The Paris accord is about to take effect and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has proposed carbon reduction measures for developing public transport. The plan’s goal is to cut transportation emissions by 23 percent by 2030.
Taking an overall view of transportation, public transport is by far the most efficient in terms of space and energy use. Promoting public transport will not only reduce carbon emissions, it will also promote social fairness and justice.
When it comes to the economically disadvantaged, the lack of a public transport system restricts their choice of employment to places that are closer to home. Public transportation is the only way for them to improve their living situation, as well as access to education, medical care and leisure. Unfortunately, the fact that disadvantaged groups are the main beneficiaries of public transport is often the reason the issue is ignored or perfunctorily addressed.
A good public transport system must be simple, fast, safe, clean and affordable. Hong Kong, Seoul and Singapore have internationally acclaimed public transport systems, and Taipei has also laid a solid foundation, for example by integrating tickets and routes, combining shopping areas and transfer stations, integrating bicycle and pedestrian lanes, and providing passengers with timely information.
The ministry faces quite a challenge as it prepares to develop public transport. Setting up a dedicated agency to coordinate planning will allow comprehensive, long-term network planning and guarantee service quality.
Financial sustainability is also a major challenge. While the general expectation is for a mass rapid transit system, construction and transportation costs are quite high and it would be very difficult to recover costs through ticket revenue alone.
In addition to finding other revenue channels, a financially restricted government must be pragmatic and prioritize lower-cost alternatives, such as improving the bus system. It could then gradually integrate other transportation systems.
Another obstacle to attracting public transport usage is the public image of these systems. As incomes grow, it is common to display this new wealth by buying a car. It is important that an effort is made to promote public transport and encourage people to use shared transportation.
Another challenge is to overcome the longstanding illusion that traffic planning must be focused on cars, an impression that public transport has failed to overturn. Developing and operating a sustainable transport system is not only a technical issue, but also involves systemic factors, such as organizational structure, laws and regulations, networks, values and behavioral standards, discourse and tradition, as well as planning and official decisions.
Changing this requires innovation and renewal of the original design, as well as existing systems, behavioral standards, organizational relations and coordination mechanisms that have a negative impact on the development of public transport. This not only concerns public transport policy, but is also related to the planner’s expertise, culture and knowledge, as well as practical experience.
Sustainable transportation systems are necessary to address environmental and climate change issues in order to maintain economic growth. Many wealthy people do not support big government investments in public transport systems, nor do they want their own road use to be restricted. The government should continue to encourage communication to facilitate policy implementation and promote a sustainable public transport system.
Hua Jian is an associate professor at National Taiwan Ocean University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers