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.
I'm not an expert, but isn't it because DART built track mileage, but not in the right places? By looking at a map, it seems they took the cheap way and skirted alongside the population centers. Bad move. Instead of going through Uptown, it makes a V shape around both sides of. Oak Lawn is the gayborhood, right? Missed opportunity there since the LGBT population generally seems to prefer public transit. The station closest to SMU is across a freeway, so another massively missed opportunity to a high concentration of people who would use public transit. Idk all neighborhood names, but Bishop Arts District? Looks pretty dense with some good retail. DART goes down and around it, rather than through it. DART goes alongside Love Field Airport, but doesn't connect directly to it via rail. The area by Galleria Dallas and Addison Airport looks to have a lot going on, but DART instead goes through a long stretch of warehouses well to the west of this location. It misses UT Dallas entirely, instead going the cheap way alongside a freeway to the east. The line to Denton stops downtown, which is good, but never hits the university there. There is no rail connection to the sporting complex areas in Arlington.
Yeah I've heard the biggest issue with DART is first/last mile connectivity.
That's why I keep asking why Dallas keeps being listed as tops for transit.
When you look at it as a whole Dallas PT functionally isn't that better than Houston and the road network isn't either. I think it's a wash.
Dallas POTENTIALLY has the better system once the TOD increases and helps ridership.
But to me a good transit system must have riders and must take those riders places. Dallas has the miles but fails in Ridership. Houston's bus system feeds the rail system but let's be honest here, although a lot better than Dallas, the numbers are still paltry.
Also, the hub and spoke system in Houston is no worse than Dallas. However, as both gets more and more people improving mass transit is a dire need. My Question to you is if DART is so great, why is Ridership so low? There is no doubt that building a University to Uptown line in Houston would definitely have Ridership and improve connectivity to existing lines, but with all the Miles of DART, why the low ridership? The is talk of extending the purple line to Hobby, which I don't think will do much for ridership, but I was thinking that a DFW line would have been a super boost to the system
Jessemh431 basically said what I was going to say. It seems Dart and Dallas also hopes that TODs will help in the long run. But they did not go through dense areas of the city and went away from where the population is at. If Houston ever built the University Line, it’s rail system would have higher ridership with at least half the track miles because that line could potentially have 50k people per day bringing the entire system to 110k people per day. Politics are the only reason it wasn’t built after the red line.
I also used old stats for bus ridership. That was the third quarter of 2018 and I didn’t know that they released the fourth quarter. Dallas bus ridership decreased to 97k while Houston bus ridership increased to 223k. Might not be a fair comparison because Metro may cover more areas than Dart. But that is still pretty sad by Dart. I’m coming to grips that Houston maybe a bit more centralized than Dallas than we are to believe. Most of the regions recreation and a great many of jobs are located inside that first 100-110s square miles. But Dallas immediate downtown/Uptown core still has the upper hand for now. As you said, if Caydon builds that entire plan, it could be a game changer for the core.
Jessemh431 basically said what I was going to say. It seems Dart and Dallas also hopes that TODs will help in the long run. But they did not go through dense areas of the city and went away from where the population is at. If Houston ever built the University Line, it’s rail system would have higher ridership with at least half the track miles because that line could potentially have 50k people per day bringing the entire system to 110k people per day. Politics are the only reason it wasn’t built after the red line.
I also used old stats for bus ridership. That was the third quarter of 2018 and I didn’t know that they released the fourth quarter. Dallas bus ridership decreased to 97k while Houston bus ridership increased to 223k. Might not be a fair comparison because Metro may cover more areas than Dart. But that is still pretty sad by Dart. I’m coming to grips that Houston maybe a bit more centralized than Dallas than we are to believe. Most of the regions recreation and a great many of jobs are located inside that first 100-110s square miles. But Dallas immediate downtown/Uptown core still has the upper hand for now. As you said, if Caydon builds that entire plan, it could be a game changer for the core.
I have been saying that for a while.
Dallas immediate neighborhoods around downtown are better. Atlanta's too.
But overall Houston is more centralized than the other two. A comparison of the 2 -5 miles around each city I would say it's Houston, then Atlanta and then Dallas.
Looking at the daytime population of these 3 cities it looks like a blowout for Houston.
The biggest employment centers are around the bullseye of the metro. So are the universities.
All of them have very good bus connectivity. All the aspects for a good rail conversion are there, it's just politics like you said.
Houston at first glance look like there is no planing and the no zoning does not help. But for some reason it develops more organized than Dallas. Houston likes packaging things in districts. It's theaters are in a district, it's museums are too; research is condensed together at TMC, shipping and logistics at the port, energy companies in the corridor, arterial roads are on a regular grid, highways on loop and spoke bullseye system.
DART has good bones but I was really surprised by the good reviews people here keep giving it. And I was even more perplexed by people ranking the overall road and public transportation system in Dallas to be the best. What I have been saying is that there is no stand out.
I think if Houston develops a Marta type system it would easily be tops.
Houston UA is smaller than the other two and is adding more people to the current urban boundaries while the other two is adding people more uniformly. This is important to the future of PT because it is developing denser corridors while the other two is sharing the love more equally.
After I posted about Caydon in midtown I read that Rice wants to reserve about 30% of it's 16 acre innovation corridor for multi family residential. Being on a possible intersection of the Red and Blue rail lines would make that area TOD to the max. That area right now is the missing link between downtown to TMC and also uptown to the universities. If done right it could be the new Center/ Heart of the city.
Cities need to stop taking the cheap way out by building mileage and avoiding population centers. Quality>Quantity. I'd rather live in a city where the urban core neighborhoods are well-served so people can live a pretty car-free lifestyle (or at least have a one-car family), rather than live in a city with a system that has a bunch of miles that don't take you where you need to go.
I can't really think of a city off the top of my head that avoids population centers, except maybe Denver which has also decided to build on freeways, right? It's another city that tried to be impressive, but has not executed it properly...IIRC.
OTOH, LA seems to be learning from its mistakes. The Green Line was pretty pointless. It'll be a good connector between lines now, but when built, it was kinda a train to and from absolutely nowhere. LAMTA has now focused its attention on the urban population centers. The Expo Line, while still using old tracks and right of ways, manages to hit some pretty big population and ridership centers like DTLA, USC/Coliseum/museums, dense population areas along Western and Crenshaw, downtown Culver City, Palms (a dense residential area of mostly condos/apartments), Santa Monica College (a huge commuter 2 year college), and the very densely populated and tourist hub of downtown Santa Monica. The Purple Line is going through some of the densest parts of LA along Wilshire Blvd to Beverly Hills (big tourist and business hub downtown), Century City (big employment center), and ending near Westwood and UCLA (dense neighborhood and student-heavy population).
Old systems generally hit major population centers like if you look at NYC and Chicago. Newer ones tend to just be flashy and be for looks on the cheap, avoiding real population centers. I think cities are realizing the downfalls, and realizing that the "if you build it they will come" attitude is not working. The initial expensive costs will be for the benefit in the long run. Like with Seattle also.
This is where Atlanta has the edge, though. It's main population centers are pretty well served. The airport, Downtown, Midtown, at least part of Buckhead, Decatur. MARTA misses a lot, but it covers quite a bit and is still ahead of the other three. I'd say Houston potentially has the better potential than Dallas since Dallas wasted so much money. If MARTA were to expand beyond its current shape, Atlanta could really help curb its suburban sprawl and traffic IMO.
That's the thing with Houston's rail. It's basically a streetcar or tram. But it travels in areas already having a large population and employment centers. They go where people are already at and where people want to go. It is very much a urban transit system more so than DART so quality wise, it's much better than DART. The problem is again, its a light rail streetcar.
Cities need to stop taking the cheap way out by building mileage and avoiding population centers. Quality>Quantity. I'd rather live in a city where the urban core neighborhoods are well-served so people can live a pretty car-free lifestyle (or at least have a one-car family), rather than live in a city with a system that has a bunch of miles that don't take you where you need to go.
I can't really think of a city off the top of my head that avoids population centers, except maybe Denver which has also decided to build on freeways, right? It's another city that tried to be impressive, but has not executed it properly...IIRC.
OTOH, LA seems to be learning from its mistakes. The Green Line was pretty pointless. It'll be a good connector between lines now, but when built, it was kinda a train to and from absolutely nowhere. LAMTA has now focused its attention on the urban population centers. The Expo Line, while still using old tracks and right of ways, manages to hit some pretty big population and ridership centers like DTLA, USC/Coliseum/museums, dense population areas along Western and Crenshaw, downtown Culver City, Palms (a dense residential area of mostly condos/apartments), Santa Monica College (a huge commuter 2 year college), and the very densely populated and tourist hub of downtown Santa Monica. The Purple Line is going through some of the densest parts of LA along Wilshire Blvd to Beverly Hills (big tourist and business hub downtown), Century City (big employment center), and ending near Westwood and UCLA (dense neighborhood and student-heavy population).
Old systems generally hit major population centers like if you look at NYC and Chicago. Newer ones tend to just be flashy and be for looks on the cheap, avoiding real population centers. I think cities are realizing the downfalls, and realizing that the "if you build it they will come" attitude is not working. The initial expensive costs will be for the benefit in the long run. Like with Seattle also.
This is where Atlanta has the edge, though. It's main population centers are pretty well served. The airport, Downtown, Midtown, at least part of Buckhead, Decatur. MARTA misses a lot, but it covers quite a bit and is still ahead of the other three. I'd say Houston potentially has the better potential than Dallas since Dallas wasted so much money. If MARTA were to expand beyond its current shape, Atlanta could really help curb its suburban sprawl and traffic IMO.
I feel like if MARTA had a little northeast suburban mini-network that branched off from Dunwoody/Sandy Springs and had a circular line that covered (proceeding clockwise) Dunwoody, Alpharetta, Johns Creek, Duluth, Suwanee, Lawrenceville, Lilburn, Norcross and back to Dunwoody (it could possibly also pass through Gwinnett Place, Sugarloaf Mills, Mall of GA, and Gwinnett Med Center-Lawrenceville), it would be useful for the heavily populated and heavily developed northeast part of the metro area.
Arlington is a gigantic transit desert. 400,000 people and no public transportation whatsoever.
Arlington is the worst. They idiotically decided way way back not to buy in like Dallas and the larger suburbs back in the early 90's. As they didn't want the undesirables that mass transit could potentially create finding their city. (As if Arlington were ever sometime of super glamorous place) Despite the stadiums and arenas and somewhat central location. Therefore to this day they are the largest city in the country without mass transit I believe.
Arlington is the worst. They idiotically decided way way back not to buy in like Dallas and the larger suburbs back in the early 90's. As they didn't want the undesirables that mass transit could potentially create finding their city. (As if Arlington were ever sometime of super glamorous place) Despite the stadiums and arenas and somewhat central location. Therefore to this day they are the largest city in the country without mass transit I believe.
With Arlington citizens placing a term limit on mayor and a changing demographics I think the stance on public transportation will change. At least I hope so.
Suburbs like Arlington and Frisco certainly don't help. The former is short-sighted and ignorant while the other one is sleazy and opportunistic (non-DART member city luring companies away from DART member cities).
Another short sighted mistake occurred around 1990(?). Knox-Henderson had the opportunity to build a subway station and they voted it down. It would've made more sense than Mockingbird.
Suburbs like Arlington and Frisco certainly don't help. The former is short-sighted and ignorant while the other one is sleazy and opportunistic (non-DART member city luring companies away from DART member cities).
Another short sighted mistake occurred around 1990(?). Knox-Henderson had the opportunity to build a subway station and they voted it down. It would've made more sense than Mockingbird.
Dallas should have invested heavily in rail in its city limits before it suburbs. Rail needs to be where the people are. I think the idea of building rail and waiting for areas to develop around it is not smart because in the end your losing more money by being cheap.
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.
