Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Spade, let me just say this, I have my impressions of DART and it's not going to change unless the density of people, businesses, our attractions around the stations improve.
Until then I don't think the system was successfully implemented and no comparison you make to other cities is gonna change that impression for me.
If I build a light rail going from Spring, to Conroe, to Kingwood to Atascocita, to Humble, to Pasadena to Clear Lake etc, it would be a pretty long system, but I would not consider it a good system.
A better System would be taking the high density corridors and connecting them by hubs and arcs
Neither would I but that's an unfair comparison by far:
Spring - 54,298 (2,300/sq mi)
Conroe - 58,973 (1,066.2/sq mi)
Kingwood - 81,692
Atascocita - 65,844 (2,600/sq mi)
Humble - 15,133 (1,500/sq mi)
Pasadena - 149,043 (3,208/sq mi)
Clear Lake - 50 Total Pop - 425,033
Well the near burbs here are built differently. A better example would include part of Houston itself and it's etc. so that would include areas like mission bend, west etc.
By the way, the spring area has way more than 50k people. Try about 200K, Atascocita area has over 100k.
Harris county has 4.2m people there are over 1.5m people that belong to no city and often called this are it that area. Like I mentioned the Spring Area before. So that 400k you mentioned is probably closer to 1m plus.
Houston is already quite large. Has a major shipping port, an up and coming airport on the international aspect of air traffic (foreign carriers are starting service there on a pace with the other major ports of entry). A city that is on it's way of diversifying it's GDP. This isn't the Houston of the 80's anymore. I have been to Dallas many times and it reminds me of Minn/St. Paul on steriods. Houston is on it's way to being a "Chicago of the South" with many similarities. The only thing I see Houston not matching up with Chicago is commerce. Chicago is in a much better geographical location for shipping and it's evident being served by six class 1 railroads.
There is a major Alpha City in each geographical location of the US. New York in the East, Chicago in the North, Los Angeles in the West, and the South remains at question. My hunch will be Houston
Houston is already quite large. Has a major shipping port, an up and coming airport on the international aspect of air traffic (foreign carriers are starting service there on a pace with the other major ports of entry). A city that is on it's way of diversifying it's GDP. This isn't the Houston of the 80's anymore. I have been to Dallas many times and it reminds me of Minn/St. Paul on steriods. Houston is on it's way to being a "Chicago of the South" with many similarities. The only thing I see Houston not matching up with Chicago is commerce. Chicago is in a much better geographical location for shipping and it's evident being served by six class 1 railroads.
There is a major Alpha City in each geographical location of the US. New York in the East, Chicago in the North, Los Angeles in the West, and the South remains at question. My hunch will be Houston
Miami and Atlanta are the only Alpha-ranked cities in the South. It's not "in question."
If I build a light rail going from Spring, to Conroe, to Kingwood to Atascocita, to Humble, to Pasadena to Clear Lake etc, it would be a pretty long system, but I would not consider it a good system.
Well this is why I say slightly for Dart. I agree with you in that the system Dallas built would be better used by Heavy Rail. But we both know that wasn't going to happen. So Dallas did the next best thing. The system was promised to be in places they are currently are now. I don't know if Houston ever had that plan. But there was going to be service to Irving (obviously), Plano, Garland, etc. But look at how DART built their system. It's very similar to the hybrid urban-commuter system that WMATA, BART, and even Marta to an extent are except they are heavy rail while Dart is light rail. In DC, you can walk from Metro Center to Gallery Place. But you're not going to walk from Van Dorn metro to Franconia Springfield Metro. The closer you get to DC, the the better chance you walk from station to station. Same thing with DART in Dallas. I do agree that it is still cheaper to drive in Dallas than to take the drive. Or at least, its not much more expensive if it is anyway. Still, the ridership on DART seems to be increasing and thanks to the Orange Line which I knew would happen.
Dallas, ATL, Houston Miami are all Alpha Cities. No need to play the "there can only be ONE" game. Every other region(besides the midwest) have more than 1 Alpha City. SF and LA are both Alpha if I'm not mistaken, as is NYC, DC, and maybe Boston and Philly.
Miami and Atlanta are the only Alpha-ranked cities in the South. It's not "in question."
The GaWC is a complete joke! Yeah a city like Atlanta ranked in the same tier with the likes of Zurich, New Delhi, and Munich? Sorry nobody takes those rankings seriously. The GaWC makes about as much sense as these city-data poll threads..LOL!!
The GaWC is a complete joke! Yeah a city like Atlanta ranked in the same tier with the likes of Zurich, New Delhi, and Munich? Sorry nobody takes those rankings seriously. The GaWC makes about as much sense as these city-data poll threads..LOL!!
Said by the smartest person by far in this thread!
I've already disproved GaWC is nothing but a long standing joke on the Internet but it looks like the hold it has on people is overwhelming.
Dallas, ATL, Houston Miami are all Alpha Cities. No need to play the "there can only be ONE" game. Every other region(besides the midwest) have more than 1 Alpha City. SF and LA are both Alpha if I'm not mistaken, as is NYC, DC, and maybe Boston and Philly.
I understand your point. But we can both agree that NY is WAY above DC in GDP, we can agree LA is way above SF in GDP, and we can agree that Chicago is a stand alone in the mid-west. I'm talking metros BTW. The South is still maturing/growing at this point so there is no clear cut dominant city, but things will change in the future.
Houston is the only city out of those four with a major port and a dominant global industry (energy). That is why I feel it has the potential to grow at a much faster pace than Dallas and Atlanta. The airport also a major point of entry for Latin America and has a variety of foreign carriers from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
Chicago grew to notoriety as a major transport center due to it's strategic location in the 1800/1900s. Now that we receive most of our finished goods from overseas in sea containers that aspect of a major rail center for domestic shipping has less of an impact than it once did (though Chicago does have a port that is utilized for bulk commodities).
In current times, having a major shipping port is more important than ever for a city's/metro economy. Also being a dominant player in a major industry (energy) is huge. Atlanta and Dallas are both landlocked.
Last edited by Fastphilly; 03-25-2013 at 06:51 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
