I view it as sidelining cars to improve public transportation.

• First thing is to eliminate and revise public zoning laws and removing parking minimums. This causes change the slowest but is the most important to start since it will lead to denser population centers, and parking garages can be closer to residence.
• Second move I think is to eliminate extra lanes and trim road widths. This leads to driving being something that takes more focus and is slower. This also frees space for bike lanes and even dedicated bus lanes.
• Slowly phase out free parking across the city. Start with spots directly next to crosswalks so that there is better visibility of pedestrians crossing. Then focus on bus routes to free a dedicated lane when possible. This discourages driving since there's fewer chances you'll be able to park close to the place you are going.
• While this is occurring, you should be introducing public transit as it becomes feasible. More buses or trams, guarded bike lanes, etc.
• MAINTAIN YOUR PUBLIC TRANSIT!! As trains and buses fall into disrepair the number of people willing to ride it will drop off. Also keep the bike lanes and sidewalks clear and smooth.

That's what I've got. It takes decades to break down this infrastructure for new stuff. You also need the to be having accessibility in mind whenever you are thinking about installing public amenities or removing infrastructure.

By making it a poor choice, which you do by providing a better alternative that is cheaper.

I’m firmly on the side of it being unreasonable to discourage driving until there is a reasonable alternative.

• There are a handful of us cities where there is enough of an alternative and they already make it expensive to have a car and getting more expensive all the time (see NYC proposed congestion fees, Boston record prices for a parking spot, Cambridge street restrictions)
• even then, there should be a better way to support people who think they need a car but don’t use it everyday. It shouldn’t need to be in everyone’s way

However for most of the US, that’s just alienating people who would be on our side if there was a choice

1. Tax carbon (and equivalents)
2. give back all carbon tax to all citizens, equally
3. Increase tax linearly over time, and let folks and business plan their transition predictably.

This will incentivize people to demand affordable transportation, transition to alternatives, get low income citizens a reason to not oppose increased cost of living. Big consumers have to pay, low consumers will pay a little but get more back.

Check out Citizens Climate Lobby.

By making it utterly unaffordable.

Fortunately electric cars are coming, and none of them are cheap.

The downside is you have to explain to an entire class why you no longer deem them worthy of owning a car.

That will depend a lot from city to city, and also person to person. Some people loathe public transportation, as they see it as something for "the poor". Trading in cars for motorcycles, electric or combustion, is a good step forward, but would just lead to those ultra dense Indian cities.

What works best is not having places you want or need to go so fucking far: school, grocery store, workplace. For me, my job is 30km away from my home, but thankfully I can take a bus. Some people would take buses, but don't, because of: 1- they're overcrowded (because it's more profitable); 2- there's no direct lines that go to where the person wants to go ("low demand", unprofitable); 3- they don't run at the times the person needs (same as 2)

Another user mentions that many drives are less than a mile, for me that's whenever I go buy groceries, as I don't have a bike or anything to carry the bags, so putting them in the car works better.

Introduce a cheap alternative, get people used to it, then slowly phasing in taxes to make the undesired behavior too expensive to be worth it for the average person, but still give the option.

I have long thought that cars should largely not exist in cities, but (in America at least) they're required for rural living. Inside cities, there should be cheap (maybe even free), readily available, and numerous public transportation options. Convert parking lots into usable land, and install large parking garages on the outskirts of the cities, again cheap or free, and make them hubs for the public transportation options.

Now, people can drive to the city on their own. We don't have to immediately redo the entire country's infrastructure so that rural citizens still have mobility. If you're just passing through the city, or want to keep your car on you, there could be a day pass option. It'd be expensive, but doable. Otherwise, you can park and do whatever you need to, and just return to your car when done.

As far as city dwellers who may want to own a car for trips, allow rental of a space in a parking garage for a reasonable rate. You can store your car there indefinitely, have free access to it, but would still need a day pass to operate inside the city.

Change is slow. We have to accept some half measures in service of getting things more in line with where we want them. Eventually we may be able to phase out cars completely, but I'd personally be fine with a drastic reduction in cars inside cities. Incentivizing alternatives works better than punishing the unwanted behavior, and works even better when the two are used in tandem.

When a drivers license is taken or suspended, especially for speeding in cities, give an easy option to directly... lease(?)^1^ an e-bike. And then suspend licenses for a lot more of the dangerous behaviors we currently just accept.

A relative got her license suspended for a month for speeding, and then simply did not go anywhere. Having an exciting new mode of transport might have just been what she needed, the supermarket is just 2km away.

1: The state can hammer out the details, obviously we don't want to gift them it or it becomes a reward for speeding, and selling them it means they could just resell it afterwards when the goal is that they keep and use it. Maybe like a 5 year ban on reselling it, only one per household. Also, probably keep the model generic and discreet so no shame is cast when just trying to buy groceries.

Seats made of knives and sandpaper

Lately I've been pointing out that most drives people take regularly are only a mile or two long. It's a hit and miss argument though. Probably more useful for getting people on board with smaller, lighter, cars than getting them out of cars entirely.

By decentralizing them. We could have less cars if less people needed then by have a car librsry that is in walking range that people can use when they need instead of everyone having one/two/4 cars per nuclear families

Ultimately, we need alternatives, people will take alternatives if they are faster and affordable. We need a rich public transit system.

If people are fully exposed to the real cost of car ownership they will happily choose alternatives. This means no free parking or mandatory minimums, no subsidies, tolls everywhere, and carbon taxes on fuel. Even after all of that some people will still decide that driving is their best option and that's ok.