| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kiwiduncan
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Location: New Zealand
|
 Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: Korea Herald comes out against new road building |
 |
|
Well, they may have one of the crappiest cartoons in the world in the form of Ssomi and Hobo, but at least the KH voices some good opinions sometimes.
| Quote: |
[EDITORIAL] Road density
The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs is planning to start yet another expressway project linking Gyeonggi and Gangwon provinces within this year. Nearly 1 trillion won ($1 billion) has been set aside for the construction of the 2nd Yeongdong Expressway, which will involve severe damage to nature along the picturesque hilly terrain east of Seoul.
As usual, ministry officials cite various kinds of benefits from the projected road, such as the reduction of huge transportation costs resulting from shorter travel time and stimulation of local development. But a growing number of environmentally-conscious people wonder these days if these supposed economic gains are really worth the merciless destruction of nature by mutilating and drilling through mountains and laying long concrete bridges across fields as current practices involve.
Construction authorities, who have an insatiable thirst for road building, allege that Korea still lags behind most OECD countries in road transportation infrastructure with only 2.1 kilometers of motorway per 1,000 people. Yet, environmental groups assert that road density should be considered by comparing total extension of roads to the total area of the territory instead of population. In the expressway per area figures, Korea is already ranked sixth among OECD nations and in overall extension of motorways the nation is known to be roughly on par with Britain and Japan.
Without the need to argue with figures, one can see the result of excessive investment in highways while driving through newly-built routes. There is no car running ahead or behind you but you still see numerous road construction works underway across and sometimes in parallel to the one you are on.
Everyone should seriously consider whether it is justified to damage the landscape so heavily just to shorten travel time by half an hour or less. Each time a new highway project is announced, we are struck with the worry that our central and local authorities might be unnecessarily influenced by the construction business lobby. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Quack Addict
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They need to do something...rush hour in Korea is from 3pm to 10pm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiduncan
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The editorial was actually about building a long distance highway. But in terms of urban traffic then doing more to promote public transport, walking and cycling and encouraging staggered work times would make much more sense than building more roads.
Governments around the world, including in New Zealand I must note, are still stupidly building more roads rather than offering sustainable transport solutions. Korea just seems to offer one of the most extreme examples of this. It seems especially stupid and short-sighted here in Korea given their 100% dependence on imported oil and a high population density.
Korea Sinking |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chicoloco
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Location: In the ring.
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Governments around the world, including in New Zealand I must note, are still stupidly building more roads rather than offering sustainable transport solutions. |
But Auckland really needs an alternative to the Harbour Bridge! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NightSky
Joined: 19 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| actually it's ridiculous, what is there, like, a four lane highway going into Seoul?? to a city of that size? compare that to Toronto which is a tiny city by comparison and even they have six lanes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sojukettle
Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Location: Not there, HERE!
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The preferred option for a new harbour crossing in Auckland is four tunnels that do not compromise council plans to redevelop the city's harbour front.
Two of the tunnels will be part of State Highway 1 with three lanes northbound and three lanes southbound in total. The other two are for electric trains.
The price tag is a whopping $3.7 billion and $4.1b for a "preferred option".
Another option with longer motorway tunnels through to central city Grafton Gully has a price tag of $4.7b to $5.1b.
Today's media release by Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Council, Auckland Regional Transport Authority, North Shore City Council and Transit New Zealand did not say who would pay.
Up until now the front runner idea for a new harbour crossing had been a new bridge. The problem was that the best place for it on the city side was the Wynyard Quarter, an area councils want to develop into an upscale new harbour front suburb.
But Auckland really needs an alternative to the Harbour Bridge! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
