"If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk!" This is an old joke that is not a joke here.
I'm writing to help raise consciousness about an issue that seems to be ignored in all the talk about making Taiwan's cities more liveable: sidewalks.
In every city I've ever been in, there is some sort of traffic grid. In the cities of poor countries, there's one grid for all: cars, bicycles, pedestrians, buses, trucks, motorcycles, donkeys -- whatever -- all share the same traffic spaces. In wealthier parts of the world, though, cities have at least two such grids: usually, there's one for motorized traffic and another for non-motorized traffic. Some truly advanced cities have more than two grids; they separate public transportation from private, bicycles from pedestrians, or trucks from cars.
I have been to lots of cities in East Asia, North America and Europe. In every city I've ever been in -- except most of those in Taiwan -- there is a pedestrian grid, a system of sidewalks on which pedestrians have a clear path to walk without fear of being run over by motorized vehicles. Almost without exception, this path is available on both sides of every block of every major street with business or residential frontage. There are provisions at every intersection for pedestrians to cross safely.
From this point of view, most of Taiwan's cities are more similar to cities of much poorer countries than they are to cities in the developed world. In Taichung, where I have lived for about a dozen years, the mayor likes to talk about developing Taichung into a "world-class" city, but in developing a system for pedestrians, Taichung is a generation -- or two -- behind most "world-class" cities.
Here, the traffic grid is separated into two parts, but neither of them is for pedestrians. It is impossible to plot a pedestrian route from an arbitrary "Point A" to another arbitrary "Point B" that does not involve sharing the route with motor-scooters, cars, buses and trucks. This undesirable "sharing" comes in two forms: one is that pedestrians are forced to walk in the streets because the sidewalk is illegally blocked; the other is that pedestrians must share even the sidewalks with zipping motor-scooters. In Taichung, motor-scooters are driven wherever there are no barriers against the passage of parents with children, the elderly and the disabled.
This is a disgrace to Taichung and to Taiwan. In Taichung, schoolchildren walk on busy streets in the same lanes as trucks and cars. Parents can't (except in a few isolated blocks) walk their babies in a pram. People park their cars with impunity in the bus stops and on the sidewalks, and motorcycles drive on the sidewalks.
It doesn't have to be this way. I lived in Taipei when the situation there was as almost as bad. It was, if I recall correctly, when President Chen Shui-bian (
Cities continually complain that they don't have enough money to improve themselves. I believe the complaint is justified, but as an argument for not creating a pedestrian traffic-grid, it's a red herring. It's not a matter of money, but rather one of will.
Taichung's streets already have a clear building-line and nearly every building has a "qi-lou" in addition to sidewalk space. The government, businesses and the people just have to decide to create boundaries between pedestrian and vehicular traffic grids. The police could actually generate money for the city by enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Businesses could actually generate more revenue from having more walk-in traffic if they'd help keep the qilou and the sidewalks clear. We'd all be better off, and Taichung would be taking a significant step toward being a city that people would enjoy living in or visiting.
Here's hoping for a better future for Taichung.
Michael Jacques
Tunghai
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
RSS