6 ms·

I was back in Taiwan last year after an extended absence. It's pretty amazing how easy it is to get around with a combination of the mass rapid transit (MRT) s

I was back in Taiwan last year after an extended absence. It's pretty amazing how easy it is to get around with a combination of the mass rapid transit (MRT) system and high speed rail (HSR). When I was last there, you still needed to take a bus or taxi from TPE to the city center. Now right from TPE airport, you can be in either Taipei city center in 30 minutes (MRT) or on the other end of the island in short order (HSR). Which is kind of fun because the southern end of the island has a totally different vibe. Within Taipei, you can get to where you need to using the MRT and walk (fun because there's so many interesting nooks and back alleys anyways) or use bike rentals. There's also abundant buses as well connecting from the MRT stations. Taichung has a single MRT line that connects east to west right off of the HSR line. Kaohsiung has a few MRT lines and surface light rail that connect the major attractions. All of it quite cheap to get around, incredibly clean and well maintained, and just all around made it much more enjoyable wandering the city. The only time we felt the need for a car was visiting the more remote north/east coasts and only because we wanted to save time versus waiting for the slower trains that run those routes. Whenever I land in SFO, I wonder who's bright idea it was to not have an easy connector to CalTrain at Milbrae (or I'm doing something wrong -- I feel like I don't fully understand the right way to get to Milbrae from SFO). Then on weekends, there's barely any service so if you land on a Sunday for a business trip, you'll waste so much time waiting for the train. Indeed, it is jarring when we returned to the US.

ecshafer 3y ago
The way Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea fund trains is a big difference with the US (though ironically is similar to how the US used to fund trains in the 1800s). The companies (usually in some kind of private-public partnership from my understanding) who build and run the trains in East Asia typically get land around the train stop to develop into malls, shops, apartments, etc. These sales and rents then fund the train lines. This incentive to keep everything nice on the trains and around the stops to help the other sides funding is important I think.
- stetrain 3y ago
  This is sort of the model that Brightline (Fortress Investment) is using. They are spending money on the train service in hopes of increasing the values of their real estate investments.
  - ecshafer 3y ago
    Its a smart investment strategy. If you can offer someone a walkable little neighborhood where they can live, walk to a a gym, grocery store, and a couple bars or restaurants, AND also walk to a train that can take them to work and a few more areas. That is an attractive offer. Even if the person still has a car, people seem to enjoy not driving everywhere.
    - stetrain 3y ago
      Yes. I actually think this should apply to publicly run systems as well. It seems like in the US we often lament that government run systems run at a loss instead of a profit, but also tend to hamstring them from doing things (like building shopping, dining, offices, housing on top of transit stations) that a private enterprise would do to make its investment profitable.
- kijin 3y ago
  A strange thing about South Korea is that even the most expensive condos in Gangnam derive a significant part of their value from being close to a subway station (yeoksekwon). The millionaires who live there are riding the subway right beside the pleebs! No wonder they want to keep the trains nice and clean.
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    It's the same in Taipei.
  - seoulmetro 3y ago
    This is incorrect. Yes, people appreciate the subways but not in the way you just described. It's the "wealthy" that use the subway as well as a car, but the expensive condos in Gangnam are not using or caring about the subway. The subway is just a plus. People living in the expensive parts of Gangnam(-gu) are not riding the subway. People living in the affordable parts of Gangnam(-gu) are. In fact, if you look on a map in Gangnam, you will find the apartments at the doorsteps to subway stations are huge complexes for generic wealthy people. But the expensive apartments are as far as possible between the subway stops, but still in walking distance: - 서초그랑자이 - 래미안 리더스원 - 서초푸르지오써밋 - 신반포 area services insanely expensive apt blocks but is just 1 lame station.
GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
I had the same experience when I first moved out to the Bay Area. You'd think with all the marketing that they would have solved something as simple as mass transit, maybe Jetson's style with personal pneumatic tubes. Nope, there's barely any transit. Maybe it's okay if you live near a BART station. The best my employer could do was offer a shuttle that also had to sit in traffic for at least 45 minutes each way. I bike to work now and it takes 15 minutes here in Amsterdam.
safety1st 3y ago
I've lived in a number of cities across three continents and I tend to think that the idea of a "car-free" city is a quintessentially North American overreaction to a quintessentially North American problem. Like yes Wired we know that the suburb and the American commute have some serious downsides and the US leaned way too much into this model during a period of high population growth. However it's not like other approaches to urban planning have no downsides. I personally like the Asian model of high density and mixed use zoning but here are some realities that come with it: noise, more pollution, more construction, less space, commercial usage pushing up land values etc. There is no one size fits all so I tend to think most US cities would benefit from just dialing back the size of some of the suburban wastelands out there, keeping density low to medium and re-zoning to allow certain less intrusive types of businesses. One compact urban core, a low to medium density mixed use ring and a suburban fringe perhaps. Yes people are still going to need to cars in this city but a lot of commutes, shopping trips etc. are likely to get shorter. For somewhere like San Francisco there's probably a great argument for the type of development you see in Taipei or Tokyo where you lean heavily into commuter rail and the train stations become big multi-use complexes and the center(s) of your city. But this is a huge reorganization of people's lives and existing property development that there's going to be a lot of pushback against and it's not all going to be nimbyism.
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  > But this is a huge reorganization of people's lives and existing property development that there's going to be a lot of pushback against and it's not all going to be nimbyism If anything, I feel like Taiwan's model should prove that you can do it anywhere precisely because it was already so dense and built up on top of being in an area with very high seismic activity. It's not like they could find a lot of room to build massive stations on the surface. You barely notice the underground MRT stations at all aside from stair arches that pop out of the ground[0]. If they can make it work in a city as dense and populated as Taipei, it feels like it ought to be possible anywhere. And on the contrary, being close to an MRT line tends to drive up the price of housing in the area given it seems a strong selling point for the folks that live and work in the city. I think the real root cause is that US society is not egalitarian enough to make this work. [0] Examples: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JS8WEKhKmiVMGWCF6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/JS8WEKhKmiVMGWCF6, https://maps.app.goo.gl/mXFjKiAQ8Vf47SAG8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/mXFjKiAQ8Vf47SAG8
bko 3y ago
Do you have any children? I can't imagine car free city is good when you have two or more young children. For one, groceries are a problem as you likely need to stock more food to cook. Sure you can go to the store every other day but that takes a lot of time and is more expensive. Plus you are on a lot tighter schedule. Most people with kids race home to pick up children and don't want to stop by the store and schlep back groceries. Then you have just the stress of taking kids on public transport. You have to carry around a lot of things (snacks, drinks, diapers or change of clothes, toys and books, etc). You normally put that in a stroller but that's a huge pain to manage on a bus or subway.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  Japan seemed to have invented the mamachari [1] for that sort of thing. [1] https://www.nippon.com/en/features/jg00091/ https://www.nippon.com/en/features/jg00091/
- boplicity 3y ago
  I live in a city with two young kids. We do very little driving. We live an easy walk to the grocery store and school. A bus stop is on the corner, with buses every few minutes. A car really isn't necessary, and the kids like taking the bus, though we don't do it often. For longer trips, a backpack gets stuffed with snacks and stuff, and we're good to go. The only thing we use a car for regularly is to get to swimming lessons, which is a bit off the beaten path. None of the things you bring up are a problem for us at all.
  - bko 3y ago
    That's great and I'm happy for you. For me, getting to my parents would take me 2 hours vs 30m and I'd have to adhere to a strict schedule. inlaws would take maybe 4 hours versus 1.5, since there is much better transit to them. So basically my kids would see them a lot less often at a much greater expense. Shopping locally would cost me an extra few hundred a month and take me maybe 20 hours extra a month. If the kid is sick I'd have to schlep him to the doctor which would take 30m each way as opposed to a ten min car ride. Hope it's not raining. I can also drive to more restaurants so I have more choices Having a car is a convenience that makes my life considerably easier. I gladly trade money for time and convenience. And I can often even get both with more options form shopping
gadders 3y ago
It sounds like you're saying it works for tourists. How would I get a massive CostCo shop home in Taipei (or similar large amount of shopping)?
- dijit 3y ago
  you must also ask the question why you want to make a huge shopping trip. If you lived in a world where accessing the shop was easy and convenient, and they stocked everything you need, and you didn't have oodles of storage at home to store it all: why would you even make such a huge shopping trip?
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    It's precisely this. The culture and organization of the city means that 1) most folks have relatively small kitchens and small refrigerators, 2) actually, most dwellings are quite small in the first place so there isn't so much space to store large stockpiles of goods, 3) markets are abundant and easy to access, 4) the cost of eating out is so low that many folks do not have a habit of cooking at home and often just eat out.
  - gadders 3y ago
    So your plan is for people to have a longer commute to work, work 8 hours at the job, have a longer commute home, and then have to trudge to a shop in the evening most nights of the week (in all weathers)? Sounds idyllic. Food shopping every night can replace going to the gym or playing with your kids. And if you're elderly and would rather drive - tough luck. >>If you lived in a world where accessing the shop was easy and convenient, and they stocked everything you need, and you didn't have oodles of storage at home to store it all: why would you even make such a huge shopping trip? Well obviously no-one is going to buy food they can't store. If they live in a tiny pod then by all means subsistence shop on a daily basis. However, the groceries will also be far more expensive.
    - CharlieDigital 3y ago
      The MRTs in Taiwan run very tight schedules with high frequency. Commutes are relatively short. Most folks go out with their kids and get food together (Taiwan being known for their night markets). > However, the groceries will also be far more expensive It's counterintuitive, but groceries and food are actually very cheap in Taiwan. Seeing is believing.
gigatexal 3y ago
> Indeed, it is jarring when we returned to the US. No place is a panacea. Berlin surely has its issues. But Europe and Berlin in particular is very nice for this expat from the US. I love that I pay basically nothing out of pocket over what’s taken from my taxes for healthcare. The trains are basically ubiquitous and at least near me just refreshed with new cars. We walk basically everywhere and take transit also. I’m far healthier than when I was stateside driving everywhere. The food has far less harmful things in it. Etc etc. My cousin who lives in Japan says similar things about Japan. He’ll never go back to Canada where he’s from. The feeling is similar to me and the US though I’ll be bringing my family home to the US eventually because I miss home and the potential for stupid high salaries and what that might do for my retirement fund. But yeah. Europe for the win for the time being.
goblin89 3y ago
I find cities in Taiwan frustrating to navigate without personal transport, at least a bicycle. Having lived in Kaohsiung for a bit, I observed that very few people use public transport unless they go to/from intercity rail or airport. Buses in particular are unreliable (mostly used by older people), and MRT alone is obviously not enough for the sparse city.
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  > I find cities in Taiwan frustrating to navigate without personal transport, at least a bicycle. Complete opposite experience; we found it actually enjoyable to navigate without personal transport. Some days, we walked > 10 miles; goes perfectly with stuffing your face with street food. To be fair, we were there as tourists and only for 12 days, but in any of the major metros, we did not feel like our experience would have been better with a car. Maybe bikes.
  - goblin89 3y ago
    As tourists, it is likely you didn’t have to get places on schedule. In regular life it becomes a bottleneck.
Gibbon1 3y ago
In the early 70's at the behest of airlines Congress passed a law that prevented Airports and State/Local governments from sharing cost of Municipal Rail lines. Which is why in the US if there is a rail connection it's always a separate feeder. I only learned of that a few years ago when congress repealed it. There is also an unwritten law in the US that the government isn't allowed to make changes that would interfere with an established business charging monopoly rents. Putting a subway stop at an airport would devastate the business of taxi, limo, and parking concessionaires. Also can you imagine if you had a layover at an airport and could get on the subway, go downtown and have dinner, then come back?

ecshafer 3y ago

The way Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea fund trains is a big difference with the US (though ironically is similar to how the US used to fund trains in the 1800s). The companies (usually in some kind of private-public partnership from my understanding) who build and run the trains in East Asia typically get land around the train stop to develop into malls, shops, apartments, etc. These sales and rents then fund the train lines. This incentive to keep everything nice on the trains and around the stops to help the other sides funding is important I think.

stetrain 3y ago
This is sort of the model that Brightline (Fortress Investment) is using. They are spending money on the train service in hopes of increasing the values of their real estate investments.
- ecshafer 3y ago
  Its a smart investment strategy. If you can offer someone a walkable little neighborhood where they can live, walk to a a gym, grocery store, and a couple bars or restaurants, AND also walk to a train that can take them to work and a few more areas. That is an attractive offer. Even if the person still has a car, people seem to enjoy not driving everywhere.
  - stetrain 3y ago
    Yes. I actually think this should apply to publicly run systems as well. It seems like in the US we often lament that government run systems run at a loss instead of a profit, but also tend to hamstring them from doing things (like building shopping, dining, offices, housing on top of transit stations) that a private enterprise would do to make its investment profitable.
kijin 3y ago
A strange thing about South Korea is that even the most expensive condos in Gangnam derive a significant part of their value from being close to a subway station (yeoksekwon). The millionaires who live there are riding the subway right beside the pleebs! No wonder they want to keep the trains nice and clean.
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  It's the same in Taipei.
- seoulmetro 3y ago
  This is incorrect. Yes, people appreciate the subways but not in the way you just described. It's the "wealthy" that use the subway as well as a car, but the expensive condos in Gangnam are not using or caring about the subway. The subway is just a plus. People living in the expensive parts of Gangnam(-gu) are not riding the subway. People living in the affordable parts of Gangnam(-gu) are. In fact, if you look on a map in Gangnam, you will find the apartments at the doorsteps to subway stations are huge complexes for generic wealthy people. But the expensive apartments are as far as possible between the subway stops, but still in walking distance: - 서초그랑자이 - 래미안 리더스원 - 서초푸르지오써밋 - 신반포 area services insanely expensive apt blocks but is just 1 lame station.

GaryNumanVevo 3y ago

I had the same experience when I first moved out to the Bay Area. You'd think with all the marketing that they would have solved something as simple as mass transit, maybe Jetson's style with personal pneumatic tubes. Nope, there's barely any transit. Maybe it's okay if you live near a BART station. The best my employer could do was offer a shuttle that also had to sit in traffic for at least 45 minutes each way. I bike to work now and it takes 15 minutes here in Amsterdam.

safety1st 3y ago

I've lived in a number of cities across three continents and I tend to think that the idea of a "car-free" city is a quintessentially North American overreaction to a quintessentially North American problem. Like yes Wired we know that the suburb and the American commute have some serious downsides and the US leaned way too much into this model during a period of high population growth. However it's not like other approaches to urban planning have no downsides. I personally like the Asian model of high density and mixed use zoning but here are some realities that come with it: noise, more pollution, more construction, less space, commercial usage pushing up land values etc. There is no one size fits all so I tend to think most US cities would benefit from just dialing back the size of some of the suburban wastelands out there, keeping density low to medium and re-zoning to allow certain less intrusive types of businesses. One compact urban core, a low to medium density mixed use ring and a suburban fringe perhaps. Yes people are still going to need to cars in this city but a lot of commutes, shopping trips etc. are likely to get shorter. For somewhere like San Francisco there's probably a great argument for the type of development you see in Taipei or Tokyo where you lean heavily into commuter rail and the train stations become big multi-use complexes and the center(s) of your city. But this is a huge reorganization of people's lives and existing property development that there's going to be a lot of pushback against and it's not all going to be nimbyism.

CharlieDigital 3y ago
> But this is a huge reorganization of people's lives and existing property development that there's going to be a lot of pushback against and it's not all going to be nimbyism If anything, I feel like Taiwan's model should prove that you can do it anywhere precisely because it was already so dense and built up on top of being in an area with very high seismic activity. It's not like they could find a lot of room to build massive stations on the surface. You barely notice the underground MRT stations at all aside from stair arches that pop out of the ground[0]. If they can make it work in a city as dense and populated as Taipei, it feels like it ought to be possible anywhere. And on the contrary, being close to an MRT line tends to drive up the price of housing in the area given it seems a strong selling point for the folks that live and work in the city. I think the real root cause is that US society is not egalitarian enough to make this work. [0] Examples: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JS8WEKhKmiVMGWCF6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/JS8WEKhKmiVMGWCF6, https://maps.app.goo.gl/mXFjKiAQ8Vf47SAG8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/mXFjKiAQ8Vf47SAG8

bko 3y ago

Do you have any children? I can't imagine car free city is good when you have two or more young children. For one, groceries are a problem as you likely need to stock more food to cook. Sure you can go to the store every other day but that takes a lot of time and is more expensive. Plus you are on a lot tighter schedule. Most people with kids race home to pick up children and don't want to stop by the store and schlep back groceries. Then you have just the stress of taking kids on public transport. You have to carry around a lot of things (snacks, drinks, diapers or change of clothes, toys and books, etc). You normally put that in a stroller but that's a huge pain to manage on a bus or subway.

JKCalhoun 3y ago
Japan seemed to have invented the mamachari [1] for that sort of thing. [1] https://www.nippon.com/en/features/jg00091/ https://www.nippon.com/en/features/jg00091/
boplicity 3y ago
I live in a city with two young kids. We do very little driving. We live an easy walk to the grocery store and school. A bus stop is on the corner, with buses every few minutes. A car really isn't necessary, and the kids like taking the bus, though we don't do it often. For longer trips, a backpack gets stuffed with snacks and stuff, and we're good to go. The only thing we use a car for regularly is to get to swimming lessons, which is a bit off the beaten path. None of the things you bring up are a problem for us at all.
- bko 3y ago
  That's great and I'm happy for you. For me, getting to my parents would take me 2 hours vs 30m and I'd have to adhere to a strict schedule. inlaws would take maybe 4 hours versus 1.5, since there is much better transit to them. So basically my kids would see them a lot less often at a much greater expense. Shopping locally would cost me an extra few hundred a month and take me maybe 20 hours extra a month. If the kid is sick I'd have to schlep him to the doctor which would take 30m each way as opposed to a ten min car ride. Hope it's not raining. I can also drive to more restaurants so I have more choices Having a car is a convenience that makes my life considerably easier. I gladly trade money for time and convenience. And I can often even get both with more options form shopping

gadders 3y ago

It sounds like you're saying it works for tourists. How would I get a massive CostCo shop home in Taipei (or similar large amount of shopping)?

dijit 3y ago
you must also ask the question why you want to make a huge shopping trip. If you lived in a world where accessing the shop was easy and convenient, and they stocked everything you need, and you didn't have oodles of storage at home to store it all: why would you even make such a huge shopping trip?
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  It's precisely this. The culture and organization of the city means that 1) most folks have relatively small kitchens and small refrigerators, 2) actually, most dwellings are quite small in the first place so there isn't so much space to store large stockpiles of goods, 3) markets are abundant and easy to access, 4) the cost of eating out is so low that many folks do not have a habit of cooking at home and often just eat out.
- gadders 3y ago
  So your plan is for people to have a longer commute to work, work 8 hours at the job, have a longer commute home, and then have to trudge to a shop in the evening most nights of the week (in all weathers)? Sounds idyllic. Food shopping every night can replace going to the gym or playing with your kids. And if you're elderly and would rather drive - tough luck. >>If you lived in a world where accessing the shop was easy and convenient, and they stocked everything you need, and you didn't have oodles of storage at home to store it all: why would you even make such a huge shopping trip? Well obviously no-one is going to buy food they can't store. If they live in a tiny pod then by all means subsistence shop on a daily basis. However, the groceries will also be far more expensive.
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    The MRTs in Taiwan run very tight schedules with high frequency. Commutes are relatively short. Most folks go out with their kids and get food together (Taiwan being known for their night markets). > However, the groceries will also be far more expensive It's counterintuitive, but groceries and food are actually very cheap in Taiwan. Seeing is believing.

gigatexal 3y ago

> Indeed, it is jarring when we returned to the US. No place is a panacea. Berlin surely has its issues. But Europe and Berlin in particular is very nice for this expat from the US. I love that I pay basically nothing out of pocket over what’s taken from my taxes for healthcare. The trains are basically ubiquitous and at least near me just refreshed with new cars. We walk basically everywhere and take transit also. I’m far healthier than when I was stateside driving everywhere. The food has far less harmful things in it. Etc etc. My cousin who lives in Japan says similar things about Japan. He’ll never go back to Canada where he’s from. The feeling is similar to me and the US though I’ll be bringing my family home to the US eventually because I miss home and the potential for stupid high salaries and what that might do for my retirement fund. But yeah. Europe for the win for the time being.

goblin89 3y ago

I find cities in Taiwan frustrating to navigate without personal transport, at least a bicycle. Having lived in Kaohsiung for a bit, I observed that very few people use public transport unless they go to/from intercity rail or airport. Buses in particular are unreliable (mostly used by older people), and MRT alone is obviously not enough for the sparse city.

CharlieDigital 3y ago
> I find cities in Taiwan frustrating to navigate without personal transport, at least a bicycle. Complete opposite experience; we found it actually enjoyable to navigate without personal transport. Some days, we walked > 10 miles; goes perfectly with stuffing your face with street food. To be fair, we were there as tourists and only for 12 days, but in any of the major metros, we did not feel like our experience would have been better with a car. Maybe bikes.
- goblin89 3y ago
  As tourists, it is likely you didn’t have to get places on schedule. In regular life it becomes a bottleneck.

Gibbon1 3y ago

In the early 70's at the behest of airlines Congress passed a law that prevented Airports and State/Local governments from sharing cost of Municipal Rail lines. Which is why in the US if there is a rail connection it's always a separate feeder. I only learned of that a few years ago when congress repealed it. There is also an unwritten law in the US that the government isn't allowed to make changes that would interfere with an established business charging monopoly rents. Putting a subway stop at an airport would devastate the business of taxi, limo, and parking concessionaires. Also can you imagine if you had a layover at an airport and could get on the subway, go downtown and have dinner, then come back?