> [Cars] are a feature of the new world, just not the US. If Europe had the bulk of it's development in the post-car era, it would've turned out the same way.

A huge portion of Europe was destroyed.(and consequently rebuilt) in WWI and WWII, which are both firmly in the post-car era. They rebuilt with an emphasis on trains. Where they didn't, or in later years when they chose instead to invest in car development, some of them are now turning back to human-centric development [1].

> ... Need even bigger metal boxes and you need more of them and you have to wait for them and they are often late...

In terms of space-occupation in cars vs buses (or trains), mass transit absolutely wins. This is a trivial argument. There's a dozen versions of this picture [2] that shows the difference between like 80 people commuting via bike, bus, or car. The amount of redundant space taken up by cars is bonkers to me.

"Packed into them like cattle", I'll grant you rush hour gets crowded, but you'll spend less time on the trains than you would trying to cram that many people through the highway. See also the "induced demand" problem of highways.

Moreover, while you're not using your car, it's taking up space doing nothing. While I'm not using the subway, it's working to shuttle the other 1.6 million people who use it (that number varies wildly depending on your city, notably).

To the point of transit times and the, ah, atmosphere of transit: Of course travel time will vary according to how big the transit network is. You see this a lot in sub-urban downtowns. A bus system will exist, but it'll be painfully slow to get from one point to another when compared to a car. I argue this is because the externalities of the disproportionately wealthy-benefiting poor-subsidized road system. Similarly, why is it when we have traffic issues the argument is always "build more lanes! Improve the roads!" But when transit has throughout problems we say "Look, this is why transit never works, and we should invest in roads instead!" You haven't done this overtly, but that idea underlies your argument: cars are better, we shouldn't waste our money on transit.

As for being uncomfortable or dealing with less-than-savory people on mass transi, you're absolutely right that those are unpleasant experiences, and being able to use a car does help avoid them... Just like moving to a wealthier part of town or building a highway to keep the riffraff out would help avoid them, but none of those solve the underlying problem. It is not a fault of the underlying public system that it is so used by people of poorer means or those with mental disorders or simialrt, it is a flaw of the private wealthy systems that it allows people to avoid examples of their fellow citizens whose society has failed them. We shouldn't avoid using transit, or not have transit, because it accidentally functions as a haven for the homeless or mentally unwell or destitute. We should address those failings of our society by providing for those people, the better to enable our public systems to fulfill their original designed function. Importantly though, the public resource is still serving the public. You being able to escape the flawed public systems and escape to your private spaces (car, house, etc) because you have the money to do so is not an indictment of that systems failings, but of your empathy for your fellow citizens.

Put another way, it sounds almost like you're saying "I don't like going to the community doctor, and don't believe we should invest in it more, because it's always full of sick people."

[1]: https://youtu.be/sI-1YNAmWlk
[2]: https://humantransit.org/2012/09/the-photo-that-explains-alm...