> Rural (>80% conservative) populations cannot function without cars.
Why do you believe that? Nothing prevents small towns to have good public transport, especially between closely related towns. In my country, which still has a good proportion of the population living in villages, it is very common for the villages to have small "buses" (10-20-seat or so) driving around between common destinations between different parts of the village or neighboring villages. These often have somewhat informal routes, since people who use them typically know each other and the driver. Of course, getting kids to school and back can be achieved by similar means.
Then, even relatively small villages often have a train station, which even if offering infrequent service, is typically enough to transport people to a nearby town or city and back - especially for work.
Also, people in these communities are often working in agriculture, so they do have access to larger vehicles that they control or own for the more infrequent situations where they need to transport larger payloads that would be impossible or too hard to transport in buses/trains.
1. Most European countries are paying 100% more taxes.
2. Europeans have their defense budget (30-40% of US spending) at like 5-10% of spending. The US protects Europe, so…
3. At the end of the day that means countries in Europe have something like 200-300% of the budget for the public over what the US has.
4. The US is very spread out and very wealthy by European standards. There are massive super markets around town which a bus could get to. However, we have 0.5-3 acre yards here. The bus isn’t going to stop at every house, so you’re looking at a 2-3 mile walk to a stop.
5. Why walk and waste time at a bus stop when I can get a car ($5k-100k in price) and drive myself. Saves me hours of waiting a week, totally worth the investment and quality of life boost.
6. The density of homes means the cost of a bus would be astronomical in comparison. Buses around single family homes, when everyone has a car, on a regular basis simply don’t economically make sense. You’d have no one to pick up.
7. Regulations and what not make it a non-option. Many states regulate emissions and what not, which negatively impact the cost-benefit analysis in rural / suburban regions, already running with low number of passengers.
Why do you believe that? Nothing prevents small towns to have good public transport, especially between closely related towns. In my country, which still has a good proportion of the population living in villages, it is very common for the villages to have small "buses" (10-20-seat or so) driving around between common destinations between different parts of the village or neighboring villages. These often have somewhat informal routes, since people who use them typically know each other and the driver. Of course, getting kids to school and back can be achieved by similar means.
Then, even relatively small villages often have a train station, which even if offering infrequent service, is typically enough to transport people to a nearby town or city and back - especially for work.
Also, people in these communities are often working in agriculture, so they do have access to larger vehicles that they control or own for the more infrequent situations where they need to transport larger payloads that would be impossible or too hard to transport in buses/trains.