Yes, my local transit system has 15 minute intervals at best, most routes are 30 or 60 minutes. And if you need to transfer routes, that's normally even more waiting. That really limits its attractiveness and so with a few exceptions it's mostly used by people who can't afford a car and are physically unable to bike.

I've often said that if I ran it I would concentrate resources on more frequent service on the highest ridership routes and cut the low ridership routes entirely. But for a variety of reasons that probably isn't possible, e.g. they are getting funding contingent on serving a wider area, etc.

A transit system should ideally be attractive to people who can afford to drive, but choose not to out of convenience. That's a pretty high bar in most areas.

this is a function of population density, it is impossible to have a frequent and reliable public transit in a low density suburban sprawl.

Most Americans can not afford to buy a new car cash.

Only Chicago , and maybe Pittsburgh allows the average(income ) person to live car free and have a decent apartment.

You have folks in LA who pay upwards of 800$ a month in car payments on a 70k yr salary.