6 ms·

A city with 180km traffic jams

64 points by farslan 14y ago

ctdonath 14y ago
MOVE. Downvoters: I had a 2-hour-each-way commute too. It sucked. I moved.
- teffen 14y ago
  Honestly. I know life is not so obvious but I would just pour every resource I could into moving as far as I could from such a mess.
purephase 14y ago
Jesus, and here I thought Toronto was bad during rush hour. That's insane. Interesting the divide in class aspirations for a car vs. helicopters for the super rich.
- Tipzntrix 14y ago
  All that construction on the 401 makes it suck sometimes, but it keeps us from having this. That and there's the 407 for those so economically inclined.
w1ntermute 14y ago
> "No city in the world will ever manage to end congestion because when traffic flows, people are drawn to their cars. Tokyo is proof that this is not true. There are many, many people who own cars but only drive them on the weekends because the public transportation system is so great.
- cryptoz 14y ago
  Yeah, what a ridiculous quote. I'd give it maybe ten years before a number of world-class cities have ended congestion issues. The shortsightedness of people is incredible to me: "this is a problem in my city, therefore it will be a problem in every city on the planet for the rest of time". Uh, okay. Ridiculous pessimism.
  - Osiris 14y ago
    I think the 10 year estimate is a bit optimistic. Public transportation construction projects can easily take 10+ years from planning to construction to completion. The California High Speed Rail project, for example, is estimated to take 18 years just for construction, not including all the planning time it took just to get to this point. My personal opinion is that in areas with high traffic, car registration fees (or gas taxes) should be increased dramatically and the fees should be used to provide public transportation. Public transit should only charge fees as a means of controlling the number of people using the system (in other words, as low as possible to maximize usage but high enough to reduce overcrowding). In other words, make people that want to drive subsidize public transit. This would encourage fewer people to own or drive cars and push them to the less expensive public transit. It's all a matter of incentives.
    - cryptoz 14y ago
      I agree that 10 years is much too optimistic for most places, but I think it's possible. I wasn't looking towards public transportation directly, actually, in my assumption of how this is going to be solved. Rather, I think a much bigger event will be large networks of self-driving cars. Maybe Sao Paulo will "never" see them, but plenty of cities will, and those cars will do wonders in solving congestion issues. Combine self-driving cars with increased and improved public transport, and I'd bet a few large cities have it all solved on the 10-ish year timeframe. As far as the California High Speed Rail project...well, that's not how to solve the problem. At least not in my opinion.
      - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
        I still think 10 years is optimistic. We are still years away from production, self-driving cars, and the majority of people will have to upgrade to them, which, alone, will take 10 years from the point self-driving cars become affordable. As much as I want it, I don't think it will have much of an impact on my commuting life. I'll likely be about to retire before the impact is really felt.
    - krakensden 14y ago
- bearmf 14y ago
  Good public transportation by itself is not enough. Driving a car is still a "high status" marker in most of the world, especially in developing countries. People need to show off, the world is not all populated by Japanese. For example, Moscow has a decent public transportation system, but is also famous for its traffic jams. There are people who prefer 1.5 hour one way commute in a car to 40 minute commute by metro. There are lots of complaints about public transportation, but I don't believe it is the main reason. Trains are also crowded in Tokyo (there is a popular video on YouTube where station workers push commuters onto the train).
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "Good public transportation by itself is not enough. Driving a car is still a "high status" marker in most of the world, especially in developing countries. People need to show off, the world is not all populated by Japanese." Who said cars would disappear? Car culture can and will change.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    > Trains are also crowded in Tokyo (there is a popular video on YouTube where station workers push commuters onto the train). This is mostly just a case of making the exceptional seem commonplace. Having actually spent time in Tokyo, I've never seen workers pushing commuters onto the train, even at the busiest station in the city during the morning rush hour.
    - bearmf 14y ago
      I believe the trains are still very crowded at rush hour. People get used to that because driving is not an option and it is socially acceptable for everyone to take the subway.
      - w1ntermute 14y ago
        Of course the trains are crowded at rush hour - that's why it's called rush hour. However, it is nowhere near unbearable, and certainly not any worse, in my experience, than NYC. But there's one huge advantage over NYC - you don't have to worry about pickpockets, so you can relax while riding the train and take a nap, read a book, or play some games on your phone (which is what most of the commuters do).
- anovikov 14y ago
  London is absolutely fine having a perfect public transport system. You can get anywhere by tube which is never getting stuck, it is fast and convenient, probably better than a car even without traffic. Prague is absolutely fine too for the same reason, combination of metro and a great train service. Moscow is a nightmare and most of other 'emerging economies' cities too. Lots of cities in the world are free of traffic problems. It is a great example of how a culture of selfishness and ultra-invidualism (totally preferring own cars) brings everyone into trouble.
  - bearmf 14y ago
    Moscow has a good public transportation system though. Lol @ tube never getting stuck.
    - anovikov 14y ago
      It does, but due to broken mentality people try as hard as possible not to use them. That is, public perception is that mass transit is for losers who can't afford cars (while in fact standing in traffic wastes a lot of expensive time of middle class, but they still rather suffer it then admit that taking the metro is better). I can imagine this is a common problem of emerging economies, where most of middle class come from families of destitute peasants - and try to underscore their rise (real or imaginary) on the social ladder as hard as possible. In rich countries, where everyone had a car for at least a couple generations now, nobody thinks taking a tube is a shame, especially when it's faster.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  No city in the world will ever manage to end congestion because when traffic flows, people are drawn to their cars. As this article tells us, people flock to their cars even when traffic doesn't flow. Why?
  - _fn 14y ago
    Limited choice. It's either brave the traffic jam or rent an air taxi.
- WildUtah 14y ago
  The sidebar identifies Mexico City as the worst commuting city in the world in an IBM survey. I commuted recently for a year, eight miles each way, through the center of Mexico City. I went near or in rush hour each day. It was a pleasure every day. I rode the Metro. I rode the dedicated-lane bus rapid transit. I rode my bicycle. I never drove a car because I'm not stupid; I can see how the traffic is. People complain about four hour daily commutes just like in São Paulo, but in Mexico they're usually insisting on driving their cars when there's a perfectly good light rail, underground rail, dedicated lane bus rapid transit route, or commuter train route available. The city is laced with shorter van and minibus routes to help everyone connect to the transit backbones. Unfortunately it's more socially prestigious to drive two hours than relax forty minutes on the Metro with a book. It's probably a sign of incipient "neurodiversity" that I insisted on using the faster and more comfortable trains and bicycles even though I was a well-off foreigner who could afford to suffer in a car. I like the comment here that an underdeveloped country is one where the poor dream of owning a car and a developed country is one where the rich dream of living near a metro station. What São Paulo needs isn't less traffic. It's a lot more metro lines.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    I rode my bicycle I've always heard that the smog in Mexico City was so bad that bicycle trips could be measured in equivalent packs of cigarettes. Did you not find that to be the case?
    - WildUtah 14y ago
      Mexico City smog reached a peak in 1985. Energetic action by the local government has steadily improved the air quality since then. (There was a devastating earthquake in '85 that drove a citizen cooperative activist movement in the recovery and brought in a whole new political structure.) Today you can see the mountains ringing the city from the center even right after rush hour most days. It's still soupier than I'd prefer but it's like L.A., not like China or India. Bicycling has been rapidly increasing in recent years. I recommend riding in Mexico City if you're a strong cyclist. The traffic and pollution are not bad if you stay off the busiest through streets and the pleasure of taking in a prosperous and creative city of twenty-something million at ground level is a special treat.
modarts 14y ago
I'm starting to feel this way about the traffic in the Bay Area. I moved back here after living in New York for four years and am absolutely astounded by how bad the traffic has gotten. It takes me upwards of an hour and a half to get from my house in San Jose to my office in Menlo Park (a distance of ~30 miles.) Definitely makes me miss the amazing public transit infrastructure back east.
- Domenic_S 14y ago
  Tell me about it. I commute from Pleasant Hill to San Jose, ~60 miles, and it's a 1:45-2:00 hour ordeal each way. If there's an accident or a stall -- forget about it. If that south bay Bart line was going, I'd be golden. I've actually taken to riding Amtrak from Martinez part of the time. That's a fun commute, but pricy.
r4pha 14y ago
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." @petrogustavo Mayor of Bogota As a brazilian from São Paulo, who nowadays lives in Europe, I can confirm that. That kind of traffic is unsustainable. It doesn't matter how much of a good job you have, if you have to face this routine every day, your life WILL suck.
- rayiner 14y ago
  That's a great quote. If you get on a bus in Manhattan, you'll see bankers making $5 million/year sitting next to social workers making $40k/year. More than half the people on the island don't even own a car. I think that's progress!
  - r4pha 14y ago
    Yep. Here in Germany it goes something like that too. Being in college gives you right to ride busses/trains for free, but a lot of people and I rather ride our bikes everywhere. I really see no use for a car here. It would do more harm than good.
    - stephengillie 14y ago
      Here in Washington (state), university students can get a 3-month bus pass for $100 at the time they pay tuition. The bus service is pretty good in parts of King County (around Seattle) but almost the entire state is inaccessible by public transportation. Part of the reason is population density: Germany has 229 people per square km, while Washington has just 39.6 people per square km -- outside of the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett region, population density is about 1/2 of that. No buses because nobody lives out there. Outside of cities, almost no roads have sidewalks and walking to the grocery store would be a several-mile journey being constantly passed by pedestrian-hating drivers.
ghshephard 14y ago
"No city in the world will ever manage to end congestion because when traffic flows, people are drawn to their cars." - I disagree with this statement. There may be something about São Paulo that makes this true, but it's not a guaranteed universal truth. Vancouver, British Columbia has taken an interesting approach - they don't run freeways into the city, and have, over the last 40 years, zoned a large stock of residential units in the downtown/west side of the city. The goal is "Live where you work." People still commute by car, and skytrain - but, in general, there is an approach to ending congestion. Affordable, high quality, inconvenient mass transit is a large factor. But, generally, just avoiding having to travel long distances to get to work is another.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  The most interesting thing about Vancouver (disclosure: I grew up there) is not only the willingness to build density, but also the willingness to mix zones. Downtown Vancouver is the kind of place where you can find a surprisingly even mix of residential towers sharing space with commercial office buildings. You see this pattern in places like NYC, where many neighborhoods exist that are equal parts work and live. Compare with cities like Seattle or San Francisco, where there is an almost religious adherence to geographically segregating commercial developments from residential, and you can start explaining major quality of life issues.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    San Francisco is starting to get away from this, particularly in the fringe / expansion areas of the CBD in the South of Market and Mid-Market areas. There's actually always been residential space close to downtown, but it's generally been either tremendously expensive (Telegraph Hill), or near-tenement conditions (Chinatown). Parking is extremely limited and expensive, if you do own a car. There's also an issue with out-of-town HNVIs purchasing condos in or near the CBD but spending very little time there (other major cosmopolitan metro areas have similar issues, notably London).
    - tptacek 14y ago
bonyt 14y ago
Deficient public transit systems create areas where owning a car is THE thing that lets you into the middle class - this is bad for the environment, bad for traffic, and creates a barrier to social upward movement. Here on Long Island in New York, the bus system only serves /certain/ areas and the train system (Long Island Railroad) is expensive and designed to bring people to and from Manhattan and back and does anything else quite poorly. p.s. Anyone remember the Doctor Who episode Gridlock - where people actually lived and died in traffic? (:
wazoox 14y ago
Here you can check traffic in Paris and its suburbs: http://www.sytadin.fr/ http://www.sytadin.fr/ Last friday night there were 350km of traffic jams. Looking at the "barometer"( http://www.sytadin.fr/opencms/sites/sytadin/sys/courbes/courbe_cumul.jsp.html_63.html http://www.sytadin.fr/opencms/sites/sytadin/sys/courbes/cour... ) you can see that 200km of traffic jams is a daily occurence.
songzme 14y ago
Traffic is the #1 cause of unhappiness in the world. Move yourself close to work, even if you have to pay the premium. Do not put a price tag on your happiness.
- alex_c 14y ago
  Fully agree, and that is my philosophy as well. It's working great since I live on my own and can therefore choose exactly where I want to live, but that is often (usually?) not an option for families.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It depends on where you live and what your priorities are. I grew up in an 1,150 square foot house in the DC suburbs. My parents had two kids. The house is now worth about $390k, according to Zillow. For that much money I can buy a 1,300 square foot condo in Lincoln Park, Chicago. No back yard, except for the 1,200 acre park next door with zoo, duck pond, flower conservatory, etc. Good public school within walking distance (how many dads can walk their kids to school every morning?) The central business district is a 10 minute walk + 12 minute subway ride from the school. I agree that not everyone has options like that, but I think people make it harder on themselves than they need to. A lot of people have kids and decide they couldn't possibly raise their kids anywhere except a far-out suburb with 1 acre for the dogs to run around in. They spend just as much money for a house as they would in the city, except they get 1,000 extra square feet they use to store a lot of junk. Then they complain about their commute and all the traffic. They do it because well their parents did it and oh cities are so dangerous, forgetting that teenage driving is a much bigger danger to a middle-class kid than city crime. There is a lot of inertia built-into peoples' choices in this matter, IMHO.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    There is no doubt it's a tradeoff with kids. You have to balance a good neighborhood, good schools, decent living arrangements, and having enough time to actually parent your children. All of these are why I won't work another job that doesn't let me work at home a reasonable (to me) amount. I don't want to have to move closer to work to make that balance work when it is so easy to move work closer or me.
wtracy 14y ago
Business opportunity: Run around on a bicycle selling snack foods and other products to people stuck in traffic.
- maw 14y ago
  Plenty of people already doing that in Mexico. There are also people who threaten to "wash" your windshield, do juggling acts, and so on. It isn't a line of work you want to get into.
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  I guess you've never been to Mexico. :) The market is heavily saturated.
- ipince 14y ago
  Already happens in most cities in South America I've been to (and in Caracas, where I grew up). They sell all kinds of stuff: snacks, jewelry, car freshners, cold soda/beer (they carry around little coolers -- and yes, they sell beer to drivers), pirated dvds, etc. Also, juggling acts and car washes at lights... Sometimes, even if you don't want it, they'll wash your windshield so that you're guilt-tripped to pay them something. If you disallow them (by screaming at them), they may mark your back windshield with some soap. Later down the road they'll rob you if they see your car bears the mark. This means you have to get out of your car and clear it to be on the safe side. Truly annoying...
- dudus 14y ago
  it is very common in São Paulo. In the places where cars are usually stopped for several minutes you can buy water, snacks, stuffed toys and even eletronics like cellphone chargers from the window of your car.
Havoc 14y ago
Why the hell is anybody still driving then? Surely after sitting in traffic for half a dozen hours a couple of times inspiration strikes and you buy a motorbike?
- sharkweek 14y ago
  I spent a good chunk of time in South and Central America a few years back -- there is a seemingly huge divide between my (a Seattleite) perception of traffic and that of most people in several of the countries I was in. I would occasionally get stuck on the highway for hours behind accidents, rock slides, etc. and I was one of the only people who seemed remotely bothered by it. Everyone else just kind of sat there as there was nothing they could do about it. I remember asking about it and people just sort of shrugged. Here's a picture I snapped of a flipped semi that caused several hours of backup -- http://i.imgur.com/SEuEj.jpg http://i.imgur.com/SEuEj.jpg The funniest part was how quickly the old ladies with baskets of mangos/frescas could somehow seemingly appear knocking on your car window asking if you wanted anything to eat or drink.
- arthur_debert 14y ago
  Simple: public transportation sucks and will probably take twice the time to get to your destination. Motorbike: you have no idea how madly people drive down here, and how many motorbikers day each day. Also, it rains (heavily) almost daily from November to April - definitely not fun on a bike
  - r4pha 14y ago
    This. Also: - City is simply too damn big to ride a bike to places; - Zero lanes for cyclists; - It is unbelievably scaring to ride motorcycles/bicycles in São Paulo. This kind of traffic get the worst of everyone out; - The way I see it, there is already somehow a tragic 'rivalry' between car and motorcycle riders. There is no kindness at all. Motorcycles keep rushing in between the car lanes and - as if it wasn't stressful enough - pushing their annoying horns like crazy. Cars eventually try to change lanes recklessly. Things can get ugly.
wffurr 14y ago
Two hours to go ten miles? Ridiculous! You might as well get out and walk. Riding a bicycle would cut that in half, easily, even in a place like Sao Paolo. This reminds me of reading about a practice in the epic traffic jams around Beijing and Shanghai. Two guys on a scooter will cut through the traffic jam and one will offer to "car sit" for you while the guy with the scooter drives you to work. http://gizmodo.com/5738525/chinese-motorists-are-paying-people-to-sit-in-traffic-jams-for-them http://gizmodo.com/5738525/chinese-motorists-are-paying-peop...
- ctdonath 14y ago
  I guesstimated her start & end locations. Google gives a one-way walking time of about 3.5 hours.
dudus 14y ago
I used to live in São Paulo and I moved in the exact same path the girl in the article. Up from the North Zone all the way across the city to the South Zone. Without traffic, during the night this would take me 30min but during a normal day it would take 1.5 to 2 hours to get to work and the way back was even worse. On Fridays it get's even worse as people tend to use cars so they can hang out after work. I did that for 2 years and moved to Canada a year ago. I know the situation got a lot worse recently, although I can't tell why. This is really a pity. São Paulo is really one of the most exciting and thriving cities I have ever been on. The nightlife is awesome and it's a great place to work. The traffic jams are by far the worst problem the city have. I agree with the article that public transportation is a solution. We have a large subway system, it's not the longest of the world but it's the one with more passengers per mile, also known as the tuna can coefficient. Getting around using the bus or subways is often more painful than on a car. If you ever go to São Paulo get a place near where you work. If you don't you will have a bad time.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  I used to live in São Paulo and I moved in the exact same path the girl in the article Looking at the distance marker on the lower left of the map, her route looks to be about 10 miles. A 2-hour commute means she's moving about 5 miles per hour. This does not make sense to me - why would she drive? Why does she not bicycle or possibly walk?
  - bearmf 14y ago
    I believe it is not safe to bike there. There are also probably some areas that are dangerous/unpleasant to walk through.
    - stephengillie 14y ago
      Why don't people start some sort of Safe Streets or Neighborhood Watch program? Take Back The Night? If there are really so many productive people in the city, can't they at least travel together in groups for protection? It sounds as if the entire city has this problem in common, but nobody is interested in solving it, and most people view it as their own personal issue. Is it more dangerous to walk somewhere, or to be stuck in traffic with your large asset? If crime is so bad, why do people feel safer in cars, if the car is constantly stuck in traffic? What's to stop a criminal from going up to a stopped car and mugging/kidnapping the driver?
farslan 14y ago
We suffer the same here in Istanbul. And to solve this they heavily construct more streets and bridges instead of invest on public transportation infrastructure. It is insane, because more streets means more cars and therefore more jams in the long-term.
medell 14y ago
Part of the problem is human psychology where people do not rationally put a value on the time spent commuting. For instance say you are offered job A at $60k/yr and the commute is 30min. You also are offered job B at $75k/yr but the commute is 1h30min. Most people would choose job B because they don't put enough value on their time (a similar argument goes for waiting in line at the gas station to save a few cents per litre/gallon) but is magnified here by the over discounting of future time. All we see is the extra $15k. With an average of 2080hrs working hours per year, your time in this situation is valued at $30/hr (not talking about taxes). The additional 2hrs commuting per working day results in 520 extra hours which works out to the $15k difference. Of course if you LIKE driving in traffic because that is how you catchup on your podcasts, practice singing or harmonica, good on you :)
ipince 14y ago
Couple of fun data points: I grew up in Caracas, where traffic was just as bad. It would take me ~1 hour to get to school in the morning, and 2-3 hours to get back home during rush hour. My school was only 6 miles away. Caracas is a terrible city to bike in (very hilly and unsafe). Traffic was so slow that people would walk the highways selling stuff to bored drivers. What would they sell? Apart from snacks, you could fancy yourself a beer or a copy of the lastest leaked celebrity sex tape... In Bogota, to control traffic, the government only allowed you to use your car on certain days/hours depending on your license plate. Otherwise you'd be fined. Very constraining IMO, but it seemed to work to some extent.
odiroot 14y ago
My city, Warsaw (the capital of Poland), is being mentioned as the worst in the Europe. The commute here is really painful -- and we're only a ~2 million people city. It's not unusual for a 10km bus trip to take over an hour. Commuting from the suburbs is even worse. My guess, our greatest problem is the lack of carpooling culture. Rarely I see people sharing a car, usually it's just the driver. I can only imagine how bad it is in Sao Paulo which is twice as densely populated.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  I think the only places with strong commuter cultures are those places that encourage them with high occupancy vehicle lanes.[1] Otherwise there's a strong free-rider problem. If I ride-share it benefits others but inconveniences me. [1] http://www.slug-lines.com/Slugging/About_slugging.asp http://www.slug-lines.com/Slugging/About_slugging.asp
malandrew 14y ago
I've commuted by bicycle in both San Francisco and São Paulo and the claim that one city is far less safe than another is simply not true. It's about about changing your riding style, your routes and determining where you will and will not bike. In SF, the roads are safer for bikes, so you spend more time on the roads. In SP, the roads are less safe for bikes and pedestrians, so 99% of people are in cars or buses. This fortunately leaves 90%+ of sidewalks wide open to use as a bike lane. The simple rule of being able to bike safely is "If I can walk safely from point A to point B, then I can also use that same route to bike safely" If anything, the 180km of stopped traffic makes SP in many ways safer than SF. Biking through SP during rush hour is like biking through the Disneyland parking lot.

64 points by farslan 14y ago

ctdonath 14y ago

MOVE. Downvoters: I had a 2-hour-each-way commute too. It sucked. I moved.

teffen 14y ago
Honestly. I know life is not so obvious but I would just pour every resource I could into moving as far as I could from such a mess.

purephase 14y ago

Jesus, and here I thought Toronto was bad during rush hour. That's insane. Interesting the divide in class aspirations for a car vs. helicopters for the super rich.

Tipzntrix 14y ago
All that construction on the 401 makes it suck sometimes, but it keeps us from having this. That and there's the 407 for those so economically inclined.

w1ntermute 14y ago

> "No city in the world will ever manage to end congestion because when traffic flows, people are drawn to their cars. Tokyo is proof that this is not true. There are many, many people who own cars but only drive them on the weekends because the public transportation system is so great.

cryptoz 14y ago
Yeah, what a ridiculous quote. I'd give it maybe ten years before a number of world-class cities have ended congestion issues. The shortsightedness of people is incredible to me: "this is a problem in my city, therefore it will be a problem in every city on the planet for the rest of time". Uh, okay. Ridiculous pessimism.
- Osiris 14y ago
  I think the 10 year estimate is a bit optimistic. Public transportation construction projects can easily take 10+ years from planning to construction to completion. The California High Speed Rail project, for example, is estimated to take 18 years just for construction, not including all the planning time it took just to get to this point. My personal opinion is that in areas with high traffic, car registration fees (or gas taxes) should be increased dramatically and the fees should be used to provide public transportation. Public transit should only charge fees as a means of controlling the number of people using the system (in other words, as low as possible to maximize usage but high enough to reduce overcrowding). In other words, make people that want to drive subsidize public transit. This would encourage fewer people to own or drive cars and push them to the less expensive public transit. It's all a matter of incentives.
  - cryptoz 14y ago
    I agree that 10 years is much too optimistic for most places, but I think it's possible. I wasn't looking towards public transportation directly, actually, in my assumption of how this is going to be solved. Rather, I think a much bigger event will be large networks of self-driving cars. Maybe Sao Paulo will "never" see them, but plenty of cities will, and those cars will do wonders in solving congestion issues. Combine self-driving cars with increased and improved public transport, and I'd bet a few large cities have it all solved on the 10-ish year timeframe. As far as the California High Speed Rail project...well, that's not how to solve the problem. At least not in my opinion.
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      I still think 10 years is optimistic. We are still years away from production, self-driving cars, and the majority of people will have to upgrade to them, which, alone, will take 10 years from the point self-driving cars become affordable. As much as I want it, I don't think it will have much of an impact on my commuting life. I'll likely be about to retire before the impact is really felt.
  - krakensden 14y ago
bearmf 14y ago
Good public transportation by itself is not enough. Driving a car is still a "high status" marker in most of the world, especially in developing countries. People need to show off, the world is not all populated by Japanese. For example, Moscow has a decent public transportation system, but is also famous for its traffic jams. There are people who prefer 1.5 hour one way commute in a car to 40 minute commute by metro. There are lots of complaints about public transportation, but I don't believe it is the main reason. Trains are also crowded in Tokyo (there is a popular video on YouTube where station workers push commuters onto the train).
- illuminate 14y ago
  "Good public transportation by itself is not enough. Driving a car is still a "high status" marker in most of the world, especially in developing countries. People need to show off, the world is not all populated by Japanese." Who said cars would disappear? Car culture can and will change.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > Trains are also crowded in Tokyo (there is a popular video on YouTube where station workers push commuters onto the train). This is mostly just a case of making the exceptional seem commonplace. Having actually spent time in Tokyo, I've never seen workers pushing commuters onto the train, even at the busiest station in the city during the morning rush hour.
  - bearmf 14y ago
    I believe the trains are still very crowded at rush hour. People get used to that because driving is not an option and it is socially acceptable for everyone to take the subway.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      Of course the trains are crowded at rush hour - that's why it's called rush hour. However, it is nowhere near unbearable, and certainly not any worse, in my experience, than NYC. But there's one huge advantage over NYC - you don't have to worry about pickpockets, so you can relax while riding the train and take a nap, read a book, or play some games on your phone (which is what most of the commuters do).
anovikov 14y ago
London is absolutely fine having a perfect public transport system. You can get anywhere by tube which is never getting stuck, it is fast and convenient, probably better than a car even without traffic. Prague is absolutely fine too for the same reason, combination of metro and a great train service. Moscow is a nightmare and most of other 'emerging economies' cities too. Lots of cities in the world are free of traffic problems. It is a great example of how a culture of selfishness and ultra-invidualism (totally preferring own cars) brings everyone into trouble.
- bearmf 14y ago
  Moscow has a good public transportation system though. Lol @ tube never getting stuck.
  - anovikov 14y ago
    It does, but due to broken mentality people try as hard as possible not to use them. That is, public perception is that mass transit is for losers who can't afford cars (while in fact standing in traffic wastes a lot of expensive time of middle class, but they still rather suffer it then admit that taking the metro is better). I can imagine this is a common problem of emerging economies, where most of middle class come from families of destitute peasants - and try to underscore their rise (real or imaginary) on the social ladder as hard as possible. In rich countries, where everyone had a car for at least a couple generations now, nobody thinks taking a tube is a shame, especially when it's faster.
stephengillie 14y ago
No city in the world will ever manage to end congestion because when traffic flows, people are drawn to their cars. As this article tells us, people flock to their cars even when traffic doesn't flow. Why?
- _fn 14y ago
  Limited choice. It's either brave the traffic jam or rent an air taxi.
WildUtah 14y ago
The sidebar identifies Mexico City as the worst commuting city in the world in an IBM survey. I commuted recently for a year, eight miles each way, through the center of Mexico City. I went near or in rush hour each day. It was a pleasure every day. I rode the Metro. I rode the dedicated-lane bus rapid transit. I rode my bicycle. I never drove a car because I'm not stupid; I can see how the traffic is. People complain about four hour daily commutes just like in São Paulo, but in Mexico they're usually insisting on driving their cars when there's a perfectly good light rail, underground rail, dedicated lane bus rapid transit route, or commuter train route available. The city is laced with shorter van and minibus routes to help everyone connect to the transit backbones. Unfortunately it's more socially prestigious to drive two hours than relax forty minutes on the Metro with a book. It's probably a sign of incipient "neurodiversity" that I insisted on using the faster and more comfortable trains and bicycles even though I was a well-off foreigner who could afford to suffer in a car. I like the comment here that an underdeveloped country is one where the poor dream of owning a car and a developed country is one where the rich dream of living near a metro station. What São Paulo needs isn't less traffic. It's a lot more metro lines.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  I rode my bicycle I've always heard that the smog in Mexico City was so bad that bicycle trips could be measured in equivalent packs of cigarettes. Did you not find that to be the case?
  - WildUtah 14y ago
    Mexico City smog reached a peak in 1985. Energetic action by the local government has steadily improved the air quality since then. (There was a devastating earthquake in '85 that drove a citizen cooperative activist movement in the recovery and brought in a whole new political structure.) Today you can see the mountains ringing the city from the center even right after rush hour most days. It's still soupier than I'd prefer but it's like L.A., not like China or India. Bicycling has been rapidly increasing in recent years. I recommend riding in Mexico City if you're a strong cyclist. The traffic and pollution are not bad if you stay off the busiest through streets and the pleasure of taking in a prosperous and creative city of twenty-something million at ground level is a special treat.

modarts 14y ago

I'm starting to feel this way about the traffic in the Bay Area. I moved back here after living in New York for four years and am absolutely astounded by how bad the traffic has gotten. It takes me upwards of an hour and a half to get from my house in San Jose to my office in Menlo Park (a distance of ~30 miles.) Definitely makes me miss the amazing public transit infrastructure back east.

Domenic_S 14y ago
Tell me about it. I commute from Pleasant Hill to San Jose, ~60 miles, and it's a 1:45-2:00 hour ordeal each way. If there's an accident or a stall -- forget about it. If that south bay Bart line was going, I'd be golden. I've actually taken to riding Amtrak from Martinez part of the time. That's a fun commute, but pricy.

r4pha 14y ago

"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." @petrogustavo Mayor of Bogota As a brazilian from São Paulo, who nowadays lives in Europe, I can confirm that. That kind of traffic is unsustainable. It doesn't matter how much of a good job you have, if you have to face this routine every day, your life WILL suck.

rayiner 14y ago
That's a great quote. If you get on a bus in Manhattan, you'll see bankers making $5 million/year sitting next to social workers making $40k/year. More than half the people on the island don't even own a car. I think that's progress!
- r4pha 14y ago
  Yep. Here in Germany it goes something like that too. Being in college gives you right to ride busses/trains for free, but a lot of people and I rather ride our bikes everywhere. I really see no use for a car here. It would do more harm than good.
  - stephengillie 14y ago
    Here in Washington (state), university students can get a 3-month bus pass for $100 at the time they pay tuition. The bus service is pretty good in parts of King County (around Seattle) but almost the entire state is inaccessible by public transportation. Part of the reason is population density: Germany has 229 people per square km, while Washington has just 39.6 people per square km -- outside of the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett region, population density is about 1/2 of that. No buses because nobody lives out there. Outside of cities, almost no roads have sidewalks and walking to the grocery store would be a several-mile journey being constantly passed by pedestrian-hating drivers.

ghshephard 14y ago

"No city in the world will ever manage to end congestion because when traffic flows, people are drawn to their cars." - I disagree with this statement. There may be something about São Paulo that makes this true, but it's not a guaranteed universal truth. Vancouver, British Columbia has taken an interesting approach - they don't run freeways into the city, and have, over the last 40 years, zoned a large stock of residential units in the downtown/west side of the city. The goal is "Live where you work." People still commute by car, and skytrain - but, in general, there is an approach to ending congestion. Affordable, high quality, inconvenient mass transit is a large factor. But, generally, just avoiding having to travel long distances to get to work is another.

potatolicious 14y ago
The most interesting thing about Vancouver (disclosure: I grew up there) is not only the willingness to build density, but also the willingness to mix zones. Downtown Vancouver is the kind of place where you can find a surprisingly even mix of residential towers sharing space with commercial office buildings. You see this pattern in places like NYC, where many neighborhoods exist that are equal parts work and live. Compare with cities like Seattle or San Francisco, where there is an almost religious adherence to geographically segregating commercial developments from residential, and you can start explaining major quality of life issues.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  San Francisco is starting to get away from this, particularly in the fringe / expansion areas of the CBD in the South of Market and Mid-Market areas. There's actually always been residential space close to downtown, but it's generally been either tremendously expensive (Telegraph Hill), or near-tenement conditions (Chinatown). Parking is extremely limited and expensive, if you do own a car. There's also an issue with out-of-town HNVIs purchasing condos in or near the CBD but spending very little time there (other major cosmopolitan metro areas have similar issues, notably London).
  - tptacek 14y ago

bonyt 14y ago

Deficient public transit systems create areas where owning a car is THE thing that lets you into the middle class - this is bad for the environment, bad for traffic, and creates a barrier to social upward movement. Here on Long Island in New York, the bus system only serves /certain/ areas and the train system (Long Island Railroad) is expensive and designed to bring people to and from Manhattan and back and does anything else quite poorly. p.s. Anyone remember the Doctor Who episode Gridlock - where people actually lived and died in traffic? (:

wazoox 14y ago

Here you can check traffic in Paris and its suburbs: http://www.sytadin.fr/ http://www.sytadin.fr/ Last friday night there were 350km of traffic jams. Looking at the "barometer"( http://www.sytadin.fr/opencms/sites/sytadin/sys/courbes/courbe_cumul.jsp.html_63.html http://www.sytadin.fr/opencms/sites/sytadin/sys/courbes/cour... ) you can see that 200km of traffic jams is a daily occurence.

songzme 14y ago

Traffic is the #1 cause of unhappiness in the world. Move yourself close to work, even if you have to pay the premium. Do not put a price tag on your happiness.

alex_c 14y ago
Fully agree, and that is my philosophy as well. It's working great since I live on my own and can therefore choose exactly where I want to live, but that is often (usually?) not an option for families.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It depends on where you live and what your priorities are. I grew up in an 1,150 square foot house in the DC suburbs. My parents had two kids. The house is now worth about $390k, according to Zillow. For that much money I can buy a 1,300 square foot condo in Lincoln Park, Chicago. No back yard, except for the 1,200 acre park next door with zoo, duck pond, flower conservatory, etc. Good public school within walking distance (how many dads can walk their kids to school every morning?) The central business district is a 10 minute walk + 12 minute subway ride from the school. I agree that not everyone has options like that, but I think people make it harder on themselves than they need to. A lot of people have kids and decide they couldn't possibly raise their kids anywhere except a far-out suburb with 1 acre for the dogs to run around in. They spend just as much money for a house as they would in the city, except they get 1,000 extra square feet they use to store a lot of junk. Then they complain about their commute and all the traffic. They do it because well their parents did it and oh cities are so dangerous, forgetting that teenage driving is a much bigger danger to a middle-class kid than city crime. There is a lot of inertia built-into peoples' choices in this matter, IMHO.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  There is no doubt it's a tradeoff with kids. You have to balance a good neighborhood, good schools, decent living arrangements, and having enough time to actually parent your children. All of these are why I won't work another job that doesn't let me work at home a reasonable (to me) amount. I don't want to have to move closer to work to make that balance work when it is so easy to move work closer or me.

wtracy 14y ago

Business opportunity: Run around on a bicycle selling snack foods and other products to people stuck in traffic.

maw 14y ago
Plenty of people already doing that in Mexico. There are also people who threaten to "wash" your windshield, do juggling acts, and so on. It isn't a line of work you want to get into.
dinkumthinkum 14y ago
I guess you've never been to Mexico. :) The market is heavily saturated.
ipince 14y ago
Already happens in most cities in South America I've been to (and in Caracas, where I grew up). They sell all kinds of stuff: snacks, jewelry, car freshners, cold soda/beer (they carry around little coolers -- and yes, they sell beer to drivers), pirated dvds, etc. Also, juggling acts and car washes at lights... Sometimes, even if you don't want it, they'll wash your windshield so that you're guilt-tripped to pay them something. If you disallow them (by screaming at them), they may mark your back windshield with some soap. Later down the road they'll rob you if they see your car bears the mark. This means you have to get out of your car and clear it to be on the safe side. Truly annoying...
dudus 14y ago
it is very common in São Paulo. In the places where cars are usually stopped for several minutes you can buy water, snacks, stuffed toys and even eletronics like cellphone chargers from the window of your car.

Havoc 14y ago

Why the hell is anybody still driving then? Surely after sitting in traffic for half a dozen hours a couple of times inspiration strikes and you buy a motorbike?

sharkweek 14y ago
I spent a good chunk of time in South and Central America a few years back -- there is a seemingly huge divide between my (a Seattleite) perception of traffic and that of most people in several of the countries I was in. I would occasionally get stuck on the highway for hours behind accidents, rock slides, etc. and I was one of the only people who seemed remotely bothered by it. Everyone else just kind of sat there as there was nothing they could do about it. I remember asking about it and people just sort of shrugged. Here's a picture I snapped of a flipped semi that caused several hours of backup -- http://i.imgur.com/SEuEj.jpg http://i.imgur.com/SEuEj.jpg The funniest part was how quickly the old ladies with baskets of mangos/frescas could somehow seemingly appear knocking on your car window asking if you wanted anything to eat or drink.
arthur_debert 14y ago
Simple: public transportation sucks and will probably take twice the time to get to your destination. Motorbike: you have no idea how madly people drive down here, and how many motorbikers day each day. Also, it rains (heavily) almost daily from November to April - definitely not fun on a bike
- r4pha 14y ago
  This. Also: - City is simply too damn big to ride a bike to places; - Zero lanes for cyclists; - It is unbelievably scaring to ride motorcycles/bicycles in São Paulo. This kind of traffic get the worst of everyone out; - The way I see it, there is already somehow a tragic 'rivalry' between car and motorcycle riders. There is no kindness at all. Motorcycles keep rushing in between the car lanes and - as if it wasn't stressful enough - pushing their annoying horns like crazy. Cars eventually try to change lanes recklessly. Things can get ugly.

wffurr 14y ago

Two hours to go ten miles? Ridiculous! You might as well get out and walk. Riding a bicycle would cut that in half, easily, even in a place like Sao Paolo. This reminds me of reading about a practice in the epic traffic jams around Beijing and Shanghai. Two guys on a scooter will cut through the traffic jam and one will offer to "car sit" for you while the guy with the scooter drives you to work. http://gizmodo.com/5738525/chinese-motorists-are-paying-people-to-sit-in-traffic-jams-for-them http://gizmodo.com/5738525/chinese-motorists-are-paying-peop...

ctdonath 14y ago
I guesstimated her start & end locations. Google gives a one-way walking time of about 3.5 hours.

dudus 14y ago

I used to live in São Paulo and I moved in the exact same path the girl in the article. Up from the North Zone all the way across the city to the South Zone. Without traffic, during the night this would take me 30min but during a normal day it would take 1.5 to 2 hours to get to work and the way back was even worse. On Fridays it get's even worse as people tend to use cars so they can hang out after work. I did that for 2 years and moved to Canada a year ago. I know the situation got a lot worse recently, although I can't tell why. This is really a pity. São Paulo is really one of the most exciting and thriving cities I have ever been on. The nightlife is awesome and it's a great place to work. The traffic jams are by far the worst problem the city have. I agree with the article that public transportation is a solution. We have a large subway system, it's not the longest of the world but it's the one with more passengers per mile, also known as the tuna can coefficient. Getting around using the bus or subways is often more painful than on a car. If you ever go to São Paulo get a place near where you work. If you don't you will have a bad time.

stephengillie 14y ago
I used to live in São Paulo and I moved in the exact same path the girl in the article Looking at the distance marker on the lower left of the map, her route looks to be about 10 miles. A 2-hour commute means she's moving about 5 miles per hour. This does not make sense to me - why would she drive? Why does she not bicycle or possibly walk?
- bearmf 14y ago
  I believe it is not safe to bike there. There are also probably some areas that are dangerous/unpleasant to walk through.
  - stephengillie 14y ago
    Why don't people start some sort of Safe Streets or Neighborhood Watch program? Take Back The Night? If there are really so many productive people in the city, can't they at least travel together in groups for protection? It sounds as if the entire city has this problem in common, but nobody is interested in solving it, and most people view it as their own personal issue. Is it more dangerous to walk somewhere, or to be stuck in traffic with your large asset? If crime is so bad, why do people feel safer in cars, if the car is constantly stuck in traffic? What's to stop a criminal from going up to a stopped car and mugging/kidnapping the driver?

farslan 14y ago

We suffer the same here in Istanbul. And to solve this they heavily construct more streets and bridges instead of invest on public transportation infrastructure. It is insane, because more streets means more cars and therefore more jams in the long-term.

medell 14y ago

Part of the problem is human psychology where people do not rationally put a value on the time spent commuting. For instance say you are offered job A at $60k/yr and the commute is 30min. You also are offered job B at $75k/yr but the commute is 1h30min. Most people would choose job B because they don't put enough value on their time (a similar argument goes for waiting in line at the gas station to save a few cents per litre/gallon) but is magnified here by the over discounting of future time. All we see is the extra $15k. With an average of 2080hrs working hours per year, your time in this situation is valued at $30/hr (not talking about taxes). The additional 2hrs commuting per working day results in 520 extra hours which works out to the $15k difference. Of course if you LIKE driving in traffic because that is how you catchup on your podcasts, practice singing or harmonica, good on you :)

ipince 14y ago

Couple of fun data points: I grew up in Caracas, where traffic was just as bad. It would take me ~1 hour to get to school in the morning, and 2-3 hours to get back home during rush hour. My school was only 6 miles away. Caracas is a terrible city to bike in (very hilly and unsafe). Traffic was so slow that people would walk the highways selling stuff to bored drivers. What would they sell? Apart from snacks, you could fancy yourself a beer or a copy of the lastest leaked celebrity sex tape... In Bogota, to control traffic, the government only allowed you to use your car on certain days/hours depending on your license plate. Otherwise you'd be fined. Very constraining IMO, but it seemed to work to some extent.

odiroot 14y ago

My city, Warsaw (the capital of Poland), is being mentioned as the worst in the Europe. The commute here is really painful -- and we're only a ~2 million people city. It's not unusual for a 10km bus trip to take over an hour. Commuting from the suburbs is even worse. My guess, our greatest problem is the lack of carpooling culture. Rarely I see people sharing a car, usually it's just the driver. I can only imagine how bad it is in Sao Paulo which is twice as densely populated.

bryanlarsen 14y ago
I think the only places with strong commuter cultures are those places that encourage them with high occupancy vehicle lanes.[1] Otherwise there's a strong free-rider problem. If I ride-share it benefits others but inconveniences me. [1] http://www.slug-lines.com/Slugging/About_slugging.asp http://www.slug-lines.com/Slugging/About_slugging.asp

malandrew 14y ago

I've commuted by bicycle in both San Francisco and São Paulo and the claim that one city is far less safe than another is simply not true. It's about about changing your riding style, your routes and determining where you will and will not bike. In SF, the roads are safer for bikes, so you spend more time on the roads. In SP, the roads are less safe for bikes and pedestrians, so 99% of people are in cars or buses. This fortunately leaves 90%+ of sidewalks wide open to use as a bike lane. The simple rule of being able to bike safely is "If I can walk safely from point A to point B, then I can also use that same route to bike safely" If anything, the 180km of stopped traffic makes SP in many ways safer than SF. Biking through SP during rush hour is like biking through the Disneyland parking lot.