Comments on: No Longer Pie in the Sky http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/ Korea... in Blog Format Fri, 9 Jan 2009 06:58:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Sunset for the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family « The Grand Narrative http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-184489 Sunset for the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family « The Grand Narrative Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:52:38 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/#comment-184489 [...] think too highly of his devoting Seoul to God as mayor, or of his persistence in wanting to build a cross-country canal either, but at least in the latter case he is fulfilling his pre-election [...] [...] think too highly of his devoting Seoul to God as mayor, or of his persistence in wanting to build a cross-country canal either, but at least in the latter case he is fulfilling his pre-election [...]

]]> By: dokdoforever http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-127492 dokdoforever Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:16:16 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/#comment-127492 Linkd - that's surprising, I didn't expect that. Why wouldn't they ship to Incheon, and then to Seoul, rather than through Pusan? Maybe they should focus instead on improving port infrastructure and transportation between Incheon and Seoul. Linkd - that’s surprising, I didn’t expect that. Why wouldn’t they ship to Incheon, and then to Seoul, rather than through Pusan? Maybe they should focus instead on improving port infrastructure and transportation between Incheon and Seoul.

]]> By: Linkd http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-127396 Linkd Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:42:03 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/#comment-127396 "the cost of moving oil from Pusan to Taegu is pretty insignificant compared to the cost of moving it from Kuwait to Pusan." You'd think, wouldn't you? I started up a little side venture last year importing flax seed (key word: Omega-3)from Saskatchewan. Looking at everything I pay for logistics, about two thirds is spent getting it to Pusan, one third is spent getting it to Seoul. Don't know about oil. As for riverfront beauty, 2MB is from that generation where the sight of barges, cranes, busy ports and smokestacks is beauty itself. There's a whole generation of General Park nostalgists who agree with him. “the cost of moving oil from Pusan to Taegu is pretty insignificant compared to the cost of moving it from Kuwait to Pusan.”

You’d think, wouldn’t you? I started up a little side venture last year importing flax seed (key word: Omega-3)from Saskatchewan. Looking at everything I pay for logistics, about two thirds is spent getting it to Pusan, one third is spent getting it to Seoul. Don’t know about oil.

As for riverfront beauty, 2MB is from that generation where the sight of barges, cranes, busy ports and smokestacks is beauty itself. There’s a whole generation of General Park nostalgists who agree with him.

]]> By: dokdoforever http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-127391 dokdoforever Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:22:54 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/#comment-127391 Yes, canal transportation is cheaper and more eco-friendly, especially if mules are pulling the barges. But, consider the downside - time - they're slow. So, you only use them to ship cheap, heavy, stuff, that can take a long time to get to its destination, such as, grain, chemicals, coal, oil. Your I beams probably need to get to the construction site on a tight schedule, and thus wouldn't make it on the barge. Relatively speaking, the cost of moving oil from Pusan to Taegu (50 miles) is pretty insignificant compared to the cost of moving it several thousand miles from Kuwait to Pusan. In the US, that's not true, it's over a thousand miles from New Orleans to Minneapolis. So, while there might be savings, in the big picture, they're not that great. In addition, we should consider the effect on property values of running industrial barge traffic on major rivers in urban areas. Han River waterfront property is at a premium, because of the scenic view of the river. Putting lots of pollution making barges full of coal and chemicals, etc, would be an eyesoar, and have the opposite effect of chongechon, which raised property values by removing lots of traffic. Yes, canal transportation is cheaper and more eco-friendly, especially if mules are pulling the barges. But, consider the downside - time - they’re slow. So, you only use them to ship cheap, heavy, stuff, that can take a long time to get to its destination, such as, grain, chemicals, coal, oil. Your I beams probably need to get to the construction site on a tight schedule, and thus wouldn’t make it on the barge. Relatively speaking, the cost of moving oil from Pusan to Taegu (50 miles) is pretty insignificant compared to the cost of moving it several thousand miles from Kuwait to Pusan. In the US, that’s not true, it’s over a thousand miles from New Orleans to Minneapolis. So, while there might be savings, in the big picture, they’re not that great.

In addition, we should consider the effect on property values of running industrial barge traffic on major rivers in urban areas. Han River waterfront property is at a premium, because of the scenic view of the river. Putting lots of pollution making barges full of coal and chemicals, etc, would be an eyesoar, and have the opposite effect of chongechon, which raised property values by removing lots of traffic.

]]> By: Netizen Kim http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-127382 Netizen Kim Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:47:29 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/#comment-127382 I agree that implementing this canal will require a lot of expense and extraordinary civil engineering. But I also think that Korea is a nation that cannot have too much transport infrastructure. The reason why I am for the canal is based on a personal idea that I've always had, here in the US, that it would be excellent if there was an alternative that allowed radically reducing the number of 18-wheeler tractor-trailers on the highways. If the canal can reduce the number of such trucks shuttling along the inter-province highways in Korea, that alone would be a very good thing that can lead to a number of unforeseen benefits. A single barge can probably transport enough goods that would otherwise require 5, 10, or 20 trucks. It would be cheaper. It also reduces traffic congestion on the highways. Less accidents. It's also cleaner; a barge produces less pollution than 5, 10, or 20 trucks. Cleaner also means reduced fuel consumption. Also, big heavy trucks tend to do more wear and tear on the highways. Less big trucks on the road means less highway maintenance. Some have mentioned why the need for the canal if there already exists excellent terminals in the major port cities and Korea is surrounded on three sides by ocean. But you're conflating different segments of the shipping industry. International cargo is different from domestic cargo. If someone needs to ship I-beams, or several coiled steel, or lumber, they're more likely to put that on a truck rather than a container ship. Lastly, most of the objections raised here focused purely on the short-term, temporary difficulties. But the benefits of the canal last indefinitely. I agree that implementing this canal will require a lot of expense and extraordinary civil engineering.

But I also think that Korea is a nation that cannot have too much transport infrastructure.

The reason why I am for the canal is based on a personal idea that I’ve always had, here in the US, that it would be excellent if there was an alternative that allowed radically reducing the number of 18-wheeler tractor-trailers on the highways.

If the canal can reduce the number of such trucks shuttling along the inter-province highways in Korea, that alone would be a very good thing that can lead to a number of unforeseen benefits. A single barge can probably transport enough goods that would otherwise require 5, 10, or 20 trucks. It would be cheaper. It also reduces traffic congestion on the highways. Less accidents. It’s also cleaner; a barge produces less pollution than 5, 10, or 20 trucks. Cleaner also means reduced fuel consumption.

Also, big heavy trucks tend to do more wear and tear on the highways. Less big trucks on the road means less highway maintenance.

Some have mentioned why the need for the canal if there already exists excellent terminals in the major port cities and Korea is surrounded on three sides by ocean. But you’re conflating different segments of the shipping industry. International cargo is different from domestic cargo. If someone needs to ship I-beams, or several coiled steel, or lumber, they’re more likely to put that on a truck rather than a container ship.

Lastly, most of the objections raised here focused purely on the short-term, temporary difficulties. But the benefits of the canal last indefinitely.

]]> By: dokdoforever http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-127341 dokdoforever Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:59:04 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/#comment-127341 How about the "Korean Coastal Cycling Trail"? Chonggechon helped improve quality of life in Seoul because it provided a nice place to walk. What Korea needs is more opportunities to go outside and get some exercise. The Han river should be used for sailing and recreation, not barge traffic. A national bike trail, with a network of parks would be pretty cool. How about the “Korean Coastal Cycling Trail”? Chonggechon helped improve quality of life in Seoul because it provided a nice place to walk. What Korea needs is more opportunities to go outside and get some exercise. The Han river should be used for sailing and recreation, not barge traffic. A national bike trail, with a network of parks would be pretty cool.

]]> By: Dram_man http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-127318 Dram_man Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:26:29 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/#comment-127318 Bike Path??? Let's not give them any ideas. Just think of the slogans that would engender amount the governent brain trust: "Towards the 21C ubiquitous national cycling culture society" I would rather live with the canal than put up with that fate! Bike Path???

Let’s not give them any ideas. Just think of the slogans that would engender amount the governent brain trust:

“Towards the 21C ubiquitous national cycling culture society”

I would rather live with the canal than put up with that fate!

]]> By: globalvillageidiot http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-127301 globalvillageidiot Thu, 03 Jan 2008 04:19:24 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/#comment-127301 That national bike trail is a great idea, and it would be only a ferry ride away from more cycling opportunities in Japan. That national bike trail is a great idea, and it would be only a ferry ride away from more cycling opportunities in Japan.

]]> By: sanshinseon http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-127297 sanshinseon Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:16:57 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/#comment-127297 #29 & #30 & #31: quite so! A national bicycle trail would be SO much better, and useful... #29 & #30 & #31: quite so!

A national bicycle trail would be SO much better, and useful…

]]> By: dokdoforever http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-127290 dokdoforever Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:07:50 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/02/no-longer-pie-in-the-sky/#comment-127290 Well, just took a look at google earth, and while it is kind of cool how the headwaters of the Nakdong and Han come within 20 km of each other, from Chungju to Yecheon, the land in between is, not surprisingly, all mountains - so I guess they'd either try to build some kind of underground canal, or just blast the mountain away. As for the shipbuilding industry as some sort of justification for this project - consider that the ships on this canal are likely to be tug boats and narrow barges - of very little interest to major Korean shipbuilders, who are already big players in the much more profitable open ocean container ship industry. Hard to see how they'd have any interest in barges. Sure, they could link the rivers at great cost for minimal gain, but why? A national referendum is a great idea, I hope those civic groups get what they're asking for. And, for LMB's spokesman to compare civic group opposition of the canal to criticism of the Chonggechon project is just silly - a glorified water fountain has nothing in common with a real canal, that must handle ship traffic and go through mountains. Maybe LMB should build a national bicycle trail instead, that I'd support. Well, just took a look at google earth, and while it is kind of cool how the headwaters of the Nakdong and Han come within 20 km of each other, from Chungju to Yecheon, the land in between is, not surprisingly, all mountains - so I guess they’d either try to build some kind of underground canal, or just blast the mountain away. As for the shipbuilding industry as some sort of justification for this project - consider that the ships on this canal are likely to be tug boats and narrow barges - of very little interest to major Korean shipbuilders, who are already big players in the much more profitable open ocean container ship industry. Hard to see how they’d have any interest in barges. Sure, they could link the rivers at great cost for minimal gain, but why? A national referendum is a great idea, I hope those civic groups get what they’re asking for. And, for LMB’s spokesman to compare civic group opposition of the canal to criticism of the Chonggechon project is just silly - a glorified water fountain has nothing in common with a real canal, that must handle ship traffic and go through mountains. Maybe LMB should build a national bicycle trail instead, that I’d support.

]]>