Comment by Jedd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jedd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Retrofitting a transport system to replace the need for cars is virtually impossible.

This is a very pessimistic take on our capabilities.

Retrofitting modern (past century technology) transport systems onto cities that are a ~ 1,000 years old is things that many cities have managed to do. Almost any capital city in Europe would make a good example.

Can you elucidate on why doing it in Houston is 'virtually impossible'?

> It's a 100 x 100 mile area. I grew up there and drove 5 miles to high school, through sprawling neighborhoods.

TFA suggest that a million cars within the Houston Metropolitan Area were destroyed. According to wikipedia this is ~ 4,300 sq km.

You've suggested that Houston is 100x100miles ... which is about 25,000 sq km.

You can't both be right.

For reference, Sydney metro area is estimated at around 12,000 sq km - three times the size of Houston. Australia's renowned for low population density (equating to relatively high cost of public transport infrastructure per person) ... and yet.

> Retrofitting modern (past century technology) transport systems onto cities that are a ~ 1,000 years old is things that many cities have managed to do. Almost any capital city in Europe would make a good example.

These cities have always been pretty dense. Density around transit stop is the critical dimension of successful transit systems. Building infrastructure is a pretty trivial problem in comparison of changing the density distribution of a whole metropolitan area.

It can be done, however, with enough political clout. Many American cities have a big advantage: large straight streets. Car lanes can be converted to transit lanes for cheap, but it's politically very hard to do.

The US Census Bureau says that the greater Houston metro area is 10,062 square miles.

It is usually a bad idea to be pontificating when one does not have command of the basic facts. It is really quite annoying to have people who understand nothing about Houston except what they've seen on video or read in an article making claims about deficiencies of one thing, and superiority of others, when they really don't have any non-superficial knowledge at all. It's not helpful.

> It is really quite annoying to have people who understand nothing about Houston ...

I don't deny that I'm ignorant about Houston.

My point was that there are plenty of cities around the world, larger, older, flatter, hotter, lower population density, higher / lower rainfall, etc that have implemented effective public transport systems.

It's possible that Houston has intractable and unique challenges.

However the handful of places that are claimed to be 'impossible to retrofit public transit systems' seem to be found in the USA (a country with 5% of the world's population, but the bulk of the wealth).

It's possible, also, that the narrative - and this may well have fed civil designs so far - has also fed this belief that public transport just isn't suitable for 'some cities'.

I doubt you can find any city with "effective public transport systems" that meet or exceed Houston in any 4 of the categories you name. Of course Houston doesn't get a break in any of those categories (age, perhaps, excluded).

We'll have to haggle on a definition of effective public transport but it would be fun to pursue the details a bit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/us/houston-highway-resili... cites the area of Houston as 600 sq miles (= 1550km^2) and the area of the Houston metro region as > 10000 sq miles (= 25900 km^2). Twice the size of Sydney metro area.

The Houston metro region is the region for which we're talking about transit.

I addressed parent's comment (parallel your own) and your concerns, but you beat me to submitting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com