[Square] Ilsan Bridge: Properly Fastening the First Button Again

Yoo Jeong-hoon, Professor, Department of Transportation Systems Engineering, Ajou University

Among the 27 bridges over the Han River, the only toll road, Ilsan Bridge, has finally become toll-free. Opened in May 2008, Ilsan Bridge is a 'nationally supported local road' that should have been constructed and maintained financially by the central government and Gyeonggi Province. However, despite this, it remained a baffling situation where users had to pay to use it, persisting through two changes of administration. Despite the National Pension Service's unfaithful response and recent malicious public opinion campaigns by some, this remarkable achievement was made possible by the strong support of residents, the efforts of local civil society and politicians from Gimpo, Paju, Goyang, and the steadfast determination of Gyeonggi Province Governor Lee Jae-myung.

With no alternative roads nearby, Ilsan Bridge should have been promoted as a toll-free road from the start to secure the basic daily mobility rights of citizens living in nearby cities such as Goyang, Gimpo, and Paju. However, in 2002, the government and Gyeonggi Province forcibly proceeded with Ilsan Bridge as a private investment project due to financial shortages, which fueled controversy over discrimination against local residents. The first step was taken incorrectly. According to a recent public opinion survey conducted among Gyeonggi residents, 82% responded that the toll on Ilsan Bridge is burdensome, and 92% said that toll reduction or toll-free status is absolutely necessary. Even though the National Pension Service, the sole shareholder of Ilsan Bridge, is a public institution responsible for the nation's retirement, 85% agreed that charging local residents an excessive burden with an 8% annual interest rate is also inappropriate.

Regardless of the clear demands of the majority of citizens, the toll-free status of Ilsan Bridge fundamentally has three major legal and institutional justifications. First, Ilsan Bridge cannot be a toll road. Article 4 of the Toll Road Act stipulates two conditions for designating a toll road: ① significant benefit to users and ② the existence of alternative roads. Although there are exceptions for expressways, tourist roads, and island connections, none of these apply to Ilsan Bridge. Even without these legal provisions, various statutory road plans established by the state set the opening of public roads with a trunk axis function to guarantee interregional mobility as a national obligation. Second, the project’s profit rate is unreasonably high. Comparing the interest costs when Ilsan Bridge was promoted as a private investment project based on past interest rates with those if it had been a financial project issuing local bonds clearly reveals this. As of 2009, when refinancing was implemented, the total borrowing of Ilsan Bridge was 193.2 billion KRW. If promoted as a private investment project, interest costs over 30 years would amount to 346.2 billion KRW. On the other hand, if promoted as a financial project by issuing local bonds in full (applying the 20-year maturity government bond rate at the time in 2008 and the average 10-year government bond rate for 10 years after 2009), interest costs would be estimated at 176.3 billion KRW, saving approximately 169.9 billion KRW in interest costs. Third, Ilsan Bridge Co., Ltd., composed of a single shareholder, is engaging in self-lending. According to legal experts, raising funds at high interest rates from a single shareholder (self-lending) is highly likely to cause legal issues such as 'breach of duty of good faith and loyalty under commercial law,' 'criminal breach of trust under criminal law,' and 'unfair acts under the Fair Trade Act.'

Guaranteeing transportation rights is a fundamental responsibility of the state. Every citizen has the right to move freely and safely regardless of economic status, region, social position, or physical condition. From this perspective, Ilsan Bridge should be a basic road provided free of charge by the state to promote public welfare. It is an essential basic living infrastructure for daily social life not only for adjacent areas such as Gimpo, Paju, and Ilsan but also for all residents of the Seoul metropolitan area. Since its legalization in 1994, there is no doubt that private investment projects have greatly contributed to increasing socio-economic benefits by timely supplying basic infrastructure to realize the fundamental right to transportation based on private creativity. Also, the injection of large-scale funds into transportation infrastructure while supplementing limited financial conditions has achieved economic revitalization, which should be specially recognized. However, the government and local governments should not turn basic roads that must be supplied free of charge due to the lack of alternative facilities into toll roads for the purpose of debt avoidance. The government must step in and properly set the first step again. Fairness is the core value and national duty in this era. Yoo Jeong-hoon, Professor, Department of Transportation Systems Engineering, Ajou University

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.