But once-an-hour does not a transit system make. There's a false dichotomy here - the choices aren't car vs. shitty transit. We can very well have good transit (i.e., arterial mass transit with frequency of every 10 minutes or better).
The problem with infrequent transit, particularly arterial routes, is that it completely wipes out the possibility of transfers. When your frequency is once an hour (with a high variance for on-time performance), people cannot rely on the transit method for making connections. Moreso, decreasing frequency increases total trip time for most people by a factor larger than the actual frequency drop (which is to say, a decrease in frequency of an arterial route results in a very large increase for most whole-trip times). A highly frequent (i.e. every 10 minutes or better) trunk line is the bed rock of any mass transit solution, and is absolutely non-optional.
We have this idea that Americans don't use public transit, because they're infatuated with their cars. To a degree, we are. However, we also hate the work commute. The reason more don't use public transit is that it is not feasible for the average person to spend so much time sitting on a bus or train and making two or three transfers every day twice a day . . . on top of work. Especially if they have a family.
The idea of tighter communities where people work near their home is fantastic. Too bad we've already built our cities and roads and housing tracts, though. It's a thought for another bustling economy that is just starting to build out their infrastructure in the 21st century instead of the 19th and 20th century to do, though. We've already built our mess.
The freedom of being able to go wherever you want in a heartbeat in a car is highly overrated. Call a taxi for those times when it's actually urgent.