Re: [好奇] 蘇花高要提前通過...環評客觀嗎? - 生態環境討論
By Odelette
at 2008-03-07T05:00
at 2008-03-07T05:00
Table of Contents
※ [本文轉錄自 Gossiping 看板]
作者: willyt (T-Yak [Farewell~]) 看板: Gossiping
標題: Re: [好奇] 蘇花高要提前通過...環評客觀嗎?
時間: Thu Mar 6 03:19:24 2008
看到很多推文寫說,
要有便捷的交通才會有觀光,我絕對同意,
但是便捷的交通一定要靠高速公路?
想想看一些例子吧。
時間回到 1980 年代初期。
祝山林道 <- 也許有人不知道我在講啥,但是看到祝山就該知道是看日出跟雲海的。
當初大家也是覺得,阿里山公路好方便,祝山也只要公路上去就看得到了,
好方便好方便,所以勒?
祝山臨到清晨四五點就開始塞車。
恩,對阿你說只有塞車對吧,大家都願意塞著等看日出阿,也沒有看到有什麼衝擊阿?
but, 身為林道,如果你有去走過丹大林道,你就知道只要叫做林道,
鋪面都很差勁,所以被這些野雞車跟自用小客車來回碾壓之後,
道路品質不穩定,鋪面也容易磨損,付出的養護成本算在誰頭上?
觀光客嗎?
另外,還有看不見的衝擊,
你絕對不會希望凌晨四五點的時候,
你家門外正在塞車,自己能想像吧。
那森林裡面的動植物有人幫他們準備耳塞嗎?
最後,祝山的觀光品質當然是一洩千里。
不過當時的林務局做了一件非常非常聰明的事情,就是封鎖祝山林道,
然後把阿里山的窄軌延伸上祝山,
最後這就變成了阿里山風景區的金雞母。
同樣的事情也在日本的立山黑部出現,
少了自用車跟遊覽車,他們藉由電力巴士、各式纜車的交替合作,
兼顧易達性跟環境衝擊的管制,後來立山黑部國家公園,
為黑部地區創造了多少的觀光產值?
他們是靠"一條要花一堆錢、然後運量絕對不會高(這個待會解釋)的高速公路"
來解決發展觀光這回事情的嗎? (不要告訴我我想的太理想,看看祝山林道)
不蓋高速公路真的不能發展觀光?
放屁。
另外為甚麼說這條高速公路,運量高不起來?
現在我覺得有點累了,我把我貼在批兔的文章貼出來。
[quote]
如果花東地區只是要一個"可靠的車行出入通道",
靠船運就可以,基本上從蘇澳港開到花蓮港跟你走蘇花公路的時間差不多,
而且更安全,運量更大。
為什麼蘇花高不應該建?
因為他開了這麼多隧道,最後還是要受到低速限跟車行間距的限制,
就算進來的速度變快了,可是服務到的車流並沒有比較多阿,
更別提雪山隧道到現在都還沒有開放大貨車進入了。
如果只是"人"的旅次,台鐵本來就有說要買到 12 組的 Taroko Express
最近聽說有立委在立法院強力運作要買 TDMU (傾斜式柴油電聯車組)
南迴的問題跟花蓮接續的問題,還有在東改全部完工跟東快(台東線雙軌、電氣化)
全部完工之前的問題統統可以解除 (DR系列強力引退希望)
甚至我覺得,做北宜直鐵的效益,都比做蘇花高還要好。
西部經驗不需要持續複製到東部,
GDP 跟開發不代表一切,我們不應該到了現在還是以 GDP 的成長來自我肯定或者炫耀。
犧牲的東西太多了。
[/quote]
最後,送給半夜還流連在八卦板的諸君,
看看今天的宜蘭,想想明天的花蓮跟台東。
--
作者: willyt (T-Yak [Farewell~]) 看板: Gossiping
標題: Re: [好奇] 蘇花高要提前通過...環評客觀嗎?
時間: Thu Mar 6 03:19:24 2008
看到很多推文寫說,
要有便捷的交通才會有觀光,我絕對同意,
但是便捷的交通一定要靠高速公路?
想想看一些例子吧。
時間回到 1980 年代初期。
祝山林道 <- 也許有人不知道我在講啥,但是看到祝山就該知道是看日出跟雲海的。
當初大家也是覺得,阿里山公路好方便,祝山也只要公路上去就看得到了,
好方便好方便,所以勒?
祝山臨到清晨四五點就開始塞車。
恩,對阿你說只有塞車對吧,大家都願意塞著等看日出阿,也沒有看到有什麼衝擊阿?
but, 身為林道,如果你有去走過丹大林道,你就知道只要叫做林道,
鋪面都很差勁,所以被這些野雞車跟自用小客車來回碾壓之後,
道路品質不穩定,鋪面也容易磨損,付出的養護成本算在誰頭上?
觀光客嗎?
另外,還有看不見的衝擊,
你絕對不會希望凌晨四五點的時候,
你家門外正在塞車,自己能想像吧。
那森林裡面的動植物有人幫他們準備耳塞嗎?
最後,祝山的觀光品質當然是一洩千里。
不過當時的林務局做了一件非常非常聰明的事情,就是封鎖祝山林道,
然後把阿里山的窄軌延伸上祝山,
最後這就變成了阿里山風景區的金雞母。
同樣的事情也在日本的立山黑部出現,
少了自用車跟遊覽車,他們藉由電力巴士、各式纜車的交替合作,
兼顧易達性跟環境衝擊的管制,後來立山黑部國家公園,
為黑部地區創造了多少的觀光產值?
他們是靠"一條要花一堆錢、然後運量絕對不會高(這個待會解釋)的高速公路"
來解決發展觀光這回事情的嗎? (不要告訴我我想的太理想,看看祝山林道)
不蓋高速公路真的不能發展觀光?
放屁。
另外為甚麼說這條高速公路,運量高不起來?
現在我覺得有點累了,我把我貼在批兔的文章貼出來。
[quote]
如果花東地區只是要一個"可靠的車行出入通道",
靠船運就可以,基本上從蘇澳港開到花蓮港跟你走蘇花公路的時間差不多,
而且更安全,運量更大。
為什麼蘇花高不應該建?
因為他開了這麼多隧道,最後還是要受到低速限跟車行間距的限制,
就算進來的速度變快了,可是服務到的車流並沒有比較多阿,
更別提雪山隧道到現在都還沒有開放大貨車進入了。
如果只是"人"的旅次,台鐵本來就有說要買到 12 組的 Taroko Express
最近聽說有立委在立法院強力運作要買 TDMU (傾斜式柴油電聯車組)
南迴的問題跟花蓮接續的問題,還有在東改全部完工跟東快(台東線雙軌、電氣化)
全部完工之前的問題統統可以解除 (DR系列強力引退希望)
甚至我覺得,做北宜直鐵的效益,都比做蘇花高還要好。
西部經驗不需要持續複製到東部,
GDP 跟開發不代表一切,我們不應該到了現在還是以 GDP 的成長來自我肯定或者炫耀。
犧牲的東西太多了。
[/quote]
最後,送給半夜還流連在八卦板的諸君,
看看今天的宜蘭,想想明天的花蓮跟台東。
--
Tags:
生態環境
All Comments
By Eartha
at 2008-03-08T00:14
at 2008-03-08T00:14
By Agatha
at 2008-03-08T19:27
at 2008-03-08T19:27
By Jessica
at 2008-03-09T14:41
at 2008-03-09T14:41
By Aaliyah
at 2008-03-10T09:54
at 2008-03-10T09:54
By Skylar Davis
at 2008-03-11T05:08
at 2008-03-11T05:08
By Dorothy
at 2008-03-12T00:21
at 2008-03-12T00:21
By Skylar Davis
at 2008-03-12T19:34
at 2008-03-12T19:34
By Elvira
at 2008-03-13T14:48
at 2008-03-13T14:48
By Tom
at 2008-03-14T10:01
at 2008-03-14T10:01
By Adele
at 2008-03-15T05:15
at 2008-03-15T05:15
By Annie
at 2008-03-16T00:28
at 2008-03-16T00:28
By George
at 2008-03-16T19:42
at 2008-03-16T19:42
By Kyle
at 2008-03-17T14:55
at 2008-03-17T14:55
By Tom
at 2008-03-18T10:09
at 2008-03-18T10:09
By Zenobia
at 2008-03-19T05:22
at 2008-03-19T05:22
By Eden
at 2008-03-20T00:36
at 2008-03-20T00:36
By Queena
at 2008-03-20T19:49
at 2008-03-20T19:49
By Barb Cronin
at 2008-03-21T15:03
at 2008-03-21T15:03
By Yuri
at 2008-03-22T10:16
at 2008-03-22T10:16
By Hardy
at 2008-03-23T05:30
at 2008-03-23T05:30
By Agatha
at 2008-03-24T00:43
at 2008-03-24T00:43
By Edward Lewis
at 2008-03-24T19:57
at 2008-03-24T19:57
By Barb Cronin
at 2008-03-25T15:10
at 2008-03-25T15:10
By Freda
at 2008-03-26T10:24
at 2008-03-26T10:24
By Lucy
at 2008-03-27T05:37
at 2008-03-27T05:37
By Jack
at 2008-03-28T00:51
at 2008-03-28T00:51
By Leila
at 2008-03-28T20:04
at 2008-03-28T20:04
By Olive
at 2008-03-29T15:18
at 2008-03-29T15:18
By Mary
at 2008-03-30T10:31
at 2008-03-30T10:31
By Quintina
at 2008-03-31T05:45
at 2008-03-31T05:45
By Selena
at 2008-04-01T00:58
at 2008-04-01T00:58
By Ingrid
at 2008-04-01T20:12
at 2008-04-01T20:12
By Jacob
at 2008-04-02T15:25
at 2008-04-02T15:25
By Vanessa
at 2008-04-03T10:39
at 2008-04-03T10:39
By Hazel
at 2008-04-04T05:52
at 2008-04-04T05:52
By Sandy
at 2008-04-05T01:06
at 2008-04-05T01:06
By Jacob
at 2008-04-05T20:19
at 2008-04-05T20:19
By Heather
at 2008-04-06T15:32
at 2008-04-06T15:32
By Eden
at 2008-04-07T10:46
at 2008-04-07T10:46
By Enid
at 2008-04-08T05:59
at 2008-04-08T05:59
By Tristan Cohan
at 2008-04-09T01:13
at 2008-04-09T01:13
By Noah
at 2008-04-09T20:26
at 2008-04-09T20:26
By Linda
at 2008-04-10T15:40
at 2008-04-10T15:40
By Damian
at 2008-04-11T10:53
at 2008-04-11T10:53
By Ingrid
at 2008-04-12T06:07
at 2008-04-12T06:07
By Michael
at 2008-04-13T01:20
at 2008-04-13T01:20
By Ivy
at 2008-04-13T20:34
at 2008-04-13T20:34
By Kelly
at 2008-04-14T15:47
at 2008-04-14T15:47
By Ula
at 2008-04-15T11:01
at 2008-04-15T11:01
By Regina
at 2008-04-16T06:14
at 2008-04-16T06:14
By Annie
at 2008-04-17T01:28
at 2008-04-17T01:28
By Gilbert
at 2008-04-17T20:41
at 2008-04-17T20:41
By Caitlin
at 2008-04-18T15:55
at 2008-04-18T15:55
By Skylar DavisLinda
at 2008-04-19T11:08
at 2008-04-19T11:08
By Ida
at 2008-04-20T06:22
at 2008-04-20T06:22
By Queena
at 2008-04-21T01:35
at 2008-04-21T01:35
By Tom
at 2008-04-21T20:49
at 2008-04-21T20:49
By Ula
at 2008-04-22T16:02
at 2008-04-22T16:02
By Rosalind
at 2008-04-23T11:16
at 2008-04-23T11:16
By Mary
at 2008-04-24T06:29
at 2008-04-24T06:29
By Caitlin
at 2008-04-25T01:43
at 2008-04-25T01:43
By Joseph
at 2008-04-25T20:56
at 2008-04-25T20:56
By Ida
at 2008-04-26T16:10
at 2008-04-26T16:10
By Agnes
at 2008-04-27T11:23
at 2008-04-27T11:23
By Ophelia
at 2008-04-28T06:37
at 2008-04-28T06:37
By Connor
at 2008-04-29T01:50
at 2008-04-29T01:50
By Agatha
at 2008-04-29T21:03
at 2008-04-29T21:03
By Christine
at 2008-04-30T16:17
at 2008-04-30T16:17
By Agatha
at 2008-05-01T11:30
at 2008-05-01T11:30
By Donna
at 2008-05-02T06:44
at 2008-05-02T06:44
By Donna
at 2008-05-03T01:57
at 2008-05-03T01:57
By Jack
at 2008-05-03T21:11
at 2008-05-03T21:11
By Liam
at 2008-05-04T16:24
at 2008-05-04T16:24
By Quintina
at 2008-05-05T11:38
at 2008-05-05T11:38
By Edwina
at 2008-05-06T06:51
at 2008-05-06T06:51
By Edwina
at 2008-05-07T02:05
at 2008-05-07T02:05
By Selena
at 2008-05-07T21:18
at 2008-05-07T21:18
By Isla
at 2008-05-08T16:32
at 2008-05-08T16:32
By Daph Bay
at 2008-05-09T11:45
at 2008-05-09T11:45
By Erin
at 2008-05-10T06:59
at 2008-05-10T06:59
By Gilbert
at 2008-05-11T02:12
at 2008-05-11T02:12
By Robert
at 2008-05-11T21:26
at 2008-05-11T21:26
By Aaliyah
at 2008-05-12T16:39
at 2008-05-12T16:39
By Elvira
at 2008-05-13T11:53
at 2008-05-13T11:53
By Vanessa
at 2008-05-14T07:06
at 2008-05-14T07:06
By Thomas
at 2008-05-15T02:20
at 2008-05-15T02:20
By Margaret
at 2008-05-15T21:33
at 2008-05-15T21:33
By Caitlin
at 2008-05-16T16:47
at 2008-05-16T16:47
By Ivy
at 2008-05-17T12:00
at 2008-05-17T12:00
By Jessica
at 2008-05-18T07:14
at 2008-05-18T07:14
By Freda
at 2008-05-19T02:27
at 2008-05-19T02:27
By Caroline
at 2008-05-19T21:41
at 2008-05-19T21:41
By Cara
at 2008-05-20T16:54
at 2008-05-20T16:54
By Enid
at 2008-05-21T12:08
at 2008-05-21T12:08
By Cara
at 2008-05-22T07:21
at 2008-05-22T07:21
By Christine
at 2008-05-23T02:35
at 2008-05-23T02:35
By Carol
at 2008-05-23T21:48
at 2008-05-23T21:48
By Hamiltion
at 2008-05-24T17:01
at 2008-05-24T17:01
By Xanthe
at 2008-05-25T12:15
at 2008-05-25T12:15
By Zanna
at 2008-05-26T07:28
at 2008-05-26T07:28
By Edith
at 2008-05-27T02:42
at 2008-05-27T02:42
By Hedda
at 2008-05-27T21:55
at 2008-05-27T21:55
Related Posts
Re: [好奇] 蘇花高要提前通過...環評客觀嗎?
By Kumar
at 2008-03-07T04:59
at 2008-03-07T04:59
Re: [好奇] 蘇花高要提前通過...環評客觀嗎?
By Blanche
at 2008-03-07T04:59
at 2008-03-07T04:59
Re: [好奇] 蘇花高要提前通過...環評客觀嗎?
By Odelette
at 2008-03-07T04:58
at 2008-03-07T04:58
Re: [好奇] 蘇花高要提前通過...環評客觀嗎?
By Connor
at 2008-03-07T04:58
at 2008-03-07T04:58
Re: [好奇] 蘇花高要提前通過...環評客觀嗎?
By Leila
at 2008-03-07T04:57
at 2008-03-07T04:57