"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 an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS