VOTE: Portland or Houston (moving, homeless, rail)

[Worldbfree007]

Portland is a nice place for stoners. I would assume. Houston is the BIG CITY.

[2dc]

I'll have to go with Houston on this one. Being black Portland lacks the diversity of Houston. I'm sure its a nice city and a beautiful one too, but it has nothing on Houston's diverse residents.

[Angel713]

^^I agree. Portland definitely lacks the diversity that you get in Houston.

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

And it's not like L.A. isn't expanding its rail options but it will never be as good as New York's. Houston's rail is 7.5 miles long and opened in 2004. Portland's is 52 miles long and opened in 1986. Oh, and Portland metro is 2.2 million whereas Houston is 5.7 million. Oops.

Plus, Portland has 260 miles of bicycle lanes and has one of the highest percentages of people commuting by alternative transportation means. Houston has some of the worst traffic in the country.

Okay, what? NYC has a unique rail system that only cities like Paris, London, Tokyo, and Hong Kong can match. Portland's is all light rail and not like that. It'll be easy to match Portland's. Hell, Dallas just doubled their system and they started in 1996. Houston, with it's 7.5 mile line, has 45K riders a day according to Metro. Just wait until our system expands in 2013 and again soon after (and this is just light rail).

And like I said, we're just talking about RAIL transit. Not even bus or Park and Ride, where Houston excels at. Our Park and Ride system can go up against just about any commuter rail system in America.

Top 10 Worst Traffic Cities in the United States For 2009 : The Real Estate Bloggers

So Houston is nine out of ten, but look at some of the metro areas above Houston, like San Fran. Doesn't San Fran have all that nice BART/Muni/Streetcar transit, yet they're above Houston in traffic? LOL, weak argument.

OK, fair enough. I'll take your word for it that the city propers voted Obama. Honestly I don't care - it's the greater metropolitan area you have to look at if you really want to get a feeling for the political climate of a city.

Right.

And though overall the metro might have went McCain, it wasn't a blowout. I think you're wrong on your political climate of a city, you have to look at the whole metropolitan area. That's not really true.

[PDX_LAX]

Top 10 Worst Traffic Cities in the United States For 2009 : The Real Estate Bloggers

So Houston is nine out of ten, but look at some of the metro areas above Houston, like San Fran. Doesn't San Fran have all that nice BART/Muni/Streetcar transit, yet they're above Houston in traffic? LOL, weak argument.

You're proving my point. New York and San Francisco have awful traffic, but so do all big cities. The difference is that you don't have to drive there because they do have fantastic rail systems. In Houston you have to drive through awful traffic no matter what, because there isn't a nice alternative.

I'm really not going to debate you further on this point. Houston, like Los Angeles, Phoenix, and most other rapidly-growing sprawling sunbelt cities, have awful public transportation infrastructures. They are all car dependent cities. Portland is not. The end.

Right.

And though overall the metro might have went McCain, it wasn't a blowout. I think you're wrong on your political climate of a city, you have to look at the whole metropolitan area. That's not really true.

Dallas county is only 1/3 of the metroplex population and it was the only county that went for Obama, and yes, all of the surrounding counties went for McCain and it wasn't close.

Similarly with Houston, Harris county which accounts for the majority of Houston's MSA population went only 51% Obama, 49% McCain and all surrounding counties went wide for McCain.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the proper vs metro political climate point.

[Angel713]

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

You're proving my point. New York and San Francisco have awful traffic, but so do all big cities. The difference is that you don't have to drive there because they do have fantastic rail systems. In Houston you have to drive through awful traffic no matter what, because there isn't a nice alternative.

So, don't you think Houston would be even higher on the listen then?

I'm really not going to debate you further on this point. Houston, like Los Angeles, Phoenix, and most other rapidly-growing sprawling sunbelt cities, have awful public transportation infrastructures. They are all car dependent cities. Portland is not. The end.

Haha, you say "the end" like you have the end all, say all in an argument. Please.

And Houston doesn't have awful public transit. It has inadequate rail transit (for now), but overall, public transit is not lacking. And Los Angeles? I spent a week in LA last June without using a car. It was EASY. Los Angeles only lacks in rail on the west side, which it is expanding. The buses are always frequent (MetroLocal AND MetroRapid). Once they get the Subway to the Sea, it'll be even better.

Dallas county is only 1/3 of the metroplex population and it was the only county that went for Obama, and yes, all of the surrounding counties went for McCain and it wasn't close.

Similarly with Houston, Harris county which accounts for the majority of Houston's MSA population went only 51% Obama, 49% McCain and all surrounding counties went wide for McCain.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the proper vs metro political climate point.

Yes, Fort Bend County (second largest county in metro Houston) went wide for McCain. Sure did. If wide is 50.8% to you (was something like that). And I already explained to you about Harris County. And Waller was just at 53%. Hardly wide.

[PDX_LAX]

Originally Posted by Angel713

So, don't you think Houston would be even higher on the listen then?

No, because that isn't a list of cities with worst transportation systems. It's a list of cities with the worst traffic.

And Houston doesn't have awful public transit. It has inadequate rail transit (for now), but overall, public transit is not lacking.

I think you and I define adequate differently. I consider New York, San Francisco, Boston, Portland (among others) to be adequate. Good public transit systems are adequate. Public transit that does not have rail, and is dependent on traffic-vulnerable buses are not adequate even if they are heavily used.

And Los Angeles? I spent a week in LA last June without using a car. It was EASY. Los Angeles only lacks in rail on the west side, which it is expanding. The buses are always frequent (MetroLocal AND MetroRapid). Once they get the Subway to the Sea, it'll be even better.

Now it all makes sense. You don't understand what good public transportation is. Los Angeles and Houston are both car dependent cities with inadequate public transit systems, but if those are the only two you're familiar with then you wouldn't really have anything to compare them to. Try going to New York City and then tell me it's easy living in L.A. with no car.

and FYI, I live in Los Angeles so I really don't think you want to go there with me. You saying that Los Angeles has adequate public transit has taken away any credibility you may have had. I don't care what you're experience last June was. Just ask people who live here, it's common knowledge the transit here sucks, despite whatever you have convinced yourself.

[Angel713]

Did the same thing in DC. It's easier to move around there without a car, since it's the subway system is vast, but it's easy to live in certain parts of LA and not have a car. Mainly the west side. Still, LA has the naton's largest bus system. Transit does not equal rail.

[john_starks]

Originally Posted by Worldbfree007

Portland is a nice place for stoners. I would assume. Houston is the BIG CITY.

and houston wouldn't have stoners? a big city's got everything. that's why its a big city

[backdrifter]

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

How would you know? You clearly know nothing about air transit in Houston, let alone Portland. In your previous several posts you have spewed out nothing but fabricated, incorrect facts which I have corrected each time, now you want us to believe you are an expert on Portland's public transportation system? You've already clearly stated that public transit isn't important to you so just stop talking about things you are completely ignorant about.

And if I truly need to correct you one last time, yes, as the poster above me stated, Portland probably has the best and most practical public transportation infrastructure outside the older and larger cities of New York, Boston, DC, and San Francisco (I'd add Chicago as well).

Just quit already. Stop embarrassing yourself and Houston. Go water your basil.

LOL! I wish I could rep you for that...

[cjester]

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

How would you know? You've already clearly stated that public transit isn't important to you so just stop talking about things you are completely ignorant about.

And if I truly need to correct you one last time, yes, as the poster above me stated, Portland probably has the best and most practical public transportation infrastructure.

Just quit already. Stop embarrassing yourself and Houston. Go water your basil.

My guess is that you work for Portland's public transportation.
Your argument is "I know that public transportation is good for a city, and makes Portland great and Houston horrible".
I come along and my point is "I don't think public transportation is that important, plus I prefer to get to work clean".
My assertion made you so hysterical and emotional, to the point that you implied that I am ignorant, a fool, and how dare not to care about public transportation. All of this clearly shows that being around all those homeless trying to catch the bus can be detriMENTAL to one’s health.