I don't think anyone particularly likes public transport or car transport. It's just a matter of what's necessary, what's available, what's frictionless, what's

I don't think anyone particularly likes public transport or car transport. It's just a matter of what's necessary, what's available, what's frictionless, what's affordable. So in Texas where driving may be affordable, necessary because there is no alternative, frictionless because businesses buy huge plots for car parking and perhaps slightly cheaper and more ubiquitous gas stations, a car makes sense. Particularly in an environment where everyone has one and we tend to want to conform. Then take Amsterdam (where I live). Most amenities are nearby, walking distance. Separate bike lanes on every single street. Everyone uses bikes. Parking is crap (canal parking is a nightmare) and expensive, as are cars and gas compared to rather ubiquitous tram, bus and metro service and a strong intercity train network. A car is more expensive, gives more friction, and wholly unnecessary. The exception is if you work far outside the city. Train is fine but a personal car can be a bit more dependable and more flexible despite a nice train system. In short, I think it makes a lot of sense to expect say a stereotypical Texan to be fine not having or needing a car in say a city like Amsterdam. He certainly wouldn't feel restricted to walk or use public transportation, rather my point is, that he'd feel restricted having to use a car in a city not designed for cars. I can't imagine anyone driving everywhere in Amsterdam. (the far suburbs are perhaps the exception, what we call 'outside the ring', but even then italian-style scooters are more popular than cars here)