But I grew up in a small, isolated village (in Europe, as the other comment notes). When your bus ride to school (on public transport, not a school bus) takes 40mins+, walking or cycling just isn't practical. So please, rural communities have it hard enough already without presumption or condescension. A bit of empathy goes a long way, although I guess it's easier to just assume everyone lives a certain way.

But lets see my last few commutes.

* Now; walk 15 minutes (mid/small-size european city; population 350k)

* 4-8 years ago: 20-50 minutes on tube (living close to work was prohibitively expensive) (this was London, so, large city)

* 8 years ago: 40 minutes (Helsinki, pop: 1.4m)

* 10 years ago: 1hr 20m (mid-size UK city; pop 1m)

So although recently, yes I have had better commute times, it's not uncommon or insane to have commutes that stretch 40 minutes.

Of those commutes, the only one that would be improved by having a car would be the 10yr one (I was going to college and couldn't have a car then, it would be impossible to pay for it barring everything else)

The others could really not improve, London traffic is insane, the Helsinki train system moves significantly faster than traffic, I walk today, and if I were to cycle it would take me even less time.

[0] not where I grew up, privacy, but comparable: https://www.cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/544/931...

Four Yorkshiremen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26ZDB9h7BLY

Well, I hate to break it to you, but rural towns aren’t cities.

Basically people are worried about a lead balloon like NY-SAFE but for cars.

I'd be perfectly fine if the major city in my state made it more expensive to use a car in the city so long as there was an proportional increase in the quantity of park and ride lots at the ends of the rail network and reliability of that rail service. What would happen in reality is that they'd just raise the cost, the parking garages would all be full at 6am instead of 7am and the rail network would be even worse because it would be handling more volume and the money made would be used on pork and graft. Nobody's quality of life would be improved save politicians who suddenly have more money to spend on salaried government jobs they can appoint the friends/relatives of people they want on their side to and the people appointed to those jobs.

"For very small towns, you can walk. For mid-size villages... I see zero need of owning a car for the general population"; so not just cities.

But, if we consider Blairgowrie (a fairly typical farming town), you could get by without a car if you lived and worked in town. The Tesco isn't in the best location for walking (because it's surrounded by a giant underutilized parking lot). But, the large Co-op in town is walkable. And the small Co-op is walkable for the houses along Coupar Angus Rd.

My parents owned a house on the outskirts of town and I could walk to the Wellmeadow in 10 minutes or so.

There is regular bus service to Perth and Dundee, so you can get into the cities for doctors appointments and suchlike.

But, for a farmer who lives outside town, I agree, a car is going to be a necessity. And for people living in town, a car is nice to have, just not absolutely required.

I grew up in eastern Poland - it's a region with few big cities about 50 km apart on average, but there's well developed public transport between them, because countryside is relatively densely populated (even if it's just a chain of villages - it adds up).

Half the population of these villages commute to the big city 20-30 km away every day. People still own cars because it's convenient for shopping and family trips, but they don't need to use them every day for commute.

On the other hand you can have medium or big cities with mostly empty countryside between them (like in western Poland), and a car is required if you happen to live between these cities.

For reference - Poland has about 120 people per square km and is near the average for EU. USA has about 35 people per square km.

For very small towns the nearest X is probably at least a 4 hour walk away, in the next town over, for many values of X. For large cities the nearest X is probably a 4 minute walk away for most values of X. The smaller the town the less chance that what you want is within walking distance and the more important it is to have a car.

Smaller towns have more need of cars than large ones, to get out of the town.

Moreover, the nearest city (45k pop) is 45 minutes south and the nearest major airport is 1.5 hours away. You will need a car, unless you are comfortable just bumming it in town all the time.

Northern Idaho is closer to small towns in Iceland.

While I'd like for cars to be eliminated, it's not happening in sparse areas.