We have spoken many times before about the fact that Japan is built around rail-oriented urbanism. But if you have the time right now, I'm going to suggest that you read this longish article by Matthew Bornholt & Benedict Springbett called "Why Japan has such good railways," because nowhere else in the developed world uses rail for passenger kilometres more than Japan, and they explain why.
One common hypothesis, which is mentioned in the article, is that it's largely cultural. The Japanese are rule-abiding collectivists who are more willing to take public transit compared to us selfish and individualistic North Americans. But this doesn't seem right. In fact, one could argue that the Japanese solution is actually more free-market oriented.
The Japanese rail model seems to work so well because (1) most of the network is private, (2) liberal land-use policies have allowed Japan's urban centres to develop enough density to properly support the use of rail, and (3) the rail operators make money in a bunch of other ways beyond rail. They're typically also in the business of real estate.
Here's a quote from the article by the president of the Tokyu Group that I absolutely love:
I think that though we are a railway company, we consider ourselves a city-shaping company. In Europe for instance, railway companies simply connect cities through their terminals. That is a pretty normal way of operating in this industry, whereas what we do is completely different: we create cities and then, as a utility facility, we add the stations and the railways to connect them one with another.
This is a fundamentally different model that allows rail companies to capture some of the value that they inherently create. To use the example of Toronto's Eglinton Crosstown line, it's the difference between saying, "I'm going to build a rail line and then, presumably, other stuff will happen," and, "I'm going to develop this midtown corridor and then I'm going to run rail underneath it to maximize value creation."
If Japan can do it, so can we. Ironically, a big part of it means easing land-use controls and allowing transit-oriented development to simply be what it wants to be — dense and proximate to rail.
Cover photo by Mylène Larnaud on Unsplash
Charts from Work in Progress
The City of Toronto just released its 2025 Cycling Year in Review report. You can download it here. At the highest level, Toronto is now considered to be the 7th most bike-friendly city in North America, according to the Copenhagenize Index. Our snowier sibling, Montréal, is number one on the continent. And globally, we're ranked 55th.
Neither of these positions is particularly impressive given our scale and prominence as a global city, but progress is being made. In 2025, City Council approved 33 km of new bikeways, installed 14.11 km, and upgraded 9.02 km. Our infrastructure continues to get better.
What I find particularly noteworthy and telling, though, is the adoption of the city's bike share network. 2025 was another record year, with 7.8 million rides, representing a 13% increase from 2024. We're still not at the level of Montréal, which recorded 13 million rides in 2024, but adoption is growing quickly.
We have gone from around 665,000 rides in 2015 to nearly 8 million in the span of a decade. That's a compounded annual growth rate of approximately 28%! Once again, we are reminded that if you build it, and make it easy and safe, more people will ride bicycles.
In addition to the recently proposed HST rebate for new homes, the federal government and the province of Ontario announced that they will be providing funding to help municipalities reduce their development charges by up to 50% over the next three years. And according to some estimates, these two measures will temporarily cut the cost of building a new home in Ontario by something in the range of 15-20%.
From what I have seen, most, if not all, of these savings are now going to the consumer. As Mike Moffatt points out in this recent Globe and Mail article, developers are passing them along because of competition, because they need to compete with lower-priced resale homes, and because, frankly, it's the only way to try and unstick this market.
What is not so clear, though, is whether this is enough. Moffatt argues that "now that new homes can be sold at prices that make them viable to build, more homes will be built, adding further downward pressure on resale prices." This is certainly one of the policy goals — to get more developers building again. But I don't think we're there quite yet. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Cover photo by Jaipreet Singh on Unsplash