People prefer an Uber to public transportation.
In Beijing, cars are faster for many journeys, and public transportation doesn't quite reach everywhere you'd want to go, without a lot of changes. But the reach and density of public transportation (particularly the subway system) is growing fast. And the last mile is served by ubiquitous shared bikes.
In San Francisco, which has a fraction of the population (maybe 10% of London's, and <5% of Beijing's), almost all journeys seem to be faster by car, than they are by public transport. A small section of the city is served by BART but, even then, wait times are a significant proportion of total journey times for short journeys.
I prefer to walk, cycle or take public transport, than to drive. But I'll drive if it cuts the journey time in half, which it often does.
For example, my son's preschool is 10 mins' drive away. 2 return trips per day is 40 minutes. Switching to Muni (bus) would add an extra 90 minutes each day.
Perhaps it's the low population density, perhaps it's lack of funding, perhaps mismanagement. Or perhaps we're stuck in a suboptimal equilibrium in which people don't use public transport for $good_reasons, and the lack of ridership means that improvements cannot be justified.
IN THE US:
Public transit suffers from under funding and a general lack of civic planning (at least at macro-scales).
Public transit and all other public _spaces_ also suffer from lack of social safety nets at a national level. Defacto, they are where the displaced and under-served end up, because they are unable to go anywhere else. Everyone else with options either doesn't need to travel, or uses personal transport when they do. This exacerbates the issue of lack of funding through lack of use.
In the United States there is, an accurate, perception that on public transport someone is more likely to be exposed to crime, unwanted scents from the unwashed or the uncouth in personal hygiene (too much Axe (which is any), etc), or particularly during the pandemic, unavoidable social mingling.
In urban cores this might be different given the lack of cars and denser service. However around them the only well serviced customer are business persons who commute down town early, and then back in the evening.
In the suburbs and outlying areas there's either service far too infrequent to be a reliable choice or none at all; and often that service cuts off too early in the evening.
Now imagine how it works in the next 50 largest US cities that have worse public transit than the Bay Area.
Then think about how it works in the thousands of small cities and towns where many bars and restaurants are a 20 minute driver and public transit barely exists.
Here in Japan public transport in unanimously preferred over Uber & Taxis
One of the great benefits of a train network is that you're not amongst the car traffic, so you don't suffer congestion.
Many brand new American train networks run at grade with car traffic, so even aboard the train you can't escape. For example, it takes 15 minutes aboard the expo line in Los Angeles to go between USC and downtown LA. The distance is 2 miles; you could out run the train if you ran directly on the track and didn't have to stop at red lights like the train does. Most new transit construction in the US seems to be this half measure LRT that has many at grade crossings with cars, and is rarely given signal priority (there should be no reason for an at grade train to stop at an intersection at all).
Not just for the strain on the stock and rails but thinking about it like a societal ethos, public transport should have right of way to individuals in their cars as public transport efficiently serves the commons. I still think atomic individual transport is important and will stick around, but surely it's important to not undermine the efficacy of a network that supports hundreds of people at a time.
Edit: I forgot, there's a light tram line in my city that stops at a handful of car intersections, but it's mostly above grade anyway and those stops are accompanied by a platform as well. So the tram technically stops at the platform first, then begins again once the road lights cycle.
There are a small minority who cannot walk that far, and so yes we should provide something for them. However that is a tiny minority.
A major problem with public transport in many cities is that this "last mile" segment is often several miles which would be hours of walking and therefore necessitates ridesharing/vehicle travel.
There is one exception: a park and ride lot can work in some cases. though then the last mile is solved. In general I don't like park and ride, but they have their place.
Your replies are nonsensical and add nothing to this discussion. It seems you're replying just to argue and I'm not interested.
Transfers should be normal. We need to make them quick and easy.
And I'm lucky enough to live relatively convenient to work. Many apartments I was looking at in my price range were still within 5-10 miles of work, but with bus commutes hovering around 2 hours one way thanks to transfers across the street grid and a lack of diagonal serving bus routes. For many people who might not be able to afford to be choosy about where they live, it can be difficult to land a practical apartment transit wise to your work, and it can be hard to land a job where there is even good transit opportunities to begin with. Suddenly a $2000 car that can turn your 2 hour bus commute into 18 minutes seems like the best investment money can buy, no matter what job you have, especially when you have a family who you want to see, or maybe even another job to get to across town. People in this city sooner give up a roof over their head than their car when money gets tight.