上週發表在蘋果的文章,翻譯後登載於Taipei Times

Misunderstandings among some political commentators have associated those who oppose the construction of the Suhua Freeway with the middle class. While the media play up the issue as a conflict between environmental protection and economic development, politicians continue to play with words, openly talking about the project as still being at the conceptual stage, while busily budgeting for it behind the scenes. The fact that a statement such as “anyone who is not a Hualien resident has no right to oppose the project” can find support makes one worry that Taiwan’s democratic development is deteriorating into tribalism.

Destructive economic growth in the past at the expense of the environment did not result in the equitable distribution of benefits, but instead widened the poverty gap. Sustainable development generating local benefits is now the accepted norm, and ecological tourism is generally a win-win proposition. The prevailing current in environmental management has advanced from end-of-pipe pollution prevention to control at the source. Unfortunately, many still associate environmental protection with simply picking up the trash, believing that the environment will improve alongside the rise in incomes.

vThe main reason why the Suhua Freeway failed to pass its latest environmental impact assessment (EIS) was the unclear positioning of the plan. According to a scenario analysis by the EIS, the Suhua Freeway will only be needed if industry is relocating to the east coast, as tourism and sustainable agriculture rely more on the railway for connection to the rest of the country.

In other words, if the east coast wanted a freeway simply because there are so many on the west coast, then it would also mean ushering in high-pollution industries and dioxin-contaminated sheep to Hualien.

The Suhua Freeway passed an earlier EIS — in 2000, when the nation was busy with elections. It was passed almost surreptitiously as an impromptu motion, and no representatives from the Hualien County Government participated in the review process. Over the years, the developer has not changed its attitude toward environmental assessment.

Although several supplements have been submitted after analyses of environmental differences resulting from drastic changes to the route, the developer continues to cling to a false premise — that about 70 percent of Hualien residents commute to Taipei every day.

The imbalance in regional development requires a comprehensive redrawing of land planning and administrative regions. In the medium term, the government could consider legislation and budget to provide subsidies for east coast residents to travel by train. For now, the government can carry out President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) campaign promise — additional procurement of 72 Taroko Express trains for NT$3.6 billion (US$118.5 million) to increase the frequency of train runs to every 40 minutes and shorten the one-way journey to 110 minutes. As for cargo transportation, stability comes before speed. Even if the Suhua Freeway were built, safety concerns given the number of long tunnels required mean trucks would still have to use the Suhua Highway.

In recent years, the Taiwan Area National Expressway Engineering Bureau and local politicians have focused on the “safety issue,” emphasizing the need for an alternative route given the high number of accidents on the Suhua Highway. But is it impossible for the government to find another solution to the issue in the 10 years it would take to complete construction of the freeway? Why doesn’t the government announce a cross analysis of this section of the road and the reasons for accidents before discussing whether improving the existing Suhua Highway will cost NT$2 billion or NT$20 billion?

There is nothing wrong with demanding a safe road to get home, but the risk is the diagnosis — and thus the treatment— might be wrong. Moreover, there shouldn’t be only one road leading home — and the Suhua Freeway should not be viewed as the only remedy to development of the east coast. A suggested alternative route connecting Nanao (南澳) and Heping (和平) will not be a freeway and will not make use of the funds allocated for freeway construction.

However, if the government were to reallocate the budget to construct a road for residents of Hualien, they should be given multiple options rather than being forced to choose between the Suhua Freeway and no budget at all.

By Pan Han-shen 潘翰聲

Thursday, Jul 24, 2008, Page 8

Pan Han-shen is the secretary-general of the Taiwan Green Party.

Translated by Ted Yang



panhan3 發表在 痞客邦 留言(5) 人氣()

留言列表 (5)

  • 追日
  • 政府及台鐵 欺負花蓮人太甚 真是人不如狗 http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/080726/17/13yqk.htm l 犬娛樂台鐵寵物首發團 狗兒花蓮度假 泡妞暈車趣事多 7/26 適逢星期六又是暑假期間, 多少花蓮人買不到票返鄉, 台鐵竟可為狗狗開專車, 而且是跟著主人買的票,不另收費, 這樣的台鐵又怎會不賠錢? 擺著加開班次或加掛車廂可以提高服務花蓮人 又可同時為台鐵賺進大筆收入的事不做, 卻寧可開專車免費提供狗狗到花蓮遊玩, 真是人不如狗。 花蓮人竟只奢望 7 年後才可能完成的蘇花替或 10 幾年後才有可能的蘇花高, 難道台鐵的作為就不令人生氣? 短期間更快提高,進而有機會解決花蓮往返運輸量的事, 怎不見有人出來抗議, 爭取? 政府說台鐵運輸量不夠解決花蓮往返運輸量, 那為何還有餘力免費提供狗狗專車, 而遲遲不願提高例假日班車密度,加掛車廂舒緩花蓮人返鄉的需求? 另外,郭台銘將捐出千億做公益, 花蓮人可以不需要他捐錢, 只要他願意出資為花東開辦花蓮 -- 蘇澳的船運, 汽渡, 並且靠他的政商勢力排除在這過程中可能的龐大阻力, 以及打通政府內部重重的關卡及阻擋, 所有的花蓮人以及要去花蓮觀光旅遊的人, 都將感激不盡, 而且如果運輸量真如政府所說這般龐大需求壓力, 開通後的船運. 汽渡還可為其賺進大筆鈔票。
  • copacetic
  • Hi, I am a translator who partakes in Global Voice Online (GVO) (http://globalvoicesonline.org/). The news concerning the rescission of the Suhua freeway project had been released recently, which I would like to report on GVO with the quotation of the final paragraph of this article both in your translated version and the source one. After my written report is successfully posted onto GVO, I will leave the link here. However, above all, your permission on my quotation comes as a priority. Would you please allow me to quote one paragraph from your brilliantly-and-trenchantly-written article?? Ineffable gratitude here^^
  • 感謝你讓更多人知道蘇花高的事,非商業的使用都可轉載,GOV應該可以。最新的變化,蘇花替代道路,還是很有可能在實質內容上接近蘇花高(交通部說中長期保留提高為快速道路的可能-方案四)我們的完整回應詳見:http://www.greenparty.org.tw/?itemid=1152。不好意思,英文不好,以中文回應以免誤解。

    panhan3 於 2009/12/29 00:10 回覆

  • Hualien & SHG
  • Hualien & SHG

  • 傅原本說「安全」結果底牌還是「快速」,中央政府預留升級空間就跟傅的策略差不多。

    panhan3 於 2009/12/30 00:25 回覆

  • SHF
  • 為什麼失業?縣長:缺蘇花高

  • 有些人為了私利,會去詆毀自己的故鄉,負縣長死說的倒數第一根本禁不起檢驗。力推蘇花高陣營,常在環評會上講「好山好水好無聊」,這次是施勝郎出來選立委.....

    panhan3 於 2010/01/13 08:53 回覆