2x is pretty common in some parts of the Netherlands. If you’re deep within the city center, sure, public transit is faster because streets are designed intentionally to be hostile to drivers.

In the suburbs or even smaller cities, driving is still faster. Hell, the trains here hardly have time to accelerate past 120kmph so driving can actually be faster than the train too unless you are going directly from city center to city center (most people need a 10 min bike ride on one or both sides).

Even If North America starts taking transit seriously, the routes needed to connect the suburbs to most metro downtowns will be enormous. There will either needs to be hundreds of bus routes feeding into light rail, or perhaps better bike infrastructure can get people close enough to one of dozens of light rail stops.

In any case, sprawl is currently setup to make urbanizing a slow and painful future for transit enthusiasts.

When I lived in Amsterdam, so a solid public transport connection on at least one end, the best I clocked is 2x. Often it was more like 3x.

I was just rarely traveling to other city centers, and some town or forest isn't going to have a time competitive public transport options.

Hell, the Flixbus Amsterdam-Maastricht (station to station) is faster than the train. It has a lower top speed, no direct line, but it just doesn't stop 7 times or so in between.

Hah I didn't know about the Flix bus! Living near Eindhoven, it's crazy to me that I need it's almost faster to drive to Amsterdam, especially when I need to cycle to the station first. Not to mention the ticket is 22 euros one way. I drive a very fuel efficient car, so paying 40 euros for a day trip is crazy. If you add one more family member or friend, then taking the car is a no brainer. You can park at one of the P+R facilities and take the metro to the center and still come out ahead financially.

If the Netherlands wants to continue to be competitive and ease the housing crisis, the trains need to be faster and cheaper so everyone can spread out and not be forced to spend 3 or 4 hours a day commuting to work if they live in a different city.

Even as of 1 person, the car was also cheaper, all in, for me back then (a 20 year old car).

NL public transport is super expensive. Doesn't mean it's never interesting, but when I lived in France near a TGV station, I took the train much more often. It did often have both speed and price advantages.

Yeah, that's pretty accurate, I'd say that population-weighted for the Netherlands the average is around 2x. If you're in rural areas it can easily be 8x or worse (2 hours for a 15-minute drive.)

Where things really shine is high-frequency, high-speed rail plus bikes. The IC Direct Rotterdam-Amsterdam is fast enough that I used to go from my place to my sister's, door-to-door, in about fifty minutes by bike+train, versus typically around a little over an hour for a car.

If you want a really impressive ratio you have to look to the TGV; in college I did Marseille-Paris, Paris-Lille, Lille-Brussels often and each of those segments are three times faster than the car!

That argument can be made everywhere even with perfect public transport. It is usually about choices you have made. Of course in the US it is far too easy to become car dependent. If you wish it, it is most certainly possible but you have probably made some personal choices that makes it harder.

Car dependency is a choice. Even in Europe the norm of cars is strong.

  That argument can be made everywhere even with perfect public transport.

Where I grew up (London) public transport was usually faster than driving.

Even that is only really true when traveling within zone 1 and 2. If you're further out and not going into zone 1, then driving is generally faster, especially if you have to change trains/busses.