In this week’s edition of his weekly online video, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said Taiwan should have its own “Tour de Taiwan” bicycle race — though it already has one — and that he would like to see more people cycling. Taiwan is one of the world’s major bicycle manufacturing bases, so why shouldn’t it be among the top markets?
Cycling cuts fuel use and pollution as well as boosting health. Many will be happy to heed the president’s call to cycle more often. Time will tell if the government’s good intentions are realistic, but several problems demand attention before Taiwan can become a cycling mecca.
Over the past few years, local governments have built more than 1,100km of bicycle paths, and there is NT$3.8 billion (US$116 million) in funding available to construct a further 1,500km. Most of these routes, however, are for tourism, not commuting. For example, bicycle routes on each side of the Tamsui River (淡水河) are popular with cyclists on weekends and on weekday evenings, but their isolation makes them impractical for commuting or shopping.
Taiwan is densely populated and its narrow roads crowded with vehicles and pedestrians. In most places it is not possible to allocate a separate lane for different vehicles. An example of this is the bicycle route recently established on Taipei’s Dunhua N Road. City government planners marked off a section of the slow lane for use by cyclists only, prompting complaints by motorists and scooter riders that there was less space. At the same time, cyclists complain that the route is poorly designed and often blocked by parked cars and scooters, as well as by buses and taxis that stop for passengers. Dunhua N Road is one of the widest arteries in downtown Taipei. There will be even more complaints if bicycle routes are established on narrower roads.
The problem is that the government has not defined the status of cyclists among road users. In many countries, bicycle routes are part of the sidewalk, marked off with white lines from the part used by pedestrians. While these countries see cyclists as akin to pedestrians, Taipei categorizes bicycles as vehicles. But because bicycle routes can’t be fully separated from the rest of the road, different kinds of vehicles are bound to get in each other’s way.
Most of these problems can be avoided by good planning and communication. Unfortunately, the government began construction without public hearings to find out what cyclists needed and without informing local residents. This is a classic example of how government agencies under Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) authority fail to respect and communicate with the public.
Instead, “experts” with paper qualifications formulate plans behind closed doors. The results are projects that look impressive on paper but are rather less impressive in reality — the reconstructed Yuanhuan traffic circle, the Maokong Gondola and the MRT Neihu Line among them. The Dunhua N Road bicycle route looks set to join this inauspicious list.
Before compounding the problem by building more poorly planned routes, the Taipei City Government should learn what cyclists actually need. Planners need to properly define the status and rights of cyclists among road users and improve route design, otherwise the Dunhua N Road experience will repeat itself all over the country — and Ma’s dream of a cycling paradise will fall flat.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS