IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v77y2015icp82-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deep subterranean railway system: Acceptability assessment of the public discourse in the Seoul Metropolitan Area of South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Chung, Younshik
  • Kim, Hyun

Abstract

The objective of this study is to analyze the public acceptability of deep subterranean railway systems, which will be constructed in the space 40m below ground level and will be operated at twice the speed of the existing subway system. Although such railway systems have been feasible in terms of construction technologies and economics, public acceptability must be considered for the successful introduction of such a new public infrastructure. Therefore, to perform the analysis of public acceptability, a telephone-based survey was conducted for residents in the vicinity of the planned the deep subterranean railway systems. As a result, about 70% of the respondents answered that they took a neutral or opposing attitude to introducing the deep subterranean railway systems. Awareness of the deep subterranean railway systems has a positive impact on its acceptability. In addition, the acceptability is found to show a negative relationship with environment and inconvenience factors. Based on the analysis results, an affective approach through soft measures such as awareness campaigns and advertisements is recommended to effectively address and mitigate the concerns and issues raised by the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Chung, Younshik & Kim, Hyun, 2015. "Deep subterranean railway system: Acceptability assessment of the public discourse in the Seoul Metropolitan Area of South Korea," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 82-94.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:77:y:2015:i:c:p:82-94
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856415000865
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Golob, Thomas F., 2003. "Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Cools, Mario & Brijs, Kris & Tormans, Hans & Moons, Elke & Janssens, Davy & Wets, Geert, 2011. "The socio-cognitive links between road pricing acceptability and changes in travel-behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 779-788, October.
    3. Alison Pridmore & Apollonia Miola, 2011. "Public Acceptability of Sustainable Transport Measures: A Review of the Literature," International Transport Forum Discussion Papers 2011/20, OECD Publishing.
    4. Kottenhoff, Karl & Brundell Freij, Karin, 2009. "The role of public transport for feasibility and acceptability of congestion charging - The case of Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 297-305, March.
    5. Cervero, Robert & Kang, Chang Deok, 2011. "Bus rapid transit impacts on land uses and land values in Seoul, Korea," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 102-116, January.
    6. Yetano Roche, María & Mourato, Susana & Fischedick, Manfred & Pietzner, Katja & Viebahn, Peter, 2010. "Public attitudes towards and demand for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles: A review of the evidence and methodological implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5301-5310, October.
    7. S. Jaensirisak & M. Wardman & A. D. May, 2005. "Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 39(2), pages 127-154, May.
    8. McDonald, John F. & Osuji, Clifford I., 1995. "The effect of anticipated transportation improvement on residential land values," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 261-278, June.
    9. Brons, Martijn & Givoni, Moshe & Rietveld, Piet, 2009. "Access to railway stations and its potential in increasing rail use," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 136-149, February.
    10. Pagliara, Francesca & Papa, Enrica, 2011. "Urban rail systems investments: an analysis of the impacts on property values and residents’ location," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 200-211.
    11. Satoshi Fujii & Tommy Gärling & Cecilia Jakobsson & Rong-Chang Jou, 2004. "A cross-country study of fairness and infringement on freedom as determinants of car owners' acceptance of road pricing," Transportation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 285-295, August.
    12. Eliasson, Jonas & Jonsson, Lina, 2011. "The unexpected "yes": Explanatory factors behind the positive attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 636-647, August.
    13. Janet A. Weiss & Mary Tschirhart, 1994. "Public information campaigns as policy instruments," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 82-119.
    14. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.
    15. Chung, Younshik & Song, Taijin & Park, Jungsik, 2012. "Freeway booking policy: Public discourse and acceptability analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 223-231.
    16. O'Garra, Tanya & Mourato, Susana & Garrity, Lisa & Schmidt, Patrick & Beerenwinkel, Anne & Altmann, Matthias & Hart, David & Graesel, Cornelia & Whitehouse, Simon, 2007. "Is the public willing to pay for hydrogen buses? A comparative study of preferences in four cities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 3630-3642, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Younshik Chung & Jong-Jin Kim, 2023. "Exploring Factors Affecting Crash Injury Severity with Consideration of Secondary Collisions in Freeway Tunnels," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Assemi, Behrang & Hickman, Mark, 2018. "Relationship between heavy vehicle periodic inspections, crash contributing factors and crash severity," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 441-459.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chung, Younshik & Song, Taijin & Park, Jungsik, 2012. "Freeway booking policy: Public discourse and acceptability analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 223-231.
    2. Boggio, Margherita & Beria, Paolo, 2019. "The role of transport supply in the acceptability of pollution charge extension. The case of Milan," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 92-106.
    3. Grisolía, José M. & López, Francisco & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2015. "Increasing the acceptability of a congestion charging scheme," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 37-47.
    4. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    5. Di Ciommo, Floridea & Monzón, Andrés & Fernandez-Heredia, Alvaro, 2013. "Improving the analysis of road pricing acceptability surveys by using hybrid models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 302-316.
    6. Dieplinger, Maria & Fürst, Elmar, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing: Evidence from two studies in Vienna and four other European cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 10-18.
    7. Kaplan, Sigal & de Abreu e Silva, João & Di Ciommo, Floridea, 2014. "The relationship between young people׳s transit use and their perceptions of equity concepts in transit service provision," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 79-87.
    8. Tideman, Nicolaus & Plassmann, Florenz, 2018. "The effects of changes in land value on the value of buildings," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 69-76.
    9. Yen, Barbara T.H. & Mulley, Corinne & Shearer, Heather & Burke, Matthew, 2018. "Announcement, construction or delivery: When does value uplift occur for residential properties? Evidence from the Gold Coast Light Rail system in Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 412-422.
    10. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2023. "Transportation demand management policy efficiency: An attempt to address the effectiveness and acceptability of policy packages," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 317-330.
    11. Elmar Fürst & Maria Dieplinger, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing in Vienna: the preference patterns of car drivers," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 765-784, July.
    12. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2020. "Who are more likely to break the rule of congestion charging? Evidence from an active scheme with no referendum voting," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 63-79.
    13. Kallbekken, Steffen & Garcia, Jorge H. & Korneliussen, Kristine, 2013. "Determinants of public support for transport taxes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 67-78.
    14. Holguín-Veras, José & Encarnación, Trilce & González-Calderón, Carlos A., 2020. "User perception of fairness of time-of-day pricing and other typical toll discounts," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 560-581.
    15. Martin, Elliot & Shaheen, Susan & Lipman, Timothy & Camel, Madonna, 2014. "Evaluating the public perception of a feebate policy in California through the estimation and cross-validation of an ordinal regression model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 144-153.
    16. Chinmoy Ghosh & Venkatesh Panchapagesan & Madalasa Venkataraman, 2024. "On the Impact of Infrastructure Improvement on Real Estate Property Values: Evidence from a Quasi-natural Experiment in an Emerging Market," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 103-137, January.
    17. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    18. Milenković, Marina & Glavić, Draženko & Maričić, Milica, 2019. "Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-74.
    19. Qing Shen & Simin Xu & Jiang Lin, 2018. "Effects of bus transit-oriented development (BTOD) on single-family property value in Seattle metropolitan area," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(13), pages 2960-2979, October.
    20. Zhang, Yong & Yu, Yifeng & Zou, Bai, 2011. "Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles in China: The case of EV," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7015-7024.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:77:y:2015:i:c:p:82-94. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.