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.

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.

Yes. It has a huge amount of support from the population. So pretty much everybody agrees on this.

Trying to go away from this model would be such a big disruption that the impact could not even be calculated. There is so much complex commuting, that simply wouldn't be possible in a car based model, people would have to migrate.

> I mean did you really try and see the material costs in terms of fragility, environment, freedom to move etc?

Yes. Pretty much everybody in any country that studies this comes the to same conclusion. Trains are efficiency in terms of space, energy and air quality.

> AND of course the mere money spent in such services for just few big companies profits?

The SBB and BLS are mostly govenrment companies and they get most of the money. Sure some money goes to private builders and producers of trains. But of course we also export trains so its not a total lose. Private companies are gone make some money and that is fine. There are few big train scandals.

For big projects like 'Gotthard Base Tunnel' are voted on democratically, and generally 'only profits big companies' is not even a point the opposition makes.

> 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)

In pretty much every case this happened over the last 20 years provide backup trains (on other routes) or buses.

The delays you experience are not really worse then what you can have on a road network. Having both trains and roads makes the most sense.

But having trains allows you road infrastructure to stay reasonably small.

> 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.

Rail has survived for a few 100 years now and sometimes you have to invest, like electrification but all of those investments paid off. If upgrades have to be made because of climate change then that not inherently a problem.

> 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)?

I think you have a hilariously idea of public transport. With public transport in Switzerland you can reach all kinds of place in nature that are simply not available by car.

My great-grandfather built a tiny house in the mountains during WW1, guess how I usually go there. By train, and then with a gondola. This is a village with a fixed population of less then 100 people.

In fact, if everybody has to take a car to go to 'nature' it often ends up destroying nature.

There were hiking trails that started in my village, and nature is all around. Literally hike by walking out of your door. By bicycle you can easily go much further, you can take your bicycle in the train if you want to.

> 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?

Ok what if a war in the middle east makes driving to expensive for you? Do you just hope this fixes things for you? What if the police strike and block the roads? What if another country makes a naval blockade. We can spin theories and theories about literally everything.

The reality is in society you relay on others, you are not sell sufficient because you have a car. Oil needs infrastructure, if power goes out then you can't pump oil in gas-stations anymore. The idea that whole countries transport infrastructure is safer from infrastructure disruption because its based on cars and oil is simply inaccurate both historically and theoretically.

Do you have any series evidence that rail strikes are so incredibly dangerous and common that it me personally and my whole society should totally change its green and safe transport infrastructure?

Sorry most people don't live their lives base on some doom's day paranoia but how to practically live with the actually real challenges of today.

> 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.

This is pretty hilarious. Wow you can destroy the planet by driving every-time you have to go shopping and you get free parking spot. Wow.

I just walk out of my house, and within literally 3min I'm at the shop, buy things and then walk home. Often I just walk past the shop on my way home and pick up what I need. But I'm sure its much better for the world when everybody gets into a car, drives to a huge parking lot and then drives home.

This video illustrates the point quite clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk

Yes food needs to be transported to cities (and you can do that by electric train just fine btw). From there you can use small electric trucks and even smaller electric bikes to distribute it to shops as is already done quite often in places like Amsterdam. But the same is true for suburbs but the distances are just far wider.

The simply fact is food will mostly be produced far away and people are simply not gone move to Iowa to live in cornfields. So it will need to be transported even if people live more distributed.

Your point about remote work is also far from reality. Most people, specially poor people, simply do not jobs that can be remote. You overestimate the impact of remote work by a waste amounts.

Your ideal of everybody living in small towns surrounded by farmland that can feed people locally and water sources that are local is simply a fantasy. In the real world not building actually dense cities is building suburbs. They have all the disadvantages of cities, with non of the advantages.

People who actually do live rural (who have a decent standard of living) have actually much higher energy consumption and require larger more environmentally damaging global infrastructure.

Everything you have suggest is literally the single worst thing for the climate I can imagine.