I can see how some people avoid public transport out of elitism.
But in Silicon Valley (for example), the problem is that the routes were largely drawn for political motives, not to meet actual needs.
Take, for example, the VTA light rail routes. The trains are so empty that farebox returns barely make a dent in operating costs, let alone debt service, worker benefits, etc. I have to wait at crossings for the Mountain View / Tasman line often, and I rarely see more than 2-3 people per car. It seems to have been designed to serve the Lockheed complex first and foremost, except that Lockheed now has a fraction of the employees that it did when the line was drawn. Head of the House Transportation Committee then? Norm Mineta. In 1995, Mineta quit his seat mid-term after losing his chairmanship (forcing a chain reaction of special elections that cost county taxpayers tens of millions of dollars... but that's another rant) to become an executive in the private sector. Guess where? Yup, Lockheed Martin.
Overall, the VTA bus/rail system has a farebox return of about 14%, last I checked. It would be cheaper to buy ridesharing-company rides at retail for every passenger at public expense than VTA costs taxpayers overall.
They even artificially boost ridership stats by allowing homeless to just ride and sleep on buses, end to end for the whole route, all night.
Meanwhile, Caltrain is so crowded that most trains need standing room for at least part of the route... because Caltrain actually goes where people need to go and is comparatively well-run.
It's not elitism, for the most part; it's functionality.