Five bus companies in southern Taiwan recently announced that they will soon stop services in rural areas. This situation has highlighted problems with the government's highway transportation policy and the commuting rights of rural passengers, operators' profitability requirements and insufficient government subsidies and the difficulties experienced by authorities and operators. More routes in remote areas nationwide could now be at risk.
The main problem with transportation in remote areas lies in the long-standing practice of exchanging votes for bus routes. These mixed routes have become a heavy burden for operators who have to rely on government subsidies to continue services.
In the vicious cycle of limited budgets and opaque operational costs, rural residents' transportation rights are often sacrificed to route integration.
Under the "single-member-district system" that is being introduced with next month's legislative elections, it is clear that candidates tend more toward local issues. Route operation in remote areas may become even more difficult in the future.
Rural transportation problems are the result of politics, social welfare concerns, financial issues, regional development and traffic engineering. The proposed solutions -- including reviews of route integration, reduction or cancelation of daily runs and increases in local government subsidies -- cannot fundamentally and effectively resolve the conflict between transportation needs, profit requirements and the government's financial burden.
How should we deal with this complex issue?
Perhaps the Brazilian city of Curitiba, praised as "the most innovative city in the world" by the UN, could stimulate the imagination of the public and private sectors.
Curitiba's low-chassis "Bus Rapid System" is as efficient as New York's subway system during rush hour, at only one-fortieth of the cost. Through the flat rate policy, passengers can take buses between urban and rural areas an unlimited number of times. Even rural residents can go anywhere in urban areas at a low cost.
In addition to traffic rights in rural areas and transportation efficiency in urban areas, the design of the system has also balanced the distribution of more popular and less popular routes.
Instead of distributing profits according to the number of passengers, the Brazilians distribute them according to mileage. This assures that both popular and less popular routes can coexist without operators having to subsidize the less popular routes.
The bus operators will also be weaned off government subsidies by calculating reasonable rates and costs, reversing the economic and social value of operating routes in remote areas.
Curitiba's system shows that subsidies are not the best solution to public transportation in remote areas.
The problem can hardly be resolved by a single traffic policy, so it may be necessary to return to square one and consider the possibility of various integration plans.
The central and local governments, as well as politicians, that want to seize this opportunity for reform should get rid of the pattern of interest distribution and construct a complete plan, so residents in remote areas can also enjoy convenient and rapid transportation.
Chang Wei-hsiu is a doctoral candidate in the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning at National Taiwan University. Chen Hung-ying is also a student in the graduate institute.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with