

A city with 180km traffic jams - farslan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19660765

======
w1ntermute
> "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
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
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.

~~~
pc86
Which pushes people to mass transit, lowers overall consumption of gasoline,
decreases revenue from car registration and gas taxes and bankrupts the
transit system.

Edit #1: I'm being intentionally glib, but the point is that it's not as
simple as "raise taxes" or "take the bus."

Edit #2: I'd love to hear a counterpoint instead of just downvotes. Please
explain to me how the spirit of what I said is incorrect.

~~~
Osiris
Your statement makes the assumption that this will happen quickly, which it
will not. It will likely take decades to incentivize people to move from cars
to mass transit and other systems. As they do, taxes and budgets will be
modified to reflect the current state of affairs.

For example, I suggested to use gas and vehicle taxes to subsidize public
transport to push people toward using mass transit options. Obviously as that
transition occurs, prices on mass transit tickets will increase to stabilize
demand, and the revenue burden will shift for a subsidy by car owners to mass
transit riders paying for their tickets.

Since the transition will take a long time, laws and budgets will change to
reflect the new norm.

To stephengillie's point (since I can't reply), fees for mass transit should
not be viewed as revenue generators but as means to restrict demand for a
limited supply. In other words, the price on mass transit should be as low as
possible (even free) to attract as much usage as possible, only using the
price to restrict demand when too many people are trying to use the system. I
truely believe that this type of pricing model would push a LOT of people
toward mass transit.

As an example, here in Denver, CO we have a light rail. It costs (for me)
$4.50 each way to downtown Denver. I can find parking in downtown for as cheap
as $5 (if I want to walk a bit) to $10. It literally takes long as costs just
as much to ride light rail as to just drive. Where's the incentive? If the
light rail were $1-$2 per ride, then hell yes I'd use it.

~~~
pc86
For the most part, rail travel is private industry in the US - that means it
has to make a profit. Obviously if you make something very cheap or free
you're going to have a lot more people willing to use it. It will also cease
to exist as a private enterprise very quickly.

I don't want to make this solely a political point, but it's a hard sell to
convince me that it's inherently good to incentivize mass transit in the first
place, let alone that it should be nationalized by default and offered below
cost or for free.

~~~
bryanlarsen
The biggest argument for incentivizing mass traffic is that private car usage
is heavily incentives in the United States. Gasoline taxes don't even come
close to paying for the primary cost of roads, let alone the secondary
external costs. Subsidies for mass transit would be much more palatable to the
voting public than $20/gallon gasoline and toll roads everywhere.

------
r4pha
"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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
Telegraph Hill is a bit of a hike from downtown, isn't it?

It's tough to get a shared metric here; San Francisco is small to start with,
and "downtown" San Francisco is even smaller.

~~~
dredmorbius
Well, yes, if you consider 2-4 blocks to be a hike.

~~~
tptacek
Union to Geary? A mile to Embarcadero, ~mile to Transamerica Tower? I agree
these are trivial distances and agree with the parent that SF has mixed
commercial/residential.

------
bonyt
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
Here you can check traffic in Paris and its suburbs: <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/cour...](http://www.sytadin.fr/opencms/sites/sytadin/sys/courbes/courbe_cumul.jsp.html_63.html)
) you can see that 200km of traffic jams is a daily occurence.

------
medell
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 :)

------
dudus
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
_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
I believe it is not safe to bike there. There are also probably some areas
that are dangerous/unpleasant to walk through.

~~~
stephengillie
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?

~~~
dudus
Almost everyone in the city got robbed at least once while in their cars, but
it's still safer than walking or biking. I got robbed once, in over 16 years I
lived in the city. They stole just some bucks I had laying around and a
cellphone.

You see a lot of people that share rides, but you have to live almost in the
same street and work at almost the same place so it makes sense.

You could bike, but keep in mind that the city is very rainy, so it's not a
solution for everyday. There are not many bike lanes in the city, and the few
that exist are not on the most busy roads, so you actually have to bike way
longer than 10 miles in that example. I would not bike in São Paulo on a day
to day basis for that distance.

But robbers don't usually take cars, they rather go for wallets, watches and
cellphones instead.

kidnaps are very common as well. São Paulo has what they call lightning
kidnaps. The robber enters your car and makes you drive around the city
cashing money out of ATMs and then they just leave. The banks have adapted to
that, and if you take money from 2 different ATMs in a short spam the card
will get blocked for a day or two. I was never kidnaped but I know at least 4
people who had.

~~~
stephengillie
So people that work together but live a couple neighborhoods apart will just
drive separately? Wow, it sounds like nobody has seen this poster:

[http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3615/3399729832_330d4a5bed_z.j...](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3615/3399729832_330d4a5bed_z.jpg?zz=1)

~~~
dudus
> So people that work together but live a couple neighborhoods apart will just
> drive separately?

If someone lives a couple neighborhoods out of my way than no. That can easily
add 30-40 minutes to my travel. So sorry pal but just can't do it. If it's on
my way than sure it's possible. but otherwise it just doesn't work. The
streets inside the neibourhoods are just as crowded as the highways and
avenues or worse. And the city is just too much spread out. The chances of
someone that works with you to live close by are slim in a city with over 11M
people.

------
songzme
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
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
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.

------
ipince
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.

------
farslan
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.

------
odiroot
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
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>

------
malandrew
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.

------
wffurr
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-
peop...](http://gizmodo.com/5738525/chinese-motorists-are-paying-people-to-
sit-in-traffic-jams-for-them)

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

------
purephase
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
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.

------
modarts
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
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.

------
Havoc
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?

~~~
arthur_debert
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
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.

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

~~~
ipince
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...

------
ctdonath
MOVE.

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

~~~
teffen
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.

