VietNamNet Bridge – There is no official statistic of the loss caused by snarl-up in Vietnam’s big cities. However, it is cock-sure that the loss is extremely huge, and serious in various aspects and it damages Vietnam’s image.


Many solutions have been posed to put an end to traffic jam, such as: restricting motorbikes, putting barriers at crossroads, making separate lanes for cars and motorbikes (as Hanoi implements), raising fees and charges on personal cars, banning cars in downtown area on even and odd days (as HCM City suggests), etc. Yet, these solutions are not effective as expectation or criticized by the public for their unfeasibility.

Cities in Asia (Hanoi, HCM City, Bangkok, Jakarta, Taipei, Seoul, Tokyo…) have common characters: high population density; residential, business, service, production and administrative areas are alternated; major functions concentrate on city center or the core area.

Asia’s urban structure is different from that of American-style cities (low population density, dispersed functions, multi-cores), which creates the great concentration of demand for travel and facilitate the development and operation of public transport system and non-mechanizing transport (bicycle and walking). However, this urban structure places heavy pressure on road and parking facilities.

The per capita road and parking lot density in Asian metropolises, including Tokyo and Seoul, is equivalent to one fifth of one tenth of the US’ cities. Therefore, Asian cities are “unsuitable” for cars like the US.

The rate of car ownership in the US is 600, 700 car per 1,000 residents but Asian cities can serve up to 200-250 cars/1,000 people (as Tokyo, Seoul and Taipei). With this rate, if all cars in circulation at the same time, roads will be fully packed.

When income increases, more people buy cars--that is the rule. But in Hanoi and HCM City, the growth of cars (in comparison with income) is higher than that in Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and even more than Seoul and Tokyo.

The rate of car ownership in Hanoi and HCM City is 60-70 cars per 1,000 people. Meanwhile, road systems in these cities are much poorer than other Asian cities. This road system also has to serve a huge number of motorbikes (600 motorbikes per 1,000 people). As a result, traffic jams are getting serious when all middle-class families want to buy their first car. This is a natural demand so it cannot be controlled by tax and fee policy.

Urban residents’ traveling needs are “real and basic”, which comes from the daily activities, the development of production and business. That requirement is rising in quantity (number of vehicles) and quality (quality of travel). Besides, the rapid urbanization process has brought flows of people from provinces to Hanoi and HCM City. This makes overload for the current traffic system, which develops at snail pace.

The imbalance of traffic supply-demand in Asian cities like Hanoi and HCM City is caused by inside and outside factors.

The development of motorbikes in Vietnam (for example from 150 motorbikes/1,000 people in Hanoi in 1995 to over 600 motorbikes/1,000 people in 2007) has made a world record and it is considered as the “natural resistance” of a body to cure itself.

All of the above-mentioned solutions to dealing with gridlocks in Vietnam are temporary and they cannot help survive the illness.

The best medicine

The most effective medicine must focus on the internal problem, or the urban structure. It is the development of public transport. The currently rapid development of urbanization can be unfavorable for developing public transport. Therefore, cities must have good urban development planning, which give favorable conditions for developing public transport.

The question is how to develop public transport? What should Vietnam’s cities choose: normal buses, BRT (bus rapid transit), LRT (light rail transit) or MRT (mass rapid transit)? Vietnam can learn from the success of Taipei and Guangzhou, two cities with similar population density, urban structure and land use form of Hanoi and HCM City.

In 1980, Taipei had a widespread bus network with over 300 routes to serve more than 50 percent of traveling need of local people. However, the development of motorbikes made the fall of bus service in the early 1990s. The number of cars also soared since 1985.

To deal with the situation, Taipei developed the MRT network, with the first route inaugurated in 1996. By 2000, the city had five routes, totaling 90km. During this time, Taipei authorities also improved the bus system and connected the bus system with the MRT network in 1999, using electric tickets.

Today, public transport satisfies 50 percent of the traveling demand (bus system 30 percent, MRT 20 percent) in Taipei. Though the city successfully controls the development of personal vehicles (400 motorbikes, 240 cars/1,000 residents), around 30 percent of people still use motorbikes and 20 percent use cars as major means of transport. To further develop the public transport system, Taipei keeps investing in subways while tightening control over parking lots and raising fees and charges on personal vehicles, based on time.

Guangzhou developed public transport system even more strongly than Taipei. In the 1990s, they had more than 400 bus routes, serving over 30 percent of local people. Motorbikes grew rapidly in 1990-2000, from 70 to nearly 200 vehicles/1,000 people.

This city upgraded and expanded its bus system to over 500 routes, with more than 8,000 buses and raised ticket subsidy. It also developed the subway system, with the first route inaugurated in 1997 (when per capita GDP was $2,300, equivalent to Hanoi and HCM City’s current level). By 2005, Guangzhou had 5 routes and 8 routes (240km) in 2009.

In 2005, as the bus service quality went down, the local authorities decided to build some BRT routes. In 2010, the first route of 23km opened, which could transport 0.8 million passengers per day. As a result, the public transport system could serve nearly 70 percent of local residents in 2005.

This city is very tough in restricting motorbikes. The local government set a 16-year roadmap (1991-2007) to restrict and ban motorbikes in the inner area. In early 2007, motorbikes were completed banned in the city’s inner area.

Guangzhou’s policy is giving top priority to the public transport system. The subway is the backbone while the bus system is very important and personal means of transport is minor.

Its slogan is “A small change each year, big change will come in three year and great leap will take place in ten years.” The city plans to have 600km subway, 200km BRT and public transport system will satisfy over 80 percent of the traveling need by 2020.

To deal with gridlocks, Hanoi and HCM City must apply at least measures as Taipei did and try to reach solutions of Guangzhou. To do that, Vietnam needs to have leaders who have great visions and who can take strong action.

Vietnam needs to use both temporary and long-run solutions. In the construction plans of big cities, population should be stretched to satellite towns, which are tens of kilometers far from the ‘mother’ city. Each satellite town has several tens of thousands of residents, with modern facilities and with incentives to encourage families and organizations to move from the mother city to satellite towns. This is a great plan which requires great effort, huge capital but it is very useful.

Traffic jam in big cities in Vietnam has become a critical disease and it needs specialized medicine.

To Van Truong