自行車通勤政策的轉借與實踐──以台北為例

Abstract

自行車於近幾年在台灣社會所受到的關注，已經逐漸由休閒旅遊擴及都市通勤的範疇，但是當自行車通勤成為地方政府的交通體系改革政策時，自行車成為備受爭論的議題。本研究關注這些倡議改革都市交通的政策行動者問題化、進而嘗試改變當前台北交通體系的過程，探討台北都市交通議程轉變的過程中，政府規劃者、民間團體等行動者如何轉借其他城市與國家的自行車通勤文化與政策，以此問題化當前台北的交通體系，同時嘗試引介這些不同地方的政策作為解決方案。 從1997年開始，由地方政府交通規劃者嘗試推廣的自行車通勤政策，受到當時社會大眾並未將自行車理解為交通活動的影響，加上選舉政治的偶然，逐漸轉向休閒活動發展，間接促成2007年的自行車休閒風氣。不過，由於同一時間市民社會對環境議題的關注，自行車通勤搭上自行車休閒的順風車，促使規劃者重新專注於通勤政策的推廣。在這個過程中，民間倡議團體持續引介國外的政策與論述，嘗試提出更廣泛的交通體系變革措施，但是受限於地方政策行動者的權限，以及中央政策必須顧及台北與其他地方在運輸體系上的差異，使地方政府的交通規劃者最終僅能著力於都市空間的改造。此外，即使是實質的自行車道規劃策略，由於交通體系的運具組成與政策生產的權力關係，使得其他城市的政策方案對台北的政策生產助益有限。此外，自行車通勤政策在2008年的推行，由於嘗試改變都市居民的日常生活，並且挑戰了交通運輸場域中的供需原則，引發廣泛的民眾批評，並且再次因選舉政治的壓力而修改政策走向。不過，規劃者並未放棄自行車道路網的設置計畫，而是技巧性地採取其他策略改造都市原有的街道環境。 台北整體的自行車通勤政策，在倡議的動機與理念上深受其他國家政策的影響，不過倡議者引介的政策方案，卻因為地方社會的特殊性，並未成為政策生產時實際參照的對象。儘管政策的生產並非完全仰賴學習其他地方的政策，但是政策移轉仍舊成為支持、反對政策的社會群體正當化自身立場的論述。而政策實行過程面對的困境在於，政府規劃者雖然看似握有實質的決策權力，但是卻又處處受到民意代表與媒體所中介的民意制衡。受限於上述政策生產的權力關係，規劃者對於政策目標與對象的模糊界定，除了使政策未能直接回應政策支持者的實際需求，在不同政策定位下，對於特定生活形式的間接排除，則成為比起建構理想的城市生活更複雜而具爭議性的倫理問題。

Public concerns about biking in Taiwan have gradually shifted from a focus on leisure biking to urban commuting in recent years. The role of bicycle has been at the center of a policy debate since the idea of bicycle commuting was introduced to the local transportation policy reform. This study examines how different groups of policy actors advocating urban transportation policy reform problematized Taipei’s transportation system, and what they have done to change it. Specifically, I focus on how bicycle commuting policies from other countries or cities were being introduced and transferred in this process as references or solutions to Taipei’s transportation problems by government planners and NGOs. Local government planners have started to promote bicycle commuting policies since 1997. It has, however, developed into a series of leisure biking activities right before the Taipei Mayoral Election both because of the sensitive timing, and the fact that public have not yet considered biking as a commuting alternative. This series of leisure biking activities indirectly contributed to the 2007 leisure biking boom. The increasing public concerns about environmental issues in 2007, and the increase of leisure biking around 2007 provided government planners with a new opportunity to promote bicycle commuting. While government planners focused on planning and promoting new bicycle commuting policies, NGOs advocating bicycle commuting have also introduced relevant policies and discourses from other countries and cities in an attempt to propose a series of concrete reforms to achieve an ideal transportation system. However, due to the limited authority that local administration has and the limited national-level reforms that could be done (because of a large difference in transportation system of Taipei and that of other counties), local government planners could only choose to reconstruct the allocation of urban space. The most prominent reform is the construction of inner-city bicycle lanes. The policy production process of Taipei’s inner-city bicycle lanes demonstrates the limitation of transferring and adopting bicycle policies from other “successful models” due to the unique vehicle composition of transportation system and the unique political climate in Taipei. The bicycle commuting policies implemented in 2008 was not a big success. These policies seek to change urban residences’ daily habits, and challenged the demand and supply of existing transportation structure, thus, brought about massive critiques from the public. Local government planners, again, shifted their original policies under the political pressure of 2009 Taipei Mayoral Election. They did not, however, drop the whole plan of constructing the inner-city bike lane system. Instead, they made minor adjustments to the original urban space without alarming the public of these changes. The production process demonstrates the importance of local specificity discussed in the policy transfer literature. Though policies from other cities may not contribute much to the concrete details of the actual policy implemented, they are very often used as discourses to legitimatize the positions that each social groups hold. The unsatisfying result of Taipei’s bicycle commuting policy may be a result of confusing the subject group that the policy was aiming at: the minority group that was already using bicycles or the majority group that were not using bicycles but could be potentially motivated to change their commuting methods.