"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
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with