       http://jtlu.org
. 5 . 1 [Spring 2012] pp. 19–32 doi: 10.5198/jtlu.v5i1.280
Rail integrated communities in Tokyo
John Calimente
Stantec, Inc. a
Abstract: Tokyo’s railway station areas are models of transit-oriented design. To differentiate them from transit-oriented developments
(TOD), the term rail integrated community (RIC) has been created to describe these high density, safe, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly devel-
opments around railway stations that act as community hubs, are served by frequent, all-day, rail rapid transit, and are accessed primarily on
foot, by bicycle, or by public transit. Japanese private railway operators have been instrumental in creating these RICs. ough they receive
little financial support from the government, private railways in Japan operate profitably by diversifying into real estate, retail, and numerous
other businesses. Tokyu Corporation is used as the case study to exemplify how government policy and socioeconomic context contributed
to the successful private railway model. Ten indicators, such as ridership, population density, and mode share are used to analyze two stations
created by Tokyu to demonstrate how this model is manifested in Tokyu’s rail integrated communities.
Keywords: Value capture; Tokyo; Urban rail; Transit-oriented development; TOD; Private railways; Rail integrated communities; RIC
1 Introduction
Could the averageNorth American imagine life without their
car?
For the vast majority of those who grew up inNorth Amer-
ica aer the Second World War, the automobile has become
the primary mode of transportation. While some may give
up the comfort of their vehicle to commute by public transit,
most other journeys, regardless of distance, are completed by
car. For a trip to visit friends, to the mall, to the local gym, or
to a nearby town, for most people the automobile seems to be
the only viable option. Yet in metropolitan Tokyo these activ-
ities are all easily accessible by train at almost any time of the
day. Railways are a vital component of the transportation net-
work in the city, and remarkably for the twenty-first century,
the private railways in TokyoMetropolis operate at a profit.
In their attempts to increase ridership and thereby generate
greater profits, these private railways have created high den-
sity, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly developments around rail-
way stations that act as community hubs; are served by fre-
quent, all-day, rail rapid transit; and are accessed primarily on
foot, by bicycle, or by public transit. We have created the term
rail integrated community (RIC) to differentiate these devel-
 Transit planner and founder of Rail Integrated Developments. jcali-
mente@gmail.com
opments from the concept of transit-oriented development
(TOD) that originated in North America.
Is there something unique about Japanese society that has
created RICs? While cultural factors do play a role, we
demonstrate that a combination of government policy, socioe-
conomic factors, and innovation by the private railways gave
rise to these communities. Japan’s private rail operators were
originally forced by the nationalization of their trunk railway
lines in the early twentieth century to look beyond railway op-
erations for profits. By the time the automobile began its rise
in Japan in the mid-1960s, Tokyo’s dense rail network and its
station area communities were already well established. Gov-
ernment regulation of fares coupled with limited subsidies for
railway operations pushed the private railways to innovate and
diversify into awide variety of related businesses,most notably
real estate. Due to their long-term interest in the communities
they built along their rail lines, the private railways provided
valuable social benefits through public transportation while
still pursuing profits. High quality, frequent rail service to
dense, mixed-use, safe, pedestrian-friendly developments has
allowedTokyo to achieve enviable rates of public transit usage
and given Tokyoites the freedom to view automobile owner-
ship as a lifestyle choice rather than a necessity.
Tokyu Corporation, one of the first private railways to
achieve success through diversification into related businesses,
is used as the case study. Two successful RICs created by
Copyright 2012 John Calimente.
Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial License 3.0.
       .
Tokyu, Jiyugaoka andTamaPlaza, aremeasured on ten indica-
tors to show how differently they function fromNorth Amer-
ican TODs.
2 Methods
is study used a multi-method approach, with data gath-
ered from books, journal and magazine articles, statistical
databases, and email questionnaires. Research was conducted
at the National Diet Library, through interviews with Tokyu
Corporation staff, by photographing and documenting Jiyu-
gaoka and Tama Plaza stations, and by meeting with plan-
ning staff from Setagaya Ward¹ Office. Numerous Japanese-
language books, websites, and reports were referenced to de-
velop a more detailed understanding of RICs in Tokyo.
In order to build the case for RICs and provide a more
detailed picture of how the Tokyo transit model works on
the ground, Tokyu Corporation (Tokyo Kyuko Dentetsu
Kabushiki-gaisha) has been used as a case study of the private
railway model in Japan in its most successful form. Two sta-
tions, Jiyugaoka and Tama Plaza, were selected to be analyzed
on a set of ten indicators to demonstrate the difference be-
tween rail integrated communities (RICs) in Tokyo and the
transit oriented developments (TODs) commonly developed
in North America.
3 Transit-oriented developments in North
America
Transit-Oriented Developments (TOD) are defined by
Dittmar and Ohland (2004, 4) as “…mixed use, walkable,
location-efficient developments that balance the need for
sufficient density to support convenient transit service with
the scale of the adjacent community.” (Bernick and Cervero
1996, 5) extend this idea in their transit village concept,
“…a compact, mixed-use community, centered around the
transit station that, by design, invites residents, workers, and
shoppers to drive their cars less and ride mass transit more.”
e radius of the transit village is about 500 meters from the
station, or a little over five minutes on foot (Vuchic 2005).
While TODs themselves are usually walkable, they are of-
ten not complete communities that provide jobs, schools, ser-
vices, retail, entertainment, and recreation. Some of these
developments go by the term transit-proximate development
or transit-adjacent development (TAD), to identify them as
¹ SetagayaWard is oneof the23wards ofCentralTokyo and the location
of Jiyugaoka Station.
walkable communities that contain some features that encour-
age public transit use. For those living in these North Amer-
ican TODs and TADs, particularly in suburban communi-
ties, the underlying assumption seems to be that residents may
commute to work by public transit, but will use their cars for
most other tasks, including getting to and from the station.
Suburban TODs oen include large parking lots so that
residents can go directly to their cars as soon as they reach
their station. Outside of working hours, frequency of transit
service drops significantly, making it unlikely that transit will
be used by discretionary riders who have their own vehicles.
Even riderswhowould like towalk or bike home are dissuaded
from doing so by unattractive, desolate and oen unsafe sta-
tion areas that lack any shops or services, access roads with-
out sidewalks or bike paths, and the long distances involved as
a result of single-use zoning that separates shops and services
from residences. Furthermore, these TODs are usually miss-
ing the morning-to-night vibrancy that is produced when a
wide range of uses come together in an area with greater pop-
ulation density and lower automobile usage.
Although TODs in North American suburbs may increase
transit usage to some extent, in their current form they are not
likely to greatly reduce automobile dependence. Truly success-
ful developments near public transit need to be based on the
idea that those living in such a community should easily be
able to conduct all of their daily business using public transit,
by bicycle, and on foot. is means that the transit system, as
well as the surroundingneighborhoods,must easily accommo-
date thosewithout an automobile. is is notwhat is currently
being built in most of North America.
4 Tokyo and its station area developments
A better model for mixed-use station area developments can
be found in Tokyo, Japan, which has been building them for
over 100 years. e city has one of the most heavily used rail
networks in the world, providing frequent, all-day service to
the central city and also within the suburbs. e urban vil-
lages surrounding the stations provide riders for the system, as
well as being destinations in and of themselves. ese areas
are invariably mixed-use, with stores, schools and universities,
government offices, housing, restaurants, and bars all located
within walking distance from the stations.
It is somewhat surprising that a metropolitan area with a
total population of 35.7 million (United Nations 2007) in
which less than 30 percent of residents commute by automo-
bile (JapaneseMinistry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Tourism 1999) has received comparatively little attention for
Rail integrated communities in Tokyo 
its station area developments. Research to date has been over-
whelmingly focused on the United States, Canada, Australia,
or the countries of Western Europe. Perhaps this is due to
a perception that Japanese society is fundamentally different
from that of other countries, leading to an assumption that
successes in Japan cannot be replicated elsewhere. Or it may
be simply due to the general tendency of researchers to look
at countries with which they are familiar. In any case, much
can be learned from the way that private railway companies
in Japan have been able to maintain consistent profitability,
something unheard of for most other transit operators, save
for a few agencies like the Hong KongMTR subway.²
4.1 Tokyo: Population and transportation
Tokyo Metropolis (Tokyo-to) has a population of 12.9 mil-
lion stretched across the 23 wards³ of Central Tokyo and
26 suburban municipalities of the Tama area⁴ that cover the
western half of the city (Tokyo Metropolitan Government
2009). e 23 wards make up the original city of Tokyo, and
hold a population of 8.75 million, or 68 percent of the total
(Fig. 1). e commuting zone is much larger, stretching out
to a radius of about 50 km from the center of the city, a to-
tal area of 10 117 km2. Called the Tokyo Metropolitan Area
(TMA) or Shutoken,⁵ it holds 35.7 million people (United
Nations 2007), more than the population ofCanada.⁶ It is the
largest urban agglomeration in the world (CityMayors Statis-
tics 2005), spreading over the prefectures (administrative dis-
tricts) ofTokyo, Kanagawa in the southwest, Chiba in the east,
and Saitama in the north, as well as parts of other neighboring
prefectures. eTMAaccounts for a full 28 percent of Japan’s
population and 28 percent of its GDP (CityMayors Statistics
2005)while covering only 3.5 percent of the land area of Japan
(Morichi 2000, 611).
Tokyo has one of the highest rates of transit usage in the
world. In terms of modal split, 25.5 percent of the population
of Tokyo Metropolis in 1998 used the train as their primary
means of transportation (City of Yokohama Urban Develop-
ment Bureau 1998). is figure increases to 41.5 percent for
Tokyo’s 23 wards (Ibid). A full 71 percent of commuters in
² Net profits for the Hong Kong MTR subway in 2007 were HK$8.57
billion (US$1.1 billion). Fare revenue was 66.6 percent of overall revenue
(MTRCorporation 2008).
³ In Japanese, the 23 wards are called either Tokyo-to Kubu, Tokubetsu
Kubu (special wards), or Tokyo 23-ku (Tokyo 23 wards). In this study they
will be referred to as the 23 wards.
⁴ In Japanese Tama Chiiki, Tama Chiku, or San-Tama.
⁵ Other names are Tokyo-ken and Tokyo Toshi-ken.
⁶ Canada’s population in October 2008 was estimated at 33.4 million
(Statistics Canada 2008).
Tokyo Metropolis take the train, increasing to 91 percent of
commuters bound for the 23wards (Ieda 1995). Automobiles
represent 33.2 percent of mode share for Tokyo Metropolis,
but only 15.3 percent in the 23 wards. Both walking and cy-
cling have highmode shares, at 14.5 percent and 22.3 percent,
respectively, in Tokyo Metropolis and 14.9 percent and 23.8
percent in the 23 wards (Ibid).
4.2 Factors that prevent reliance on the automobile
Jones (1983, 6) found that there is “…a fundamentally differ-
ent attitude toward car ownership and use…” in Japan. He de-
termined the factors to be:
 A tradition of restricting mobility by road during the
Tokugawa rule up to 1868, and the subsequent limited
rate of growth of the road network in comparison with
some other industrialized countries
 Good public transit
 e regulation that car owners must own or rent a park-
ing space for their vehicle⁷, coupled with the high cost of
land that raises the price of these spaces⁸
 On-street parking is very limited in most cities, and em-
ployers don’t generally provide free parking⁹
 e time and expense of obtaining a driver’s licence¹⁰
 Payment of commuting expenses by employers, but gen-
erally only for public transit, not private car
In Tokyo, one has to be prepared to spend a great deal of
money topurchase andownan automobile, which contributes
to the popularity of public transit in the city. Cervero (1998)
states that the Japanese government imposes strict controls on
automobile ownership because of Japan’s limited land area and
lack of domestic oil reserves. Vehicle taxes include “…a com-
modity tax onmanufacturers and three taxes on purchasers: a
⁷ Car owners must prove they own a parking space before they can buy
a car, unless the car is less than 3.4m long with an engine no larger than 660
cc (Colliers International 2008).
⁸ As recently as 2004, the average monthly charge for condominium
parking was ¥24 250 (US$250/€195) in Tokyo Metropolis and ¥19 175
(US$195/€155) in the TMA (Hosono 2004).
⁹ e average monthly cost for pay parking lots in TokyoMetropolis in
2008 was ¥49 000 (US$500/€395) (Colliers International 2008).
¹⁰ Japanese drivers must pass written, practical, and physical (eye exam,
etc.) tests to receive their driver’s license. It is usually necessary to attend a
driving school to pass the practical test, where courses typically cost at least
¥300 000 (US$3075/€2425) (Fukuoka International Association 2006).
       .
Figure 1: Population density in Central Tokyo. Map showing the density in each of the census tracts in the 23 wards of Central
Tokyo. Source: Nakamura (2010); data fromOfficial Statistics of Japan
Rail integrated communities in Tokyo 
vehicle acquisition (excise) tax, an annual automobile (regis-
tration) tax, and a surcharge based on vehicle weight.” In ad-
dition, gasoline taxes are two to three times those of North
America, with the price of gasoline per liter US$1.26¹¹ versus
US$0.54 in the United States and US$0.68 in Canada (Vic-
toria Transport Policy Institute 2006). ere is also a manda-
tory vehicle inspection program called the sha-ken¹² for vehi-
cles with engine capacities greater than 250 cc. is is con-
ducted every year to two years at a cost of between ¥49 000 to
¥150 000 (US$490–1500; €370–1125) each time, depending
on the vehicle type and use (JapaneseMinistry of Land, Infras-
tructure, Transport and Tourism 2002).
Further, all expressways in Tokyo are toll roads (Cervero
1998). And while Japan has now caught up to the rest of
the world in terms of freeway building,¹³ Japan’s expressway
tolls are among the highest in the world, about double those
of European countries.¹⁴ If we average the total cost of buy-
ing a new car, as well as gasoline, taxes, and inspection fees
over nine years, it works out to ¥50 000 (US$500, €400) per
month, or ¥600 000 (US$6000, €4600) per year in a country
where many employees make ¥3–4 million per year¹⁵ (Rail-
wayTownDevelopmentConference 2004).ese factors have
meant that only 64million people, about half the population,
hold driver’s licenses (Asano 1998).
4.3 Rail integrated communities (RICs)
In Japanesemetropolitan areas like Tokyo, automobile owner-
ship is not essential, since all aspects of daily life can be con-
ducted by taking a train, bus, bicycle, or travelling on foot.
Employment, entertainment, shopping, and government ser-
vices cluster around train stations, rendering the private au-
tomobile almost unnecessary in many parts of the city. Pop-
ulation densities, ridership, and transit mode share are high,
property values increase with proximity to the station, land
uses are mixed, the access to the station is usually either on
foot or by bicycle, automobile parking is limited but bicycle
parking is plentiful, and the transit system has a high quality
¹¹ Average gasoline prices in Japan are closer to European countries like
Spain (US$1.21) and Ireland (US$1.29) (Victoria Transport Policy Insti-
tute 2006).
¹² Formally, the jidousha kensa touroku seido (Automobile inspection reg-
istration system).
¹³ In 2005, Japan had 0.058 km of freeway per person, about the same as
theUnitedKingdom (0.059). Germany hadmore than double this amount
(0.146) while the United States had 0.253 freeway-km per person (Japan
Road Association 2005).
¹⁴ Tolls in Japan average ¥25 (US$0.25, €0.19) per km, compared with
¥11 per km in France and ¥7 per km in Italy (Nagata 2008).
¹⁵ is works out to an automobile costing roughly 15–20% of total
wages per year.
and frequency of service fromearlymorning until late at night.
Train stations are the centers of life for the surrounding com-
munities.
Since these station area developments are so fundamentally
different from the TODs in North America, the term rail in-
tegrated community, or RIC, has been created. Rail inte-
grated communities are defined as high density, safe, mixed-
use, pedestrian-friendly developments around railway stations
that act as community hubs, served by frequent, all-day, rail
rapid transit that is accessed primarily on foot, by bicycle, or
by public transit. A well-functioning RIC requires not only
attention to the physical form when constructing the station
and surrounding neighbourhoods, but also the creation of
government policies that allow the transit service provider to
thrive over the long term through funding sources other than
the farebox. e Japanese private railways that have builtmost
of these RICs have adopted forward-thinking strategies to not
only build ridership but also develop other revenue streams.
e railways receive revenue through fares and also create rev-
enue through other means such as real estate development, re-
tail sales, advertising, and other ancillary businesses such as
travel agencies. ese profits then help to provide increased
and expanded service for their riders.
5 Japan’s private railways
Private railways have played a vital role in creating in Japan one
of the world’s densest railway networks. In a country that has
firmly embraced the automobile, the continued success of pri-
vate railways stems from a combination of government policy
and entrepreneurial spirit that pioneered a strategy of diver-
sification into mutually supportive, related groups of compa-
nies.
Japan’s first railway opened in 1872, built by the Japanese
government using British technology to run steam engines be-
tweenTokyo andYokohama. JapanRailway (NihonTetsudo),
the first private railway in Japan, was founded in 1883 (Mizu-
tani 1994). While the growth of the interurban railway net-
work was tepid for the next 10 years, construction boomed in
the latter half of the 1880s, and by 1900 the network extended
tomost areas of Japan (Fujita andHill 1993). As early as 1893,
Japanhad 3010 kmof railways, ofwhich 2125 kmwere private
and 885 km were government-owned (Aoki et al. 2000).
However, rail as ameans of intraurban transport didn’t take
off until the advent of electric streetcars at the turn of the
twentieth century. ree private companies opened lines be-
tween 1903 and 1904, amalgamating into a company called
theTokyoRailway, whichwas eventually bought by theTokyo
       .
municipal government in 1911 (Arisue and Aoki 1970). Also
around this time, private railway companies began operating
suburban streetcar lines, mainly on the west side of the city.
In March 1906, the national government passed the Rail-
way Nationalization Act (Tetsudo Kokuyu-ho), nationalizing
17 of the 37 existing private railways between 1906 and 1907,
and electrifying these lines over the next few years (Aoki
1994). Its purpose was to “…smooth domestic transport, cut
freight tariffs and passenger fares, and standardize and inte-
grate railway infrastructure” (Aoki et al. 2000, 40). It had
the added goals of making it possible to issue foreign bonds
that could bemortgaged against railway assets, and of prevent-
ing foreigners from holding shares in the railways (Aoki et al.
2000). Just prior to nationalization, private railways had rep-
resented 68 percent of all rail trackage in the country¹⁶ (Ibid),
so this had a severe impact on the private railway operators,
who under law could only build railway lines that weren’t in
competition with government lines:
(Private railway operators) were thus com-
pelled to serve areas with small populations. While
private companies anticipated that rail operations
could be self-supporting, the limited customer base
forced them to ‘generate’ ridership through busi-
ness diversification (Shoji 2001, p. 15).
What might been a death blow to the private railways
turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Because they were
forced to diversify into other areas, particularly real estate,
operators did not remain wholly dependent on fares for rev-
enue. Using a diversification strategy pioneered by Ichizo
Kobayashi, the president of Osaka’s Hanshin Electric Rail-
way, private railway companies in Osaka and Tokyo began
developing and selling residential land along their train lines,
constructing and operating department stores at terminal sta-
tions, as well as building tourist attractions along their routes.
Residential growth fuelled by the private railway develop-
ments on the western side of Tokyo in the 1920s and early
1930s caused traffic to concentrate at the terminal stations
on the Yamanote Line,¹⁷ especially Shibuya, Shinjuku, and
Ikebukuro stations (Fig. 2). is was the start of their new
role as sub-centers of the original Nihombashi business dis-
trict, initiating the polycentric city structure that now makes
up Tokyo. Two of the railway operators on Tokyo’s west
side, the Meguro-Kamata (“Mekama”) and Tokyo-Yokohama
¹⁶ Private railways totalled 5213 km while government railways covered
2413 km (Aoki et al. 2000).
¹⁷ e Yamanote Line is the major loop line that circles central Tokyo,
connectingmany of Tokyo’s major stations. One loop takes about one hour.
(“Toyoko”) railways, were also real estate developers (Arisue
and Aoki 1970, 198) that eventually merged to form Tokyu
Corporation, whose history is dealt with below.
e private railways were able to survive and thrive by
branching out into businesses closely connected with the rail-
way industry, while private operators in Europe and North
America slowly began to fail due to increased competition
from the automobile. Unlike the bankruptcy-hit railway op-
erators in most other countries, many of the original private
railway companies are still the biggest players in the Japanese
railway industry today (Shoji 2001).
6 Tokyu corporation
Tokyu Corporation is one of 16 major private railway oper-
ators in Japan and one of the first companies to create mas-
ter planned developments around its train stations. It was es-
tablished as a regional development company in 1922 and has
since grown to become Japan’s largest rail-based conglomerate
with a total of 390 companies and nine foundations (Cervero
1998), employing about 30 000 people, of which 3400 work
directly for the railway (Tokyu Corporation 2007). While
the real estate, retail, and tourism businesses seek to bring
passengers into stations, “…activities such as construction, de-
sign, and engineering have sought to capitalize on and expand
the domain of the railroad companies’ labor forces” (Cervero
1998, 190).
e company began life as Meguro-Kamata Dentetsu, the
railway division of the Den-en Toshi (Garden City) Corpora-
tion, a development and real estate company (Oshima 1996).
e corporation was founded by developer Eiichi Shibusawa,
publishing magnate Tsuneta Yano, and a group of influential
businessmen to build Den-en Chofu, the first Garden City in
Japan. Den-en Chofu was built between 1922 and 1926 on
the Garden City model of Ebenezer Howard (Miyata 1995).
eDen-en Toshi Corporation bought large tracts of land for
development prior to laying the rail lines (Cervero 1998), in a
location 30 minutes to the west of Tokyo.
Sales were very slow initially, but the company had an
unlikely saviour in the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923
(Kiriyama 1997). With the center of the city burned out, the
suburbs suddenly became very appealing, and Den-en Chofu
quickly became one of the most prestigious residential areas
in Japan (Cervero 1998). Meguro-Kamata Dentetsu, led by
president Keito Goto, took over the Den-en Toshi Corpora-
tion as well as a number of other railways, continuing to build
numerous rail integrated communities throughout the 1930s
(Ibid).
Rail integrated communities in Tokyo 
Figure 2: eTokyo railway network in 1920. Source: Arisue and Aoki (1970, 193).
While Tokyu Corporation had adopted its diversification
strategy from Ichizo Kobayashi, the president of Hanshin
Electric Railway, Goto’s innovation was to attract universi-
ties and other educational institutions from the urban cen-
ter to suburban locations near its stations (Kato 1996). On
the Toyoko line, for example, Tokyu built high rise com-
mercial centers at Shibuya station in Tokyo at one end and
Sakuragicho station in Yokohama at the other, and opened its
first department store near Shibuya in 1934 (Cervero 1998).
e corporation offered land at low rates to universities and
schools in order for them to build campuses at intermediate
stations along the way. e commercial hubs and the universi-
ties “…have produced a steady bidirectional flowof passengers,
ensuring efficient train operations” (Cervero 1998).
TokyuCorporation nowhas sevenmain lines and one small
branch line (Fig. 3) and its rail network is mostly free from
competition from other lines, except for several JR East lines
that cross Tokyu rail lines from north to south. Because the
rail lines are relatively short, the rail trips are also short, which
has produced the highest ridership and farebox returns per km
of track of all the private railways (Cervero 1998).
Although it is only the thirteenth-largest railway network
in Japan, Tokyu’s network carries the most passengers of any
of the private railways¹⁸ (Ibid). In 2006, its 2.79 million rid-
ers per day gave it the highest average daily ridership of any
of the suburban railway companies, bested only by the Tokyo
Metro and JREast (JapaneseMinistry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport andTourism (2005a); TokyuCorporation (2007)).
Ridership was 1.02 billion passengers in 2006 (Association of
Japanese Private Railways 2007).
Tokyu is one of the most profitable railway operators in
the country, with net profits of ¥58.72 billion (US$587 mil-
lion, €441 million) on operating revenues of ¥263.7 billion
(US$2.63 billion, €1.98 billion) in 2006 (TokyuCorporation
2007). Real estate and transportation each bring in an equal
share (33.5%) of net profit, with the rest coming from retail
(20.2%) and other sources.
¹⁸ e top five Japanese private railways by yearly ridership in 2006:
Tokyu, Tobu (855million); Odakyu (689million);Hankyu (618million);,
and Keio (613 million) (Tokyu Corporation 2007).
       .
Figure 3: Tokyu railway route network. eToyoko Line (red) connects Yokohama station in the bottom le with Shibuya station
in the upper right. Den-en-toshi Line (green) and Toyoko Line converge at Shibuya station. Other major Tokyu lines
are the Oimachi Line (orange), the Tamagawa Line (purple), theMeguro Line (light blue), and the Ikegami Line (pink).
Source: (Tokyu Corporation 2011).
7 Indicators for rail integrated communities
e continuous process of refinement of the RIC concept in
major Japanese cities by private railways means that insights
should be gained fromanalyzing long-standingRICs that can-
not be gained from analyzing newly created ones. In or-
der to demonstrate how different rail integrated communities
(RICs) in Tokyo are from the transit oriented developments
(TODs) commonly developed inNorthAmerica, two station
area developments in Tokyo (Jiyugaoka andTama Plaza) were
surveyed using a series of ten indicators. By rating TODs on
an integrated set of indicators, they can be systematically mea-
sured, evaluated, and monitored to determine their success
and ultimately compared with TODs in other countries.
7.1 Choice of indicators
e indicators chosen for this analysis were:
1. Transit Ridership (boardings, alightings, and through
passengers)
2. uality of service (frequency, hours of service, passenger
load, and commuter pass cost)
3. Mode share (primary means of transportation & be-
tween home and train station)
4. Number of mode connections
5. Number of parking spaces (bicycle and automobile)
6. Density (housing density and population density)
Rail integrated communities in Tokyo 
7. Property values within and beyond 500m of the station
8. uality of streetscape design
9. Pedestrian safety (per capita death rate)
10. Crime rate (per 1000 people)
Six of the indicators were adapted from the list of Sug-
gestions for Evaluating TODs, prescribed in a report titled
Transit-Oriented Development: Developing a Strategy to Mea-
sure Success (Transportation Research Board 2005) published
by the Transportation Research Board’s National Coopera-
tiveHighwayResearch Program: Transit ridership, number of
mode connections, number of parking spaces, density (hous-
ing density and population density), quality of streetscape de-
sign, and pedestrian safety.
e indicator increases in property value and tax revenue
is used for examining new TODs, but since the two stations
in the case study are not new developments, property values
within and beyond 500meters of the stationwere substituted.
Although the indicator number of parking spaces in the TRB
report refers exclusively to automobile parking, counts for bi-
cycle parking have also been added since more commuters
bike to train stations in Tokyo than drive (Japanese Ministry
of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism 2005b). e
transit ridership indicatorwas included to supplement data on
boardings and alightings.
Four additional indicators were added to capture empiri-
cally some of the unique characteristics of RICs. In order to
include a performance measure of transit that reflects the pas-
senger’s point of view (as opposed to vehicle-focused perfor-
mance measures), as well as demonstrate the high quality of
rail service inTokyo, a quality of service indicator based on the
uality of Service Framework created by the Transportation
Research Board will be used (Transportation Research Board
2003). Commuter pass cost has also been added as a service
measure to facilitate cost comparisons with other transit sys-
tems.
Mode share was also used as an indicator, since data for
Tokyo is readily available, and the Transportation Research
Board has recommended indicators to help quantify “…not
only localized outcomes (of TODs) but also regional impacts
on traffic congestion and air quality…” (Transportation Re-
search Board 2005). Finally, crime rate within the ward where
the station is located has been added as an indicator, as safety
concerns are one of the most important reasons why passen-
gers in North America don’t ride transit, especially in large
cities (Hartgen et al. 1993). e relationship between crime
and ridership is more complicated than can be identified in
this study; it is plausible that overall lower crime rates in
Japanese cities encourage transit ridership, and that higher rid-
ership in turn contributes to lower crime rates. Certainly the
indicators point to low crime rates in the station precincts.
7.2 Jiyugaoka and Tama Plaza Stations
While noting that there is little individuality among Tokyo’s
suburban towns, (Kawasaki 1993) singles out Jiyugaoka and
Tama Plaza stations (as well as Shimokitazawa and Kichijoji)
as having a distinct character owing to their formal planning
and development by TokyuCorporation. Of the four stations
singled out by Kawasaki, only Jiyugaoka and Tama Plaza were
developed and are serviced exclusively by a single private rail-
way company.
ese stations and their surrounding areas were analyzed
qualitatively and quantitatively using indicators developed by
the (Transportation Research Board 2005). Area coverage is
normally computed as the area within a five-minute walk or a
400 m radius of a railway station, but since station buildings
usually spread out 100 m or more, area coverage for rail sys-
tems is oen expanded to a 500 m radius (Vuchic 2005). As a
result, the latter figure has been used for this analysis.
Jiyugaoka Station
Jiyugaoka station is located at the southern end of Meguro
ward, one of the Tokyo 23 wards, and is close to both central
Tokyo and the City of Yokohama. It is six stations away from
Shibuya station on the Toyoko line and 14 stations away from
Yokohama station to the west, as can be seen in Fig. 4.
In a 2007 survey, Jiyugaoka was ranked second behind
Kichijoji as the most desirable place to live in Tokyo, and
was particularly popular with housewives and men over 50
(Home’s Club 2007). Reasons given were its quiet location
somewhat removed from the central city, secure environment,
sophisticated image and the numerous appealing shops and
services (Ibid). Jiyugaoka also ranked second in a survey by
real estate developer Haseko Urbest, cited for its green spaces,
quiet residential areas, walkability, and easy access to fashion-
able shops and services (Haseko Urbest Inc 2007).
Tama Plaza Station
Tama Plaza station is situated in the northwest corner of the
City of Yokohama, eight stations from the border with Tokyo
Metropolis and 19 minutes away from Shibuya station by ex-
press train (Tokyu Corporation, 2009).
Prior to the opening of the Tokyu Den-en-toshi line in
1966, the area wasmostly fields, with only one small shopping
       .
Figure 4: Locations of Jiyugaoka and Tama Plaza stations. Stations are shown in relation to Shibuya station to the east on the
Yamanote Loop Line in central Tokyo, with Yokohama station to the southwest.
street (Tamapura Scope 2007). Tama Plaza station was con-
structed as part of Tokyu Corporation’s massive Tama Den-
en Toshi development, built on a 4300 ha stretch of the Tama
hills across the four cities of Kawasaki, Yokohama, Yamato,
and Machida City in Tokyo (Keiei Jōhō Center 1971). Plan-
ning began in 1953 and construction started in 1966 with the
opening of the Den-en-toshi line (Ibid).
8 Important indicator findings
In this section, important indicator findings will be high-
lighted, while a summary of all indicators can be found in Ta-
bles 1, 2 and 3. One significant result was the extremely high
percentage of commuters who walk to each of the stations to
board trains:71 percent at Jiyugaoka station and 57 percent at
TamaPlaza station. On the other hand, those travelling by car,
motorbike, or taxi only made up 5 percent of those destined
for Jiyugaoka station and 11 percent for Tama Plaza (Ministry
of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, 2005). Undoubtedly
one reason for the lowpercentage of commuters driving to sta-
tions is the low number of parking spaces in the vicinity of the
stations. Within 500mof Jiyugaoka station there are 70 auto-
mobile parking lots with a total of 569 spaces (S-Park 2008).
Most of these lots are very small, with the largest having only
120 spaces, and the station has no officially designated park-
and-ride lot. ere are a total of 776 parking spaces for auto-
mobiles within 500 m of Tama Plaza station (Goo Housing
and Real Estate 2008). ere is little on-street parking in the
station areas, and where it exists, parking is limited to only a
few hours.
Tokyu Coporation can offer a very high quality of transit
service due to the high ridership created by the dense com-
munities surrounding the station, as well as the schools, busi-
nesses, and government facilities that draw people from other
parts of the region. Trains serving both Jiyugaoka and Tama
Plaza stations run approximately 20 hours per day, seven days
a week. Time between departures averages 2.5 minutes in the
morning peak period, three minutes in the evening peak pe-
riod and three to five minutes during off-peak periods and on
weekends.
Another finding was the high population density within
500mof the stations. e seven zones surveyed that surround
Jiyugaoka station had a total population of 19 063 people,
with a population density of 12 808 persons per km2. e five
zones around Tama Plaza station had a population of 24 004,
giving a population density of 13 046 persons per km2 (Tokyo
Metropolitan Government 2009). However, one negative ef-
fect of the high population density and intensity of land uses
near the stations is the high cost of real estate, which also re-
sults in increased rental costs. Housing prices¹⁹ in the area less
than a five-minute walk from Jiyugaoka station were about
double those around Tama Plaza station, at ¥1 375 900 (US
$13 650, €10 065)perm2 versus ¥697 500 (US$6920, €5105)
per m2 (Beans-Coop 2009). It is important to note, however,
that residents of a RIC can forgo owning an automobile and
the high yearly operational costs associated with it.
¹⁹ Priceswere converted from tsubo to squaremeters. One tsubo=3.3m2.
Rail integrated communities in Tokyo 
Table 1: Ridership and quality of service, Jiyugaoka and Tama Plaza stations.
RIC Indicators Location
Ridership at station
Jiyugaoka
(Toyoko Line)
Jiyugaoka
(Oimachi Line)
Tama Plaza
(Den-en-toshi line)
Average daily boardings 105 045 81 392 42 444
Average daily alightings 108 218 80 191 42 600
Average daily through passengers 477 146 207 368 390 918
Commuting Setagaya ward Meguro ward Aoba ward
Percentage of riders commuting to the 23 wards 82.10% 85.80% 65.00%
Percentage of riders commuting within the ward 2.80% 1.30% 3.50%
Average commute time (minutes) 55 50 70
Average monthly commuter pass cost to Shibuya station (¥) 12 167 10 731 14 533
uality of service Toyoko Line Oimachi Line Den-en-toshi Line
Frequency
Morning peak hours (trains per direction per hour) 25 20 26
Off-peak hours (trains per direction per hour) 18 12 12
Hours of service
Hours of service per day (weekday) 19.67 19.5 19.47
Hours of service per day (weekend) 19.62 19.5 19.47
Crowding
Passenger load (peak %) 173% No data 194%
Table 2: Mode share, mode connections, and parking spaces, Jiyugaoka and Tama Plaza stations.
RIC Indicators
Jiyugaoka station
(Setagaya andMeguro wards)
Tama Plaza station
(Aoba ward)
Mode share: To and from station (%)
Walk 0.705 0.572
Automobile or other motor vehicle 0.045 0.292
Cycle 0.118 0.026
Bus 0.132 0.11
Mode connections (number of bus routes from station) 3 6
Parking spaces within 500m of station
Number of automobile spaces 569 776
Number of bicycle spaces 673 665
       .
Table 3: Population, development, property values , pedestrian safety, and crime rate indicators, Jiyugaoka and Tama Plaza station
areas.
RIC indicators for
Jiyugaoka and Tama Plaza
Setagaya
ward
Meguro
ward
Jiyugaoka
station area
Tama Plaza
station area
Aoba
ward
City of
Yokohama
Tokyo 23
Tokyo
Metro
Japan
Population density (Persons/km2) 14 841 18 282 12 808 13 046 8577 8402 14057 5894 329
Persons per household 1.93 1.83 1.85 2.26 2.41 2.34
Dwellings per hectare 73.2 100.1 69.2 57.8 35.4 35.8
Property values (¥/m2)
< 500 m from station (under 5 min. walk) 1 375 900 697 500
> 500 m from station (5–10 min. walk) 947 700 537 000
> 500 m from station (10–15 min. walk) 854 700 445 000
> 500 m from station (15–20 min. walk) 862 300 424 900
Pedestrian safety (Death rate from traffic
accidents per 100 000 people)
0 1.69 2.4 0.61 5.78
Crime rate (incidents per 1000 people) 14.43 13.81 7.01 19.2
e RIC indicators for Jiyugaoka and Tama Plaza stations
provide a snapshot of communities with population densities,
transit ridership, transit mode share, and quality of transit ser-
vice higher than the vast majority of North American com-
munities. It is possible these indicators could shi in the fu-
ture if the increasing rate of private vehicle ownership in Japan
impacts the Tokyo area to a greater degree. In addition, the
high rates of transit usage found in this study do not neces-
sarily hold true across the whole region; population density
and transit mode share generally decrease as the distance from
central Tokyo increases. Finally, not all station areas in Tokyo
are created alike. Many are not aswell planned anddesigned as
Jiyugaoka, TamaPlaza, and other stations developed byTokyu
Corporation.
9 Conclusions and further research
Due to the early nationalization of main trunk lines by the
national government, private railways in Japan needed to de-
velop methods of increasing ridership and creating alternate
sources of revenue. By adopting an innovative business diver-
sification strategy, railways such as Tokyu were better able to
adapt to the impact of car culture when it eventually arrived
in Japan in the mid- to late 1960s. Favorable market condi-
tions (densely populated citieswith concentrated urban cores)
andnational governmentpolicies and regulations that support
public transit and discourage car ownership have improved
rail profitability. e national government has alsomade driv-
ing an expensive proposition, while at the same time subsidiz-
ing commuter passes and regulating fare increases. As a result,
themode share for walking, cycling, and transit is greater than
for driving and the Tokyo region enjoys “…arguably the most
sustainable pattern of regional development among any of the
world’s megacities” (Cervero 1998, 206).
Importantly, the connection between land use and trans-
portation has been strengthened due to the large role that real
estate development plays in the profitability of the railways.
Rail integrated communities have been the result of this ap-
proach: dense, livable, mixed-use centers that also provide the
transit riders that helpmake the railways profitable. ese rid-
ers are also customers of the myriad businesses that Japanese
private railways like TokyuCorporation engage in. is diver-
sified approach to the railway business has allowed private rail-
way companies in Japan to build the stable ridership needed to
survive and thrive.
e ten indicators used in this study have shown just how
different RICs such as Jiyugaoka and Tama Plaza are from
North American TODs. Since these station areas have each
had at least 40 years to densify and solidify their ridership
base, it would be instructive to also look at historical indica-
tors to see how quickly this took place, especially when plan-
ning RICs in the future. e indicator work presented in this
report could also provide a benchmark for studies of RICs in
Tokyo and other Japanese cities. A further step in this research
would be to compare the policy history and business model
of Tokyu Corporation with that of successful RICs in other
countries.
As has been seen recently, the high cost of fuel has helped
create record ridership for North American transit systems,
but ironically it also impacts their budgets, withmanyUS sys-
tems considering fare increases or service cuts (Mieszkowski
Rail integrated communities in Tokyo 
2008). A spokeswoman for the American Public Transit As-
sociation president has noted that “…we don’t have the fund-
ing to expand public transportation systems” (Ibid, 1). Public
transportation systems that rely solely on revenue from fares
topped up by public funding are limited in their ability to pro-
vide quality service with existing vehicles and infrastructure,
much less to expand. And while transit agencies could po-
tentially finance their operating costs through fare revenue, “…
social and political objectives oen drive the fare” (Anderson
2006, 24).
Rather than relying strictly on farebox revenue and taxa-
tion, transit agencies in North America should be freed to de-
velop other revenue sources, just as the Japanese private rail-
ways have done to great success. Diversification into related
businesses could hold the key to long term financial health for
public transit in North America. Above all, real estate devel-
opment holds great promise if transit agencies can either cap-
ture a portion of land price increases generated by extending
rail lines, or develop land around existing stations that is cur-
rently underutilized. A version of the rail integrated commu-
nitymodel developed inTokyo could be a key to greater finan-
cial stability for public transit in North America.
References
Anderson, R. 2006. Metro benchmarking yield tangible
results. ERO: Energy Regulatory Office monthly report.
URL http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/
8595697.PDF.
Aoki, E. 1994. Expansion of railway network. Japan Railway
& Transport Review, 2:34–37. URL http://www.jrtr.net/
backissue/index_backissue.html.
Aoki, E., M. Imashiro, S. Kato, and Y. Wakuda. 2000. A His-
tory of Japanese Railways 1872–1999. East Japan Railway
Culture Foundation.
Arisue, T. and E. Aoki. 1970. Japanese cities: A geographical
approach. Special publication (Nihon Chiri Gakkai), no.
2, pp. 191–200. Association of Japanese Geographers.
Asano, M. 1998. Japanese urban environment. pp. 252–264.
Elsevier.
Association of Japanese Private Railways. 2007. Profile of
the 16 major private railways (大手１６社紹介). URL
http://www.mintetsu.or.jp/corporate/companys/tokyu/
index.html.
Beans-Coop. 2009. Real estate market by station (駅別土地
相場). URL http://beans-coop.jp/market_tochi_station.
html.
Bernick,M. andR. Cervero. 1996. Transit Villages for the 21st
Century. McGraw-Hill.
Cervero, R. 1998. e Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry.
Island Press.
City Mayors Statistics. 2005. e 150 richest cities in the
world by GDP in 2005. URL http://www.citymayors.
com/statistics/richest-cities-2005.html.
City of Yokohama Urban Development Bureau. 1998.
Overview of the results of the previous (1998) person trip
survey (前回（平成１０年）のパーソントリップ調査
の結果概要). URL http://www.city.yokohama.jp/me/
toshi/kikaku/pt/h10_data/.
Colliers International. 2008. e tenmost expensive places to
park. URL http://www.moneyhospital.co.uk/blog/post/
the-10-most-expensive-places-to-park.
Dittmar,H. andG.Ohland, eds. 2004.eNewTransitTown:
Best Practices in Transit-oriented Development. Island Press.
Fujita, K. andR.C.Hill, eds. 1993. JapaneseCities in theWorld
Economy. Temple University Press.
Fukuoka International Association. 2006. Japanese driver’s
licenses. URL http://www.rainbowfia.or.jp/living/e/14.
html.
Goo Housing and Real Estate. 2008. Tama Plaza station in-
formation (たまプラーザ駅の情報). URL http://house.
goo.ne.jp/chiiki/town/detail/2324150/index.html.
Hartgen, D., G. Ingalls, and T. Owens. 1993. Public Fear of
Crime and its Role in Public TransitUse. Center for Interdis-
ciplinary Transportation Studies, University of North Car-
olina.
Haseko Urbest Inc. 2007. 2007 ranking of most desirable
towns (stations) (住んでみたい街 (駅) 2007). URLhttp:
//www.haseko-urbest.com/press/pdf/20071126.pdf.
Home’s Club. 2007. Tokyoites choose the most desir-
able towns – 2007 (東京都民が選ぶ住みたい街 2007).
URL http://homesclub.next-group.jp/research/research/
2007/post_43.php.
Hosono, T. 2004. Tokyo number one, Kyoto number two
for condominium parking charges (分譲マンション駐車
場料金、１位東京 ２位は京都). URL http://sumai.
nikkei.co.jp/know/rank/index2004081905277d1.html.
Ieda, H. 1995. Commuter railways: Can congestion be re-
lieved? Japan Railway & Transport Review, 4:8–15.
Japan Road Association. 2005. World road statistics (世界
の道路統計). URL http://www.road.or.jp/dl/statistics.
html.
Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Tourism. 1999. Movement of people in cities (都市にお
ける人の動き). Technical report, Railway Bureau of the
       .
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure. URL http://www1.ibs.
or.jp/cityplanning-info/zpt/zptno2.pdf.
Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Tourism. 2002. Motor vehicle inspection and registration
guide –Q&A (自動車検査・登録ガイド・Q&A). URL
http://www.mlit.go.jp/jidosha/kensatoroku/question/
index.htm.
Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Tourism. 2005a. Metropolitan area transportation census
(平成１７年大都市交通センサス). URL http://www.
mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/kotu_census10/17siryou.html.
Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Tourism. 2005b. Survey of regional flow of passengers and
freight. URL http://toukei.mlit.go.jp/17/flow/index.pdf.
Jones, M. 1983. Working paper no. 75: Passenger transport
planning, management, and policy in japan. In Proceedings
of conference held atWolfson College, Oxford 1983, Working
paper (Oxford Polytechnic. Dept. of Town Planning).
Kato, S. 1996. Development of large cities and progress in
railway transportation. Japan Railway &Transport Review,
4(9):44–48.
Kawasaki, K. 1993. Suburban culture is created by private rail-
ways: Jiyugaoka and alongTokyu rail lines (郊外文化は私
鉄がつくる：自由が丘と東急沿線). Tokyojin, 74(11):
48–51.
Keiei Jōhō Center. 1971. Tokyu Group’s Development Strat-
egy: An In-depth Analysis of Tokyu’s Attempt at Developing
Urban Industry (東急グループのデベロッパー戦略：
都市産業へ挑戦するデベロッパー東急を徹底的に
分析 (MIC戦略シリーズ第４弾) , volume 4 of MIC
strategy series. MIC.
Kiriyama, H. 1997. An opinionated investigation of Tokyu
Dentetsu (東急電鉄の独断的研究). Tokyojin, 78(10):
56–65.
Mieszkowski, K. 2008. Who says Americans won’t ride mass
transit? Salon.com. URL http://www.salon.com/env/
feature/2008/10/23/mass_transit_america/.
Miyata, M. 1995. Tokyu. Tokyu Hoikusha Books.
Mizutani, F. 1994. Japanese Urban Railways: A Private-public
Comparison. Athenaeum Press Ltd.
Morichi, S. 2000. Socioeconomic characteristics, land use,
and travel patterns inTokyoMetropolitanArea. InM.Bon-
dada, ed., Urban public transportation systems: Implement-
ing efficient urban transit systems and enhancing transit us-
age, pp. 610–621.
MTR Corporation. 2008. Summary financial report
2007. URL http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/investrelation/
2007srpt_e/E206.pdf.
Nagata, K. 2008. A highway system that never ex-
acts toll. URL http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/
nn20081216i1.html.
Nakamura, S. 2010. Population density in Central
Tokyo. URL http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/shohei_tokyo_
1980/32287741.html.
Oshima, K. 1996. Denenchofu: Building the garden city
in Japan. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians,
55(2):140–151. doi: 10.2307/991116.
RailwayTownDevelopmentConference. 2004.What Should
Be Done? e Future of Railways: To Revitalize Com-
munities (どうする？鉄道の未来：地域を活性化する
ため). Tokyo: Ryokufu Shuppan.
S-Park. 2008. Tokyo parking information site (都内駐車場
案内サイト). URL http://www.s-park.jp/.
Shoji, K. 2001. Lessons from Japanese experiences of roles of
public andprivate sectors inurban transport. JapanRailway
& Transport Review, 29:12–19.
Statistics Canada. 2008. Canada’s population estimates:
ird quarter 2008. URL http://www.statcan.gc.ca/
daily-quotidien/081219/dq081219b-eng.htm.
Tamapura Scope. 2007. Study of Tama Plaza’s walking sphere
for the “Beautiful Forest” new town (たまプラーザ徒歩
圏の新しい街“美しの森”大研究). URL http://www.
tamapla.jp/wadai/utsukusinomori.html.
Tokyo Metropolitan Government. 2009. Estimate of Tokyo’s
population for 2009. URL http://www.toukei.metro.
tokyo.jp/jsuikei/2009/js090f0000.pdf.
Tokyu Corporation. 2007. 2007/2008 Tokyu Corporation
(2007/2008東急電鉄). Annual report.
Tokyu Corporation. 2011. Timetable by station (各駅時刻
表). URLhttp://www.Tokyu.co.jp/railway/menu/jikoku.
html.
Transportation Research Board. 2003. Transit capacity and
quality of service manual, 2nd edition. TCRP Report 100,
Transportation Research Board.
Transportation Research Board. 2005. Transit-oriented
development: Developing a strategy to measure success.
NCHRP Research Results Digest 294, Transportation Re-
search Board.
United Nations. 2007. World urbanization prospects: e
2007 revision population database. URL http://esa.un.
org/unup/p2k0data.asp.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2006. Fuel price, con-
sumption, travel and risk. URL http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/
tdm80.htm.
Vuchic, V. 2005. Urban Transit: Operations, Planning, and
Economics. JohnWiley & Sons.