Considering the bad transit options they get anti transit is the rational choice. Suburbs are dense enough for great transit but it is expensive and so nobody can afford to give it to them. Thus continuing the cycle of bad transit worth opposing as the waste of money it is.
Suburbs are absolutely not dense enough for great transit, and the per capita coverage is bad enough the expense isn’t worth it. They can get sparse bus or light rail coverage and thats it. Great transit offers coverage for stops every mile, preferably half mile. Systems like Caltrain and bart are great for regional rail, but anywhere serviced by them is generally not well enough connected that you don’t have to drive to the station.
I think you are wrong. suburbs are dense enough in other countries to support ten minutes service. Then you just need to ensure no more than 15 minutes until you are on an express bus (not all will go downtown - the next suburb is important). Of course where you transfer to the express but should have lots of TOD so many are not transfering.
The above if done across the whole metro should get 30% mode share across the merto which would be world class. It would also cost about $200 per month per adult - which is a lot cheaper than a car - but still massively more than any city spends on transit.
