• shortwavesurfer@monero.townEnglish
    3·
    9 months ago

    As a person who grew up in the southern United States, I know exactly what you’re talking about with the rural areas. I lived in Minneapolis for about seven years and the transportation there was actually pretty good. However, that means you have to be in places like Minneapolis, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and other places similar in size.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      1·
      9 months ago

      Not only that size, it also has to be not in the South. The Houston Metro is hot garbage. DART makes Dallas quite a bit better, but if you miss a bus transfer you’re screwed. That’s the fourth and fifth largest metro areas in the country.

      Edit: Houston does have light rail but it’s so bad that I forget it exists. There’s a plan to make it better which is great, but it won’t be ready until I’m ready to retire to the country.

        • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          If I had to guess, part of it is sprawl. Chicago packs a lot more people in 7197 square miles than either Houston or Dallas do in 8827 and 8928 square miles respectively.

          Another piece is likely original city design and the way the city itself grew up. I’d have to do some digging to prove that one way or another.

          One last piece (well, two tied together) is political will and political capital. Houston is a LOT of oil money so you can spend your time trying to make sure people have access to city services or you can fight against the people who make money on keeping more cars on the road. Even the blue folks are employed by O&G, adjacent services (manufacturing), or service industries that are fed by the folks in O&G (food). It’s an uphill battle. Dallas is more tech dependent so they had an easier time with DART but missing a bus transfer can still be over an hour ordeal.