[cmrdporcupine]

There is no reason not to consider getting better mass transit into suburbs, along with densification of suburbs and other land use changes.

Some simple alterations to zoning/planning regulations would lead to more mixed residential/commercial uses even in already-existing developments. And that would make working and commuting locally _within_ the suburbs themselves more feasible.

Put it this way, if we were to take all the _private_ capital being invested in advanced automobiles, self-driving tech, etc. and somehow have that invested in _public_ infrastructure -- the cost effectiveness of mass transit into suburbs would look entirely different.

I think this is hard for North Americans to really imagine, because it just runs contrary to all senses of pragmatism, not to mention a general ideological adherence to private enterprise as primary driver of development. But there are definitely places in Europe and Asia where this has been to some degree the case. On my last trip to visit family in Germany we were able to get out into very rural areas, villages, natural areas, etc. completely on public transit.

[falcolas]

The cost-benefit ratio of pushing mass transit out to suburbs just isn't there. They are separate cities, so you can't just say the metropolis should foot the bill (despite being the recipient of their work), you can't get the suburban cities to pay for it, since it's beyond what they can realistically foot.

The infrastructure isn't there, and putting it in in 2019 is financially untenable.