Japan already has hysterically inefficient allocation of capital. Examples include the vast amounts of pork barrel spending to build highways, tunnels, bridges and bullet trains to nowhere, as well as building new housing with an expected lifespan of 20-40 years so it can be torn down and rebuilt afterwards.
> Japan already has hysterically inefficient allocation of capital. Examples include the vast amounts of pork barrel spending to build highways, tunnels, bridges and bullet trains to nowhere, as well as building new housing with an expected lifespan of 20-40 years so it can be torn down and rebuilt afterwards.
That "inefficient allocation of capital" results in Japan being one of the best countries to move around in (for both residents and tourists), with very affordable housing. I'd prefer if my country was a bit less "efficient" with their capital allocation.
The housing being torn down thing is a bit of a cliche at this point, but the biggest factor there was some seriously under-calculated earthquake risk that only got incorporated into the building code in the early 80s[1], so for buildings built before that cheapest to demo and rebuild.
Sure, nobody's judging investing in the Yamanote Line or the Tokaido Shinkansen. But is it really sensible to plow money into (say) the Hokkaido Shinkansen, on Japan's most rapidly depopulating island and not remotely competitive with flights in travel time or price; the Tsuruga extension to a city of 60,000; the greenfield Noto Airport that can't support two flights a day without heavy subsidies; and a million minor construction projects damming up rivers and coating the coast in concrete tetrapods? Japan is already struggling to pay the maintenance bill for what they have.
> But is it really sensible to plow money into (say) the Hokkaido Shinkansen, on Japan's most rapidly depopulating island and not remotely competitive with flights in travel time or price
Yes. Sapporo has a population of 2 million; many of the rest of people going to Tokyo from the rest of Hokkaido will travel via Sapporo Station regardless (I know I always did - multi hour bus or train ride to Sapporo station, then another train to New Chitose, then flight to wherever). The flight route is incredibly busy (from one source, "The route between Sapporo and Haneda was the busiest in Japan and the second busiest domestic route in the world in 2019"). Work trips will likely pay for train rather than flights, while tourists mostly use JR passes and will choose the train as it's "free". Carbon intensity of electric shinkansen is dramatically lower than the excessive number of flights going between Tokyo and Sapporo. It'll be 4.5 hours city centre to city centre, which is easily competitive with flights unless you happen to live in Chitose and be heading to Chiba or Yokohama.
> the Tsuruga extension to a city of 60,000
This is disingenuous: the extension is an intermediate phase connecting Nagano (low population but huge winter tourism) with Kyoto/Osaka (idk, 25 million? and massive tourist destination).
> the greenfield Noto Airport that can't support two flights a day without heavy subsidies
Per the wiki article [1], it seems like the airport has been reasonably even (ANA subsidizing airport sometimes, prefectural govt subsidizing at other times). A lot of local governments in other areas (including north america) also subsidize their airports to ensure accessibility for residents.
> and a million minor construction projects damming up rivers and coating the coast in concrete tetrapods
They aren't all tetrapodal! Their work in this area is pretty singlemindedly focused on reducing flood/tsunami risk, with 0 concern for environmental effects.
>as well as building new housing with an expected lifespan of 20-40 years so it can be torn down and rebuilt afterwards
As opposed to 60 - 80 year old wood-frame homes that are energy inefficient, falling apart, and barely worth the 750,000USD average selling price? Where you will either live with the design choices the previous owner made (regardless of how much or little you like them...nevermind efficiency or quality) or spend tens of thousands more doing renovations? And this is all considering that you don't get surprised with an electrical circuit or an HVAC layout that is not up to snuff for modern times.
At least in Japan, you can get a home built to specification to your reasonable desires, with all modern amenities, without the baggage of the past-owner's taste -- all for the great price of around 350,000 USD.
This, by the way, supports an entire ecosystem of builders, architects, and suppliers who must keep up with the times and are constantly exploring new innovations in house-building.
> This, by the way, supports an entire ecosystem of builders, architects, and suppliers who must keep up with the times and are constantly exploring new innovations in house-building.
Just add the real: Houses aren't good unless you manually choose better one. Known one is that Japanese insulation standards are still quite bad. Aluminum single glass window is still allowed to use for new building. It's horrible to use a material for insulation that used for heat sinks. This is partially due to the window manufacturer is also a big aluminum manufacturer.
