New Taipei 2026 Mayoral Race: Comparing Li and Su on Transport, Housing, Childcare, Older Residents and Industry

Li Ssu-chuan and Su Chiao-hui have both published proposals on transport, housing, childcare, older residents and industry. Their directions overlap in several places, including housing tenure of up to 20 years, childcare and AI applications. The differences lie mostly in eligibility, delivery conditions and which items the city is already implementing.

Sources are campaign websites, reporting such as CNA, and city announcements available on October 13, 2026. No interviews were conducted. Campaign promises are not approved policy; measures already announced by the city are marked separately. In line with Article 53 of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act, this article does not cite or discuss election polls.

Five policy areas: what each candidate has proposed

Transport: connect the network vision to a first-term programme

On September 22, Li proposed a four-city mayor-level coordination platform and a “30-minute core living area” across Taipei and New Taipei, alongside pedestrian-network repairs, high-risk road improvements and AI traffic management. He has also proposed a Dahan River metro corridor and the Lushe Bridge. The approach links cross-city commuting with long-term networks, but coordination, land, funding and construction schedules extend beyond one mayor’s control.

At Tamkang University on October 12, Su addressed congestion in Tamsui through a review of public transport, data-assisted improvements to bus allocation, smart signals and consideration of flexible work hours. This focuses on operating the existing system. The remarks concerned Tamsui and should not be presented as a complete citywide transport plan.

Su’s transport positions extend beyond that forum. Her industry platform includes traffic bottlenecks and dynamic smart networks among municipal AI applications. Her housing platform proposes transit-oriented renewal, using TOD density bonuses to obtain social housing and public facilities. UDN’s May 11 report also records continued support for projects including the Xizhi–Donghu line and the Circular Line’s northern and southern sections, and attention to Linkou and Bali light rail. These span different stages of construction, approval and planning; they are not all new proposals or promised opening dates.

Both discuss smart transport, so “construction versus technology” is an inadequate contrast. A useful comparison would specify first-year junction upgrades, changes in bus intervals, and milestones for cross-city projects. A 30-minute target needs defined origins, destinations and peak/off-peak conditions. AI signal control needs before-and-after delay and pedestrian-safety results.

Housing: both mention 20 years; eligibility and supply matter

Li’s housing proposals include reserving at least 5% of land in major development areas for social housing, seeking authorization for employer-funded rental housing, and considering social-housing stays of up to 20 years for families with at least two minor children, with tiered rents under consideration. The other two parts concern integrating metro and housing development, and age-friendly social housing. Li explicitly frames this as continuing Hou Yu-ih’s social-housing policy. Su proposes an urban-renewal bureau, a trial of family housing with terms up to 20 years, and rental-management schemes for students and older residents. Her tenure proposal refers to qualifying families without a complete eligibility definition comparable to Li’s child-number threshold.

A 20-year term can reduce uncertainty about moving and changing schools, but does not itself create more units. With fixed supply, longer stays can lengthen waits for applicants. Li’s plan needs a delivery schedule and rules for workers leaving an employer, and how tiered rents would be adjusted. Su’s needs trial-unit numbers, eligibility and rents. A higher-level urban-renewal bureau also needs staffing and review deadlines before faster delivery can be assessed.

Childcare: income replacement and care availability fill different gaps

On October 2, Li proposed a city-funded top-up for the remaining 20% of parental-leave benefits, describing a 100% target. CNA identifies average insured monthly earnings as the existing calculation base. This is not automatically full replacement of everyone’s take-home pay: the city scheme still needs a defined base, cap, eligibility and duration.

Separately, CNA’s October 5 report records Li’s proposal to expand public childcare through schools and encourage employers to add childcare provision. This was a separate policy statement from the October 2 leave-benefit proposal.

Su proposes evening and temporary childcare with an availability platform, city coordination of jointly established workplace care, and coverage of 50% of losses in the first three years. She also proposes allowances for professional caregivers handling night, emergency or difficult care. The practical questions are available places, opening hours, staff compensation and subsidy caps.

For a parent taking leave, the benefit gap directly affects income. For someone already back at work on late shifts, service hours may be more urgent. These are differences in policy instruments, not proof that one candidate offers only cash and the other only services. Both need to explain provision for people outside leave eligibility and where new childcare places will be located.

Senior benefits and school meals: separate existing measures from additions

On October 5, Li proposed EasyCard-style use of 300 of the senior card’s 600 monthly points at convenience stores, supermarkets, pharmacies and for medical visits. Su proposes 1,000 monthly points with one-year validity, plus dentures subsidies up to NT$50,000 for older residents. Comparing 600 with 1,000 alone misses permitted uses, nearby participating outlets and expiry rules.

The baseline has already changed. City announcements put the allowance at 600 points from July 2026. Tamsui District Office’s roadmap schedules up to 300 points for farm associations, pharmacies and convenience stores in the second half of 2027, and point accumulation in 2029. Li’s proposal overlaps that roadmap, raising questions about acceleration or expansion. Su’s additions need incremental budgets and dates against the same baseline. An announced schedule is not verification that a future service has launched.

Su’s website proposes free meals for public elementary and junior-high schools. The city’s announced 2026–27 measure covers both public and private schools, a broader scope. The useful comparison is now quality, funding and implementation, rather than implying that fee-free meals must await a particular election winner. Priority in advocating a policy and what the current policy provides are separate questions.

Industry: both back Danhai; mentioning AI is not a distinction

Li proposes transport projects such as the Dahan River metro corridor. At an October 5 event in Linkou, he also presented transport construction and an AI industrial corridor as tools for local industry and jobs. Su’s platform includes Danhai Science City, factory renewal, industrial parks and municipal AI applications; her October 12 forum remarks discussed connections with Taipei’s technology industries. Both candidates have construction, industry and welfare proposals.

Both approaches need available sites, transport and utility schedules, first-term investment or development milestones, and support for existing smaller firms. Naming a park or corridor is distinct from securing tenants. For residents, accessible jobs within a workable commute matter more than an AI label on a map.

How to use this comparison

Across the five areas, the two candidates overlap more than labels suggest. The differences are in the details: who qualifies, what a first term can deliver, and what is new compared with existing city measures. Voters can put the same questions to both: where the budget comes from, what gets done in the first year, and which numbers residents can use to check progress.