[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Agreed, especially DFW. Check out the scale of the Metroplex vis-a-vis Greater LA and its much tighter grid. DFW's lack of a regular grid system (both cross-metro and within subdivisions) in conjunction with the "dense, yet sparse" suburban patterns put it along a theoretical trajectory with far more challenges than LA, assuming the unchecked growth continues at its current pace.

Dallas
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7883...0236526,11.02z

Los Angeles
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9885....1132828,11.2z

DFW actually makes Houston look relatively compact:

Houston
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7575764,-95.3686209,11z

At a macro level, DFW already is quite the disaster, but fortunately for most residents, they don't live in the DFW area at the macro level. The same could be said for LA area residents, although I think probably a greater percentage of LA residents commute longer distances to and from work or school than do their Metroplex (I really hate that name) counterparts. Both metros have several nodes of employment and business activity, but in the DFW area, with it's much lower housing prices and greater housing mobility, people tend to live a bit closer to where they work. DFW can add several million more residents without too much disruption. Hopefully their nascent rail transit (DART and commuter rail) options will continue to improve over time. Houston might find that a bit more difficult since in many ways it is much more economically centralized, and there are still too few transit options. It is worth pointing out that people aren't moving to DFW or Houston because either metro is an urban paradise. They are moving for jobs, affordable housing, and economic opportunities.