> - you have tried to see how much Swiss invest in it's rails and other transport means

Good that investment more then pays off.

> - are you, in person, able to live WITHOUT cars since you get so much public service

Yes. I did so even when I lived in a village of 5k people.

> - you did consider that cars are used not only for private travels and trips but also for services, like a plumber with it's vast and not so light nor small tools, or ambulances etc so PURE public transport is not possible, while the inverse is pretty obviously possible if density it not too high

Sure and if we get as many other cars as possible of the road things like Ambulances and necessary commercial vehicles will have a far better time.

> for instance in Green New Deal terms given that there is no room to demolish and rebuild and no way to really upgrade existent constructions

There is tons of room in American cities to add infrastructure and density

> - have you see how costs of services skyrocketed here and there after being cheap for a long time, in the same lane of those who own who keep saying "do not own anything, it's cheaper and efficient rent than buy", with examples from tele-heating services to public transports

I'm not sure what you are referring to. There is no evidence that nations that have higher % of home ownership are richer or have a higher standard of living.

> Long-story short: the USA have made bad infra probably because of short-term private economic interests, Swiss is on the opposite side of the spectrum but BOTH can't really evolve.

I'm sorry this is just wrong. Switzerland could easily go in the other direction. And US could change direction as well. Look at Amsterdam in the 1970 and look at it now. There are even some decent example in the US that are making positive changes.

> we know the actual situation is messy and without a solution

I not sure what you are referring to and I'm not gone read that huge report. The solution is quite clear in my opinion. Remove and slow cars, make the city better for walking and biking, improve public transport.

> Oh, BTW the distribute society was the human society for most of our history because before massive and quick logistics we all eat local food produced mostly at a short kilometric distance, we live with stuff mostly made locally. Commerce give a big push in human development but cities was always just used for concentrate workforce. Even in ancient Rome the rich was a bit "outside" to live better descending to the center only to work. Economy of scale works for economy, human on scales work to find fellow cohort but not more than that.

Sure if you want to go back to subsistence farming. But even then cities is where culture and innovation happens. There is a reason why most high cultures are built around a few major cities like Babylon, Rome and so on.

Yes cities had problems with health in the past and so on, but they also attract people, not just for economic reasons. Cities are the reason we have civilization.

And with 'modern' technology like bicycle and the train, we can also make them amazing places to live.

Your distributed idea simply isn't viable. Every single statics will show that distributed living performs worse in terms of water, in terms of CO2, energy use, transportation options and basically everything else. Any society that tried this would bankrupt itself. Its the city centers that are subsidizing this suburban sprawl.