Cesar CantuIt is an unfortunate reality, but some of the nearshore’s most popular locations are infamous for their rush hour traffic. Dropping the names of Latin America’s top cities can conjure visions of interminable and virtually immovable strings of vehicles in the streets. For business folks, those visions can be accompanied by the sound of money in flames.
But how bad is rush hour traffic in Latin America? And how does it compare with what’s endured in the most developed and populated metropolises in the world?
Hours lost: Latin American cities dominate the top of the list for time lost each year in rush hour traffic in the Americas, according to recent data from Dutch location technology firm TomTom. New York and Toronto are the only outliers in the top 10.
-
Lima (Peru): 157 hours, or 6.5 days
-
Mexico City (Mexico): 152 hours, or 6.3 days
-
Bogota (Colombia): 117 hours, or 4.8 days
-
Recife (Brazil): 116 hours, or 4.8 days
-
New York CIty (US): 112 hours, 4.6 days
-
Belo Horizonte (Brazil): 109 hours, or 4.5 days
-
São Paulo (Brazil): 105 hours, or 4.3 days
-
Porto Alegre (Brazil): 100 hours, or 4.1 days
-
Toronto (Canada): 98 hours, or 4 days
-
Curitaba (Brazil): 94 hours, 3.9 days
A global look: Globally, Dublin ranks as the city where the most time is lost in rush hour traffic (158 hours, pr 6.5 days). Lima, Mexico City and Bogota ranked second, third and tenth, respectively.
-
The worst of Latin American traffic is comparable to what’s seen in top European cities and is far worse than what’s seen in some of North America’s most relevant markets.
-
London (UK): 148 hours, or 6.1 days
-
Paris (France): 120 hours, or 5 days
-
Vancouver (Canada): 90 hours, or 3.7 days
-
Los Angeles (US): 89 hours, or 3.7 days
-
Chicago (US): 86 hours, or 3.5 days
-
San Francisco (US): 75 hours, 3.1 days
-
Size doesn’t matter: The most congested cities in the Americas are, for the most part, some of the most densely populated. However, the amount of time lost in rush hour traffic does not necessarily coincide with each city’s population size. Traffic can be much worse in smaller cities, where one would expect less vehicles in the streets.
-
Lima: 9.6 million (11.8 million in metro area)
-
Mexico City: 8.8 million (21.8 million in metro area)
-
Bogota: 7.9 million (11.6 million metro area)
-
Recife: 1.6 million (3.7 million in metro area)
-
NYC: 8.8 million(19.6 million in metro area)
-
Toronto: 2.9 million (6.8 million in metro area)
Faster drives: The Latin American cities where the least amount of hours are lost in rush hour traffic are found in Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina. There’s a high discrepancy in time lost, however, and some of them clock-in at levels comparable to metropolises as big and congested as Los Angeles and Chicago.
-
Brasilia (Brazil): 40 hours, or 1.6 days
-
Montevideo (Uruguay): 55 hours, or 2.3 days
-
Salvador (Brazil): 67 hours, or 2.8 days
-
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil): 81 hours, or 3.4 days
-
Buenos Aires (Argentina): 88 hours, or 3.7 days
The US dominates the list of cities where the least amount of hours are lost in rush hour traffic, with the fastest ones clocking-in less than 15 hours lost.
The root causes: Much has been written about the causes of traffic congestion in major urban areas. Most papers and studies speak of a mix of vehicular overpopulation, a lack of public transportation options, poorly designed road infrastructure and even poor road etiquette, which can lead to frequent road accidents.
The hybrid effect: Several studies point to a reduction of vehicular congestion when hybrid or remote models are applied to work.
-
In some cases, hybrid models have created so-called “super commuters” who are willing to travel longer distances (over 90 minutes) to work.
-
Labor activists in Latin America have argued in favor of hybrid/remote setups by underscoring reductions in commuting time and traffic, as well as improvements in air quality.
NSAM’s take: Traffic is among the more overlooked aspects in location planning. While road infrastructure and public transportation options are taken into consideration, they don’t necessarily translate into shorter (or longer) commute times in a city. There’s enough data out there, however, linking commute times and productivity/workplace morale to give decision makers pause when evaluating a location infamous for its rush hour traffic.
For BPO firms in particular, it is common for the majority of their workforce in Latin American sites to live in the outskirts of the city. Housing is rarely affordable for BPO workers in the region, and corporate offices tend to be located in areas where rent is restrictively expensive. That can translate into exhaustingly long commute times for employees, whether they travel in their own vehicle or use public transport, assuming they live in a city with decent transportation options.
One would think the sorry state of mobility in Latin America’s main cities would incentivize remote or even hybrid setups, but that hasn’t been the case. Although it’s been reported that the region has the highest rate of hybrid adoption (72%), it has remained the most averse to entirely remote setups (only 10%). Moreover, companies that have been working in a hybrid model are mulling over the possibility of increasing office attendance.
Hybrid and remote models have also widened the net used by businesses in their recruiting strategies. If the so-called “super commuter” phenomenom was to become prevalent in some nearshore locations, that net could be cast even wider.
BPOs have been moving back to the office over the past couple years, pushed mostly by the demands of their clients. The majority still manage a hybrid setup, with about a third of agents working from home, and only as a reward of sorts for high performance.
In tech, where the pressures to go back to the office are not as strong, there’s a weaker impulse to work on site. Nevertheless, several reports point to major firms dragging their agents back to the office when they live close enough to the facilities.
Add comment