What are the big differences between living in Houston and living in Dallas? (assess, corporate)

[bu2]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

“Dallas light rail is extensive but few people ride it”

No it’s not. Extensive would mean that it were accessible for the majority of the city or atleast the area it serves. Which it isn’t. Due to the layout in Dallas (and Texas as a whole), it isn’t exactly an easy thing to walk miles to get to a train station. In other words, there’s a good reason few people ride it. If it were a vastly extensive system that’s overall accessible, people actually would ride it

dedinitely is extensive by Texas standards but… it’s Texas. One of the most car centric places in the USA. People in NYC/Europe would laugh at such a statement.

Excluding NYC, Dallas is competitive in mileage with anybody else in the US. And they clearly exceed anyone but DC, Chicago and the Bay Area. Now ridership is a different issue. They've got 93 miles of light rail and 48 miles of commuter rail plus some toy trains (streetcar).

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by bu2

Excluding NYC, Dallas is competitive in mileage with anybody else in the US. And they clearly exceed anyone but DC, Chicago and the Bay Area. Now ridership is a different issue. They've got 93 miles of light rail and 48 miles of commuter rail plus some toy trains (streetcar).

Mileage isn’t the issue. Taking Chicago for example, it’s not the greatest system in the world but atleast it’s structured in a way that those who live in proximity to the transit system can fairly easy get to their given stations and beyond. Dallas is not. Once you get to the final stop, you’re limited as to where you can go from there.

Case in point, no. DFW’s transit system isn’t extensive. You can’t comfortably get from point a to point b neither on city level nor metro level. How extensive a transit system is isn’t a matter of looking at the ammount of miles. Even in the city limits, most people live many miles away from the closest station and get dropped off many miles away as well. The bones and structure just aren’t what they are in DC. Or Chicago. Or san Frencisco. In other words, the low ridership is what it is for a reason.

The fact that there aren’t a crazy high amount of systems that exceed Dallas’ system speaks more about the state of American public transport than it does Dallas. And the fact that Dallas shames any other system in Texas speaks more about the state of public transport in Texas than it does Dallas.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

Mileage isn’t the issue. Taking Chicago for example, it’s not the greatest system in the world but atleast it’s structured in a way that those who live in proximity to the transit system can fairly easy get to their given stations and beyond. Dallas is not. Once you get to the final stop, you’re limited as to where you can go from there.

Case in point, no. DFW’s transit system isn’t extensive. You can’t comfortably get from point a to point b neither on city level nor metro level. How extensive a transit system is isn’t a matter of looking at the ammount of miles. Even in the city limits, most people live many miles away from the closest station and get dropped off many miles away as well. The bones and structure just aren’t what they are in DC. Or Chicago. Or san Frencisco. In other words, the low ridership is what it is for a reason.

The fact that there aren’t a crazy high amount of systems that exceed Dallas’ system speaks more about the state of American public transport than it does Dallas. And the fact that Dallas shames any other system in Texas speaks more about the state of public transport in Texas than it does Dallas.

Dallas obviously has much more rail (which as noted is of very limited usefulness), but Houston has long been considered to have a much better bus system than DART, and buses are the backbone of most U.S. systems. Not that Houston's bus system couldn't also use improvements, but METRO has been actively working on that.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by bu2

Excluding NYC, Dallas is competitive in mileage with anybody else in the US. And they clearly exceed anyone but DC, Chicago and the Bay Area. Now ridership is a different issue. They've got 93 miles of light rail and 48 miles of commuter rail plus some toy trains (streetcar).

DART likes to flex with how many miles it has but the ridership is sorely lacking and the stations aren't convenient. For example when State Farm opened their complex in Richardson next to the Cityline station in 2016, ridership at the station dropped. I'm sure it has recovered since then, but it was a big example of how poorly the system is laid out. It'll get better if they get the Cotton Belt line going. But DFW's hub-and-spoke rail layout would work if that's how the DFW metro was also designed, but it can't be with having two major cities plus their suburbs.

If you took the DFW rail layout and placed it directly over Houston, you'd have double or triple the ridership, simple for the fact that the Houston metro centered around one major city. Even if Houston had incorporated suburbs, they'd still be revolving around one city unlike the DFW setup.

[oil capital]

Originally Posted by bu2

Excluding NYC, Dallas is competitive in mileage with anybody else in the US. And they clearly exceed anyone but DC, Chicago and the Bay Area. Now ridership is a different issue. They've got 93 miles of light rail and 48 miles of commuter rail plus some toy trains (streetcar).

You left out Boston and Philadelphia. And as you already mentioned, ridership is a "different issue" and a far more important one.

Transit systems, after all, exist for the purpose of providing rides, not for the purpose of having miles of track. By any measure of ridership, DFW transit is not competitive (nor is Houston's, but it does do slightly better than DFW). https://www.bts.dot.gov/content/perc...as-2010–2014

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by oil capital

You left out Boston and Philadelphia. And as you already mentioned, ridership is a "different issue" and a far more important one.

Transit systems, after all, exist for the purpose of providing rides, not for the purpose of having miles of track. By any measure of ridership, DFW transit is not competitive (nor is Houston's, but it does do slightly better than DFW). https://www.bts.dot.gov/content/perc...as-2010–2014

Houston's would look much better if the extensions hadn't been built as rail, so only the original Red Line would be considered.

EDIT: Whoops, sorry, I was thinking of ridership per track mile. Not overall transit share of trips.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Houston's would look much better if the extensions hadn't been built as rail, so only the original Red Line would be considered.

EDIT: Whoops, sorry, I was thinking of ridership per track mile. Not overall transit share of trips.

Yes. In ridership per mile, the original Red line did better than any other light rail in the country except for the Green line in Boston, which has long subway segments and is mostly grade separated.

[FreeVilley]

Originally Posted by bu2

Excluding NYC, Dallas is competitive in mileage with anybody else in the US. And they clearly exceed anyone but DC, Chicago and the Bay Area. Now ridership is a different issue. They've got 93 miles of light rail and 48 miles of commuter rail plus some toy trains (streetcar).

Considering the NY subway is over 100 years old, I do venture to think that over time, the density around stations will improve to the point its a much more viable form of transportation. The city has now made plans to densify 6 stations, and as they go through changes in zoning for parking and conforming use, there could be more density around stations in the future. But I am still thinking 20 years out from now.

[FreeVilley]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

DART likes to flex with how many miles it has but the ridership is sorely lacking and the stations aren't convenient. For example when State Farm opened their complex in Richardson next to the Cityline station in 2016, ridership at the station dropped. I'm sure it has recovered since then, but it was a big example of how poorly the system is laid out. It'll get better if they get the Cotton Belt line going. But DFW's hub-and-spoke rail layout would work if that's how the DFW metro was also designed, but it can't be with having two major cities plus their suburbs.

If you took the DFW rail layout and placed it directly over Houston, you'd have double or triple the ridership, simple for the fact that the Houston metro centered around one major city. Even if Houston had incorporated suburbs, they'd still be revolving around one city unlike the DFW setup.

Agreeing here!! The Houston area's centralization around one nucleus does help with multimodal transportation. The DFW decentralized structure is preferrable for quality of life, in that it allows smaller communities to look out for themselves, and provide solutions that fit them hyper-locally. So in 50 years houston may be able to get some great traction with their public transportation, better than Dallas could. But in the meantime people have to live with what they have.

[oil capital]

Originally Posted by oil capital

and we have ways to measure the effects of humidity... the "feels like" temps.

For example, right now, at 4:40 PM on August 3, 2022, the temps in Dallas and Houston are 103 and 95, respectively.

The "feels like" temps in Dallas and Houston right now are 108 and 104, respectively.

Following up on this.

Temps/Humidity/Feels Like Temp today at 4:56 pm:

Dallas: 100 / 29% / 103

Houston: 92 / 48% / 99

Austin: 97 / 35% / 102

Tulsa: 100 / 32% / 106

Oklahoma City: 100 / 29% / 103