[lrt's friend]

I think the point of comments about bus versus rail is that you can buy a whole lot more with buses in service improvements that will make a real difference in building ridership. Rail projects are notoriously expensive and there needs to be an established passenger market to justify the cost. Too often expensive rail projects result in service cuts to the bus network that produces underwhelming results.

Rail in isolation is too inflexible without a robust bus network to support it. Most people's trips need to go beyond the rail line. That is the failing of DART. The supporting bus network is poor.

Be careful in comparing Detroit to Vancouver. Vancouver always had a robust transit system and the Expo Line was created with special funding in preparation for Expo 86. So, a combination of a robust transit system and funding made the Expo Line both a reality and a success. Also, that abandoned rail line was actually a former interurban line and crossed a good portion of Vancouver and suburbs to the historic city of New Westminster. Whether much was low density is not so important. It provided a low cost corridor and spanned a good portion of the city that could be fed by the bus network. Much of the Canada Line in Vancouver also crosses low density suburbs. Rail transit will succeed even in suburbs when there is a big enough passenger catchment area that can efficiently reach rail stations by the bus network. Without the good bus connections, you are really limited to walk in traffic (very limited in low density areas) and Park n Ride lots (requiring a lot of land that could otherwise be used for TOD).