Originally Posted by
iheartthed
It would be easier for me to name the suburbs that I'm not referring to...
But as a for instance, let's compare Dearborn and Westland. These two cities have many similarities: they have a similar number of residents, a similar population density, they are situated fairly close to each other. But a fundamental difference between the two cities is that Westland is only accessible by either car or bus, while Dearborn is accessible by bus, car and train.
So when it becomes prohibitively expensive for most people to fund a 45 minute car ride to work, would people be more likely to choose to live in Westland or Dearborn? Dearborn would be the most logical choice simply because you have an alternative transportation option to connect you to other points in the region and/or nation. By being on the rail line, Dearborn has a non-automotive transportation connection to Detroit, Ann Arbor and the airport. Westland currently does not [[to my knowledge).
Dearborn being accessible by train also allows them to build a much denser environment, should they choose to do so, that Westland could never support, since it doesn't have the transportation infrastructure... This despite that at this point in time these are two very similar cities in terms of population and density.
And more suburbs in Metro Detroit are in Westland's situation rather than Dearborn's.