IMO, the Orthodox Church needs to become more visible in Texas. While you have clusters of parishes in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey there are hardly any here in Texas.
Step 1: Find more coal in Texas.
I guess oil just isn't as compatible with the Orthodox phronema
The East/ West divide is exaggerated and is getting more irrelevant every day. Westerners going to Eastern liturgy is just fine. WR is such a tiny niche anyway that most Westerners don't even have an opportunity to visit a WR parish.
Indeed. I've moved around a lot of different states quite a bit in the short time I've been Orthodox. The one time I've been close enough to a WR parish to actually attend, it would have been in another language anyway.
To address the OP, there is no over-arching "Western" to whom a robust Western Rite would appeal. Outside of the RCC, most Americans who bother going to church enough to have a church tradition are going to be Evangelicals, for whom any rite would be alien. It doesn't matter for an Evangelical if their prayer book has prayers from the BCP, Breviary, or one of the Byzantine/Russian collections- the very act of praying out of a prayer book is going to be a strange experience. It doesn't matter for an Evangelical if the chanting is done in Gregorian, Anglican plain-style, Byzantine, Georgian, Obikhod, etc- the very fact that there is no piano, no tunes past 1700 or so, and no "Worship/music leader/minister" taking over front-and-center from the clergy during pre-specified "this is singing time" is a new experience.
Even many converting to Orthodoxy from a more liturgical Protestant or even Roman Catholic tradition are doing so after the previous tradition having been a stepping stone out of Evangelicalism. When the liturgical tradition itself was a form of adjustment, and the language of the liturgy is not "in the blood" due to having been raised in that tradition, I think any culture shock from the mere liturgy of St John Chrysostom will not be all that great (attending a parish where English is not used, however, will definitely have an affect).
For these people, it makes more sense having a better translation of the Eastern Rite into English. And this is where I think the Anglican rite and it's Orthodox derivatives can help out. I think anyone attempting an English translation of the Eastern Rites should be required to first spend no less than five years using nothing but the Anglican prayers for morning and evening prayers (and for priests/bishops who wish to translate, using the Anglican Missal). More, during this time I think in addition to regular Scriptural and spiritual reading, these translators should be required to read only Shakespeare, Spencer, Milton, Tennyson, Eliot, and a host of other English/American poetry. After five years is spent immersed in this poetic tradition, and at least a little bit of the poetic mindset is absorbed, then and only then should translation be attempted. I think the same (that is, five years immersed in the local poetic tradition) should go for anyone attempting to translate the Byzantine Liturgy into the native tongue.
That said, I think a case could be made for having more Western rite parishes and more support for new Western Rite missions and such. Not for "Westerners" in general, but as an outreach for Westerners coming from more liturgical backgrounds, who might have become attached to the language of Cranmer or the Roman Rite. This is more of a "niche" here in America, and is shrinking into a "niche" in the European countries where atheism is becoming dominant, but a greater emphasis on Western Rite might make more sense in Europe than in the States.