The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport once again refuted the plan to change the Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway route, which has spread through political disputes between the ruling and opposition parties, and argued that the latest alternative is superior to the route proposed during the preliminary feasibility study two years ago. In response to the opposition party’s request to immediately pursue the original plan (yeta plan), the line was drawn, saying, “At this point, the business is impossible.” However, leaving open the possibility of resuming the business, it is evaluated that the complete blanking that Minister Won Hee-ryong mentioned earlier has taken a step back.
The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs held a press conference at the Sejong City Government Complex on the 10th and refuted item by item the allegations raised by the opposition parties such as the Democratic Party. The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs argued that the alternative to changing the end point of the expressway in Yetaan (Yangseo-myeon, Yangpyeong-gun) to the end point of Gangsang-myeon, Yangpyeong-gun, which was prepared by itself is superior in terms of △the amount of traffic to be absorbed, △the extent of environmental damage, and △the possibility of installing an interchange (IC) that Yangpyeong-gun wanted . .
The Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway project passed the preliminary test in 2021, but after consultations with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and Yangpyeong-gun, an alternative route close to the land of President Seok-yeol Yoon’s wife and first lady Kim Kun-hee’s family was presented as a promising candidate route. In the opposition, the △alternative plan increased the project cost by 130 billion won compared to the proposed plan, making the project less economical △even though it could not solve the traffic congestion near Dumulmeori, which was the purpose of the new highway △in order to provide preferential treatment to Mrs. Kim’s family, such as an increase in land price, The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport is claiming that the route was drastically modified without consultation with the residents.
However, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport said that the daily traffic volume is an alternative (22,357 units, Namjong IC – Gangsang-myeon junction section).There are about 6,000 vehicles (40%) per day than the Yangseo-myeon Junction), so the effect of distributing traffic is greater. In addition, the cost increase due to the change in the end point was 14 billion won 토토사이트(0.8% compared to the previous plan), and the remaining increase of 82 billion won was due to the increase in costs related to the Gamil junction in Hanam City. In addition, Yetaan crosses the Han River twice, increasing demand for bridge installation, and may affect water source protection areas and habitats for migratory birds, making it difficult to pass the strategic environmental impact assessment of the Ministry of Environment in the future . It also added an explanation that it should be greatly damaged.
Baek Won-guk, 2nd Vice Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport said, “Although the cost of the alternative is higher than the preliminary plan, the share is only 0.8%, and the profit from the increase in traffic volume reaches 40%.” he emphasized. An official from the Korea Expressway Corporation, who was present at the meeting, added, “95% of the traffic (to be handled by the new highway) is traffic going up from the south to the metropolitan area.”
Contrary to suspicion, explanations were repeated that the alternative end point had not been confirmed. Expressway construction projects largely consist of preliminaries → feasibility study → large-scale construction bidding method deliberation → basic design → detailed design → authorization/permission → site purchase → construction/construction stage. It is an explanation that can change. This project has been suspended while the feasibility study is in progress. In addition, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport explained that the preliminary plan and alternative were not suddenly presented, but that it was a route that had already been reviewed as a private investment project in 2008 and 2018.
In response to the point of ‘If the Yetaan route has many problems, how did it become a subject of Yeta?’ He emphasized, “If the route can be carefully reviewed in Yeta, there is no need for a feasibility study.”
The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs said that it was not aware that the land of the Kim family, the core of the controversy, was near the end of the alternative route. The distribution cannot be investigated,” he said.
Regarding the resumption of business, it took a step back from the existing ‘complete blanking’ position by laying down the hem of ‘business is impossible at this point’. Vice Minister Baek argued, “If the conditions are right, the project can be promoted again, but due to the suspicion (raised by the Democratic Party), the project cannot be promoted normally.” He then said, “We have to go through the next procedure, such as design, but the cost is all taxes,” he said. It was suspended because it reached a state of insolvency,” he said. In other words, the responsibility for the inability to do business was shifted to the Democratic Party.