[Insight & Opinion] Ultimately, It Was Custom That Fueled the Yangpyeong Expressway Controversy

The Seoul~Yangpyeong Expressway passed the preliminary feasibility study in 2021, with construction planned to start in 2025 and completion targeted for 2031. Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Won Hee-ryong declared the project’s ‘complete cancellation.’ The reason given was that due to irresponsible suspicions raised by the opposition party, the project could no longer proceed. The Democratic Party’s suspicion centers on the fact that the terminus, originally planned for Yangseo-myeon, Yangpyeong-gun, was changed in the revised plan to Gangsang-myeon, Yangpyeong-gun, where the family burial site of First Lady Kim Keon-hee is located. It is unclear how much basis there is for these suspicions. It is also not certain which plan is better. This article is not about those topics. It is about the limitations of the current preliminary feasibility system and the problems in the way national projects are promoted.

The suspicion arose because the expressway route was changed after the preliminary feasibility study had been completed. If a better plan was found before construction, it can be changed and explained. The route change may be unusual as the opposition claims, or it may not be unusual as the government explains. Even if it is not unusual, it does not mean there is no need to explain. Explaining why it changed is the government’s responsibility. What the Yangpyeong Expressway issue reveals is that even large national projects can have their routes arbitrarily changed by the government after a simple preliminary feasibility study. The National Assembly’s neglect likely contributed to this practice taking root. Whether ruling or opposition party, sometimes for political reasons, they want to change the specific details of budget projects regardless of the feasibility study results. This is a practice created by a government wanting to work easily and politicians exploiting the opportunities created by that gap. Such practices lead to suspicions and political strife.

There is also a problem with how the preliminary feasibility system is implemented. It should have involved comparing multiple alternatives in line with its original purpose. However, since April 2019, the Ministry of Economy and Finance has reduced the scope of investigation to work only on a single plan without comparing it to other alternatives. Logically, to decide the optimal expressway route, multiple alternatives should be carefully compared and analyzed from all aspects before selecting the best plan. The official decision-making process for national projects includes not only the preliminary feasibility study but also two additional stages: the prior feasibility study and the full feasibility study. If multiple alternatives were not compared during the preliminary feasibility study, such comparison and selection of the best plan should occur at other stages.

Cancelling a national project simply because it has become a subject of political controversy is not the right answer. However, insisting only on the original plan just because it passed the preliminary feasibility study is also not the right answer. The budget for national projects comes from taxpayers’ money. Finding the best plan is the government’s natural duty when spending that budget. To fundamentally solve the problem, structural measures must be taken to prevent leaving room for suspicions to arise.

Deciding which expressway route is the most feasible is not that difficult. It can be determined objectively by considering economic efficiency, traffic distribution effects, technical issues, environmental impact, and also gathering residents’ opinions. The feasibility study is conducted to find out these things. Naturally, whose land is where should not be a very important issue.

Kim Sang-cheol, Economic Columnist

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