Getting rid of vehicle companies and cars does not mean there is now MORE money for healthcare, restaurants, and residential structures. Economics and wealth are not a zero-sum system. I don't know what this is such an impossible concept these days. I swear it's like a new religion. "Wealth" is human interaction, it is not static... any piece of "interaction you remove reduces overall value of each other piece.

Something tells me that it'll be huge chance for many industries as families in developed countries use big amount of income for services, fuel and cars. It'll also change how nature looks around cities and how it looks far away. As getting rid of the car allowing everyone to visit every place with easy will allow nature to restore.

Not to mention the idea of packing people in MORE densely and centralized cities is the perfect recipe for a plague or natural disaster to wipe out humanity.

I have some problems with logic here. You do not need to pack people very densely, you can just properly organize areas and transportations. One of the good ideas is long homes with single floor (strictly divided) only were many families live each having good amount of their own land outside of home.

Otherwise it is all context. Some countries and areas can survive only with dense packing, as otherwise it'll mean significant available agricultural land reductions.

How about this? Some cities stay as they are. And some cities are destroyed and new cities are built with a completely different layout and modes of transportation. And people can choose which cities they want to live in. So everyone's happy.

POLICE in the Brebes regency in the northwest of Central Java have confirmed that as many as 18 people died during a “horror” traffic jam that lasted over 20 hours on Tuesday.

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/07/indonesia-traffic-jam/