There are a lot of unviable transit in the US. Most transit systems have large unviable parts even if there is a viable core (generally in the city center). People often blame the unviable on lack of density, but there are examples of viable transit systems elsewhere in the world that have US suburb density.
Nothing specific, but when you look at European cities you discover many of them have areas with similar density to a US suburb and yet have good service.
I do browse on Google Maps from time to time, and I do see areas with similar-ish density. I also see a lot of cars. I've known a few people who have lived in such places, and they say their transit is near useless (poor service intervals, limited hours, doesn't go everywhere, etc) and most people drive if they can. Which will be less than in the US, as operating a car is often considerably more expensive there than here, tipping the math towards just accepting the poor transit service.
Which is why I was curious about specific experiences.
And I do say, better than many US suburbs which have absolutely no service at all.
I'm sure people in those areas do drive a lot. However, the question was about transit and from what I can tell the trans system gets enough ridership to support decent service that is a bus every 10 minutes which is not ideal but acceptable.
I definitely agree, when it comes to connecting into the larger metropolises the rail is pretty effective from what I hear from those places, and once in the big cities its usually not too bad.
Maybe with gas inching towards $9/gal we'll finally get people in the US demanding actually decent transit options.
The busses around me are either natural gas or EV, so they're pretty disconnected to the current energy crisis.
