> I just opened up google maps, picked out two random small towns in Germany, and the driving distance between them is 200km/2hrs, while the transit length is 3

> I just opened up google maps, picked out two random small towns in Germany, and the driving distance between them is 200km/2hrs, while the transit length is 3hrs (with a transfer in a major city). Now add the time it takes you to walk to the transit stop (rail station), the time to wait for the train/bus (remember, if you were driving, you could have departed immediately), and time to walk to your actual destination at the city you're going to. In practice, door-to-door trip using public transportation will almost always take twice as long as driving, unless you're lucky and have a non-stop train/bus that departs from right in front of your home and gets you right in front where you want to be. Of course, you also need to be on train's schedule, not your own, and that having 2-3 transfers each way is exhausting and annoying. > transit is a competent alternative (which is what I said). If your time is worthless, that is. That's why these trains and buses are usually packed with students and retirees. > You appear to have taken this article [1], and picked out the top three EU countries. And your point is? These countries are more representative of Europe at large, not two of the wealthiest places there. > "Owning a car" is not the same metric as "Needing to own a car to do literally anything because there are no alternatives". Alas, "owning a car" is very much the relevant metric in this discussion, which, allow me to remind you, was about how it is more difficult for Europeans to afford the car than it is to Americans.