You can't compare population densities that way. They vary far too much from place to place. In the US, for instance, 2/3 of the population lives east of the

You can't compare population densities that way. They vary far too much from place to place. In the US, for instance, 2/3 of the population lives east of the Mississippi River. Most of that other 1/3 lives on the west coast (largely California), while states like Wyoming are almost completely empty (~500k people total). Also, if your number includes Alaska, that skews it horribly because Alaska has an enormous amount of land and very little population. Similarly, the Nordic countries are not homogeneous: most of the population lives near their southern borders (on the Baltic Sea), while their northern areas are barely populated at all. It's very similar to Canada: most of the population there lives within 100 miles of the southern (US) border. So you can't compare population densities like that: you have to focus on specific areas. What's the population density of Malmo versus Philly? Stockholm vs. DC? And even here it's hard to compare, because for instance "DC" could mean just the District itself, or it could mean the much larger metro area around it, and all parts that are reasonably commutable. Most of the "DC" population lives outside of DC. Offhand, I'd say Sweden has substantially better public transportation because most of the population lives in a few large cities, and also because it's a better-managed country that invests more in infrastructure for the common good.