Some lines lose money, but other lines make more money than is lost. The losing lines are still important because if the system doesn't have enough coverage, people won't trust it.

It also happens to be the case that the lines with "that kind of schedule" are the most profitable lines. That's why they run so often.

JR East (All of Japan above Kanto) finances: http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/investor/ar/2016/pdf/ar_2016-02.pd...

According to Wikipedia Tokyo Metro made ¥63 billion in 2009.

Tokyo also has the biggest Taxi economy in the world, but as a parent said, they're more for special occasions, and cost about as much as you'd expect to pay someone to be your personal driver.

Public transit doesn't need to be profitable. It's a public good. It's one of the things we all pay a little for to have access to as part of living in a city or community.

They shouldn't lose too much money or be too expensive to run, but that's the conversation to have, not how much profit they generate.

It is exactly this attitude that leads to cost disease. If the government absolutely must handle some need, I still expect them to be efficient and constantly improve productivity:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost...

You can be as efficient as possible and work towards improving productivity and still lose money. That's exactly why those sorts of things are supported by taxes.

And with how much Japan has innovated and improved their railways over the years I don't think this really applies to them. Maybe more of an American thing where we've spent $400,000,000,000 (and expected to spend $1,500,000,000,000) on a "one size fits all" fighter jet for our military that's been a complete failure in nearly every regard.

It's public transit, it should be a reliable service for the public primarily supported by taxes so that we all benefit.