[hammersklavier]

Something to keep in mind here is that most large prewar cities have both extensive radial rail networks and former railroad suburbs along those networks. This is true not just of cities like NYC, Boston, Philly, and Chicago, but also cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, etc. Cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, or Seattle, with relatively limited railroad corridors are, in the American context, more an exception than a norm.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the "small town America" ethos is largely one of railroad suburbs, "towns" whose wealth is a byproduct of their proximity to a major city. It's not an accident that New Urbanism developments ape those of railroad suburbs!

A good argument to be made here is that there are two major investments we need to make in our suburban rail infrastructure: (1) return rail alignments that serve obvious railroad suburbs to active passenger use, and (2) modernize commuter rail movements through the core in accordance to European norms (e.g. Germany's S-Bahn or Paris' RER networks).

The latter is actually surprisingly easy in practice in most American cities, as the large railroads liquidated the bulk of their stub terminals in favor of through stations during the early 20th century. It is not a question of whether the infrastructure for commuter rail exists at all in a place like Kansas City; rather, it's one of whether there's popular and political will to rebuild it.