There is another dimension to add: how far do you really "need" to go and how frequently. And why it is so? Remote working vs commuting, local/nearby enough shopping vs long distance for supermarkets, going yourself vs (maybe electric) delivery.
If everything around you is built with base assumption that you must have a car, then the optimization was done by someone else with a different definition of efficiency.
Yes. This is the difference between mobility and access. You can watch a movie by driving to Blockbuster in a SUV and physically picking up an optical disc. Or in an EV. You could bike there. Or get it mailed. If you watch on Netflix you access the commodity without any transportation at all.
Life is a compromise. I'd love to own 100 square miles of land, with my front door on New Yorks Time's square. That isn't physically possible, but it is what I want in the ideal world. (I don't live near New York so I don't know if times square is really where in New York I'd want to live, but it is an iconic place that at least gives the sense of what I mean - you could pick downtown of most large cities). Cars enable more people to have both the benefit of rural life while also getting the benefits of the city.
This isn't unique to cars - trains could give the same, but we already have a road network.
> That isn't physically possible, but it is what I want in the ideal world.
I think the same can be said (to a lesser degree maybe) about cars, which are very space inefficient. With enough sprawl and a certain density, e.g. in Toronto, it's just gonna be traffic for every one.
Not exactly. Sprawl means you can't reasonably reach the entire city, but low density sprawl and cars mean you can reach enough of a city to consider it all the advantages of a city. Toronto loses out because they have a dense city center, downtowns have to be torn down for the sprawl model to work - people who get a new job may have to move elsewhere in the city since the new job isn't close to the old (unlike when all jobs were downtown) However since you are still "close" you can visit old friends and family on weekends - it will be a long drive but you don't make that trip often so it is reasonable.
Cars don't enable many people to own 100 square miles - but I can get pretty close if I settle for 5 acres in an exurb. Many find that a single family house gives them close enough (they get a small garden - most likely grass they mow weekly - which is all they really want). But again it is a compromise. If we had science fiction technology (terraform Mars and Venus; teleporters) that 100 square miles might be reasonable.
Torotno exists, so of course car dependency is somewhat feasible in real life. The impossible part is travelling in the sprawl with relatively short time, as limited by the road's speed limit. The real limiting factor most of the time is traffic, because of the space inefficiency of cars.
I made this point because I seem to recall a city simulation game despawn cars (literally physically impossible) to make car dependent designs "work".
---
> you can reach enough of a city to consider it all the advantages of a city
With enough people driving downtown you lose most of the advantages, and it makes the lives of those who didn't choose this lifestyle worse.
If everything around you is built with base assumption that you must have a car, then the optimization was done by someone else with a different definition of efficiency.