Taiwan is no stranger to bridge collapses, but what makes Tuesday’s Nanfangao Bridge (南方澳橋) disaster even more disturbing is that the government is ordering the same kind of measures it has done after previous incidents, and yet little appears to have changed over the years in terms of bridge construction, inspection or maintenance.
While the cause of Tuesday’s collapse has yet to be determined, one has to wonder if the steps that have been ordered will prove any more effective than their predecessors.
The Public Construction Commission has been told to create a list of all bridges that are not under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MOTC), identify potentially dangerous bridges and ensure that the needed reinforcement work is conducted.
Does that mean that there is still no central list of the nation’s more than 27,000 bridges, regardless of what agency or local government is responsible for them?
After all, following the 921 Earthquake in 1999 that damaged more than 100 major bridges, of which several had to be completely demolished, the ministry commissioned the National Central University’s bridge research center to conduct a nationwide survey.
Following the collapse of the Kaoping Bridge (高屏大橋) linking Pingtung County and what was then-Kaohsiung County on Aug. 28, 2000 (in the wake of Typhoon Bilis), the then-MOTC minister ordered another overall check on the status of bridges nationwide.
Yet more bridges have continued to fall.
On Sept. 14, 2008, Houfeng Bridge (后豐橋) in what was then Taichung County fell during Typhoon Sinlaku. In August the following year, Typhoon Morakot wrought massive destruction on the nation’s infrastructure, with at least 90 bridges collapsing and nine more requiring major repairs.
Particularly worrying at the time was that authorities said just three bridges in the then-Kaohsiung County — of the 14 major bridges on MOTC-administered roads that had fallen — had been listed as “dangerous” in a 2008 nationwide inspection, while several that had been deemed structurally sound also collapsed amid the floodwaters brought by the storm.
On Nov. 17, 2013, a 55m-long pedestrian suspension bridge at a water reservoir park in New Taipei City’s Sanchih District (三芝) fell. The bridge was only six years old, but heavy corrosion was found in the joints and the screw bolts in the bridge deck where the suspension cables snapped, which officials said was due to wind exposure and salt-laden rain blowing in from the sea.
Given Taiwan’s geographic location and its topography, one would think that the corrosive effects of sea air, along with riverbed erosion, earthquakes and typhoons, would all be major factors to be considered when it comes to bridge design and maintenance requirements — not just the cost.
However, repeated surveys over the years have highlighted another major problem — a shortage of qualified inspectors and maintenance crew, regardless of whether it is a ministry agency, local government bureau or other organization.
All too often, human error and inadequate maintenance have been cited as contributing factors in such disasters. It is long past time for such factors to be eliminated, insofar as possible.
It might also be time to place one central agency in charge of bridges nationwide, regardless of whose jurisdictions they are under now, and give that agency both the personnel and the money to enable it to conduct biannual inspections.
This would not completely eliminate the risk of another bridge collapse — nothing can — but it would be a major improvement on the system we have now.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS