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.
-COL - Dallas. Seattle's famed homeless camps are horrid and sad to see. Speaks volumes.
-Food - Dallas overall, but Seattle's good too
-weather - Dallas. I'd die in the drab, drizzly, muddy, cloudy climate of the PNW.
-education - Seattle
-economy - Dallas
-architecture - Not sure
-diversity - Dallas, especially in terms of diversity of thought.
-sports culture- Dallas
-scenery - Seattle easily
-outdoors activity - Seattle
-shopping - Dallas
-who has the worse traffic - Don't know
-transit - Dallas
-Best overall QOL - Dallas.
As I can see with a few posts, still a lot of really ignorant, untrue stereotyping, lol. Can't take posts like that seriously. I would definitely pick Dallas.
Not sure I’d give economy or transit to Dallas. Seattle has much higher transit ridership and is home to a number of massive companies who have their primary employment centers in Seattle: Amazon, Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Costco, Weyerhauser, Expedia, etc.
Seattle has FIVE TIMES the transit commute share as Dallas, and an even larger margin on walking and biking. For the core cities, in the 2017 five-year ACS (came out today!):
Dallas: 4.2% transit, 1.9% walk, 0.2% bike.
Seattle: 21.4% transit, 10.2% walk, 3.5% bike.
I'd suggest that Dallas go up against the 1,450,000 people in King County outside Seattle, but that has twice Dallas' transit commute share (with Seattle added it's three times).
Seattle has FIVE TIMES the transit commute share as Dallas, and an even larger margin on walking and biking. For the core cities, in the 2017 five-year ACS (came out today!):
Dallas: 4.2% transit, 1.9% walk, 0.2% bike.
Seattle: 21.4% transit, 10.2% walk, 3.5% bike.
I'd suggest that Dallas go up against the 1,450,000 people in King County outside Seattle, but that has twice Dallas' transit commute share (with Seattle added it's three times).
This is just a question: why does it matter if other people are using public transportation or not?
It should only matter if you would like to incorporate it into your daily lifestyle. Dallas simply has a much stronger car-culture, but that doesn't mean that you can't take the train to important nodes within the city.
Dallas is one of those unique cities where the overall transit ridership does not correlate with the effectiveness of the transit system in YOUR personal life.
Usage is a strong indicator of the quality of the system. It's not the only indicator -- for example Seattle's traffic is probably worse, and its density, walkability, and job concentration are much higher, all adding to transit's popularity. But it's still a big indicator.
I also find that transit correlates to the other things I like about cities. A prevalence of cars makes for bad urbanity (big garages, wide and busy streets) and limits density. Nobody puts 300 apartments on a 1/3-acre site in Dallas because they'd want a massive amount of parking and it wouldn't fit.
This is just a question: why does it matter if other people are using public transportation or not?
It should only matter if you would like to incorporate it into your daily lifestyle. Dallas simply has a much stronger car-culture, but that doesn't mean that you can't take the train to important nodes within the city.
Dallas is one of those unique cities where the overall transit ridership does not correlate with the effectiveness of the transit system in YOUR personal life.
I live in Dallas and enjoy the city; however, it must continue to urbanize and embrace public transit or else its in for a rude awakening.
It is a big deal for several reasons:
*Public transit is a more efficient way of moving a mass # of people around and doesn't use so much land (better land use compared to highways).
*Dallas has the HIGHEST commute costs of any city in the country, so expanded mass transit would help to reduce that.
*Dallas has one of the HIGHEST amounts of pedestrian deaths in the country. That is because of car-centric design.
*Building more highways ADDS more traffic in the long run. The only way to reduce it is through multiple modes of transportation (rail, bus, pedestrian, scooter, bike, etc).
*Car-centric planning was a major factor in DT Dallas's decline in the 80s.
The city of Dallas should be doing everything it can to expand public transit within the city, improve pedestrian friendly design, add more bike lanes, and reduce/eliminate minimum parking requirements. I-345 separating DT from Deep Ellum also needs to be torn down and replaced by a pedestrian friendly boulevard. The city needs revenue and the best way to increase it is by adding density. In fact, Uptown Dallas generates 40% more revenue than ANY other city neighborhood.
Usage is a strong indicator of the quality of the system. It's not the only indicator -- for example Seattle's traffic is probably worse, and its density, walkability, and job concentration are much higher, all adding to transit's popularity. But it's still a big indicator.
I also find that transit correlates to the other things I like about cities. A prevalence of cars makes for bad urbanity (big garages, wide and busy streets) and limits density. Nobody puts 300 apartments on a 1/3-acre site in Dallas because they'd want a massive amount of parking and it wouldn't fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTXman34
I live in Dallas and enjoy the city; however, it must continue to urbanize and embrace public transit or else its in for a rude awakening.
It is a big deal for several reasons:
*Public transit is a more efficient way of moving a mass # of people around and doesn't use so much land (better land use compared to highways).
*Dallas has the HIGHEST commute costs of any city in the country, so expanded mass transit would help to reduce that.
*Dallas has one of the HIGHEST amounts of pedestrian deaths in the country. That is because of car-centric design.
*Building more highways ADDS more traffic in the long run. The only way to reduce it is through multiple modes of transportation (rail, bus, pedestrian, scooter, bike, etc).
*Car-centric planning was a major factor in DT Dallas's decline in the 80s.
The city of Dallas should be doing everything it can to expand public transit within the city, improve pedestrian friendly design, add more bike lanes, and reduce/eliminate minimum parking requirements. I-345 separating DT from Deep Ellum also needs to be torn down and replaced by a pedestrian friendly boulevard. The city needs revenue and the best way to increase it is by adding density. In fact, Uptown Dallas generates 40% more revenue than ANY other city neighborhood.
Thank you both! I understand now. To Seattle's defense, it has a very cohesive, solid urban area. That's why I would prefer riding it over the DART system (even though we have one of the largest light rail systems nationwide).
That's why I would prefer riding it over the DART system (even though we have one of the largest light rail systems nationwide).
DART was built too much as a regional/commuter system. It should've been built more incrementally as density increased from Downtown. It's a shame they didn't build the Knox-Henderson station, which would've been a perfect inner city station. I know the reasons why they didn't and it was incredibly short-sighted. But the future of DART is brighter now with plans for D2 and "actual" urban planners/transit riders on its board.
Usage is a strong indicator of the quality of the system. It's not the only indicator -- for example Seattle's traffic is probably worse, and its density, walkability, and job concentration are much higher, all adding to transit's popularity. But it's still a big indicator.
I also find that transit correlates to the other things I like about cities. A prevalence of cars makes for bad urbanity (big garages, wide and busy streets) and limits density. Nobody puts 300 apartments on a 1/3-acre site in Dallas because they'd want a massive amount of parking and it wouldn't fit.
I guess it matters but Seattle's traffic seems to be much worse than Dallas traffic. Seattle is definitely more walkable but it's much more compact. My point is, it seems to take much longer for a commuter commuting from dt Bellevue to dt Seattle which is about 8 miles than Plano Texas to dt Dallas which is about 18 miles. Those Seattle buses always seemed to be stuck in car traffic. It's so nice Seattle is aggressively expanding their rail service.
I guess it matters but Seattle's traffic seems to be much worse than Dallas traffic. Seattle is definitely more walkable but it's much more compact. My point is, it seems to take much longer for a commuter commuting from dt Bellevue to dt Seattle which is about 8 miles than Plano Texas to dt Dallas which is about 18 miles. Those Seattle buses always seemed to be stuck in car traffic. It's so nice Seattle is aggressively expanding their rail service.
Agree. Dallas traffic is very good for a city it's size.
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.
