| ▲ | kdheiwns 10 hours ago |
| They still have influence in Japan. The maglev train has been delayed for years because a small portion passes through Shizuoka, and the local government wouldn't approve construction due to it making no stops in the prefecture and potentially affecting water supplies there. This delayed the opening of it from 2027 to 2035 at the earliest. Shizuoka as a whole is unusually screwed by the Shinkansen system. Large cities like Hamamatsu, with 800k people, are passed over by a lot of the Hikari (mid-speed Shinkansen), and the Nozomi (high speed Shinkansen) passes through the prefecture with zero stops whatsoever. However, it stops it cities like Tokuyama, with a whopping population of 100k. |
|
| ▲ | exrook 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's a bit ridiculous to imply Tokuyama gets better shinkansen service than Hamamatsu, because it has Nozomi service. Looking at the schedule towards Tokyo for Monday, April 27th:
Tokuyama has:
4 16 car Nozomi trains to Tokyo
19 8 car Kodoma/Sakura trains to Shin-Osaka
9 8 car Kodoma/Sakura to Okayama Hamamatsu has:
31 16 car Kodoma to Tokyo
19 16 car Hikari to Tokyo Keep in mind the fastest Kodoma seems to only take around 1 hr 40 mins to Tokyo, and the fastest Hikaru is only 1 hr 20 mins. I'm sure it's nice getting a 1 seat ride to Tokyo from Tokuyama if you can get on one of the 4 Nozomis, and unfortunate you can't get a one seat ride past Shin-Osaka from Hanamatsu, but the service levels seem pretty proportionate to me. |
| |
| ▲ | kdheiwns 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Looking only at connections to Tokyo is a bit reductionist (difficult to believe, but yes, there are cities outside of Tokyo that people go to!). As a mere matter of geography, there are unavoidably fewer trains to Tokyo (it's on the opposite side of the island). Using that same methodology, it would be good to see how many trains from Hamamatsu have a direct connection to the biggest metropolis near Tokuyama: Fukuoka. That way we can measure which city is the best for getting to the opposite side. The total number of trains with a direct connection from Hamamatsu to Fukuoka is, at least based on all the info I can find, zero. Or even a much closer city that people in Hamamatsu would frequently go to: Hiroshima. Also zero direct connections without a transfer. People in Tokuyama can go direct to Fukuoka and Tokyo. They can do a transfer at Osaka in the case of non-direct trains. They're very much better set up than Hamamatsu. |
|
|
| ▲ | amazingamazing 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| is this because of the federal government capitulating or is it because the small group inherently has influence structurally? |
| |
| ▲ | kdheiwns 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The federal government has no influence. Prefectures approve their own construction. Japan's railways are built and operated by corporations, not the government, so the federal government has zero say in the matter. | | |
| ▲ | amazingamazing 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | ah interesting. I wonder why that person mentioned the federal government then. couldn't a single person just refuse to sell their land and block the entire thing then? | |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | panick21_ 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Funny how people always endlessly worry about water supply, its one of those things that is very easy to claim but very hard to prove an in 99.9% of times there really isn't an issue. |
| |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | People can live without a high speed train. They cannot live without a clean water supply Seems to me that the priorities are correct | | |
| ▲ | panick21_ 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ok but here is the thing, Japan had great civil engineering for 100 years, they have made lots and lots and lots of tunnels. Japan overall has fantastic water quality and is globally known for clean and safe bathrooms. So the argument that 'new train X will destroy the water supply' really needs to be based on a whole stack of good evidence. | | |
| ▲ | kdheiwns 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Japan has some of the most horrific pollution disasters of the 20th century and had tremendously polluted water. The clean Japan thing is only true because Japan got very serious about safety after companies were ignoring issues and polluting water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Big_Pollution_Diseases_of... And I don't even get the clean bathrooms connection. Sounds like a random TikTok meme with zero relevance. Half the bathrooms don't even have soap. | | |
| ▲ | pibaker 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > And I don't even get the clean bathrooms connection It's simple. If it is Japan, someone will glaze it. |
| |
| ▲ | mmooss 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The burden of proof should be on not contaminating the water supply. That is too dangerous to risk. > Japan had great civil engineering for 100 years, they have made lots and lots and lots of tunnels. Japan overall has fantastic water quality ... Does it? And if so, maybe that's because they make sure projects like this one don't contaminate the water supply. > ... globally known for clean and safe bathrooms What does this have to do with water supply? One suspects that you know very little if that's the best evidence you have. | | |
| ▲ | panick21_ 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe if the only person that thinks that the water supply is being destroyed is a local politician with a massive axe to grind who is trying to extort a local stop, then maybe we should question that over the engineers who have built tunnels their whole lives. This is specially true when these tunnel goes along many different areas and seemingly the only that complains and believes is unsafe is also the one that is trying to get a transit station in the district. I'm sure they have plenty of evidence on why it is safe, like historical examples and such. But how do you 'prove' this to a point a politician can't just say, sure its 99.9999% safe but we can't risk it. > What does this have to do with water supply? One suspects that you know very little if that's the best evidence you have. The point is that Japan tends to take safety and cleanness very seriously. And they have built many train-lines and tunnels. At one point to you personally consider the source of a claim? | | |
| ▲ | kjs3 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | At one point to you personally consider the source of a claim? You like to throw around assertions like "99.9% of times there really isn't an issue" with absolutely zero proof, but have a big problem with someone saying "I don't agree". I don't think you understand what sources, claims and truth actually mean. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | delfinom 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hard to imagine how a train that has no emissions itself as its catenary powered causes your water supply to be unclean. | | |
|
|
