It has been 16 years since the Suao-Hualien Freeway project was first proposed as part of the government's Round The Island Highway Network in 1990, and during that time there has been no let up in the controversy surrounding it.
The original intention behind the freeway was to encourage industry to set up in eastern Taiwan, but changed economic realities have made this policy redundant. The squabble has since shifted to become a battle between the opposing interests of environmental protection and tourism development.
The pan-blue opposition recently employed the rather irregular method of holding back the government's budget in an attempt to force the resumption of construction work on the freeway. Caught between the pressure of a budget freeze and the sticky issue of whether to continue construction, the government has begun looking for alternatives, hoping to replace the controversial project with its own East Coast Tourism Flagship Plan, designed to promote tourism in the area. It has yet to be decided when, or indeed if, work on the freeway is to be resumed.
In general, one could say that constructing transport links is one cog of a regional development plan. Since it is no longer relevant to encourage the eastward movement of industry, tourism has become the major focus of east-coast development. The freeway should have been settled ages ago, and it should not come down to a struggle between environmentalists and those who favor developing tourism.
This prevarication on whether to start, stop or resume construction is resulting in huge costs that the public has ended up paying for. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications is in charge of both transport and tourism, and so the buck ultimately stops with it.
If you look at the government's Ten New Major Construction Projects, it is apparent that transportation policy for the east coast has not been clearly defined, and that some parts of the policy clash with others. When the 10 projects were initially proposed, during Yu Shyi-kun's premiership, the ministry was fully behind the sections promoting development of the east coast.
These plans, including the electrification of the dual track north-link railway line, the procurement of more rolling stock and the Taipei-Ilan Direct Rail Link, represent the bulk of the investment burden among the 10 projects. The electrification of the north-link line and the purchase of extra rolling stock are certainly needed, and can be considered part of the continued improvement of the railway system on the east coast.
However, if the freeway is ever completed it will find itself in direct competition with the improved east coast railway, and the Taipei-Ilan Direct Rail Link will be vying with both the east-coast railway and the Taipei-Ilan Freeway for traffic. Not only is there a lack of a clearly defined policy to back up the development of the east coast, there is also no consistency among individual parts of the plan.
Policy debates always occur in advanced countries over whether to concentrate on developing the railway or the road system: The situation is different from country to country due to developmental or historical factors, and this leads to different choices being made. Where Japan has opted to concentrate on its railways, the US has chosen to focus on roads.
In Taiwan's west corridor, initially, the railways were extended when the island was under Japanese control. Later, the government focused on developing the road network, starting with the Sun Yat-sen Freeway and continuing all the way up to the so-called Third-Phase Freeway Plan today. It looks like it will be very difficult for the railway system to catch up with the highways.
Coming back to the east coast, it seems that if the Round The Island Highway Network is actually completed, it is likely that roads will become the major transport routes. But there are huge differences between the west and east coasts in terms of both geography and industry, so one could question why the east should develop roads over railways, as has happened in the west.
There is no reason the government cannot transform tourism on the east without causing controversy over environmental damage if it improves the railway between Hualien and Taitung, introduce measures to ensure convenient transport links to stations down the coast, and improve air and sea access, as well as the Suao-Hualien Freeway.
According to Minister of Transportation and Communications Kuo Yao-chi (郭瑤琪), the public is unlikely to accept a halt to construction of the freeway because "people prefer freeways." She also understands that Hualien residents feel they are being marginalized and treated unfairly.
If the suggested improvements to the east coast railway were made, I'm sure the people of Hualien would feel a lot less marginalized. As for the public's tendency to prefer freeways, I'm afraid that is due to the ministry's long-term neglect of the railways.
The government is moving in the right direction in replacing the freeway project with the East Coast Tourism Flagship Plan. However, officials may find it difficult to convince the residents of the Huatung region between Hualien and Taitung of this unless they can show them a clearly defined transportation policy.
Whatever happens, it is a mistake to put the future of the east coast at the mercy of the outcome of the freeway controversy.
Huang Yu-lin is an associate professor in the department of civil engineering at National Chiao Tung University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS