You say classism like it was extrinsic. But the classes (in smaller cities, not like NYC) are people who can afford a car and people who can't, or have some other reason they can't drive.

In the sort of place I'm used to, an urban area of about a million people, taking the bus is not logical if you have a car anyway. You don't get an economic benefit if you own and insure a car at all. And you pay a big penalty in time and flexibility.

That's what creates the class divide, not something arbitrary in peoples' heads. The people who ride the bus because it's economically rational are inherently the people who have no choice.

Talking about general social problems as the source of the issue is misguided, in my opinion.

You're conflating being able to afford a car with having a car. Ideally more people would choose not to have cars. Or, easier, a household could only have one car instead of multiple.

And a good transit system can beat many car trips, even for people that do have cars. Especially if parking spaces stop being subsidized.

Another factor to consider is the age of the cities involved. Most European cities predate cars, while many American cities were built up after or during the the rise of the automobile.

"Most European cities predate cars"

I suspect that only applies to the cores of European cities - most have got much larger since the car was invented and the newer areas were definitely designed with cars in mind.

e.g. Maps of Edinburgh over a few centuries:

https://maps.nls.uk/towns/edinburgh-city.html

Even in the 1920s Edinburgh was pretty small compared to its current extent.

I worked for a few years in London, in a place with no tube (Chelsea). Busses were a pain. Slower than walking in most cases.