|
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 |
candy bar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Strict enforcement doesn't stop this kind of thing in a big city like Seoul. |
I saw zero illegally parked cars in Tokyo when I was up there a couple of weeks back. The low traffic volume of that city makes it an absolute pleasure to spend time in. Seoul has so much to learn.
Private cars and 20m+ populations do not mix well. |
But, you are comparing the highly advanced thinking society of Tokyo to the lower and slower thinking citizens of Seoul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nicwr2002 wrote: |
| Korea needs to allow private companies to be able to build train/subway lines. I think one of the reasons Japan has less of a traffic problem is the fact that they allow businesses to build and operate trains. The KTX shouldn't be the only train available to travel to different locations within Korea. There are zero train services that go to the smaller cities outside of the Seoul Metro area. In Gwangju they built a subway line that doesn't hit any of the major attractions and traffic congested areas. It doesn't even connect with the bus terminal! |
Not sure where you get your information from, but the current KTX services like 80% of the population, and services all the major metro areas in the country. The regular trains services like 95% of the population, with all its spur lines. There is train service in virtually every town in the country.
The Japanese system was once public, but the government privatized it with a lot of controversy. The Korean government may privatize the rails, but there is a lot of opposition to it. And personally I'm against the idea, the service would be even worse, and you know once it's privatized it's probably never going public again.
Also note that, that very few private companies are willing to build the actual railways on their own. It's just too expensive, so usually the government builds the infrastructure and runs a train system, and then sometime later decides to privatize it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
As opposed to you, a monk-like model of frugality. Why don't you take a pay cut and give some money back to the poor? . |
Ah, typical adolescent korean response. Attack the person, never the issues. Take everything personally. |
Typical adolescent Dave's response. Lob bombs, cry foul when they're lobbed back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| nicwr2002 wrote: |
| Korea needs to allow private companies to be able to build train/subway lines. I think one of the reasons Japan has less of a traffic problem is the fact that they allow businesses to build and operate trains. The KTX shouldn't be the only train available to travel to different locations within Korea. There are zero train services that go to the smaller cities outside of the Seoul Metro area. In Gwangju they built a subway line that doesn't hit any of the major attractions and traffic congested areas. It doesn't even connect with the bus terminal! |
Not sure where you get your information from, but the current KTX services like 80% of the population, and services all the major metro areas in the country. The regular trains services like 95% of the population, with all its spur lines. There is train service in virtually every town in the country.
The Japanese system was once public, but the government privatized it with a lot of controversy. The Korean government may privatize the rails, but there is a lot of opposition to it. And personally I'm against the idea, the service would be even worse, and you know once it's privatized it's probably never going public again.
Also note that, that very few private companies are willing to build the actual railways on their own. It's just too expensive, so usually the government builds the infrastructure and runs a train system, and then sometime later decides to privatize it. |
That's not the case for the subways, though, is it?
The talk about privatizing KTX has come because it's had more than its share of problems, at least in the view of many.
But for a country still technically at war, trains are a security issue and probably should remain publicly run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
This is a problem with no solution beyond a housing collapse or massive government funding of parking structures.
People are going to own cars and cannot be stopped. The utility of owning a car makes it necessary for things like grocery shopping and family events. The lack of space (I think many expats fail to appreciate this and its impact on everything from housing costs- "Why do they all live in apartments and not houses with woods and a lake???" to food prices- "Why does food cost so much???") and the effect that has on parking space availability. And also, the price barriers to average people getting involved in the parking structure business.
The only non-government thing that would work is a crash in the real estate market, making property cheap. People could theoretically buy lots and turn them into paid parking. But rates are so high right now, that it is difficult for that to be profitable and the startup costs are prohibitive. If the concept fails, it will be near impossible to sell.
High ticketing and strict enforcement would merely turn the situation into an NYC-style laughing stock in which parking is nothing more than a game that serves to funnel money to the government, which is turn thrown construction "projects" which are little more than roundabout bribes to union employees in exchange for votes.
Strict enforcement doesn't stop this kind of thing in a big city like Seoul. It only raises costs to normal people. Delivery truck drivers will rack up hundreds of dollars in parking tickets a day, thousands a month, which are all taken by some company lawyer down to court at the end of the month and settled. These costs are of course passed on to the consumer.
The situation sucks, but most of the alternatives are worse. Is it worth it for the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars building parking structures everywhere when that tax money could go to health care or education? And there's a good chance that the locations they build these in would be bad ones as bureaucratic planning and corruption would lead to moronic construction sites.
At the end of the day, compared to what else could take place, the status quo ain't that bad. I mean really, how inconvenient is it really? |
That sure was a lot of nothing, wasn't it? All to say nothing can be done.
It was almost like reading a David Brooks editorial sans any hi-faluting allusions to dead British writers.
There are alternatives. And you'd think a country so proud of its technological expertise and innovation could come up with something. Something besides digging more holes in the ground, I mean.
C-R-E-A-T-I-V-I-T-Y! Don't knock it till you've tried it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nicwr2002
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| nicwr2002 wrote: |
| Korea needs to allow private companies to be able to build train/subway lines. I think one of the reasons Japan has less of a traffic problem is the fact that they allow businesses to build and operate trains. The KTX shouldn't be the only train available to travel to different locations within Korea. There are zero train services that go to the smaller cities outside of the Seoul Metro area. In Gwangju they built a subway line that doesn't hit any of the major attractions and traffic congested areas. It doesn't even connect with the bus terminal! |
Not sure where you get your information from, but the current KTX services like 80% of the population, and services all the major metro areas in the country. The regular trains services like 95% of the population, with all its spur lines. There is train service in virtually every town in the country.
The Japanese system was once public, but the government privatized it with a lot of controversy. The Korean government may privatize the rails, but there is a lot of opposition to it. And personally I'm against the idea, the service would be even worse, and you know once it's privatized it's probably never going public again.
Also note that, that very few private companies are willing to build the actual railways on their own. It's just too expensive, so usually the government builds the infrastructure and runs a train system, and then sometime later decides to privatize it. |
I'm pretty sure only the JR Line was privatized. There have been numerous privately owned rail companies in Japan since the early 20th century. Privatization was good, in my opinion, because the debt that the government was taking on, because of trying to expand the tracks, was making the economy worse.
I guess the only drawback would be that having more tracks will make getting to Seoul easier which would be bad for other cities. This is the problem that Japan is facing with the "all roads lead to Tokyo" causing populations in other cities to dwindle. So, Korea could face the same problem as more and more people would be able to commute to Seoul faster and easier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHGator428
Joined: 05 Sep 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| As opposed to you, a monk-like model of frugality. |
As opposed to you, the guy that supports running red lights (with some good driver point system) and has said on more than one occasion that you drink and drive purposefully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FriendlyDaegu
Joined: 26 Aug 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Strict enforcement doesn't stop this kind of thing in a big city like Seoul. |
I saw zero illegally parked cars in Tokyo when I was up there a couple of weeks back. The low traffic volume of that city makes it an absolute pleasure to spend time in. Seoul has so much to learn.
Private cars and 20m+ populations do not mix well. |
Parking in Tokyo is easy. Just costs a ton. Also, you can't register a car there without showing proof of an owned or leased parking space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
That's not the case for the subways, though, is it?
The talk about privatizing KTX has come because it's had more than its share of problems, at least in the view of many.
But for a country still technically at war, trains are a security issue and probably should remain publicly run. |
No rational private company is going to pay to make a subway, infrastructure and all. The start-up costs to build the infrastructure for a subway in an urban area is just too expensive to rationalize it. It's always going to be the government paying to build the infrastructure first, then they'll get a system running before they decide to privatize it. Also, you'll be hard pressed to find a completely privately run subway system anywhere in the world. I guess Japan being an exception, but the vast majority of the infrastructure was funded by the government, and many lines (the actual metal rails, and the stations) are still owned by the government.
Also, you'll be hard pressed to find an urban rail system that can actually turn a profit without any government support. Even in the US, the supposed hotbed of the free-market, I don't think there are any privately owned subway system.
As for national rail, an argument can be made for it to be privatized, but again it's largely the government that builds the infrastructure initially. And privatizing comes at a huge political cost.
| atwood wrote: |
I'm pretty sure only the JR Line was privatized. There have been numerous privately owned rail companies in Japan since the early 20th century. Privatization was good, in my opinion, because the debt that the government was taking on, because of trying to expand the tracks, was making the economy worse.
I guess the only drawback would be that having more tracks will make getting to Seoul easier which would be bad for other cities. This is the problem that Japan is facing with the "all roads lead to Tokyo" causing populations in other cities to dwindle. So, Korea could face the same problem as more and more people would be able to commute to Seoul faster and easier. |
Yes, only the JR Lines was privatized, and is by far the largest system in Japan. The other private lines are tiny, and serve specific routes. Also, most of them started in that post-war era, and were given massive land-property incentives. I think it would be difficult to get a completely brand new private company to build their own rail line. They may buy one and expand on it. But starting from scratch is virtually impossible without government support.
So a lot of government money goes into building the infrastructure, and much of the public just don't like it going to private companies. Kind of like air travel. But I do agree that it is expensive to maintain a system, and it seems Korea is trying to build up it's social-welfare system. So, sometime down the road they will have to make hard decisions. Public Rail vs Public medicare, etc... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHGator428 wrote: |
As opposed to you, the guy that supports running red lights (with some good driver point system) and has said on more than one occasion that you drink and drive purposefully. |
Wrong- I do not support running red lights. I said that drivers, who have a demonstrated history of safe driving, should be able to treat red lights as 4-way stops. That means they have to come to a complete stop. Obviously certain intersections would not permit this. We're talking two lanes intersecting with two lanes.
If you are too lazy or stupid to understand the distinction between that and running a red light, well that's on you.
And yes, I did advocate having a single beer while driving. You'd be under the legal limit, and any effects it would have would be no different than drinking a red bull or talking to someone in the car or changing your radio station, all perfectly legal activities.
Detail and distinction. Brush up on those instead of rush to judgment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rainman3277
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
| rainman3277 wrote: |
If you can't beat'm, join'm, and I sure do.
I love the parking here and take full advantage of being able to park just about anywhere. I don't park on sidewalks or places that endanger pedestrians, but I find a nice free curb space and settle down.
Back home there is so much prohibited parking and fee'd parking its ridiculous. And that's in a city with 5million, not 20. |
Ive dont understood that logic (re: if y6ou cant beat em...). If youve lived in korea long enough, youll know most people have feck all respect for other peoples property. If you park your car somewhere thats obstructing, it will get scratched - why inflict that on yourself?
Whats worse is the hypocrisy towards bikes which actually use up less space.
Quite often when I tried to park my motorbike in a space where it wasnt obstructing anything or taking a car space, people would attempt to drag it somewhere else or push it over (I really dont know what the feck they were doing...), but the result was the same - either it would end up on its arse or with someone balling at me.
My car gets parked sensibly, I dont want to go home bringing the negative shit circle that is Korea with me in my mind or habits. |
Logic is that Koreans won't change their parking habits, so I'm going to take advantage of the chaos. Why inflict it on myself? Cause I own a beater, with good reason. You're right about damaging others property.
And I guess I'm not as weak minded as you. I don't bring bad habits with me when I go home. When I get home its, waving people in, holding doors for others, ladies first, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
le-paul
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="rainman3277"][quote="le-paul"]
| rainman3277 wrote: |
And I guess I'm not as weak minded as you. I don't bring bad habits with me when I go home. When I get home its, waving people in, holding doors for others, ladies first, etc. |
Maybe not as weak minded, but you sure do seem to be a bit of a coward making snide, unnecessary comments like that while you hide anonymously on an internet forum. Or perhaps you dont do that when you are with people in public in case someone bitch slaps you? I dont know, youre not as weak as me...
Its christmas anyway, try chilling out a bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
That's not the case for the subways, though, is it?
The talk about privatizing KTX has come because it's had more than its share of problems, at least in the view of many.
But for a country still technically at war, trains are a security issue and probably should remain publicly run. |
No rational private company is going to pay to make a subway, infrastructure and all. The start-up costs to build the infrastructure for a subway in an urban area is just too expensive to rationalize it. It's always going to be the government paying to build the infrastructure first, then they'll get a system running before they decide to privatize it. Also, you'll be hard pressed to find a completely privately run subway system anywhere in the world. I guess Japan being an exception, but the vast majority of the infrastructure was funded by the government, and many lines (the actual metal rails, and the stations) are still owned by the government.
Also, you'll be hard pressed to find an urban rail system that can actually turn a profit without any government support. Even in the US, the supposed hotbed of the free-market, I don't think there are any privately owned subway system.
As for national rail, an argument can be made for it to be privatized, but again it's largely the government that builds the infrastructure initially. And privatizing comes at a huge political cost.
| atwood wrote: |
I'm pretty sure only the JR Line was privatized. There have been numerous privately owned rail companies in Japan since the early 20th century. Privatization was good, in my opinion, because the debt that the government was taking on, because of trying to expand the tracks, was making the economy worse.
I guess the only drawback would be that having more tracks will make getting to Seoul easier which would be bad for other cities. This is the problem that Japan is facing with the "all roads lead to Tokyo" causing populations in other cities to dwindle. So, Korea could face the same problem as more and more people would be able to commute to Seoul faster and easier. |
Yes, only the JR Lines was privatized, and is by far the largest system in Japan. The other private lines are tiny, and serve specific routes. Also, most of them started in that post-war era, and were given massive land-property incentives. I think it would be difficult to get a completely brand new private company to build their own rail line. They may buy one and expand on it. But starting from scratch is virtually impossible without government support.
So a lot of government money goes into building the infrastructure, and much of the public just don't like it going to private companies. Kind of like air travel. But I do agree that it is expensive to maintain a system, and it seems Korea is trying to build up it's social-welfare system. So, sometime down the road they will have to make hard decisions. Public Rail vs Public medicare, etc... |
Second quote wasn't me, but no sweat.
As for the subways, who built the subway to Yongin that was being stopped by the Yongin mayor from operating because he didn't think Yongin should pay?
| Quote: |
| The City of Yongin awarded the 35-year concession contract to include five years of design/build and up to 30 years of operations and maintenance (O&M) services in 2004 |
I guess Bombardier was building it for Yongin so in that sense not really private. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| SHGator428 wrote: |
As opposed to you, the guy that supports running red lights (with some good driver point system) and has said on more than one occasion that you drink and drive purposefully. |
Wrong- I do not support running red lights. I said that drivers, who have a demonstrated history of safe driving, should be able to treat red lights as 4-way stops. That means they have to come to a complete stop. Obviously certain intersections would not permit this. We're talking two lanes intersecting with two lanes.
If you are too lazy or stupid to understand the distinction between that and running a red light, well that's on you.
And yes, I did advocate having a single beer while driving. You'd be under the legal limit, and any effects it would have would be no different than drinking a red bull or talking to someone in the car or changing your radio station, all perfectly legal activities.
Detail and distinction. Brush up on those instead of rush to judgment. |
The above post shows a decided lack of judgment. (But does contain a fulsome serving of srBS.)  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHGator428
Joined: 05 Sep 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| SHGator428 wrote: |
As opposed to you, the guy that supports running red lights (with some good driver point system) and has said on more than one occasion that you drink and drive purposefully. |
Wrong- I do not support running red lights. I said that drivers, who have a demonstrated history of safe driving, should be able to treat red lights as 4-way stops. That means they have to come to a complete stop. Obviously certain intersections would not permit this. We're talking two lanes intersecting with two lanes.
If you are too lazy or stupid to understand the distinction between that and running a red light, well that's on you.
And yes, I did advocate having a single beer while driving. You'd be under the legal limit, and any effects it would have would be no different than drinking a red bull or talking to someone in the car or changing your radio station, all perfectly legal activities.
Detail and distinction. Brush up on those instead of rush to judgment. |
The above post shows a decided lack of judgment. (But does contain a fulsome serving of srBS.) |
I didn't expect any less. There was a feeble attempt to spin things around and justify, yet the admission of supporting and doing those things was still there. It's laughable watching this guy dance around chasing his own tail all the while thinking "I really got him with that". |
|
| 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
