Did you not consider moving to somewhere more practical?
So not only do we have to move ourselves, we also have to move our respective parents who are only "independent" because we do a lot for them, take their shopping, take them to medical appointments, do all kinds of admin for them as neither can do their own banking or bill paying anymore, sort out their house repairs/maintenance, etc. If we beggared off to a city and left them behind, they'd need a hell of a lot of external support or would have to go into homes.
Likewise, perhaps we should uproot our children to different school hundreds of miles away, make them leave behind their friends, other family, etc.
Our entire lives are based in our current area. Making massive life changes just for the sake of being able to drive less is crazy due to the disruption, costs, etc.
Anyway, isn't the standard excuse for people on benefits not moving out of cities to cheaper/rural areas because of their strong local/family ties in their city? Surely if it's too much uphievel for those on benefits to move to cheaper areas, then equally it's too much upheival for workers to move into cities. Or are double standards at play?