to look down on those who paid less, and vice versa. It's good for revenue, bad for people.
I doubt airlines complicate boarding groups to reinforce classes. It is likely all about the bottom line, and nickel and dime-ing you at every opportunity.
I think the point is that creating a class system is one way to maximize revenue. The social aspects of that system - looking down on people in economy, or aspiring to be the people in first class – aren’t necessarily the first order effects, but I suspect they contribute.
> meanwhile they are paying the flight crew to wait
Most flight attendant and pilot union contracts only pay them based on the hours with the door closed or in flight. (This is changing, but it's how it's been for a long time.) This reduces the incentives for quick boarding, as most of the flight crew is not being paid for that time.
> So clearly it must have some kind of financial impact as well, if an entire city's public transport system works slower because of it.
Unlikely, most cities transport systems will run into issues with capacity long before they run into issues with ticket gate latency. No point getting people through the gates faster if they’re just gonna pile up on the platform and cause a crush hazard.
At peak hours in London, the inbound gates are often closed periodically to prevent crowding issues in major stations. If you look at normal TfL stations you’ll notice there’s normally a 2:1 ratio of infrastructure for people leaving a station vs entering. Because crowding is by far the biggest most dangerous risk in a major metro system, and also the biggest bottleneck.
When a full train empties out at a specific station you can get massive delays. Euston platforms 8-11 come to mind. Two arrivals of 600+ people (including standing) trains in a minute or so in say 8 and 11 can cause chaos.
It depends. Usually you'd be right, but for some big events, the stations and platforms can be incredibly packed. In those cases the extra delay from gates could really hurt. One example is Comiket, where you have thousands of attendees all coming to the same few stations around the venue. Both times I was there, there was a massive crowd spanning from the platform to the outside. Having to wait the extra few hundred milliseconds on each card tap would have been painful.
Another angle: mass transit is seen at best as a cost center in the west, when it's more expected to be a fully profitable business in Japan [0]
Paris adopted an IC system as well and it is pretty usable, but not pushed to the extremes of the JR system because they weren't ready to invest as much, manage the money aspect and really make it a full blown business.
[0] some lines and areas are definitely money pits. That's where some companies bail out of the IC system altogether for instance, or go with a different, incompatible but cheaper implementation.
Japan hugely subsidizes public transport both directly and indirectly, e.g. almost all employers will pay for employees to commute by public transport but not by car, because the government heavily incentivises them to do so. The Japanese transport providers are indeed more entrepreneurial about this kind of stuff, but I think that's more a case of Japan having high trust in government and quasi-governmental entities than expecting them to pay their way. (Indeed a lot of the penny-wise pound-foolish decisions we see in western public transport are driven by an insistence on cutting costs at all, well, costs).
Or the Hong Kong model. Railway operators are also property developers whose main profits comes from selling homes next to important stations. (This is not necessarily a good thing)
What exactly is wrong with said approach? My guesses are sprawl promotion and attendantly encouraging elimination of green spaces more than normal for developers?
Cronyism, in general. Government pushing for policies favouring railways and cutting bus routes while being the biggest shareholder of the railway company.
Companies paying for public transport is a matter of flooring the commute cost: (almost) nobody lives in an area with no public transportation and car commute costs more, so companies will pay the price for lowest commute and you get to decide what you do with it.
Same thing if your train transit costs 440 yens at base rate but you decide to ride first class or even one of the special luxury trains at a thousand+ yens, you'll only get the base 440 yens from your company.
On profitability, as mentioned by sister comment, they all have a realtor arm and also rent the space surrounding the stations to shopping malls and department stores, sometimes own or revenue share with the attractions in the town that will bring more visitors and they'll talk with he city planners to foster a whole ecosystem, JR famously gets a cut from every Suica transaction etc.
They don't need to make it all from the ride ticket, even if it's price appropriately. Government has little to do with most of it, subsidies only matter on the smaller, super low volume lines where rising prices would kill the traffic.
> Companies paying for public transport is a matter of flooring the commute cost: (almost) nobody lives in an area with no public transportation and car commute costs more, so companies will pay the price for lowest commute and you get to decide what you do with it.
If that was the reason they would simply not pay for commutes at all, as is normal in most other countries.
> Government has little to do with most of it, subsidies only matter on the smaller, super low volume lines where rising prices would kill the traffic.
Nah. Both the railway companies and the government lean into the myth of their being private operations because it suits everyone, but the "private" railway companies were set up with immensely valuable government funded capital assets and would never have been able to operate without them, they rely on government support for any substantial new capital investments, and they have the relevant governments as significant investors, in many cases the largest investors. Yes JR central is immensely profitable if you accept the accounting fiction that the tokaido shinkansen simply popped into existence one day and is worth nothing.
> If that was the reason they would simply not pay for commutes at all, as is normal in most other countries.
Paying for commute is mostly a tax thing. It's the same kind of adjustement as doing BYOD or giving employees PCs that have passed their business depreciation value instead of doing leases.
It's way easier to do with train transit, as train companies will give traceability/limitations on the commute and it's way easier to explain that just paying for a week's worth of gasoline or a car's insurance, or other costs.
If a country doesn't have any arrangement to make these expenses easier to pass on the company, I see how commute would just be cover privately by the employee.
> "private" railway companies were set up with immensely valuable government funded capital assets and would never have been able to operate without them,
Fundamentally no business of significant size operates without any gov. oversight nor preferential treatment. Tim Cook shaking Trump's hand is not the outlier, and at the size of a railroad company you better be in good terms with regulators if you want anything done.
> almost all employers will pay for employees to commute by public transport but not by car, because the government heavily incentivises them to do so
Could you clarify this? To my knowledge only 2 things that could qualify as incentive exist:
- commuting allowances are not considered taxable income for employee
- commuting allowance could be used to reduce tax base for the business
But this is not something I'd call 'heavily'.
My understanding is that commute is universally covered as this is an expected job benefit in Japan, and commuting by car is disencouraged in cities due to the increased insurance liability (as commuting time could be considered work time and injuries incurred to 3rd party will expose the company to liability as well).
> To my knowledge only 2 things that could qualify as incentive exist:
> - commuting allowances are not considered taxable income for employee
> - commuting allowance could be used to reduce tax base for the business
> But this is not something I'd call 'heavily'.
They do both those things, so commute costs are a free tax discount. But they also just tell companies directly that they want them to act in a certain way, and the companies generally fall into line. While the zaibatsu have nominally disappeared, there are still very close ties between the politicians and big businesses in Japan.
When it comes to ticket gate line in a public transport system, latency and throughput are basically the same thing.
There is no practical way to increase the throughput of ticket line, without reducing latency. It’s not like you can install more gates in most stations, the station isn’t big enough, and you can’t make the gates smaller because the people aren’t small enough.
Every transit system measures and has throughput requirements that their gates need to meet. That inherently means latency requirements, because one gate can’t process multiple people in parallel!
Also western systems aren’t that slow. The videos in the article are a decade out of date and show people in London using paper tickets! And almost nobody using a contactless card or Oyster card.
In London the Oyster cards are very fast. Fast enough that a brisk walking pace the gates will be completely open by the time you reach them, assuming you put your card on the reader the moment it’s within comfortable reach.
Contactless payments on the other hand are slower. But there’s not much TfL can do there. The slower speed is entirely the result of the contactless cards taking longer to process the transaction. TfL track contactless cards latencies by bank and card manufacture. There’s a non-trivial difference in latency between different card manufactures and bank configurations. But that’s not something TfL can control themselves.
Indeed. But the primary problem with western transit gates/turnstiles is this:
Japanese IC transaction: Less than 100 ms.
EMV IC transaction: Hundreds of milliseconds.
The person in front of you in the New York subway only realizing that they might have to look for their phone or card in their bag as they're already blocking one of very few turnstiles, and your train is arriving: Timeless.
This is perhaps more of a ‘New York’ problem (i.e. high passenger volume + small stations + slow turnstiles).
In the Netherlands, there are cases where this can happen too (notably, Amsterdam South station), but generally there are less passengers and/or bigger stations (= more fare gates).
The problem is definitely exacerbated by human behavior. There are almost always multiple turnstiles, but I've seen groups of people managing to block all of them simultaneously, figuring out how to use them...
The last time I was in NYC was 10+ years ago, but from what I recall, operating the turnstiles correctly required some experience: you need to know that they require manual operation (not obvious to first-time users), and then you also have to operate them at the correct speed (going too fast doesn’t let you through).
Systems with fare gates (i.e. most systems worldwide) don’t have these problems, because it’s obvious when you can pass through.
Then factor in lots of tourists/visitors (who aren’t used to this system) + aforementioned small stations.
That’s true for Metrocards and paper single ride tickets, but no longer an issue for OMNY.
Most delays with OMNY seem to be due to the fact that people need to unlock their phone or pick a card because they don’t have express transit enabled.
MetroCard was definitely a confounding factor too, but isn’t it still the case that you have to manually push the turnstile within a certain time frame?
(idk, maybe I was just a clueless tourist who didn’t know how it worked :P)
To your latter point, perhaps the MTA should work together with Apple and Google to improve the experience.
> Places like Hong Kong and Tokyo have a lot of commuters, leading to a lot of congestion around station gates.
However I think it's actually _population density_ that's the critical factor. The investment in new payment technologies is much more likely to pay off in these environments than in the US.
Governments who think this set speed limits on roads to 45 mph, since that's the speed where most cars pass per second on a busy road.
Those same governments then act all surprised when it turns out their whole population is depressed and overworked when they work a 9 hour workday, commute 1.5 hours each way, and have no free time for life, relationships, hobbies, etc.
