Dallas vs. Boston (airport, California, metro, live)

[odurandina]

Fake cities in America exposed; sorry for the bad news.......

The Top Cities for Walking and Biking to Work

CITY PERCENT OF COMMUTERS WHO WALK OR BIKE TO WORK

Boston 16.7%
Washington, D.C. 16.7%
San Francisco 13.9%
Seattle 12.9%
Portland 12.1%
New York 11.2%
Philadelphia 10.6%
Minneapolis 10.4%
Chicago 8.1%


Baltimore 7.7%
Denver 6.7
Atlanta 5.4%
Cleveland 5.4%
Los Angeles 4.7%
Miami 4.6%
Austin 4.1%
San Diego 3.8%
Columbus 3.5%
San Jose 2.7%
Phoenix 2.6%
Houston 2.5%
Ciudad Kansas 2.4%
San Antonio 2.2%
Arlington 2.0%
Jacksonville 1.8%
Ft Worth 1.3%
Dallas ~0.2%
Dallas/Ft Worth ~0.3%

[Spade]

Originally Posted by odurandina

Fake cities in America exposed; sorry for the bad news.......

The Top Cities for Walking and Biking to Work

CITY PERCENT OF COMMUTERS WHO WALK OR BIKE TO WORK

Boston 16.7%
Washington, D.C. 16.7%
San Francisco 13.9%
Seattle 12.9%
Portland 12.1%
New York 11.2%
Philadelphia 10.6%
Minneapolis 10.4%
Chicago 8.1%


Baltimore 7.7%
Denver 6.7
Atlanta 5.4%
Cleveland 5.4%
Los Angeles 4.7%
Miami 4.6%
Austin 4.1%
San Diego 3.8%
Columbus 3.5%
San Jose 2.7%
Phoenix 2.6%
Houston 2.5%
Ciudad Kansas 2.4%
San Antonio 2.2%
Arlington 2.0%
Jacksonville 1.8%
Ft Worth 1.3%
Dallas ~0.2%
Dallas/Ft Worth ~0.3%

Grow up. All you're doing is trolling and bashing cities that is not like your own.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

Exactly, I like Boston better, but unless I was a 1%er I would pick dallas. Boston will soon become a museum city for tourist and a playground for the elite.

That's already the case for 75% of the metro area.

[odurandina]

Originally Posted by Spade

Grow up. All you're doing is trolling and bashing cities that is not like your own.

By means of this scathing bike/pedestrian data, it is clearly demonstrated where Dallas ranks in the un-urban cities of America list. ...Did i show a little snout with the 'fake city' moniker? Yes. the time to pull down the rude 'fake' description has expired, so there's nothing i can do. Are there actually 'fake cities' in America? It's open to debate. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call these, 'severerly challenged cities.' They are all of that and more. Others on this board insinuate this constantly, and list the many categories where they 'fail to deliver.' i'm a bit more direct.... Europe sure as hell doesn't have 'em. i don't like them because they leave millions of people behind stuck for hours in traffic in cars or on buses. They make tons of pollution, and their downtowns become empty, deserted canyons, (under-utilized space) at night. Houston, Dallas, and to some extent, Atlanta are very poorly planned, suburban sprawls with a bunch of big towers slapped on top. i also believe this model continues to spurn the breaking of the great urban wealth gap.... i could go on and on about how these poorly planned cities fail. But, i'll leave that to others.
i'll give Houston some credit; In the past, they've benefited from creating multiple ghost tower/boom/bust cycles and associated, cheap rents to encourage businesses to locate in Houston. This tactic has worked.
To some extent, Atlanta, and Austin also overbuild on spec. But not so much in Dallas. Anyhow..... i realize biking/walking commuter data exposes, indicts, and executes these surburban 'anytown USA' franchises.
If it makes you feel any better, there are cities where people may becoming increasingly forced into walking and riding bikes: re Seattle (where endless plans for BIG TOWERS are outpacing their public transportation even worse than you're seeing in Texas).

Boston also faces a host of challenges. We'll start with completing the decking of i-90, and make yet another interstate highway completely disappear beneath the urban fabric of the Fenway, Back Bay, Bay Village, The South End, and Chinatown... there's also multi-billion dollar barrier we're going to build across the outer islands to hold back the Atlantic Ocean. We also need to spend about $8~12B improving and expanding the T (starting immediately), some of which is about to get underway......

[dollaztx]

Originally Posted by odurandina

By means of this scathing bike/pedestrian data, it is clearly demonstrated where Dallas ranks in the un-urban cities of America list. ...Did i show a little snout with the 'fake city' moniker? Yes. the time to pull down the rude 'fake' description has expired, so there's nothing i can do. Are there actually 'fake cities' in America? It's open to debate. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call these, 'severerly challenged cities.' They are all of that and more. Others on this board insinuate this constantly, and list the many categories where they 'fail to deliver.' i'm a bit more direct.... Europe sure as hell doesn't have 'em. i don't like them because they leave millions of people behind stuck for hours in traffic in cars or on buses. They make tons of pollution, and their downtowns become empty, deserted canyons, (under-utilized space) at night. Houston, Dallas, and to some extent, Atlanta are very poorly planned, suburban sprawls with a bunch of big towers slapped on top. i also believe this model continues to spurn the breaking of the great urban wealth gap.... i could go on and on about how these poorly planned cities fail. But, i'll leave that to others.
i'll give Houston some credit; In the past, they've benefited from creating multiple ghost tower/boom/bust cycles and associated, cheap rents to encourage businesses to locate in Houston. This tactic has worked.
To some extent, Atlanta, and Austin also overbuild on spec. But not so much in Dallas. Anyhow..... i realize biking/walking commuter data exposes, indicts, and executes these surburban 'anytown USA' franchises.
If it makes you feel any better, there are cities where people may becoming increasingly forced into walking and riding bikes: re Seattle (where endless plans for BIG TOWERS are outpacing their public transportation even worse than you're seeing in Texas).


Boston also faces a host of urban challenges. We'll start with the multi-billion dollar barrier we're going to build across the outer islands in Boston to hold back the Atlantic Ocean. We need to spend about $10~15B improving and expanding the T.

I don't think you know DFW residents much. Dallasites just don't go out defending their city or metro and boosting it as much as people from other places. For the size of the metro, you certainly wont see it up there in boosting on CD. The only city where Dallas boosts and defends like that is when it gets compared to Houston. Other than that, Dallas likes to think of itself as an actual piece of *** place, an underdog with lots of work to do. It's that kind of thinking along with a can-do-attitude to change it that drives Dallas. I mean think about it, of all the places where you would have put money on that would get the first light-rail in Texas, Dallas would have been dead last because it is a multi-polar place with a bunch of large cities and municipalities, but it managed to do it. Now you have it (along with Houston) doing what has to be done to get the first bullet-train built. Boston might be the least fake city and Dallas very well could be the most, but I can only assure you there is more to Dallas than what you give it credit for.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by dollaztx

I don't think you know DFW residents much. Dallasites just don't go out defending their city or metro and boosting it as much as people from other places. For the size of the metro, you certainly wont see it up there in boosting on CD. The only city where Dallas boosts and defends like that is when it gets compared to Houston. Other than that, Dallas likes to think of itself as an actual piece of *** place, an underdog with lots of work to do. It's that kind of thinking along with a can-do-attitude to change it that drives Dallas. I mean think about it, of all the places where you would have put money on that would get the first light-rail in Texas, Dallas would have been dead last because it is a multi-polar place with a bunch of large cities and municipalities, but it managed to do it. Now you have it (along with Houston) doing what has to be done to get the first bullet-train built. Boston might be the least fake city and Dallas very well could be the most, but I can only assure you there is more to Dallas than what you give it credit for.

Check out the Dallas v Chicago/Dallas v Portland thread. Just this week (in this very thread) a Dallas posters was telling me Dallas is very blue. Also quite a few of them that couldn't accept that the COL in Dallas isn't any more affordable than Chicago. There are bad eggs in every batch. Dallas is no different.

[odurandina]

i fully agree with Dollaztx, we don't get 1/20th the smack talk from Dallas posters, as Houston. i would never include them with the Houston blighters......... .....Atlanta posters are also take their fair share of abuse in stride.

[DTXman34]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Check out the Dallas v Chicago/Dallas v Portland thread. Just this week (in this very thread) a Dallas posters was telling me Dallas is very blue. Also quite a few of them that couldn't accept that the COL in Dallas isn't any more affordable than Chicago. There are bad eggs in every batch. Dallas is no different.

It is blue. Texas Election Results 2016: President Live Map by County, Real-Time Voting Updates - POLITICO. Look at the square blue box in the northeast/north-central part of the state: Dallas County. I don't know how many times such a thing needs to be repeated. No, Dallas isn't as blue as Boston or San Fran. More moderately so. But it sure isn't red.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by DTXman34

It is blue. Texas Election Results 2016: President Live Map by County, Real-Time Voting Updates - POLITICO. Look at the square blue box in the northeast/north-central part of the state: Dallas County. I don't know how many times such a thing needs to be repeated. No, Dallas isn't as blue as Boston or San Fran. More moderately so. But it sure isn't red.

We did the math. 53 percent of votes cast in the Dallas MSA were for Donald Trump. There was a six point spread between Trump and Clinton. That's 130,000 votes. That's a blowout. Dallas is not blue. It may get there one day, but that day was not November 8, 2016. Maybe November 2020.

Just for the record, the ENTIRE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA was decided by fewer votes than Dallas' MSA. 50,000 to be exact.

[DTXman34]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

We did the math. 53 percent of votes cast in the Dallas MSA were for Donald Trump. There was a six point spread between Trump and Clinton. That's 130,000 votes. That's a blowout. Dallas is not blue. It may get there one day, but that day was not November 8, 2016. Maybe November 2020.

53% is not a blowout by any means, especially in a metro of 7 million people! I don't care what the overall MSA did. There's a ton of counties factored into the DFW Metroplex, many of which are over 60 miles away from Dallas. In most of the U.S., the suburbs lean red, while the city leans blue. Dallas is your typical red suburb/blue city division.