> places of employment, which are generally highly concentrated. This is not true and is one of the problems with getting mass transit to work in the US. Most

> places of employment, which are generally highly concentrated. This is not true and is one of the problems with getting mass transit to work in the US. Most of the employment in the US is now smeared across the city. I'll give Austin as an example. Austin employment has spaced out clumps. Downtown. The UT campus. The Domain (old IBM/NI area). The Arboretum. Oak Hill. The "new" airport. Austin housing has similar clumps, generally dictated by how much you earn. You're probably further out than you would like since the real estate in the center is ridiculous. So, Leander, Hutto, Garfield, or Dripping Springs. Now, plot the flows on a map. Note the massive pileup in the center as people attempt to change sectors across the city. Most modern cities are like this. There are not two or three obvious points that would get a big chunk of the traffic. I chose Austin, but San Diego, Pittsburgh, Nashville, etc. all look similar. And, the news is worse than that. The "white collar" jobs that could be concentrated have also been the most displaced by surburban office parks or by WFH. The types of jobs that most people are employed in (service and warehousing--Walmart/Amazon/FedEx/UPS/etc.) are generally specifically positioned where real estate is cheaper which is almost by definition off of any mass transit connector.