|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
methdxman
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| methdxman wrote: |
But like anything, if it's not being done, there's always a sensible reason behind it.
|
Someone who doesn't understand what happens in the real world. |
I'll repeat ad nauseam: Seoul metro system is bleeding money every year which means that it will almost certainly never be able to break even including the accumulated losses that it has. While most public transport systems lose money, I think the Seoul metro loses significantly more than a city like New York. KRW 900 fares?
Furthermore, there are priorities in terms of the expansion of service. Is it going to be operating hours? No. If anything they will use funds to expand rail.
The expansion of operating hours I'm sure has been studied plenty of times. But again, it takes extensive study to see the true cost/benefit of it and unless there is a compelling reason to keep the subway open longer they will not do so. You need to juggle all the different stakeholders (government, taxpayer, customers, labor, etc.) in order to get something like this done.
Considering that government is government it's no surprise that it's extremely difficult to mess with something like that Seoul metro. In the States we can't even build a decent high speed rail anywhere precisely because of the bureaucratic nature of infrastructure development.
This is what happens in the real world. In the real world, you have to have a broad scope of all the little levers that need to be pulled to get certain things accomplished. You can't just offer a child-like analysis of a situation by staying that something's gonna be a lot GOODER because I can go home and stuff LOL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
I think that one of the things that speaks volumes to me in this thread is also one of the things that is preventing this from happening.
I'm in my mid-30's, married, and have a kid at home. Most of my friends and business colleagues are in a similar position. Talked with a few of them about this idea and was surprised to find NO SUPPORT for 24 hour service (they're all Korean). Like me, they felt that it wasn't needed and weren't willing to foot the expected bill. People in my age group and older tend to drink closer to work and home and/or just stay home. They also tend to stick closer to home on the weekends.
Single people under 30 would be the main recipients of this proposed change. They tend to go out to trendy "hot spots" to drink and socialize. They also have less responsibility at home and as such would go home at later hours.
Is one group right or wrong? Nope.
But which group holds the political power and purse strings?
Face it, until the majority of Seoulites see this as an issue, nothing's gonna' change. And, as far as I can tell, most don't give a toss about it. |
By this logic we shouldn't pay for public school because none of my friends use it.
Most of us cant afford a car and/or find a place to put one. Driving drunk is not a good idea either.
Smart planning would easily see an extension of train hours without a significant cost increase. It would cut down on drunk driving and pollution (the latter is probably why it gets subsidized in the first place). Yes, there are people who prefer taxis, but from the numbers thrown around here, thats about 10%. The pros really seem to outweigh the cons.
Also, getting a taxi at 2-3am is somewhere between hard and impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| methdxman wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| methdxman wrote: |
But like anything, if it's not being done, there's always a sensible reason behind it.
|
Someone who doesn't understand what happens in the real world. |
I'll repeat ad nauseam: Seoul metro system is bleeding money every year which means that it will almost certainly never be able to break even including the accumulated losses that it has. While most public transport systems lose money, I think the Seoul metro loses significantly more than a city like New York. KRW 900 fares?
Furthermore, there are priorities in terms of the expansion of service. Is it going to be operating hours? No. If anything they will use funds to expand rail.
The expansion of operating hours I'm sure has been studied plenty of times. But again, it takes extensive study to see the true cost/benefit of it and unless there is a compelling reason to keep the subway open longer they will not do so. You need to juggle all the different stakeholders (government, taxpayer, customers, labor, etc.) in order to get something like this done.
Considering that government is government it's no surprise that it's extremely difficult to mess with something like that Seoul metro. In the States we can't even build a decent high speed rail anywhere precisely because of the bureaucratic nature of infrastructure development.
This is what happens in the real world. In the real world, you have to have a broad scope of all the little levers that need to be pulled to get certain things accomplished. You can't just offer a child-like analysis of a situation by staying that something's gonna be a lot GOODER because I can go home and stuff LOL. |
No, in the REAL world, things aren't done efficiently. They almost definitely did not do a study for the weekend and if they did, they certainly did nothing about it. The REAL world caves to lobbying pressure of big companies/unions rather than doing whats best for everyone. I'm sure people could give you 100's of examples.
From the lines of people for taxis at main areas and last cars being jam packed on the weekend its clear that later service on fri/sat nights are viable. Will the train turn a profit? No, but it will not operate at a severe loss and the social benefits make it worth it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
methdxman
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| methdxman wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| methdxman wrote: |
But like anything, if it's not being done, there's always a sensible reason behind it.
|
Someone who doesn't understand what happens in the real world. |
I'll repeat ad nauseam: Seoul metro system is bleeding money every year which means that it will almost certainly never be able to break even including the accumulated losses that it has. While most public transport systems lose money, I think the Seoul metro loses significantly more than a city like New York. KRW 900 fares?
Furthermore, there are priorities in terms of the expansion of service. Is it going to be operating hours? No. If anything they will use funds to expand rail.
The expansion of operating hours I'm sure has been studied plenty of times. But again, it takes extensive study to see the true cost/benefit of it and unless there is a compelling reason to keep the subway open longer they will not do so. You need to juggle all the different stakeholders (government, taxpayer, customers, labor, etc.) in order to get something like this done.
Considering that government is government it's no surprise that it's extremely difficult to mess with something like that Seoul metro. In the States we can't even build a decent high speed rail anywhere precisely because of the bureaucratic nature of infrastructure development.
This is what happens in the real world. In the real world, you have to have a broad scope of all the little levers that need to be pulled to get certain things accomplished. You can't just offer a child-like analysis of a situation by staying that something's gonna be a lot GOODER because I can go home and stuff LOL. |
No, in the REAL world, things aren't done efficiently. They almost definitely did not do a study for the weekend and if they did, they certainly did nothing about it. The REAL world caves to lobbying pressure of big companies/unions rather than doing whats best for everyone. I'm sure people could give you 100's of examples.
From the lines of people for taxis at main areas and last cars being jam packed on the weekend its clear that later service on fri/sat nights are viable. Will the train turn a profit? No, but it will not operate at a severe loss and the social benefits make it worth it. |
Of course things aren't done efficiently. That's the subway itself. If private enterprise ran the subway, they would set prices / infrastructure to maximize profit, which is obviously not the case for the Seoul metro. We'd probably have like a few lines with outrageous prices.
Yes, there are lots of people in line for taxis, but it's not going to offset the costs of running the subway for longer hours. Additionally, many of those people waiting for taxis actually just want to take a taxi (myself included). How many are there? Who knows, but not all of them are gonna want to wait at a subway station for 30 minutes to an hour.
Of course there's lots of caving into lobbying and politicians. I don't even think about that. I just consider that a given. But we're not even at that stage of analysis yet. For it to be even considered viable, you have to show a smaller net operating loss by expanding the subway hours. I'll do a back of the envelope calculation later, but my guess is that you will lose more money per ride in later hours. A lot more money. And if this is true, this idea cannot even get off the ground.
You COULD probably do a study on just a few lines and maybe expand hours on the profitable lines (if there are any, there might be a few that break even). But again, there has to be a compelling social reason to do so. I don't think we're there yet. The city runs fine without 24 hour service and cabs are dirt cheap here compared to a city like New York. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| methdxman wrote: |
Of course there's lots of caving into lobbying and politicians. I don't even think about that. I just consider that a given. But we're not even at that stage of analysis yet. For it to be even considered viable, you have to show a smaller net operating loss by expanding the subway hours. I'll do a back of the envelope calculation later, but my guess is that you will lose more money per ride in later hours. A lot more money. And if this is true, this idea cannot even get off the ground.
|
Considering how packed the subways are and the lines for taxis, I don't think you'd be losing a "lot" of money. Especially if you increase the fairs and reduce the number of trains. I wish I could see their operating costs so we could accurately discuss how many passengers we'd need at a few price points and train intervals. Right now its all conjecture.
| methdxman wrote: |
You COULD probably do a study on just a few lines and maybe expand hours on the profitable lines (if there are any, there might be a few that break even). But again, there has to be a compelling social reason to do so. I don't think we're there yet. The city runs fine without 24 hour service and cabs are dirt cheap here compared to a city like New York. |
Not cheap compared to every other mode of transportation. Taxis should be an option, not a requirement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
No, I use your momma's back.
Seriously, are you really wanting to make this all about personal insults?
I've posted some pretty reasonable posts here...they just differ from your opinion. |
Reasonable? Maybe from your perspective, that of the anti-drinking, married with children bourgeisie.
I'm glad to see someone lent you a sense of humor. Too bad they're keeping the good stuff for themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| methdxman wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| methdxman wrote: |
But like anything, if it's not being done, there's always a sensible reason behind it.
|
Someone who doesn't understand what happens in the real world. |
I'll repeat ad nauseam: Seoul metro system is bleeding money every year which means that it will almost certainly never be able to break even including the accumulated losses that it has. While most public transport systems lose money, I think the Seoul metro loses significantly more than a city like New York. KRW 900 fares?
Furthermore, there are priorities in terms of the expansion of service. Is it going to be operating hours? No. If anything they will use funds to expand rail.
The expansion of operating hours I'm sure has been studied plenty of times. But again, it takes extensive study to see the true cost/benefit of it and unless there is a compelling reason to keep the subway open longer they will not do so. You need to juggle all the different stakeholders (government, taxpayer, customers, labor, etc.) in order to get something like this done.
Considering that government is government it's no surprise that it's extremely difficult to mess with something like that Seoul metro. In the States we can't even build a decent high speed rail anywhere precisely because of the bureaucratic nature of infrastructure development.
This is what happens in the real world. In the real world, you have to have a broad scope of all the little levers that need to be pulled to get certain things accomplished. You can't just offer a child-like analysis of a situation by staying that something's gonna be a lot GOODER because I can go home and stuff LOL. |
They lose money. They believe public transportation is an essential good that government should subsidize. The public obviously agrees or they would complain about their tax dollars being "lost."
But are they being lost? How much economic gain is connected with cheap and accessible public transportation? Children to schools, adults to work and shopping. Where else would vendors be able to sell ugly ties, crummy shoes, and counterfeit DVDs? (Just kidding about that.)
How about all the money the government is pumping into new lines? Hyundai gets to sell more Seimens-designed rail cars; construction workers, crane operators, truck drivers, and common laborers get jobs.
There are reasons governments are willing to subsidize public transportations. You need to include them in your "calculations."
To continue with public policy, one reason for NOT extending hours would be to discourage drinking. I would bet that's part of the thinking regarding subway operating hours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zyzyfer
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| Smart planning would easily see an extension of train hours without a significant cost increase. It would cut down on drunk driving and pollution (the latter is probably why it gets subsidized in the first place). |
There are already proxy driver services available. I have no idea if they're popular or if they helped mitigate drunk driving accidents, but the service is there.
I still strongly believe that running subways later would basically just cause more people to stay out drinking later. I've never been a "catch the last train" type but I've seen people do it. Bump it back two more hours and people like that will stay out two more hours and the 12 AM train will have a normal number of people while the 2 AM will be packed like the 12 AM is currently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
methdxman
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| methdxman wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| methdxman wrote: |
But like anything, if it's not being done, there's always a sensible reason behind it.
|
Someone who doesn't understand what happens in the real world. |
I'll repeat ad nauseam: Seoul metro system is bleeding money every year which means that it will almost certainly never be able to break even including the accumulated losses that it has. While most public transport systems lose money, I think the Seoul metro loses significantly more than a city like New York. KRW 900 fares?
Furthermore, there are priorities in terms of the expansion of service. Is it going to be operating hours? No. If anything they will use funds to expand rail.
The expansion of operating hours I'm sure has been studied plenty of times. But again, it takes extensive study to see the true cost/benefit of it and unless there is a compelling reason to keep the subway open longer they will not do so. You need to juggle all the different stakeholders (government, taxpayer, customers, labor, etc.) in order to get something like this done.
Considering that government is government it's no surprise that it's extremely difficult to mess with something like that Seoul metro. In the States we can't even build a decent high speed rail anywhere precisely because of the bureaucratic nature of infrastructure development.
This is what happens in the real world. In the real world, you have to have a broad scope of all the little levers that need to be pulled to get certain things accomplished. You can't just offer a child-like analysis of a situation by staying that something's gonna be a lot GOODER because I can go home and stuff LOL. |
They lose money. They believe public transportation is an essential good that government should subsidize. The public obviously agrees or they would complain about their tax dollars being "lost."
But are they being lost? How much economic gain is connected with cheap and accessible public transportation? Children to schools, adults to work and shopping. Where else would vendors be able to sell ugly ties, crummy shoes, and counterfeit DVDs? (Just kidding about that.)
How about all the money the government is pumping into new lines? Hyundai gets to sell more Seimens-designed rail cars; construction workers, crane operators, truck drivers, and common laborers get jobs.
There are reasons governments are willing to subsidize public transportations. You need to include them in your "calculations."
To continue with public policy, one reason for NOT extending hours would be to discourage drinking. I would bet that's part of the thinking regarding subway operating hours. |
You're preaching to the choir man. The city would be paralyzed without a subway system. Still, the full economic benefits of a subway can never be calculated. What can be calculated down to the decimal are capex and operating costs. This is what they operate on, this is what taxpayers can see.
You can hide/justify capex (new trains, new lines, a new computer system etc.) a lot easier because the costs are amortized over a long period of time. But if you're in charge of the Seoul subway and your operating costs increase significantly because of an expansion of operating hours, these costs are much more transparent and you must have some compelling arguments to justify them.
I just don't see how staying out late justifies these costs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
I think that one of the things that speaks volumes to me in this thread is also one of the things that is preventing this from happening.
I'm in my mid-30's, married, and have a kid at home. Most of my friends and business colleagues are in a similar position. Talked with a few of them about this idea and was surprised to find NO SUPPORT for 24 hour service (they're all Korean). Like me, they felt that it wasn't needed and weren't willing to foot the expected bill. People in my age group and older tend to drink closer to work and home and/or just stay home. They also tend to stick closer to home on the weekends.
Single people under 30 would be the main recipients of this proposed change. They tend to go out to trendy "hot spots" to drink and socialize. They also have less responsibility at home and as such would go home at later hours.
Is one group right or wrong? Nope.
But which group holds the political power and purse strings?
Face it, until the majority of Seoulites see this as an issue, nothing's gonna' change. And, as far as I can tell, most don't give a toss about it. |
By this logic we shouldn't pay for public school because none of my friends use it.
Most of us cant afford a car and/or find a place to put one. Driving drunk is not a good idea either.
Smart planning would easily see an extension of train hours without a significant cost increase. It would cut down on drunk driving and pollution (the latter is probably why it gets subsidized in the first place). Yes, there are people who prefer taxis, but from the numbers thrown around here, thats about 10%. The pros really seem to outweigh the cons.
Also, getting a taxi at 2-3am is somewhere between hard and impossible. |
Most of us cant afford a car?? Who is most of us? Who the heck are you talking about??
And as for drunk driving, is this or isn't it about drinking? Some posters have said it's got nothing to do with drinking, you seem to assume that everyone coming home at that hour is subject to drunk driving. I'm cool with either generalization, I'm just confused as to which one we should be using.
You talk about smart planning and costs. Mind showing us what you know about the budget for the subway system here? Do you know how much they make/lose per year? How much extra it'd cost per extended hour of operation? Do you know any of those things?
| atwood wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
No, I use your momma's back.
Seriously, are you really wanting to make this all about personal insults?
I've posted some pretty reasonable posts here...they just differ from your opinion. |
Reasonable? Maybe from your perspective, that of the anti-drinking, married with children bourgeisie.
I'm glad to see someone lent you a sense of humor. Too bad they're keeping the good stuff for themselves. |
hahahaha
Now it's a proletariat class struggle going on? 
face it, man. There's no traction behind your demands right now. The voters and decision makers don't deem this to be the issue you are making it out to be. And I must say, as a voter here, I'd likely vote against it if it came up (depending on cost analysis of course). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
Most of us cant afford a car?? Who is most of us? Who the heck are you talking about??
And as for drunk driving, is this or isn't it about drinking? Some posters have said it's got nothing to do with drinking, you seem to assume that everyone coming home at that hour is subject to drunk driving. I'm cool with either generalization, I'm just confused as to which one we should be using.
You talk about smart planning and costs. Mind showing us what you know about the budget for the subway system here? Do you know how much they make/lose per year? How much extra it'd cost per extended hour of operation? Do you know any of those things?
| atwood wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
No, I use your momma's back.
Seriously, are you really wanting to make this all about personal insults?
I've posted some pretty reasonable posts here...they just differ from your opinion. |
Reasonable? Maybe from your perspective, that of the anti-drinking, married with children bourgeisie.
I'm glad to see someone lent you a sense of humor. Too bad they're keeping the good stuff for themselves. |
hahahaha
Now it's a proletariat class struggle going on?
face it, man. There's no traction behind your demands right now. The voters and decision makers don't deem this to be the issue you are making it out to be. And I must say, as a voter here, I'd likely vote against it if it came up (depending on cost analysis of course). |
Atwood is talking about the fact that you've been posting only from your perspective with no understanding or sympathy with anyone else in any other position. Since you're almost never out after 12, you almost never see the massive taxi lines, the bitching about the subway, the obnoxiousness of getting a taxi at 2-3 am (because too many people are trying to get home). I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that you could at least extend train service a couple hours on the weekend with no significant loss (percentage wise).
I was talking earlier that I would like to see the numbers so I could understand how much more it would cost. I suspect that the cost of building the subway and buying the trains far outweigh the costs of keeping it open a couple extra hours. Without being able to see the numbers though, its a moot point. People have been saying that the taxis are largely responsible for the train's hours. No one knows for sure how much it would cost because it's never been tried before. Don't think it would cost them much to open it later for a month or two and see what happens.
Reducing drunk driving is a benefit that will happen regardless of whether I personally drink or not. The numbers as a whole will go down if public transportation is available. You started your whole argument on the basis that everyone out past 12 was wasted, and we have been demonstrating that there are plenty of sober people out after 12. Some people are drunk, some aren't, but both could benefit from a subway that is open later.
Most of "us" (English teachers) cant afford the extra expense of buying a car and insurance (and parking gas etc) on top of the other startup costs that were associated with the move here. I suspect many people in Seoul can't afford a car as well. Owning a car impractical for others. I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons they subsidize the train is to PREVENT people from driving; if every Korean drove there would be 24 hour gridlock and nothing would get done. It's not unrealistic to guess that if the trains were open later there may very well be fewer cars during the day simply because fewer people would feel the need to own them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| Atwood is talking about the fact that you've been posting only from your perspective with no understanding or sympathy with anyone else in any other position. Since you're almost never out after 12, you almost never see the massive taxi lines, the bitching about the subway, the obnoxiousness of getting a taxi at 2-3 am (because too many people are trying to get home). I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that you could at least extend train service a couple hours on the weekend with no significant loss (percentage wise). |
I understand your position because I was in that position in my 20's too. My point is that i don't want to subsidize your position. I don't think it's needed.
You talk about extending service on the weekends - who would benefit from that? You? The average Korean? The average taxpayer? Like I said, where's the demand coming from? Where are the mass petitions and movements for this? There isn't any.
| Quote: |
| I was talking earlier that I would like to see the numbers so I could understand how much more it would cost. I suspect that the cost of building the subway and buying the trains far outweigh the costs of keeping it open a couple extra hours. Without being able to see the numbers though, its a moot point. People have been saying that the taxis are largely responsible for the train's hours. No one knows for sure how much it would cost because it's never been tried before. Don't think it would cost them much to open it later for a month or two and see what happens. |
I think it would cost a lot more.
You think it wouldn't.
Right now they choose to do it on very special occasions and nothing more.
And there we are. Again, no apparent big demand for change.
| Quote: |
| Reducing drunk driving is a benefit that will happen regardless of whether I personally drink or not. The numbers as a whole will go down if public transportation is available. You started your whole argument on the basis that everyone out past 12 was wasted, and we have been demonstrating that there are plenty of sober people out after 12. Some people are drunk, some aren't, but both could benefit from a subway that is open later. |
Says you. Most of the professional people that I know that drink often A) Take a cab home, or B) take a driving service home. You are presuming that they'd automatically switch to the train. What makes you think this? Do you hang out with lots of middle-aged 'salarymen'? I do, and I know they generally couldn't give a toss about this subject.
| Quote: |
| Most of "us" (English teachers) cant afford the extra expense of buying a car and insurance (and parking gas etc) on top of the other start-up costs that were associated with the move here. I suspect many people in Seoul can't afford a car as well. |
Well, I'll be sure to think of poor english teachers whenever voting for public transportation in Seoul. lol
Seriously?
If you're too poor to buy a car, and too poor for a taxi, perhaps you should consider staying closer to home.
Honestly, have you even talked to Koreans about this issue? Korean of all ages? Men AND women? What do they say to you? Are they as interested as you? How many of them personally tell you that they'd use the subway at those hours?
Last edited by Captain Corea on Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
createasaurus21
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| probably because the cars would be covered in barf if they opened that late... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Most of us cant afford a car |
But apparently we can afford to go out and get wasted at 2AM?
Seriously, there are ways to discuss the potential benefits of extending service, but saying "we can't afford a car" while demanding subway service at 2AM for the purposes of being able to go out and drink/hang out late sans alcohol is not going to get anyone listening to you.
If you want to get expanded service, get on board my idea of redeye/early bird service to Incheon Airport, Seoul Station, and a single South Side stop (which should also go direct to Incheon Airport), all three connected in a triangle. That is a pony that is approaching things from an angle that the powers that be might actually listen to. Hitch your wagon to another pony and try and build off of that.
Screaming that the entire Seoul subway system should be open for the benefit of the late night crowd is silly. A single shuttle or rail running from the North Side (say Seoul Station) to the South Side (Gangnam) is not out of left field. It's fair to say that that could probably turn a profit.
| Quote: |
| Most of "us" (English teachers) cant afford the extra expense of buying a car and insurance |
So the subway should stay open later for the benefit of the English teachers of Seoul?
| Quote: |
| the obnoxiousness of getting a taxi at 2-3 am (because too many people are trying to get home). I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that you could at least extend train service a couple hours on the weekend with no significant loss (percentage wise). |
I've been out, always found a cab. No, there aren't as many as our drunk o'clock eyes think there are. And considering those that are finding cabs are going every which way, keeping the entire bloody metro open is completely unfeasible. I know we may think half the city is out in Hongdae, Gangnam, and Itaewon at 3AM but they aren't.
And frankly, while the I like the idea of the shuttle, the idea of having a bunch of the 3AM crowd together on a subway/shuttle is more than a little worrisome.
To be a stupid "swing voter on this" I have to say that while, unlike The Captain, I am in favor of some sort of late night shuttle/line service on a very limited scale, when I hear some of the justifications given that pushes me into the "no" camp. If you're talking about how you "can't afford cars" but can afford to go out and drink into the wee hours and calling people who are married with children and working 9-5 the "anti-drinking married with children bourgeoisie", as atwood put it, that pushes me into his camp and does not earn you support amongst the silent majority that comprises "married with children" types.
The average English teacher can afford a car- 2-3 million for a car. A million for insurance, and then you pay for gas.
If, as you say, you aren't using the car THAT much because of traffic, and if, as you say, you are against drunk driving, then there really shouldn't be much of a problem.
That's the thing, there is no cohesive vision to this. The subway should be open late because, yeah I like to drink, so what you Puritan? There should still be a service because there is plenty of demand. Fine, but then the angle of wanting to discourage drunk driving, while saying that we should have a subway because one cannot afford a car seems to add up to a contradiction too many.
To repeat myself again, don't shoot for the moon. Shoot for a very targeted service that a variety of people can get behind, using justifications that appeal to the very type of people that someone like The Captain might represent.
If you say "We need late night subway service around Seoul because coming out of the bar at 2AM and finding a cab is impossible" most sane adults are just going to ignore you.
Now if you say a 24 hour service connecting 2-4 stations in various areas of a major international city with a metro population of 20 million servicing a major financial and the major transportation hubs of the city (separated by a river) might be a good idea, those people will listen. Suddenly they see themselves with that redeye or earlybird flight and will at least give your plan a listen. An idea like that you can actually see real interests getting behind, not a bunch of think for the moment and about themselves young people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal 2.0
Joined: 10 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Limited service would be nice. They could be rapid lines, skipping several stops at a time, and running once an hour. Even NYC doesn't have full service in the middle of the night.
Steelrails: I'm with you on the airport thing. One thing, though, is that you seem to think that hanging out late should be expensive. It isn't always so. Maybe I want to spend a bit more time at the jimjilbang? Perhaps I want to go to Dongdaemun for a late night silly summer dress shop? Maybe my friends get out of work late and can only meet up at 9 for dinner, and we don't want to dine and have to immediately rush home. Those are fairly cheap outings, but it would be nice to be able to get home, rather than have to spend the night at the jimjilbang, stay out ALL night, or spend 40k on a taxi ride. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
