|
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 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
That's a pretty absurd claim when you either totally missed or, more likely, chose to avoid the central point of my post.
You harp on and on citing hypothetical examples of multi passenger journeys, despite the fact I have previously provided you (more than once,) with statistics which show the vast majority of automobile journeys (in both Seoul and the US,) are single occupant.
|
We went into that study. It was pretty clear that it was bunk. It used numbers from 2004 (before a great expansion in public transportation) and was cited by an anti-traffic lobby group. And as was said, it didn't detail why those cars were single occupant. Without any investigation into motivation, its hard to draw conclusions that such journeys are inefficient.
| Quote: |
| My claim is not that nobody will ever need a car. My claim, which you consistently choose to ignore, is that many journeys currently made in private vehicles could be more efficiently made on public transport. |
We also have to look into what constitutes "efficiency". It's not more efficient if you come home soaked in the rain or are unable to perform your job duties or exhausted from having to carry your baby all over town. An accountant may think so, the rest of us do not.
| Quote: |
The provision for road space for everybody to make every journey by car results in numerous negative consequences in an urban context. Many of which I mentioned, and you ignored, in my last post.
The results are clear by comparing two very similar, yet vastly different, cities. Seoul is designed with throughput of vehicular traffic as a primary concern. As a result, air quality is poor, pedestrian amenity and sense of place is very low. Seoul always ranks poorly in the various "liveable city" indices. Tokyo, on the other hand, is built around a comprehensive rail network with much less provision for private vehicles. As a result, neighbourhoods are pleasant for those choosing non automotive modes, air quality is far better than Seoul and Tokyo regularly tops "liveable city" indices.
|
The problem here is your concept of urban planning and how cities come about. They don't spring up in SimCity map mode with unlimited money thanks to CallCousinVinny. You have to pay for them with taxes and a limited budget. These things take time. They are built on existing developments that stretch back hundreds of years. Yes, development plans and modifications can take place, but there is still a foundation of pre-existing work. Changes often have to be made piecemeal and projections of the future are often imperfect at best. They also have to deal with local government and private business, not the whims of a single urban planner and his or her team.
Comparing Japan to Seoul is ridiculous. Tokyo opened its 11th line in 1978. At the time, the GDP per capita of Korea was $1,468. Japan's was $8.675. South Korea's military expenditures have been around 2.5X that of Japan's, thanks to North Korea. It quite simply didn't have the resouces to engage in the kind of urban planning that Japan did. Seoul reached the population of 10 million (where it has approximately remained at) in 1990. South Korea's GDP per capita at the time was $6,642 compared to $25,123 for Japan (South Korea's current GDP). Seoul's line 5 didn't open until 1995. There simply wasn't the resources and capital to construct a Tokyo-level public transportation system and to facilitate the kind of infrastructure that would enable it to thrive. Since then, Korea has taken steps to ameliorate the problem, but there is still the underlying nature of the population boom relative to GDP. Money doesn't grow on trees. Public transportation and massive urban redevelopment costs money. You can't just bulldoze neighborhoods and seize private property or destroy roads and wreck businesses that depend on those roads. As far as "livability", transportation is but one element of that. There are a host of other factors that go into livability. It is not simply the public transportation system in Tokyo that goes into it. I have never lived in Tokyo, and I hear the public transportation system is excellent. I also hear that they nonetheless, still have problems with traffic.
| Quote: |
| If everybody needs a car as you claim, how do you propose cities ameliorate the negative effects this would inflict on a city's sense of place? |
I never said everybody needs a car. I said that people who own them and use them often have very good reasons for doing so. Yes, there are some rich people who flaunt their BMWs, but that's a small minority compared to the majority who use them for very practical purposes.
For starter's I might look at other way's to improve a city's "sense of place" (whatever the heck that means- sure sounds subjective). Ideally a city should be great at everything, but in the real world this might not be possible. Perhaps look into other areas where improvements can be made. Of course, that doesn't mean that traffic and public transportation can't be improved. I'm sure some roads could be redesigned. Additional subway stops/lines could be opened. The addition of more express lines, like Line 9, could certainly help. Perhaps extending the AREX from Seoul station to say, Gangnam and then Jamsil might help. Perhaps some public parking structures located next to AREX/Express subway stops would encourage people to park and ride. A 2nd level on top of Gangbyeon and the Olympic expressways that only has ingress and no egress and goes straight to the highways might help. It would be a real pain to construct, so I'm not sure its feasible. Trams that ferry people back and forth across some of the bridges might help. However, all these projects cost money and might encounter elements of resistance. This doesn't exist in a vacuum. Every dollar spent on improving traffic is a dollar not spent on schools or parks or health care or something else.
At the end of the day however, you have significant numbers of families, seniors, and handicapped people, as well as things like snow/rain/dust/hills to deal with. People have to transport heavy materials or go from rural to urban areas in the course of their business. People are going to drive. These aren't "extreme hypotheticals" as you once put it, but rather a massive chunk of the population of Seoul and what they have to deal with. Not everyone is a single, able-bodied adult with no children, who lives conveniently next to the subway. Even the best public transportation system will have gaps.
It's not that your goals are bad, I just think you are overlooking some significant factors. You seem to view things through a narrow lens and overlook people who drive because their livelihood or because its more efficient for them. Families exist. Manual laborers exist. People who have to go from site to site as part of their job exist. Heavy equipment exists. Weather exists.
This isn't a black and white issue. It's one of grey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Smithington
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Who's your daddy, I see your location is Victoria, BC. Now there's a chill place to drive. And the most mannered drivers on the planet. If they see someone even approaching a crosswalk they start slowing down about 30 feet back. The contrast between Victoria's driving culture and anywhere in Korea (even small cities) is night and day. I've lived mostly in large towns in Korea and I take my life in my hands every time I get on my bicycle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sister Ray
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Location: Fukuoka
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Perhaps some public parking structures located next to AREX/Express subway stops would encourage people to park and ride. A 2nd level on top of Gangbyeon and the Olympic expressways that only has ingress and no egress and goes straight to the highways might help.
|
The fact that you can seriously suggest a park and ride facility be built near stations in urban Seoul and double decking a riverside highway clearly shows how out of touch you are with accepted best practice regarding urban development in the 21st century.
You say it is impossible to compare Seoul and Tokyo. However, I disagree. They are similar cities that chose different primary means of urban transit. Seoul, you argue, was too poor and couldn't develop railways? This is clearly false. There is no shortage of infrastructure in Seoul. The problem is Seoul chose to prioritise the private automobile. This has resulted in the city's current urban form, huge 14 or 16 lane monster roads running through neighbourhoods. The negative consequences of which I'm sure I don't need to explain again.
If you are confused by the term "sense of place", compare two similar business, entertainment and transport nodes in each city; Gangnam Stn. and Shinjuku Stn. One built around a network of huge roads, one built around a network of rail lines. Gangnamdaero is jammed with traffic, pretty much around the clock.The wider area is effectively severed by several mega roads, which offer poor amenity to drivers - as they are constantly congested - and destroy pedestrian amenity by creating huge obstacles to free movement.
Shinjuku, by contrast, is relatively traffic free. Most vehicles on the roads are taxis. Very few people choose to drive a private motor vehicle to this area. As a result, roads are much, much smaller, air quality far better, noise much lower and pedestrian amenity is far higher. This all makes Shinjuku a far more successful urban space than Gangnam. This is why I dislike cars as the primary transport mode in an urban context. As I've said before, cars destroy cities. The more cars you cater for within an urban environment, the worse that environment becomes for everybody not in a car - which for most of the day - is nearly everybody. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Perhaps some public parking structures located next to AREX/Express subway stops would encourage people to park and ride. A 2nd level on top of Gangbyeon and the Olympic expressways that only has ingress and no egress and goes straight to the highways might help.
|
The fact that you can seriously suggest a park and ride facility be built near stations in urban Seoul and double decking a riverside highway clearly shows how out of touch you are with accepted best practice regarding urban development in the 21st century.
You say it is impossible to compare Seoul and Tokyo. However, I disagree. They are similar cities that chose different primary means of urban transit. Seoul, you argue, was too poor and couldn't develop railways? This is clearly false. There is no shortage of infrastructure in Seoul. The problem is Seoul chose to prioritise the private automobile. This has resulted in the city's current urban form, huge 14 or 16 lane monster roads running through neighbourhoods. The negative consequences of which I'm sure I don't need to explain again.
If you are confused by the term "sense of place", compare two similar business, entertainment and transport nodes in each city; Gangnam Stn. and Shinjuku Stn. One built around a network of huge roads, one built around a network of rail lines. Gangnamdaero is jammed with traffic, pretty much around the clock.The wider area is effectively severed by several mega roads, which offer poor amenity to drivers - as they are constantly congested - and destroy pedestrian amenity by creating huge obstacles to free movement.
Shinjuku, by contrast, is relatively traffic free. Most vehicles on the roads are taxis. Very few people choose to drive a private motor vehicle to this area. As a result, roads are much, much smaller, air quality far better, noise much lower and pedestrian amenity is far higher. This all makes Shinjuku a far more successful urban space than Gangnam. This is why I dislike cars as the primary transport mode in an urban context. As I've said before, cars destroy cities. The more cars you cater for within an urban environment, the worse that environment becomes for everybody not in a car - which for most of the day - is nearly everybody. |
I'd say there's a lot less driving in Tokyo because of rip off prices and too high cost of living that keeps most folks poor. Also, the infrastructure is poor. A 4 lane (two lanes each way) expressway with tolls that I'm told cost 200 bucks or something like that to drive to Osaka. Hardly adequate for a city of 30 million. Seoul, at least has a multilane expressway - 10 lanes going into it. Even with this the traffic can get bad. I couldn't imagine if there were Tokyo style roads how hellish it would be. Prices in Seoul are going up, but until recently folks in Seoul were richer in some ways than Tokyo due to an unridiculous cost of living.
WheneverI come up from the provinces and get into Seoul the 5 lanes going in each direction does get backed up. Fortunately, one lane is for buses which I am on. No way, I'd drive through Seoul. You really don't need to as the subway and bus links are good. But out in the provinces, you often do need a car. The mid sized cities are terrible, especially if they have had growth and new areas spring up. For example, all the buses still ride the old routes based on the design of the town from 30 years ago. If I want to go from my home to school, I'd have to take a bus to the downtown, transfer, go to another area, transfer, and then walk quite a ways. It would take me over an hour - maybe an hour and 15 minutes in the morning. If they had more direct buses going around the city,it could prob cut my travel time down to 30 minutes. So, it forces me to use a car and drive in about 22 minutes. (I'd prob do it in 7 or 8 minutes without the Korean style traffic.)
Going from city to city is decent, but does get traffic backed going into Seoul on weekends, by bus. Rural areas, most folks still live in the center of the towns so the buses still run through these areas. Reading hanguel makes it easy to get around and to rural schools. In Seoul, the subways cross secting meeting with the buses also make it easy if not long sometimes. Regional and other metropolitan cities can be quite the hassle as the buses for some reason don't change their routes even when the living patterns change. No way, I'm travelling an hour and 15 minutes back and forth each day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Let me just add most US cities and some Canadian cities often have expressways going through them so you can bypass city streets and get from one side of town to the other more quickly. Korean cities outside of Seoul generally don't have this feature so your driving on city streets. Hence the traffic jams and folks driving too slow. On the bright side, the KTX is finally opening more lines across the country making it quicker to get to Seoul without long bus rides and without the inconvenience of traffic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sister Ray
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Location: Fukuoka
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Weigookin74 wrote: |
I'd say there's a lot less driving in Tokyo because of rip off prices and too high cost of living that keeps most folks poor. Also, the infrastructure is poor. A 4 lane (two lanes each way) expressway with tolls that I'm told cost 200 bucks or something like that to drive to Osaka. Hardly adequate for a city of 30 million. |
Ha ha, okay, we can probably safely discount anything else you have to say on the matter as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Tokyo almost certainly has the best infrastructure of any city in the world.
Why on earth would you drive from Tokyo to Osaka when you can take the shinkansen, which would be faster and cheaper? Both Tokyo and Osaka have public transport networks the rest of the world can only dream about. There are very few journeys (by percentage,) where a private vehicle will be the better option. And $200 for an expressway trip probably comes closer to the actual, real cost of such a journey than the subsidised private transport of the New World.
A lot of commenters clearly grew up in the suburban US or the wastelands of Canada and cannot comprehend alternative transport paradigms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Sister Ray wrote: |
The trouble with every family wanting a car
|
Again, you really don't get it. Family's don't just WANT cars, they NEED cars. You obviously don't have the real life experience of taking along 2 kids, plus groceries for a family of 4 and doing it on the bus and subway in the rain/snow/heat. Your job hasn't required you to go from site to site on a regular basis and haul around some sort of heavy equipment to do so. You don't have relatives that you have to regularly visit that live in areas that aren't easily accessible by public transportation. You don't have any physical ailments that make walking around town an arduous task. If you did, you'd realize that driving a car isn't just a want, it is often a need. |
Yup, I like this list. We have a car... but mostly don't want one. We "need" one as part of our family needs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
The fact that you can seriously suggest a park and ride facility be built near stations in urban Seoul and double decking a riverside highway clearly shows how out of touch you are with accepted best practice regarding urban development in the 21st century.
|
I say this as someone with practical experience of driving in Seoul, not theoretical academic knowledge. I live in an area with relatively mild traffic congestion, however due to the distance of my place to the nearest subway station, and the unpredictability of bus times, I occasionally opt to take a car for certain trips that would otherwise be taken by public transport. Now, if I could drive my car and park it by the subway station, I would only drive a short distance. This matters in a city like Seoul, where despite a solid subway system, certain areas are still faster to get at by car than by public transport.
Other times, I might drive my car out of Seoul to another city. Usually I take the KTX, but sometimes I have to haul stuff or I might carpool. In that case I have to drive. I am not restricted to a bus/train schedule as well. A second-level highway with the express purpose of getting people out of the city (I know its probably impossible because it would involve shutting down one of the two highways) to funnel traffic out of town would free up the expressway for traffic within Seoul AND alleviate people from driving on city streets to get OUT of Seoul. It wouldn't add additional traffic to streets INSIDE of Seoul.
| Quote: |
| You say it is impossible to compare Seoul and Tokyo. However, I disagree. They are similar cities that chose different primary means of urban transit. Seoul, you argue, was too poor and couldn't develop railways? This is clearly false. There is no shortage of infrastructure in Seoul. |
I cited GDP data and public transportation development and population growth numbers. You seem to think money grows on trees and public transportation is the only thing the government spends money on.
| Quote: |
| This has resulted in the city's current urban form, huge 14 or 16 lane monster roads running through neighbourhoods. The negative consequences of which I'm sure I don't need to explain again. |
Uhm, those roads are relatively few and far between. I can think of a few in Gangnam, maybe some near Gwanghwamun, and I can't really think of too many others. I think your perceptions and outrage are clouding your ability to objectively analyze the actual road conditions in Seoul.
Also, they perform an additional function. Unlike Tokyo, main roads in Seoul need to be able to do things like be able facilitate an armored brigade of tanks rolling through them. You know, that whole DMZ not too far away thing? Same with the highways. They need to be able to move troops/have airplanes land on them in the event that the airbase nearby has been bombed. That and the Han River being a major defensive line, someplace just south of the river like, I dunno, GANGNAM might be critical for moving tanks and crap through streets. Did you even consider the military implications when it came to transportation?
| Quote: |
| Gangnam Stn. and Shinjuku Stn. One built around a network of huge roads, one built around a network of rail lines. Gangnamdaero is jammed with traffic, pretty much around the clock.The wider area is effectively severed by several mega roads, which offer poor amenity to drivers - as they are constantly congested - and destroy pedestrian amenity by creating huge obstacles to free movement. |
You can get around Gangnam Station just fine by subway, car, or foot. For goodness sakes.
| Quote: |
| A lot of commenters clearly grew up in the suburban US or the wastelands of Canada and cannot comprehend alternative transport paradigms. |
And you can't seem to comprehend that not everyone is single, able-bodied with no kids, and doesn't need to haul heavy equipment to work, and that it's not okay for them to show up drenched in rain/sweat and conduct their work, and has plenty of time to waste using public transport to satisfy someone's ideal dream of a city.
I use public transportation just fine. Like I said, I often use the KTX. SOMETIMES I drive. There are pros and cons to both. It is all not all one way or the other. You seem to think it is, but then you live in Urban fantasy land where people all have office jobs and don't do things like farm or operate heavy equipment or have children.
This all reminds of Rodney Dangerfield in back to school.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM
Those of us bringing up things like kids, heavy objects, limited time, and people with disabilities are pointing out the difference between the real world and your academic theoretical urban planning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| Weigookin74 wrote: |
I'd say there's a lot less driving in Tokyo because of rip off prices and too high cost of living that keeps most folks poor. Also, the infrastructure is poor. A 4 lane (two lanes each way) expressway with tolls that I'm told cost 200 bucks or something like that to drive to Osaka. Hardly adequate for a city of 30 million. |
Ha ha, okay, we can probably safely discount anything else you have to say on the matter as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Tokyo almost certainly has the best infrastructure of any city in the world.
Why on earth would you drive from Tokyo to Osaka when you can take the shinkansen, which would be faster and cheaper? Both Tokyo and Osaka have public transport networks the rest of the world can only dream about. There are very few journeys (by percentage,) where a private vehicle will be the better option. And $200 for an expressway trip probably comes closer to the actual, real cost of such a journey than the subsidised private transport of the New World.
A lot of commenters clearly grew up in the suburban US or the wastelands of Canada and cannot comprehend alternative transport paradigms. |
I hardly think a 4 lane expressway is adequate for a city of 30 million people. So, maybe you don't know what you're talking about. Even the ridiculous tolls in New Jersey where you bring a large bag of quarters or a high credit limit don't charge Japanese rates. As for the real cost of highways, that's why we pay fuel tax. From what I can tell, under the glitz of Tokyo, poverty is the real reason that most people don't drive. It costs an arm and a leg there. Japan's been in a depression for more than 20 years. Seoul has just as many subways as Tokyo. Both Seoul and Tokyo are hot and humid. As for Seoul's less clear skies, it's partly crap from China and it's partly humidity that comes from being so close to the sea on 3 sides. Tokyo though close to the sea as a broader Pacific Ocean, higher mountains (in Japan) and the East Sea is a much cooler body of water. The skies here take on a whitish tint except for the winds come and blow away the humid sea air and Chinese pollution. Japan and Tokyo is further away from that.
New York city has a larger suburban sprawl with more vehicles on the roads going into the suburban parts into the city than In Seoul. They have a larger port too. Why is there not more pollution in New York City? Polluted air isn't blowing down from Canada. But Seoul does have it blowing in from China. I would much rather drive in Korea than in Japan. My friend drove acrosss the country and told me of the 200 tolls. He tried to take the regular roads but were single lane and woefully inadequate. At least Korea has more multilane roads even in the countryside making it much more smooth of a drive. The city centers outside of Seoul are of course still a pain with high traffic due to a lack of city center expressways and too many cars in a small area. But, Japan is probably going to really drive youcrazy literally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sister Ray
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Location: Fukuoka
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
I say this as someone with practical experience of driving in Seoul, not theoretical academic knowledge.
|
Well, perhaps if you had more knowledge than just the fact that you have driven a car before, you'd know the solutions you are suggesting, park and ride and double decker expressways, will not solve anything. It is a phenomenon known as induced demand, which basically means the more space you provide for cars, the more cars will fill that space. You can't build your way out of congestion with ever widening roadways. This is one reason why Seoul is more congested than Tokyo despite its more far more generous carriageways.
| Steelrails wrote: |
Uhm, those roads are relatively few and far between.
Also, they perform an additional function. Unlike Tokyo, main roads in Seoul need to be able to do things like be able facilitate an armored brigade of tanks rolling through them. Did you even consider the military implications when it came to transportation?
|
Okay, no need to shout, Field Marshall. If these large scale roads are few and far between, as you claim, how much use can they be as military infrastructure?
However, as anyone who has ever lived in Seoul knows, they are not few and far between at all. Large multi lane roads dominate Seoul's urban environment. They are a planning choice by Seoul City and I do not believe facilitating movement of "armoured brigades" is the reason why they made that choice.
| Steelrails wrote: |
You can get around Gangnam Station just fine by subway, car, or foot. For goodness sakes.
|
I'm not suggesting Gangnam Stn. is some unpassable quagmire, however all three modes you mentioned are better catered for in Shinjuku. Gangnam is congested as hell, making driving unpleasant, has wide streets with poor pedestrian phasing and terrible air pollution, making walking unpleasant and is connected to only a small handful of subway lines making rail a less efficient option than Shinjuku. Basically, it fails for every mode.
You can't design cities based on anecdotes of a salesman you once heard about who needed a car to do his job. You need to look at real cities and see what what solutions provide the best outcomes. As cities get bigger and bigger, the private automobile seems less and less relevant to catering to mass transport demands within an urban environment.
Here endeth the sermon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Weigookin74 wrote: |
| New York city has a larger suburban sprawl with more vehicles on the roads going into the suburban parts into the city than In Seoul. They have a larger port too. Why is there not more pollution in New York City? Polluted air isn't blowing down from Canada. But Seoul does have it blowing in from China. I would much rather drive in Korea than in Japan. My friend drove acrosss the country and told me of the 200 tolls. He tried to take the regular roads but were single lane and woefully inadequate. At least Korea has more multilane roads even in the countryside making it much more smooth of a drive. The city centers outside of Seoul are of course still a pain with high traffic due to a lack of city center expressways and too many cars in a small area. But, Japan is probably going to really drive youcrazy literally. |
I'm pretty sure this isn't true, unless you're counting places that aren't in the city as "suburban parts of the city". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
Well, perhaps if you had more knowledge than just the fact that you have driven a car before, you'd know the solutions you are suggesting, park and ride and double decker expressways, will not solve anything. It is a phenomenon known as induced demand, which basically means the more space you provide for cars, the more cars will fill that space. You can't build your way out of congestion with ever widening roadways. This is one reason why Seoul is more congested than Tokyo despite its more far more generous carriageways.
|
Again, you are talking like someone quoting academic theory instead of practical driving experience. Not everything follows the textbook! Speaking from experience, one reason I do drive is that in some cases, public transportation does not allow me to efficiently get to my destination. Just because public transportation is more efficient in the AGGREGATE, does not mean that it is ALWAYS more efficient. Systems such as park and ride can serve to persuade people to make short car trips and longer public transportation trips, rather than longer car trips.
Again, NOT EVERYTHING FOLLOWS THE CLASSROOM.
| Quote: |
| Okay, no need to shout, Field Marshall. If these large scale roads are few and far between, as you claim, how much use can they be as military infrastructure? |
They are not rampant as you claim, but there are enough main ones. You do realize that the whole reason highways were created was for military transport, right? You do realize that highways double as airstrips, right?Now, maybe in your academic fantasy land, things like a heavily militarized state separated by the most heavily armed border in the world don't come into play, but here they do. Sorry you were to wrapped up in academia and theory to even consider the military applications of roads. Yeah, those Swedish highway stretches that could turn into airstrips seem like a waste of money now, until you realize Sweden was afraid that the Warsaw Pact might invade it. That's not some crazy hypothetical. That's real stuff. Countries were able to fend off invasion because their air forces could operate out of improvised landing strips.
But go ahead, dismiss transportation for the military as a stupid wasteful irrelevancy, simply because you want to walk your dog in quiet and cross the road to go buy some organic fruit.
| Quote: |
| However, as anyone who has ever lived in Seoul knows, they are not few and far between at all. Large multi lane roads dominate Seoul's urban environment. They are a planning choice by Seoul City and I do not believe facilitating movement of "armoured brigades" is the reason why they made that choice. |
I live in Seoul. There are not 14 lane roads dominating the landscape. There are main 8 lane arteries around, but 14 lane roads are few and far between. And for every 8 lane road, there are a bunch of two or three lanes. I know. I drive in Seoul.
| Quote: |
| I'm not suggesting Gangnam Stn. is some unpassable quagmire, however all three modes you mentioned are better catered for in Shinjuku. Gangnam is congested as hell, making driving unpleasant, has wide streets with poor pedestrian phasing and terrible air pollution, making walking unpleasant and is connected to only a small handful of subway lines making rail a less efficient option than Shinjuku. Basically, it fails for every mode. |
I have drive through Gangnam. Is it the highway between Jinju and Masan? No. Is it the congested netherworld you claim it is? No. The air ain't the greatest, but its not LA circa 1992 either. As far as rail is concerned, Gangnam is not the center you are making out to be. Not everything in Seoul is Gangnam. Gangnam stations needs maybe, one more line- connected to the AREX. You've got the Line 9 express to Shinnohyeon. Not everyone is going to Gangnam. You are overemphasizing Gangnam.
| Quote: |
| You can't design cities based on anecdotes of a salesman you once heard about who needed a car to do his job. |
Yes, families, working people, and the disabled are "anecdotes". You can't design cities based around single, able-bodied adults either. Please, stop looking at things through your narrow perspective. Not everyone lives right next to a subway station, has no kids, just goes to the office, and never does regular trips to the countryside to visit their relatives.
GO BACK TO ACADEMIA FANTASY LAND.
| Quote: |
| You need to look at real cities and see what what solutions provide the best outcomes. |
You need to look at how cities REALLY come into being and REAL money and REAL democratic processes. Stop with your SimCity concepts of urban planning. Tokyo uniquely benefited from good money and a chance to be an early adapter. Shinjuku isn't Tokyo. Its a big part, but it isn't the city any more than Wall Street is what makes NYC. Has it ever occurred to you that YOU are the one with flawed concepts and preconceived notions? I don't subscribe to North American automobile culture and embrace many elements of public transportation, but I realize it has its limits and that many people who drive have darn good reasons for doing so. I also understand that cities aren't planned from scratch with unlimited money and no political consequences. You seem to be unable to grasp those concepts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sister Ray, since you're such the expert on infrastructure in Seoul, care to explain the distinguishing feature of the bridges in Seoul on the Han River and why they exist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Systems such as park and ride can serve to persuade people to make short car trips and longer public transportation trips, rather than longer car trips.
Again, NOT EVERYTHING FOLLOWS THE CLASSROOM.
|
Not everything follows the life of one person either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Not everything follows the life of one person either. |
Get out of here with your logic!
Over the years Dave's has taught me that if you see something happen, or feel strongly about something, your account and opinion of the events is fact. From this I have learned that 100% of Koreans spit literally everywhere, cough and sneeze in each others' faces daily and kill 1.3 pedestrians a day, evolution is a fairy tale dreamed up by a huge conspiracy of corrupt scientists seeking fame, and medieval accounts of dragons were actually dinosaurs which have co-existed with mankind for the past 6000 years - the age of the Earth - around which the Sun revolves and I'll be damned if any stinkin' logic or data or statistics get in the way of my views! |
|
| 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
