The Ministry of Transportation and Communication is to launch a highway reservation system for road users during long public holidays. The project’s complexity, difficulty and scale are likely to be unparalleled by similar attempts around the world.
From an objective and professional standpoint, the ideas behind the policy are clearly correct. However, it will be difficult to carry out and its effectiveness will be hard to measure. In other words, it could achieve a similar degree of success to the government’s implementation of the five-day workweek at the beginning of this year.
The current best system for highway traffic management is known as dynamic route guidance, which enables the programming of traffic flow based on comprehensive information about the use of a road network, so that it can be distributed evenly.
By requiring road users to plan their routes early, the government’s reservation system could be an improvement on the system.
Nevertheless, a number of factors need to be taken into consideration. Setting up a reservation requires that both parties enter into an agreement that they must follow through on. Road users must meet at least three basic requirements.
First, a high participation rate is required. If only a small number of drivers use the system, there would be no structural changes to traffic flows — there would still be traffic jams in the same places as before and there would be little room for the system to operate in.
Second, there needs to be a low no-show rate. If drivers take different routes from the one allocated for them, or if they change their minds at the last minute without canceling their reservations, the system’s effectiveness would be greatly reduced.
Third, drivers must travel at their appointed times, as leaving earlier or later would reduce the system’s effectiveness.
However, there are also external factors that might affect whether drivers can arrive on time. For example, traffic jams leading up to on-ramps might prevent drivers from connecting with highways at the appointed times.
The authorities managing the system must meet a minimum of four conditions:
First, the system must have good methods for monitoring and calculating. Given the vastness of the nation’s highway system, planning routes is an extremely complex task. It cannot be done manually and requires a control model that is aimed at facilitating the desired results, be they travel times or environmental pollution.
The goal of route planning would be either the most efficient overall traffic flow or the lowest cost, but it might not meet the expectations of every driver.
Second, the system requires a platform that is both highly efficient and capable of simultaneously handling a great volume of data, including reservation requests, route calculations and sending out route suggestions.
Third, authorities must be able to guarantee that the system offers a certain level of service. If the effects of the system are hardly discernible, the public would be much less willing to use it.
Fourth, the system must be flexible and capable of handling sudden changes. Traffic situations are constantly fluctuating and having made a commitment, the system should have a set of built-in measures to cope with changes. In particular, it is extremely important to react to accidents swiftly, so that timely adjustments to planned routes are made to minimize the impact on the system’s effectiveness.
In addition to these basic requirements, there are a number of difficulties that the government must overcome as it prepares to launch the program.
The first difficulty is making the system fair. While some users would be assigned routes that are convenient, some would not — with some routes requiring them to travel for longer and thus raising their fuel costs. This is an issue that must be handled carefully.
A second problem is controlling traffic flows, which change over time, and so the system’s effectiveness would hinge on how accurately it can monitor and predict these changes. This would become increasingly difficult as drivers begin to take human-appointed routes. Whether big data analysis would be helpful has yet to be ascertained.
Third, whether users of the system are happy with their appointed routes would determine the success of the project. If users refuse to take their appointed routes because they are not familiar with them or think they make their journeys too long, the effectiveness of the system would be significantly reduced.
To sum up, the system is based on good intentions, but difficult to implement. Although the idea behind it is simple, it involves a highly complex highway system and rushing its implementation would lead to unpredictable outcomes.
Road users should bear this in mind and lower their expectations of it.
Wu Jiann-sheng is a professor of civil engineering at National Central University.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
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