> Good that investment more then pays off.

Are you really sure? I mean did you really try and see the material costs in terms of fragility, environment, freedom to move etc? AND of course the mere money spent in such services for just few big companies profits? You are able to move ONLY when anything works, witch yes that means most of the time, but most is far from all the time. Let's say a bit of rime that block some trains trolley and a line between Lugano and Bellinzona is out of service for hours (happened few times to me), a strike and you are on your own, without backup, ... For the whole country means being tied to the actual rail network, who might be ok for actual needs and tech but things change. A classically safe important passages might be endangered by climate change, a new tech might demand a new infra and ANYTHING is damn expensive and slow to adapt. Actually most new-dealist without explicitly telling that are pushing air and see instead of roads and rails exactly because of their flexibility, you just need A and B, not a network between them to be kept up and evolved.

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

Ok, so allow me a little game: let's say you want to go outside the village/city for a trip. Did you lease a car or accept to being bound to public transport covered areas (witch means not much in nature)? Let's say a rail strike make you locked somewhere or another technical or "political" issue create a service mishap, it's ok for you being there powerless hoping for someone else to fix things for you? It's ok being unable to buy batch quantity of foods, and so having stock at home like this stupid example https://www.admin.ch/gov/it/pagina-iniziale/documentazione/c... while at home you can buy groceries just once a month and being autonomous for such timeframe, reducing also packing stuff and number of people traveling on trucks just to resupply small shops? Did you ever experienced small blackouts in a city while you have to climb 12+ floors or the metro suddenly stop and you need to go by feet in long tunnels and uncomfortable passages?

Long story short: in resilience terms, in freedom terms, in Green New Deal terms living on public transport means a significant vulnerability, a significant limitation of freedom, a way to stop the Green New Deal since in practical terms we can't rebuild towns to be "renewable" while we can do that for single-family homes. All to feel being "less consuming" because you run on third party stuff at a short distance.

> 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.

That's much a matter of density not public transports per se: where I live now it's far faster get from A to B than in a town, with or without public transit, in most cases, I do anything quicker than back in a big city and without much stress. For instance just to buy groceries on Drive I regularly have no waiting time, there is always a free slot to park and someone who came in a minute or less. Just on the shore a Drive means often 10-15' minimum before get served OR if you just buy ready to use food for any meal well... You waste FAR MORE time in shop than me. Ambulances tend to be quicker in dense areas, but in some cases, like during peak hours they are quicker here and here a chopper can arrive just in front of your home. Witch is a marginal thing since in most case no one ever need such service in their life BUT it's relevant in a near future in terms of drone delivery and future mobility by air. Just try to compute how much time you spent waiting at supermarket checkout to pay if you go shopping daily vs go shopping rarely with a car. Just see how much sociability exists in low density areas than in cities where you do not know your neighbor.

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

For instance they fail high-speed rails in the est cost because of actual density: was and is essentially impossible find a path for rails in such so dense areas. Oh, and that not counting the sky-high costs of works in such setups... Not talking about the cost of climate change protections like see barriers in NY etc since they can't simply easy relocate at an a bit higher altitude...

> 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.

At nation scale perhaps not, but INSIDE a nation most big cities are just black holes who eat all national resources and that's valid for poor countries like Kazakhstan or richer like Japan. In cities all eat, obviously, but food is not local, so you can move just with bus and bikes but many others have to move on diesel to bring you food, goods of any kind since also most factories are not in cities and so on. In the past cities was needed just to meet people, but such model is not true anymore. With remote work and non-abandoned less dense area (see France as an example) the advantages of the cities are waning while their issues skyrocketing, not only services availability and quality now tend to be higher in less dense areas, let's only take online retail as a model: in a dense area delivery is a problem, in a less dense one... Well... Those how delivery to me just leave packages in a room in front of my garage. No fancy remote lock needed since a thief here can't steal for long. Connections? Now it's far more complex posing fiber in dense area than in less dense one. And so on.

> 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.

The juice of the report is "do will people accept living on public transit and bike in WEF future cities like https://youtu.be/Hx3DhoLFO4s while us 'the rich' came and go by air?" and the conclusion are "perhaps"... Witch means to me, not explicitly written, "we going to separate the poor and the wealthy, the first in dense towns who happen to be like modern Chinese ones, and the latter outside.

> 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.

Sure, in the past where to meet people to fertilize ideas we need to be physically together, where TLCs means sending letters who will be delivered at horse speed and so on. We still need having some aggregation because especially for skilled people such cohorts are rare and so meeting it's hard. But IME nowadays it's easier to reach skilled people on-line and than after choose a place to meet casually as needed and wanted. Physical presence is needed for young and for teaching and do not need such density anyway. Economy of scale and mind power of cities now is dead. Not because of substantial changes but because cities have evolved to something dead.

Oh, BTW in terms of waters I get water at 3km from it's source, the nearest city get the same water, with km-long pipes... And small but sufficient sources are anywhere in the territory while serving enough waters to cities is a nightmare. In terms of energy my old apartment who was half my actual home not counting garages and terraces consume twice the new home and nothing can change that. Here I have added p.v. at first I choose to avoid it since the low electricity price. In a dense city you can't. Here I can charge my car at home from p.v. I can't in a dense city and I have no reason to be there WFH. Most people in low density area buys things from time to time in batches witch means LESS logistic, not more so ALL you've read about cities being eco-friendly and efficient is probably false. Really. Try the game yourself.