[pjmlp]

As European, that has lived across multiple countries, that only applies to the lucky ones able to afford living close to the city center.

Also healthy enough to be able to walk stairs, as very few places care about people with disabilities, or carrying stuff that is a pain to transport across stairways.

People visit the touristic centre of the main cities and assume we all enjoy nice public transport systems.

[snovymgodym]

There's definitely a lot of truth to that, Europe is not a monolith in terms of transport infrastructure.

On the other hand, it's hard to overstate just how radically car-centric the majority of the infrastructure in the USA is.

[pjmlp]

The point is that Europe is not much better when one goes outside the regional capitals of each state, or district, depending on how each country is organised.

Most towns and villages are also not great examples of infrastructure, especially in the southern countries.

[KellyCriterion]

++1

[tcbawo]

I love the accessibility and diversity of large city living in the US, but it is definitely the exception to the rule. The US is hoping for technological breakthroughs in self driving electric cars to bail us out from the sprawl we've created.

[nephihaha]

UK transport is much worse than the continent. London is fairly well served but elsewhere not so much, especially not the countryside. The trains are very expensive (even with an old person's railcard) and the buses are often irregular or non-existent in large areas of the countryside.

[pjmlp]

I am aware, having spent some time in Bristol and Cardiff, in various occasions.

That situation is very comparable to many places in the continent, some of them even worse.

Also here that are many small towns and villages that an hourly bus is already something, and naturally there aren't stops scattered all over the place, or worse, offer no protection from weather.

[tialaramex]

Well there's a big gap between something like London, a very dense city, and actual countryside. There's also a big variation in will. Where I grew up (Metroland, just beyond the end of the Metropolitan "underground" Line) the services are (other than the afore-mentioned London underground) abysmal because providing services costs money & people there want lower taxes. But where my mother lives today, near Bingley, there are enough buses that I get confused as to which one goes closest to her house when I visit.

The difference in London is also in large part because London was allowed to retain a unified transport system when Tories dismantled other systems because ideologically their position is the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will fix everything.

[pwg]

> to the lucky ones able to afford living close to the city center.

Which is also, to some extent, the reality in the US as well. Some number of the "city centers" have better public transport and/or walk-ability [1] available than what is available just outside those city centers.

One big difference in the US is the massive land area difference as compared to Europe means there is a huge amount more land area (and therefore population) with little to no public transport or walk-ability available and a car becomes mandatory rather than optional in those areas.

[1] It's not perfect, I'm sure there are plenty of city centers in western states where even the city center itself is so spread out that walk-ability suffers and that a car tends to become more necessary.

[pjmlp]

Which is the same in small European towns and villages, there are only a couple of buses, many of which stop around 8 PM, and tend to occur once an hour in most cases, if not less.

Basic stuff like taking kids to school requires having a car, or being lucky to have some kind of Bus service collecting the kids, for some school levels, and doesn't cover stuff like taking them to other after school activities.

Want to go to the big commercial surfaces? They are all outside the town center and seldom have bus connections.

And many other possible examples.