But high density areas is precisely where efficiencies in reducing carbon production are easiest.  And these systems already exist:  They merely have to be maintained and refurbished.  Thirdly, although rail lines  are certainly expensive, they are not nearly as expensive as six-lane highways.  So they are absolutely cheaper as well as being more energy efficient and carbon efficient.  

You are out in the sticks?  Suburbs, exurbs, or real country?  Suburbs and exurbs are simply unsustainable--even if we do not plan for it, they will be abandoned as energy collapse closes in.  Attempts to keep them going in the face of collapse will be wasted effort--and exercises in pain maximization.  I suppose the US will indeed do much to maximize its distress--as most Americans cannot imagine anything beyond their pod-based, disconnected, TV-regulated lifestyle.  

Real country is different:  Buses might work between villages, but individual transport will always be wanted.  But efficiency in individual transport is also possible, and there are several ways to seek it, including reducing horsepower to what is actually needed.  Depending how far out you really are, horses might recommend themselves.  

Electric vehicles will require a high-tech infrastucture.  This may make sense where you are, but the US is sinking to third-world status at an accelerating rate, and building a new, untried infrastructure is not going to happen.  Also, while electric vehicles are an improvement over internal combustion engines, they are a transition solution, being unsustainable in the long run, and have secondary effects problems, such as pollution from waste storage batteries.  Although these problems can be mitigated with conscious effort, they cannot be solved with available or foreseeable techniques.  

Personally, I like bicycles.  For short distances (something like 5 to 10 km.) they are far superior in every way to anything else.  

The Fates are kind.