JSB

Are the costs vs. benefits favorable even at the surface? I've not seen a persuasive argument to indicate that rail ridership will make much of a dent in vehicular traffic. Rail seems like an expensive toy for making people think they're in a different kind of city than Houston is.

I guess that in most if not all cities, it depends on the alternatives, which should drive the demand for living next to transit that takes you where you want to go. If there is no particular demand for housing next to a rail line that takes you into downtown, because the alternatives are easy or cheap, then I suspect that it would not necessarily be more expensive to live there. Consider the alternatives in Houston for someone who works downtown: 1) Live outside downtown and take MetroRail to work. 2) Live downtown. 3) Live outside downtown and take a bus to work. 4) Live outside downtown and drive to work. The demand for (1) is going to depend on the cost, availability and ease of (2), (3) and (4).

Comparing development in Houston to development in a much denser Northeastern city like Washington is difficult. In Washington, driving into the city is much worse, because the freeway system is more limited and congested, parking is more scarce and expensive and housing is more expensive even in the suburbs. It is definitely much more expensive to buy housing near the Metro, whether in the middle of Washington or way out in the suburbs. The alternatives for inexpensive living and commuting are better in Houston.