"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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then