> suburban areas, which are dense enough to support public transit

Primary reason my coworkers support public transportation, according to them, in an area with pretty good transit (especially for people who commute during "normal" hours): "I want the buses and trains to be good so everyone else will take them and get off of my roads."

At least people who think like that are supporting public transit! It's far better than the (sadly) more common thought-pattern of "I don't use it, so I won't vote to fund it".

But you could get the same result, much quicker, by levying tolls so high that rush hour looks like 9pm. Then commutes would be quick, but must people could only afford to go by bus.

Edit: and I dare say people might prefer that after a thorough CBA since it might mean paying $10/day for some private bus service but also saving an hour in commute time while also being able to use the commute to get something else done. But the prospect of tolls that high and riding a bus have a big "ick" factor for a lot of people, so...

too much fascination with light rail pretty much indebted most transit authorities to large bonds to pay off and very high maintenance cost. All that money would have been better spent on improved bus services but unfortunately trains are "sexy" whereas buses get a bad rap; loser cruiser and so on.

Post WW2 government programs encouraged vets and similar to move to the suburbs and highway programs gave way to a very strong automobile industry.

The top it off with more restrictive zoning laws in the US, where compared to Europe you much much less likely to see mixed use of land. in the US land zoned residential is usually kept well separated from industry which does add in commute times and needs for alternative transportation. Throw on that fuel and car taxes have always been cheap