A city with 180km traffic jams | Hacker News Reader

A city with 180km traffic jams

bbc.co.uk

64 pointsfarslan88 comments

> "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.

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.

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.

Public construction in the US is about an order of magnitude slower and more expensive than in the rest of the world.

Citation please.

US transit construction costs about ten times as much and takes about five to ten times as long as construction in Spain and Korea. Everyplace else falls somewhere in between, but most are much closer to the Spanish and Korean levels than ours.

http://streetsblog.net/2012/08/29/why-are-american-infrastru...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-26/u-s-taxpayers-are-g...

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/12/quote-of-the-week-transi...

I like this link: http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-ra...

NYC costs are very high, they should be more in line with London at least.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The downvotes confuse me too. During the recent great recession, areas around Seattle saw a large increase in bus riders and a big drop in gas tax revenues. So agencies and politicians began raising bus fees and gas taxes to make up for the lost income.

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.

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.

Public transit fees should not be a means of restricting usage. Crowded public transit isn't a sign that the fees are too low, but that the capacity needs to be increase. Granted it's not always possible to increase capacity overnight, but it's the best way to scale transportation. Higher fees just means poorer people can move around less, while for richer people the car just got relatively cheaper compared to public transit.

He didn't say that public transit fees should be raised to restrict usage, just the opposite, in fact. He said that public transport should be subsidized by car registration fees. This means cars get more expensive for rich people and poor people can move around more.

He did say all that, which I agree with entirely, but he also said public transit fees should be "high enough to reduce overcrowding".

The point I was trying to get across is that currently public/mass transit is priced to generate REVENUE. In cases where a light rail system is in the red, they try to "solve" this issue by INCREASING the price to generate revenue, which is the wrong thing to do.

They should start with free, then go up from there to the point in which the system's capacity and ridership are equal. So a busy system like the BART in S.F. may still be $8/round trip (what I used to pay), while light rail in Denver would be free or close it because almost no one uses the system.

The quote probably got mistranslated, reading the two last paragraphs I'm pretty sure he's referring to "the fundamental law of road congestion" or a similar theory.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/10/only-hope-r...

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.

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?

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.

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).

> 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.

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.

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).

I am sure most people in New York do it too (read a book, play games, not worry about pickpockets). Most New York trains are not really crowded at rush hour, with the exception of Lexington avenue line.

> I am sure most people in New York do it too (read a book, play games, not worry about pickpockets).

So you would sleep on an MTA train during rush hour with your bag just sitting on your lap? Most people I know wouldn't.

> Most New York trains are not really crowded at rush hour, with the exception of Lexington avenue line.

And neither are most lines in Tokyo. There are 2 or 3 trunk lines that are really crowded. The rest have only moderate occupancy. Each month, I was probably on a train where I didn't have room to move only once or twice a month.

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.

Moscow has a good public transportation system though. Lol @ tube never getting stuck.

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.

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?

Limited choice. It's either brave the traffic jam or rent an air taxi.

"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.

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!

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Chicago has a mix of residential and commercial as well; additionally, like NYC, Chicago has a couple very large universities that create multi-block clusters of student housing as well. We also have one of the country's better neighborhood "systems" (for lack of a better word).

However, I'm not sure that I remember from my time in San Francisco that housing and offices were all that separate. I lived in SOMA for a couple years, and Noe Valley for a couple more; in SOMA, I was just a few blocks walking distance from Market & 4th-3rd. San Francisco is so small that maybe the cluster of dense offices is just a function of land scarcity.

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).

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.

Everything in SF is trivially nearby if you go by bicycle. I myself commute from Nob Hill near the Fairmont (Clay/Mason) to where Telegraph Avenue intersects with the UC Berkeley campus. I only take the Bart from Embarcadero to West Oakland. My commute averages 40-60 minutes and the variability is 100% how long I have to wait for the train (longer wait times in the evening).

If I had to commute within the 7x7 block that is SF, almost everything is within ~20 minutes of riding.

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

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.

You need to add a couple of other factors to mix-zoning (or no zoning) as well though. Houston, for example, is a no zoning city - you can buy a commercial warehouse and turn it into two lofts between two chemical plants if you like, and no one can stop you. (Effectively.)

However, the abundance of inexpensive land means its cheaper to build "out and flat," than "in and up," and the rush inwards that has been occurring over the last handful of years (Midtown, Montrose, Heights, EaDo, etc.) has been countered by plenty of new subdivisions and an 18-lane freeway, along with plenty of 6-8 lane freeways. Then again, we have precious little public transportation, and any expansion is usually looked upon with disdain.

And the cost of this, in Vancouver? Very expensive housing. People are going to pay for convenience one way or another

I rented a hotel suite for $2400/month last year on Robson Street, just five blocks (or so) off of Granville. It had a separate bedroom and living room and a small kitchen - great view of the North Shore mountains. There were about 20 different restaurants within 3 blocks of the hotel.

Downtown Vancouver Housing might not be cheap, but I don't think, given the quality of life, and ease of commute, that it would be considered "expensive."

Another clever (and deliberate) thing that Vancouver does to control traffic, is they control the cost of parking. That makes it easy to come into the city for short trips, but expensive to commute.

Obviously Vancouver isn't expensive because it's densely built. It's cheaper than it would otherwise be because it's densely built. Vancouver is expensive because land is geographically limited and it's a very attractive destination (one of the top cities in the world for QoL).

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? (:

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... ) you can see that 200km of traffic jams is a daily occurence.

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 :)

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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...

> 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.

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.

Most of people in "the world" do not even have a car.

You are right, the poster seems to be (temporary) not aware of people who are really suffering. Traffic is the certainly not the #1 cause of unhappiness in the world, maybe I would vote for greed? Or hatred?

Hatred seems to be more universal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

I guess you've never been to Mexico. :) The market is heavily saturated.

MOVE.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com