>The idea that the city needs to be the center of attention is wrong

spoken like a true boomer. if you look around the world at the locations where the planning is optimal, they focus on the city center first. this is not disputable, but for some reason boomers can't understand that things like density, or location of services, matter when it comes to transit.

>Lastly I think forming new "towns" or settlements, in the surrounding counties, are easier to insert good public transit than trying to re-fit extant urbanized areas

not even remotely true. if you're talking purely about building the transit line, then sure. but if you're talking about the number of people served by the line per dollar, then you're not even close to correct. moreover, your claim would only be true if tax/subsidy structure was such that new development was forced to either be along existing lines or to build new connections and not be spread-out mono-zoning.

you couldn't be further from correct on all measures. your way of thinking is why transit in the US is broken and why cities are not livable and are choked with car traffic.