Seoul Han River Ferry Audit Finds Budget, Feasibility Shortcomings
Seoul’s Han River Ferry program faced procedural issues in its cost and feasibility analyses, according to a government audit. The Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI) released findings after reviewing the Han River Ferry project, including the Yeouido ferry berth component of the broader Great Han River plan. The audit identified three improper or questionable items, but did not conclude that the Yeouido berth operator selection involved illegal favoritism.
The BAI’s review was requested by the National Assembly and covered the project’s total cost, economic viability, and the process by which the Yeouido berth operator was chosen. The agency said two caution notices were issued to Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon and other officials, and one additional step—an administrative notification regarding adjustments to vessel operation plans.
On total project cost, the audit found that Seoul’s Future Han River Headquarters excluded roughly 50 billion won in private-sector vessel purchase costs from the total project budget. That omission, the BAI said, violated procedures for central investment review and for professional feasibility studies. Consequently, Seoul’s own investment reviews and feasibility analyses were not conducted in accordance with required rules.
In its economic analysis, the audit said benefits tied to upper-facility constructions and vessel operations were included in ways not aligned with guidelines. The combined effect of these issues was that the central and independent feasibility reviews were not properly followed, casting doubt on the formal robustness of the project’s economics.
Regarding vessel speed targets, Seoul had announced an initial target of 17 knots, even though model tests suggested speeds of only 14.5 to 15.6 knots. Based on those figures, the schedule and timetable for express and regular routes—express times of 64–85 minutes and regularTimes of 78–100 minutes—were at odds with the originally stated performance. The BAI told Seoul to revise operations and timetables to reflect realistic speeds.
On Yeouido berth operator selection, the audit found no evidence that the process constituted illegal or improper favoritism. After reviewing bidding requirements, the selection process, and the contract terms, the committee said it could not conclude that conditions were arranged to advantage a specific firm. It also said delays in capital payments or the appearance of duplicate contracts did not prove Seoul City’s mismanagement.
The BAI called for Seoul to ensure future projects properly calculate total costs and conduct economic analyses in line with relevant laws and guidelines. It also urged the Seoul-based university-industry partnership foundation involved in the analysis to strengthen oversight and comply with pre-feasibility study guidelines.
Why this matters beyond Korea: the case highlights how large cities pursue water-based transit as a way to ease road congestion and expand mobility, often through public-private partnerships. It underscores the importance of transparent budgeting, independent reviews, and rigorous feasibility work in infrastructure projects. For U.S. readers, the report serves as a cautionary example of how cost estimation, performance assumptions, and procurement processes can shape public investment, service reliability, and timelines in urban transit initiatives.