Beware confirmation bias
I have been reading a lot and doing as much research as I could and need some help to decide whether I could consider the action of buying a car as an investment.
Oh, you have to be very careful here, of confirmation bias. Deciding which conclusion you want to reach, and then searching for the facts that support reaching that conclusion. The problem is, this also avoids searching for facts which do not support that conclusion.
For instance, the phrase "car as an investment". No credible source would ever speak those words, for reasons which other answers have illuminated brilliantly.
Cars are a total financial loss
There is no math in which you buy a car and resell it for more, unless you are the guy on Counting Cars. It would be neat if you were, because it would mean you could make car economics non-insane.
Here's an example. My poor car has been away from its maintenance base for 3 years. I took it to the diagnostic guy and he game me 40 things that need fixing. About 2/3 are done and I'm $300 into it; I have about another $300 to tick 'em all off. Speaking of "ticking off", people are going "hey, how are you getting one thing fixed for $300, let alone 25?" Because I do my own work, and I have a very old, cheap car.
And because of that, I can confine my auto expenses to $2000/year, if I'm dishonest with myself about my actual costs like most people are. Of course I spend much more.
See, I have the skill to make a car an investment if that were possible. It's not. So I simply do all I can to limit my losses.
And I know perfectly well I could have these losses at a much larger scale, e.g. I could drive a Tesla and have essentially 0 maintenance costs and massive lease costs, or drive an 80's Porsche and do the same thing with parts costing 5x as much.
Forget transit... unless you didn't.
If you pick any random piece of housing stock in America, the transit is practically unusable. Because in the massive post-WWII housing boom, sprawling developments were built, and transit was not only forgotten, but intentionally excluded, in a misguided goal of "keeping out the riff-raff". Even today, they like to "wall" developments. When the 80's transit resurgence began, they tried to "bolt on" transit to these sprawl developments, but it creates hopeless, gerrymandered routes that aren't efficient. Transit needs to be built first, then the development to the transit. Take Los Angeles, they're just building on the old Red Car lines! Which means they are serving old development that was built because of the Red Car lines. Postwar sprawlburbs will never get usable service.
Fire up Google Earth and look at Europe, and you'll see much the same, lots of farms turned into walled-off, transit-sterile housing estates. Of course the government requires some perfunctory sort of transit in order to permit the development, so some sad little shuttle bus trots through every 1/2 hour to take you to the train station. Totally impractical for living carless.
Here's the thing. There are hundreds of places in America (and other countries) with good transit. But they're not random. They have good transit for a reason, often relating to history, the lay of the land, a rail tunnel driven 100 years ago, whatever. But these places don't jump out at you when you do a car-based house search, in fact, they kinda do the opposite, they hide behind their typically older housing stock with character and grit, in neighbohoods that feel unsecluded. So transit-blind house searches tend to go straight to Car-land.
On the other hand, if the people who picked this house did the homework and made transit part of their decision, different deal. That's when you find "Oh look, 2 major trunklines to employment areas run just blocks from here". Point is, that doesn't happen by accident.
The value of your time
Quick question. When you get off work, do you log into Uber and start giving people rides? No, you say, because you don't want that experience?
Well, guess what. You're gonna get it. When you are driving a car, that is 100% your job. There's no practical way to "2-screen" the driving task. If you don't drive yet, there's plenty that it is your job to notice. Other drivers are careless, and you spend 80% of your attention bandwidth protecting yourself from them. Even on open road, stuff just happens way too fast - 2 seconds of distraction and you're hitting the rumble strips. "Autopilots" make it worse, because humans suck at monitoring automated systems that work 99.9% of the and suddenly do the wrong thing. (That woman did everything right, but just couldn't respond quickly enough when she witnessed the highly improbable.)
You can't read email, you can't text... it's been tried to death. In fact, the hard science shows talking on the phone with a handsfree is still distracted driving. It's not where your hand is; it's where your mind is. NTSB states it plainly:
No electronics should be used in cars, except that which assists the driving task.
So yeah. When you're behind the wheel, you are 100% an Uber driver to yourself. That big block of time is wasted.
Having belabored that point to death...
In the 90s I had this amazing thing called a Ricochet modem. It was a "cellular" data service that worked. It was amazing, it completely changed the value of my time on public transit. It made me choose public transit over driving.
Of course now, we take mobile data for granted. And you can do important work like Tinder right there on the bus or train. The value of this cannot be overstated. Of course you should have awareness of your surroundings, but I find 80% of my time on transit can be put to good use. Driving can't say the same.