Are you arguing that all it takes is the saturation of public transportation for the entire US? Or are you arguing that people should just all move to mega-cities? I'm genuinely confused about what you're trying to explain to OP.
"You'll adapt just like I did" is not very convincing for the majority of people.
That's not my assertion, nor the point of my comment. The point is that identification (and misplaced sense of ownership) makes us very reluctant to be convinced [1]. A point which you agreeing with.
Nonetheless, people adapt when change comes. Another example, only just in my living memory was "decimalisation" (and for other Europeans when the currency switched to Euro). My grandmother swore blind the world would end if they brought in decimal currency. Within weeks she was the strongest supporter.
In 1752 people in England rioted because the calendars changed from Julian to Gregorian. People thought they were being robbed of 11 days. When the day arrived everybody awoke, got on with their lives as usual and in no time completely forgot it ever happened.
EDIT:
[1] In fact people can be so challenged by identification they'll downvote the most polite and reasoned of comments to feel better rather than respond intelligently.
I honestly don't think I have any suggestions. Not technical ones. I am neither an expert on transportation nor planning. My comment is about psychology, and to some extent about history.
As you say, given enough time maybe new solutions would make changes possible. But also, maybe not. Given enough time it may be that people living in rural areas accept that the world has changed, and travel far less. Given time, maybe the societal pressures to travel will ease. It may be that in time the main attraction of rural life returns to being its pace and relative isolation. These are not necessarily good or bad things, progressions or regressions, just change.
To the extent that change involves loss as well as gain I do think that change is like the stages of grief. The early stages, before acceptance, involve various mental tricks to try carrying on as before.
ALCOHOL FUEL! (Forgive me for shouting.)
If they are that spread out, they almost certainly have room to grow some sugar beets or sugar cane or potatoes or something like that, then they can ferment and distill alcohol fuel. This was pretty common for a long time.
> Before the American Civil War many farmers in the United States had an alcohol still to turn crop waste into free lamp oil and stove fuel for the farmers' family use.
> In 1826, Samuel Morey uses alcohol in the first American internal combustion engine prototype.
> By the 1890s, alcohol-fueled engines are starting to be used in farm machinery in Europe, making countries more fuel independent.
> By 1896, horseless carriages (cars) were showing up on roads in Europe and the United States. Because gasoline is so cheap and abundant, and also because ethanol is taxed at a high level, early US automobiles are adapted to gasoline from the beginning. Racing cars, on the other hand, usually used ethanol (and other alcohols) because more power could be developed in a smaller, lighter engine.
> In 1902, the Paris alcohol fuel exposition exhibited alcohol powered cars, farm machinery, lamps, stoves, heaters, laundry irons, hair curlers, coffee roasters, and every conceivable household appliance and agricultural engine powered by alcohol.
&c.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_alcohol_fuel
Alcohol is clean-burning, non-toxic, carbon-neutral, much higher energy density than any battery, cheap and easy to make, feed stocks are everywhere (I knew a guy who had a deal with a donut shop to collect and use their old scrap dough!), and the leftovers are a nutritious and valuable animal feed (yeast are protein.)
Not accurate.
Isaac Asimov pointed out that people only got paid for 19 days' work, but had to pay a full month's rent, so they were perfectly reasonable to demonstrate.
That people adapt. That deeply held beliefs about the importance of some things turn out to be skin-deep.