ISSUES & TRENDS 01
Policy Directions of a Planning System for Mega City-Regions
Taehwan Kim
1. Need for Reforms
W
hile total population growth stagnates or declines, the population is shifting to mega city-regions from small and medium-sized cities in provinces or rural regions. That is, the percentage of the population living in megacities continues to rise across the territorial space, and population growth is most pronounced in the peripheries of megacities. However, spatial planning is insufficient for land management at the megacity level.Population growth and increased population movements in megacities have changed the land-use patterns such as urban sprawl and strengthened the functional linkage between urban centers of megacities, their peripheries, and fringes. Despite growing importance of integrated management at the megacity level, there is a lack of institutional instruments. Currently, metropolitan area plans are in place with a focus on megacities but fail to function as a management tool for megacities.
2. Overview of Existing Plans for Megacities
The current metropolitan area planning system was introduced with a complete overhaul of the Urban Planning Act in 2001. As of 2016, 13 megacities were designated, for which metropolitan area plans have been established. However, there have been discussions about the need to improve the function and role of the metropolitan area plans as the highest level of urban planning. First, the policy and strategic roles of the metropolitan area plan should be clearly defined. In this regard, it is imperative—among other things—to establish the function of the metropolitan area plan that focuses on major policy issues and enhance its roles.
Second, many pointed out the need to enhance alignment with a lower-level plan (Basic Urban Plan), which serves as a guideline, in the context of spatial strategies.
Third, it is critical to specify and promote the areas that fall under the metropolitan planning system. To this end, megacities or metropolitan areas, which function as a single area for economic activities and daily lives, should be identified, and the
on territorial planning in Korea and disseminate research achievements and international activities of KRIHS and other Korean institutes.
KRIHS (Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements) was established in 1978 with a mission of creating a beautiful and pleasant living environment. To achieve the mission, KRIHS has been committed to enhancing the quality of life and well-being of the people in the nation with its spatial planning studies and policy suggestions.
Since its foundation, KRIHS has carried out a variety of studies on the efficient use, development, and conservation of territorial resources. Its research areas range from sustainable and balanced territorial development and conservation of the territory to the provision of housing and infrastructure.
ISSUES & TRENDS Policy Directions of a Planning System for Mega City-Regions 01
IN-DEPTH LOOK The Third Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan (2006 - 2020): Evaluation and Implication 04
Housing and Urban Policies in Response to Residential Movement: With a Focus on the Seoul Metropolitan Area 08
Preliminary Investigations to Introduce Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) for Metropolitan Areas
12
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP NEWS16
Gazette
SPACE &
ENVIRONMENT
Vol. 71 September 2017
introduction of institutional supports and incentives should be considered as a way to promote the establishment of a metropolitan area planning system in metropolitan areas.
With the introduction of the Special Act on the Overall Traffic Management of Metropolitan Areas in 1997, the metropolitan transportation plan was devised to address traffic congestions in megacities at the metropolitan level. The 20- year basic plan for metropolitan transportation intends to improve and enhance the metropolitan transportation networks and systems, manage metropolitan transportation demand, and improve metropolitan transportation facilities in megacities over a long term. The five-year implementation plan for metropolitan transportation facilities ensures project execution and implementation planning in the order of urgency.
Although the metropolitan transportation plan for megacities is designed to serve as a comprehensive transportation solution to the metropolitanization of megacities, the plan has many limitations in terms of implementation system. As a general rule, the central government has the power of establishing metropolitan transportation plans, after sounding out local self-government bodies. However, this may open up conflicts of interest between different stakeholders and raise questions over the enforceability of the plans. A comprehensive solution to transportation problems requires systematic planning and project implementation at the megacity level, encompassing roads, railways, metropolitan transportation facilities, and public transportation all together.
Additionally, there have been several plans or systems to promote the development of megacities through close links between municipalities. However, these attempts were too focused on specific objectives. Although these efforts are supposed to cover metropolitan areas, they have revealed limitations in terms of policy implementation and budget execution at the territorial unit level and lack legal grounds and implementation systems (e.g. an interest alignment mechanism) to promote mutual development between different regions.
3. Development Directions of a Planning System for Megacities
First, it is imperative to introduce new development and management systems that fit the status and characteristics of respective megacities. From a long-term perspective, it is important to introduce practical management methods that engage all stakeholders—the central government, local self-government bodies, and residents—
to identify development goals and management methods through a consensus- building process in order to achieve the sustainable development of megacities.
Second, it is essential to form cooperative governance by actively engaging all stakeholders. Given that megacities are transforming into a functional region for economic activities and daily lives, cooperative participation by all stakeholders should be prioritized throughout a decision-making process from the establishment of development goals for megacities, implementation strategies, and execution.
The newly introduced megacity planning system should be instrumental in aligning city-level urban plans from a metropolitan perspective because cooperative planning for megacities has the characteristics of both metropolitan planning that exceeds the
scope of individual territorial units and long-term planning for long-term regional development. Long-term plans may include future strategic goals and the priority and principles of future development needs.
Moreover, it is necessary to clarify the megacity planning system as a policy plan which systematizes various policy directions to realize future visions. As such, a system should be established to monitor the implementation of plans on an ongoing basis.
The cooperative planning system for megacities should be introduced as an institutional framework to ensure sustainability. The enactment of new laws and amendments to existing laws should be considered. To ensure legal enforceability, the cooperative planning system should be stated in law with regard to the composition of megacities, the power of a consultative body for megacities, and the development and approval of plans. If the megacity planning system is to be incorporated into an institutional framework, the following two options are available.
Table 1. Two Practical Options for the Megacity Planning System (as an Institutional Framework)
Option Characteristics Strengths & Weaknesses
Introduction of a new cooperative system for megacities as a legally mandated plan
A voluntary, cooperative planning system between local self-governments
for the collective development of megacities
- Systematic implementation & flexibility to meet changes in conditions - Complexity in relation to the existing
planning system Improvement of the
existing metropolitan area planning system
A more flexible definition of the metropolitan area planning system to reflect characteristics of respective
megacities
- Implementable within the existing planning system - Limitations of developing various types
of voluntary plans
4. Policy Tasks
The establishment of a cooperative governance system for megacities requires a framework for building consensus on the extent to which local self-government bodies in megacities have accountability and autonomy in planning, project designing, and execution. Key areas of cooperation for the governance system include the development of medium and long-term visions for megacities and cooperative establishment of shared goals and strategies, identification of cooperative projects, consensus-driven prioritization of key tasks to achieve collective development, introduction of an efficient implementation system for priority projects, and gradual implementation.
The leadership of local self-government bodies needs to be enhanced in a way that lays the foundation for the cooperative governance system. In addition, key tasks include bridging a capability gap between local self-government bodies in a mutually complementary way.
Moreover, the implementation of the cooperative plan should be managed to ensure its enforceability. Performance indicators should be established as strategic milestones, and performance monitoring and management systems need to be instituted to check the progress.
Source
Kim, T. et al. 2016. A Study on Policy Directions of Planning Systems for Mega City-Regions.
The Third Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan (2006 - 2020):
Evaluation and Implication
Soojung Ha
1. Overview of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan and the Need for Evaluation
T
he government’s policies on the Seoul metropolitan area were introduced to suppress the concentration of population and industries in Seoul resulting from the rapid economic development and industrialization. Policy measures include the introduction of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act (1982), the first Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan (1982–1996) in 1984, the Second Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan (1997–2011) and the Third Seoul Metropolitan Readjustment Plan (2006–2020). The objective of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan is to achieve an orderly readjustment of the Seoul metropolitan area and promote balanced national development by establishing and implementing comprehensive plans for the readjustment of the Seoul metropolitan area to induce proper distribution of population and industries that are otherwise heavily concentrated in the Seoul metropolitan area.The share of population living in the Seoul metropolitan area relative to total population continued to rise from 28.3% in 1970 to 49.4% in 2015. In 2015, the Seoul metropolitan area accounted for 49.4% of the gross regional domestic product (GRDP), 47.4% of the total number of businesses, and 51.4% of the total number of employees. However, such concentration in the Seoul metropolitan area has been stabilizing recently. As the Third Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan and the Revised Fourth Comprehensive National Territorial Plan (2011–2020) draw to an end in 2020, this study evaluated the feasibility and implementation of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan, reflecting changes in recent conditions.
2. Evaluation of the Third Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan
Spatial Restructuring of the Seoul Metropolitan Area
The concentration of population and employment in Seoul has been eased significantly with a shift toward an interrelated multi-core spatial structure. In addition, the level of industrial specialization has been increased for the creation of five specialized industrial belts in the Seoul metropolitan area.
IN-DEPTH LOOK 01
Figure 1. 3rd Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan (2006˜2020)
Meanwhile, there have been continuous efforts to build an annular lattice-type traffic system, under which cities in the Seoul metropolitan area are networked with Seoul at the center. Underdeveloped areas in the Seoul metropolitan area are being developed to promote balanced development through urban renewal projects in dilapidated settlements and industrial sites.
Readjustment of Regions
According to the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan, the Seoul metropolitan area is divided into three zones: overconcentration control region, growth management region, and nature preservation region. The designation criteria and differentiation strategies are as follows.
Table 1. Division of Regions in Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan
Overconcentration Control Region
Growth Management
Region Nature Preservation Region
Strategy To prevent overcrowding and address urban problems
- To accommodate the transfer from the overconcentration
control region - To enhance self-sufficiency
- To preserve the Han River water system - To resolve inconveniences to residents caused by zoning
restrictions
Criteria
Areas which see or risk excessive concentration of population and thus require
transfer or readjustment
Areas which attract population or industries from
overconcentration control regions according to the planned schedule and require
management of urban/
industrial development
Areas needed to preserve the quality of water in the Han River water system and the
natural environment North-south
Exchange Industrial Belt
Growth Management Zone
Display Industrial Cluster
Business and Urban Industrial Belt
Garden Leisure Belt
Nature Preservation Zone Overconcentration Restriction Zone
Int’l Logistics High-tech Industrial Belt
Parts Matters Industrial Cluster
Semiconductor Industrial Cluster
Growth Management Zone
Marine Logistics Industrial Belt
Int’l Finance and Business Cluster
Source
MOLIT (2006), “Research on the Establishment of the Third Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan”
Source
Soo Jung Ha, 2016. “The Third Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan: Evaluation and Ways of Future Improvements,” KRIHS
Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act
Recent observations show that the overconcentration control region sees a decline in the concentration of population and employment, and the growth management and nature preservation regions account for an increasing share of total population and employment in relative terms. Population management should continue in the growth management and nature preservation regions
Table 2. Population and Employment by Region
Population Employees
2005 2015 % change 2005 2014 % change
Overconcentration Control Region
18,919 (80.6%)
19,215 (75.5%)
1.6%
(-5.1%p)
6,016 (78.8%)
7,634 (75.3%)
26.9%
(-3.5%p) Growth
Management Region
3,645 (15.5%)
5,129 (20.1%)
40.7%
(4.6%p)
1,324 (17.3%)
2,087 (20.6%)
57.6%
(3.2%p) Nature Preservation
Region
924 (3.9%)
1,126 (4.4%)
21.9%
(0.5%p)
297 (3.9%)
423 (4.2%)
42.4%
(0.3%p) Seoul Metropolitan
Area 23,489 25,471 8.4% 7,637 10,143 32.8%
The growth management region faces an absolute gap between the south and the north in terms of development. Despite growing development in the underdeveloped north, systematic measures should be taken to balance development demand between the north and the south. In 2016, standalone plants in the nature preservation region account for 96.4% of the total number of plants and 92.3% of the total industrial sites. The high percentage of standalone plants underlines the need to group them into industrial parks.
Management of Overcrowding-inducing Facilities or Development Projects The Seoul metropolitan area saw an increase in the housing supply ratio from 94%
in 2004 to 107.5% in 2014. The share of industrial sites stood at 48.5% in terms of the number of sites and 34.5% in terms of square meters in 2015. As such, the Seoul metropolitan area needs constant management of housing and industrial sites. In addition, overcrowding-inducing facilities are controlled through such policy measures as the Total Industrial Site Volume Control System (ISVCS), regulations on universities and colleges, post-relocation site management, and overcrowding surcharges. Large-scale projects are subject to deliberation of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Committee to ensure systematic and planned management of the Seoul metropolitan area.
Enhancement and Overhaul of Metropolitan Facilities & Environmental Preservation and Management
Public transportation networks are being established with infrastructure buildup, aided by a higher mode share of subways and railways, more extensive arterial highways, and the establishment of the bus rapid transit (BRT) system. In addition, logistics centers are beefed up with the third phase expansion of Incheon International Airport.
Integrated operation of the Han River water system and coordination of the water distribution system in the metropolitan area ensure a stable supply of water for residents in the Seoul metropolitan area. Air quality targets have not been met (target PM10 40㎍/㎥, NO2 22ppb in 2014). Paldang Reservoir ranks a 1 to 2 grade
(Unit: 1,000 people)
Source Statistics Korea, “Population Statistics- based Resident Registration &
Nationwide Business Survey”
in terms of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The quantity of household waste generation has declined, but construction and commercial wastes have continued rising, which calls for efforts to cut wastes and increase recycling. In addition, local self-government bodies are building a planning system for green areas to form “green networks” at the metropolitan level.
3. Implications of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan
The Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan is a key policy tool to address a high spatial centralization in the Seoul metropolitan area that has been accelerated by the rapid population concentration in Seoul since Korea’s modernization began. The Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan has evolved from a regulatory instrument to suppress population growth in Seoul to become a systematic management effort to promote the qualitative development of the Seoul metropolitan area and sharpen its competitiveness.
The feasibility and effectiveness of the Seoul metropolitan area management system that uniformly focuses on site regulations are called into question due to intensifying competition between global megacities and a greater need for regulatory reforms to stimulate the economy. Meanwhile, regions outside the Seoul metropolitan area are caught in a vicious circle where loss of population leads to labor shortages, limited access to businesses, employment decline, consumption slowdown, and weakness in the regional economy. In this regard, the framework for the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act should be maintained or even strengthened in the context of balanced national and regional developments.
Developing countries with high urban density seek to achieve the efficiency of an agglomeration economy resulting from concentration as well as equitable development to reduce adverse effects of excessive concentration such as socioeconomic costs and regional imbalances. Accordingly, Korea’s policy experiences indicate that it is imperative to establish basic directions for the Seoul metropolitan area on a national level, develop aggressive policies, and set policy objectives and implementation strategies that enable harmonious development across regions through a consensus-building process among all stakeholders.
References
Soo Jung Ha, 2016. “The Third Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan: Evaluation and Ways of Future Improvements,” KRIHS.
Housing and Urban Policies in Response to Residential Movement: With a Focus on the Seoul Metropolitan Area
Sungje Jeon
1. Background and Significance
A Strong Correlation between Population Movement Patterns and the Housing Segment
T
he total population living in Seoul has recently fallen below the 100-million mark. An “exodus” from Seoul is widely discussed in the media as a social issue, drawing attention to population movements and related changes in the Greater Seoul Area. Indeed, population changes are closely related to the housing segment, showing a strong correlation with housing and urban management.Population movements in the Greater Seoul Area drive changes in household composition by region, causing new housing and urban issues. The supply of houses is not only influenced by changes in housing demand resulting from population movement but also affects population movement. That is, residential movement interacts with the supply of new houses and housing problems and exhibits a strong correlation with various housing and urban problems.
Importance of Policy Responses to Population Movement in Order to Improve Housing Conditions
Given the strong correlation between residential movement and various housing and urban issues, policy measures should be established by clearly identifying the link between residential movement patterns and the regional characteristics of new housing supplies in order to address housing and urban problems caused by residential movement. Such policy actions will eventually contribute to improvements in housing conditions and quality of life. In particular, the Greater Seoul Area is a metropolitan area with a population of over 200 million residents. Studies about the Greater Seoul Area should provide important implications for housing policies in Korea as well as other metropolitan areas faced with similar challenges.
2. Population Movement and Housing Supply in the Seoul Metropolitan Area
Recent Developments in Population Movement and Reasons
The movement of population and households is characterized by outward migration from Seoul to the Incheon Metropolitan City and Gyeonggi-do. By region, there was a large inflow of population to Gyeonggi-do, where large-scale housing development projects have been undertaken as part of government policies.
IN-DEPTH LOOK 02
Figure 1. Total Amount of Net Migration between 2013 and 2015 in Korea’s Capital Region
-8408 - -4980 -4979 - -3156 -3155 - -1837 -1836 - 0
10177 - 14247 14248 - 19250
1 - 3088 3089 - 7022 7023 - 10176
2013 2014 2015
Table 1. Top 10 Regions by Population Inflow between 2013 and 2015
Region Net Inflow of Population
Gimpo-si, Gyeonggi-do 55,235
Namyangju-si, Gyeonggi-do 50,078
Hwaseong-si, Gyeonggi-do 49,440
Deogyang-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do 41,038
Gwangju-si, Gyeonggi-do 32,750
Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do 30,037
Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City 26,522
Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 24,413
Paju-si, Gyeonggi-do 22,551
Namdong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City 22,361
Key factors influencing the migration patterns in the Seoul Metropolitan Area can be analyzed in the economic, life cycle, and institutional dimension. The combination of these factors affects residential movement patterns in the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Specifically, migration patterns are shaped by a huge gap in regional housing costs driven by jeonse price hikes on the economic front, child-rearing environments for newlyweds and young parents on the life cycle front, and the concentration of housing supply in Gyeonggi-do with a policy focus on large-scale new housing development projects on the institutional front. In particular, the migration to peripheral areas results from a cost of living gap, which is involuntary in nature and thus undesirable in terms of housing stability.
Supply of New Houses in the Seoul Metropolitan Area
New housing units have been supplied in peripheral areas such as Hwaseong-si, Pyeongtaek-si, Namyangju-si, Gwangju-si, Gimpo-si in Gyeonggi-do and certain parts of Seoul. Notably, Gyeonggi-do saw a sharp increase in new houses. According to the primary type of housing supply, the Seoul Metropolitan Area is classified into:
①the sprawling periphery with large-scale high-rise apartments (e.g. Hwasung-si
Source
Analysis of Statistics Korea’s MDIS raw data on population movement Source
Analysis of Statistics Korea’s microdata on population movement
and Gimpo-si, Gyeonggi-do), ②the periphery with small-scale multi-family/multi- dwelling units (e.g. Gwangju-si, Gyeonggi-do), ③areas with suburban houses (e.g.
Yangpyeong, Gyeonggi-do), ④undeveloped sites within the city (e.g. Gangseo Magok District, Gangnam Bogeumjari District), and ⑤large-scale urban renewal areas with reconstruction and redevelopment projects (e.g. Dongdaemun-gu).
This study looked into Gwangju, Gyeonggi-do, where the supply of multi-dwelling units was concentrated, to analyze the relation between the characteristics of housing supply and household migration. Single-person households aged under 35 accounted for the largest share of move-in households in Opo-eup and Chowol-eup, which have a high concentration of new multi-family/multi-dwelling units compared to other areas. This demonstrates a probable correlation between the supply of certain types of houses and the migration of certain groups of households. In particular, the high representation of single-person households aged under 35 in the total move-in households in Gwangju confirms that housing supply can be aligned with housing and urban management policies.
Table 2. Total Construction and Ratio of Multi-Household Housing Completion during 2013 and 2015
Rank (Housing Supply Volume)
Region Housing Areas
Supplied (㎡)
% of Total Housing Supplies (Nationwide)
1 Gyeonggi-do Gwangju 1,144,754 87.39%
Table 3. Characteristics of Move-In Households in Gwangju, Gyeonggi-do
Type of Household
Opo-eup Chowol-eup
Number of Move-in Households
Share
Number of Move-in Households
Share
Single-person Household Aged
Under 35 7,562 30.7% 4,070 37.1%
Single-person Household Aged 65
and Over 1,037 4.2% 489 4.5%
Total Single-person Household 14,564 59.0% 7,397 67.4%
Married-couple Household Aged
Under 40 (without Child) 963 3.9% 189 1.7%
Total Number of Move-in
Households 24,671 100.0% 10,980 100.0%
Implications
The analysis of residential movements in the Seoul Metropolitan Area revealed various challenges to urban management such as involuntary migration to peripheral areas due to growing housing expenses, concentrated supplies of certain types of houses (e.g. multi-family/multi-dwelling houses) in certain areas, and the regional overrepresentation of certain household types as a result. At a metropolitan area level, growing housing burden and the huge gap in housing expenses between regions have pushed people out of the city to its peripheries. At the micro-spatial level, the concentrated supply of certain types of houses (e.g. multi-family/multi- dwelling units) may have a strong correlation with the inflow of certain groups of households.
Source Analysis of Statistics Korea’s MDIS raw
data on population movement Source Statistics on construction permits/
approvals (http://www.eais.go.kr/)
3. Policy Direction
The problems identified by the analysis of residential movement require policy measures, which can minimize the involuntary migration to peripheral areas by reducing the burden of housing costs and ease the regional imbalance in terms of housing and households types through systematic management. To ease housing cost pressures, various policies should be executed to stabilize the housing rental market, expand rent subsidies, and increase the supply of affordable houses in areas with a high housing demand from low-income households. Continuous efforts should be made from the supply and demand sides of the housing rental market to reduce housing cost burden and keep people from being priced out of their homes. Moreover, urban management measures should be systematically pursued to ease the regional concentration of certain types of houses. Areas with a high inflow of underprivileged households call for customized housing subsidy policies, encompassing housing management, transportation, and healthcare, to address local problems caused by residential movement.
Source Author revised the figure of page 14 in U.S. DOT (2012)
Preliminary Investigations to Introduce Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) for Metropolitan Areas
Kwangho Kim
1. Overview of ICM
I
ntegrated Corridor Management (ICM) is an approach to improve the mobility of metropolitan areas by coordinating the operations of transportation networks comprising a corridor. The concept of ICM was developed in 1970s but it could be recently materialized into real-world systems owing to the advancement of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Specific strategies of ICM include real-time traffic monitoring, incident management, etc. ICM can be implemented through the system engineering process1, as seen in Figure 1.Figure 1. System Engineering Process for ICM Implementation
Get Startes
Establish Goals
Analysis Modelling Simulation
Specify &
Design
Build & Test Operate &
Maintain
Retire &
Replace Plan for Success
Tasks related to the preliminary investigations
for ICM
2. Needs of Implementing ICM for Metropolitan Areas
Traffic congestions frequently occur in many corridors of most metropolitan areas in South Korea. The congestions are commonly ascribed to the severe concentration of travel demands on certain transportation modes or routes within a corridor during peak hours. For example, let us consider a corridor that has high demands of car trips on one of its urban expressways while excessive capacity remains available on the rapid transit of alternative arterials. In such occasions, transportation agencies can consider ICM strategies to facilitate more balanced and efficient uses of the corridor’s constituent networks by integrating operations across either modes or routes.
Corridors of domestic metropolitan areas have been managed usually by deploying conventional strategies such as the expansions of roadways or transit lines. Such
IN-DEPTH LOOK 03
System engineering process is a framework to support the project management of a complex system through its entire lifecycle.
1
conventional strategies usually require much spending on the infrastructure investment. On the other hand, ICM puts more focus on the strategies to improve traffic operations on the existing infrastructure through the coordination among institutions, operations, and technologies, respectively. In that way ICM can contribute to enhancing the sustainable uses of transportation infrastructure.
3. Case Study on the Domestic Corridor
Overview of the Case Study
This case study is intended to illustrate preliminary investigations to identify the needs of ICM for a real-world corridor in South Korea. As seen in Figure 2, the corridor connecting Daejon and Chengju was chosen as the study site by considering that it suffers from recurrent congestions; and that it is equipped with advanced road infrastructure through diverse projects to deploy Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
Figure 2. Transportation Networks Identified for the Corridor
The preliminary investigations were conducted following a procedure, which was designed both by referring to U.S. DOT‘s guidelines on the ICM implementation and by considering domestic capabilities for corridor management. The procedure is composed of largely four parts, which are ‘Establish corridor concept for introducing ICM‘, ‘Identify current status of the subject corridor‘, ‘Establish the vision and goals of ICM‘, and ‘Identify feasible ICM strategies.‘ Note that the procedure corresponds to the tasks related to ‘Establish goals‘, ‘Analysis, modeling, and simulation‘, and
‘Plan for success‘ in the overall ICM process (see again Figure 1). For brevity, only part of the results from conducting the procedure are furnished below. Readers who are
Source Author
interested in all the detailed results can refer to Kim (2015).
Analysis on the Traffic Operations
Traffic data on the corridor have been collected in the real-time basis and then archived into a database through the operations of ITS. Relevant data from the database were extracted for the detailed traffic analysis on the corridor’s congested part (See the highlighted area in Figure 2). For brevity, the following discussion is confined to the analysis on the southbound traffic.
Average speeds of 5-minute intervals were analyzed to examine the traffic operations of the corridor’s expressways. This speed analysis reveals that traffic conditions of Kyungbu Expressway are relatively good during most periods of weekdays.
Notably, the segment ranging from Hoeduck JC to Daejeon IC turns out to be more frequently congested in comparison with the corridor’s other segments. This can be confirmed by observing that the histogram of Figure 3(a) shows more samples with low speeds than the counterpart of Figure 3(b).
In the case of Sintanjin-ro (i.e. the section of National Highway 17 under the jurisdiction of Daejeon), time series of ‘average travel time’ and ‘95th percentile travel time’ were constructed as seen in Figure 3(c) and (d), respectively. These figures confirm that Sintanjin-ro suffers from recurrent congestions particularly during afternoon peak hours ranging between around 18:00 and 20:00hrs.
Figure 3. Sample Results of Traffic Data Analysis (based on weekday data of October in 2014)
Frequency
Speed (km/hr)
Frequency
Speed (km/hr)
(a) Speed Histogram of Afternoon Peak Hours (Kyungbu Expressway; Sintanjin IC → Hoeduck JC)
(b) Speed Histogram of Afternoon Peak Hours (Kyungbu Expressways; Hoeduck JC → Daejeon IC) Time (minutes)
average travel time 95th percentile travel time
Time of day
Time (minutes)
average travel time 95th percentile travel time
Time of day
(c) Timeseries of Monthly Average Travel Time
(Sintanjin-ro; Sintanjin intersection → Hoeduck JC) (d) Timeseries of Monthly Average Travel Time (Sintanjin-ro; Hoeduck JC → Hannam intersection) Source
Kim (2015)
Identified ICM Strategies
In addition to the above traffic analysis, relevant data concerning transportation plans as well as ITS infrastructures were used as valuable information to come up with potential ICM strategies suitable to the subject corridor. Such identified strategies for Daejeon-Chengju corridor are summarized as 'Improve direct linkages of advanced traffic information among stakeholders', 'Facilitate the transfers between either routes or modes for efficient uses of transportation networks', 'Improve traffic operations at major transit junctions', and 'Increase corridor capacity and manage travel demands.'
4. Policy Implications on Transportation Planning
There should be improvement in the existing framework of transportation planning to effectively introduce ICM in metropolitan areas. In that regard, Metropolitan Regional Transportation Plans (MRTPs), City-wide Transportation Enhancement Plans (CTEPs), and ITS plans need to be reviewed in details. MRTPs aims at improving the decision-making on the investment of regional highways or transit lines by examining current mobility performances as well as future infrastructure needs in the subject metropolitan area. In contrast with MRTPs, CTEPs put more focus on the operational strategies to improve the mobility of individual cities. In addition, city-wide ITS master plans can be referred to identify ICT resources available for the implementation of ICM. These ITS plans are intended to aid decision-making on the investment of ITS assets such as detector systems, variable messaging signs, communication facilities, etc. Note that city-wide plans such as CTEPs and ITS master plans have limitations in orchestrating ICM because it requires regional coordination across cities.
In the light with the above, MRTPs can work as the foundation to develop and coordinate ICM projects by outreaching diverse needs from stakeholders within a metropolitan area. In the outreaching process, both CTEPs and city-wide ITS master plans can be referred to identify strategies or resources for ICM projects. Furthermore, Corridor System Management Plans (CSMPs) need to be introduced as an additional planning step to identify corridor-specific needs through detailed traffic analyses. These CSMPs can be used to mitigate risks in launching ICM projects. Supporting laws as well as funding systems are essential for the success of CSMPs as seen in the example of California Department of Transportation in U.S. (see Caltrans, 2010).
References
Caltrans. 2010. The Interstate 5 San Diego North Coast Corridor System Management Plan (draft).
California Department of Transportation.
U.S. DOT. 2012. Integrated Corridor Management: Implementation Guide and Lessons Learned.
ITS Joint Program Office, U.S. Department of Transportation
Kwangho Kim (2015) Foundational Research to Facilitate Integrated Corridor Management Systems in Korean Metropolitan Regions
2017 KOICA-UNESCAP-KRIHS Capacity Building on Spatial Data and Technologies for Urban Planning and Disaster Management
From August 27(Sun) to September 9(Sat), the Global Development Partnership Center (GDPC) of the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS), Korea International Cooperation Agency, and United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific(UN- ESCAP) co-hosted a capacity building program on sharing Korea’s experiences and knowledge in urban disaster prevention and reduction, multi risk prediction technologies, spatial data collection and management for 11 government officials in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. As a part of 3 years invitational training project, this is the first year project which includes lectures, advisor meeting, site visits on urban development and disaster management and cultural experiences.
2017 KRIHS-ADB Workshop on Sustainable Urban Infrastructure
The GDPC of KRIHS held the ‘2017 KRIHS-ADB Workshop on Sustainable Urban Infrastructure: Sharing Korean Experiences’ from September 4(Mon) to 7(Thu) at the Courtyard Marriott Hotel Namdaemun in Seoul. The participants are 15 government officials from 7 Asian countries including Azerbaijan, Laos, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Sri Lanka and Philippines and 2 ADB staffs. The aim of this joint workshop is to share knowledge and experiences in the field of urban infrastructure, urban disaster management and smart cities and to discuss how to apply them to each participant's country.
2017 Knowledge & Experience Sharing Program of Korean Infrastructure Development For Afghanistan Officials
The GDPC held the ‘2017 Knowledge &
Experience Sharing Program of Korean Infrastructure Development For High-Level Officials’from October 23(Mon) – 27(Fri) at Ruby hall (22F) at the Plaza hotel in Seoul. The participants are 10 high-level government officials from Afghanistan and 1 World Bank staff. The aim of this workshop is to share knowledge and experiences in the field of Korean urban infrastructure development.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP NEWS
Copyright 2017 ©Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements All Rights Reserved.
5 Gukchaegyeonguwon-ro, Sejong-si, 30149, Korea
Published by the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS, http://
www.krihs.re.kr/)
Edited by the Global Development Partnership Center
(GDPC, http://gdpc.kr/) Tel. +82-44-960-0596 Fax. +82-44-960-4772 Designed and Produced by Designintro Co., Ltd.
(http://www.gointro.com) Tel +82-2-2285-0789
