[linhns]

Not just the US, it's like that everywhere. Private transport will always be necessary as people need to go on routes with low demand. Only counterexample I can think of is Singapore, which has a vast network of buses and trains that go to everywhere.

[iso1631]

I'm trying to think of a city of 50,000 people in western europe with no public transport, do you have one in mind?

[bluGill]

Even in cities with public transit cars have a very high mode share in rich countries. Some of it is 'trades' that need to carry tools and parts with them, but a lot could take transit but don't for unknown reasons

[iso1631]

"Being able to live car free is pretty much limited to (expensive) major cities and some (expensive) mid-sized college towns"

I live in the UK (hardly a bastion of public transport) in a town of under 10k, and have a car. The main requirement for a car is to take my youngest to Drama club in the next town where it finishes at 9pm, well after buses have stopped. There is a drama club in the town, but as we only just moved we didn't want to move him. Likewise we're driving him to his old school until the end of July as he'll move school then.

I used to live in a village of 300 people, and sure you need a car there.

Sure it was nice to drive the 4 miles to the garden centre at the weekend rather than take the hourly bus, but it's not a requirement.

For a town of 10,000 people, let alone 50,000, to say you can't live car free is nonsense.

Of course America is different. Their towns are far less dense, they don't even have "sidewalks", they are consciously built so you have to drive everywhere, but that's unique to the time American towns were built.

So again, what towns in Europe with a population of 50,000 have no public transport.

[bluGill]

As an American I can report there are sidewalks nearly everywhere. They are used for exercise only: getting anywhere is frusterating but if you just need to run (or walk the dog) they are great.