I absolutely agree. I've spent significant time in Madrid and also in other cities that are starting to ban cars like Paris. Getting rid of these machines is better for everyone. Paris is now even contemplating giving the metro away for free. This is a much more efficient use of space and will increase the health and well-being of the citizens of these cities.

I am not sure what you mean by "once again". Are you suggesting that pre-car cities had no nuisance related to horse traffic?

Seems there was a brief spell in the 30s, and early post-war prior to the UK eliminating so much bus, rail, and all trams there was a spell where everyone got OK quality of life in a city, before everyone owns a car. Before all the flyovers, dual carriageways, urban motorways and junction prioritisation of cars.

That said, I feel no cars at all is the ideal we should aim for, and build our roads for - with the necessary investment in public transport.

As much as I'm advocating for public transit (heavy user myself, don't have a driver's license), "no cars" is a very unrealistic ideal. If I had to propose a rule, it would be something like "no privately-owned cars". Even in an ideal scenario, you still need car lanes everywhere for:

- ambulances and fire engines

- trucks that deliver goods to inner-city shops

- moving vans

- vans of craftsmen

- etc.

Also, there should still be some form of carsharing for when families go grocery-shopping, or when I buy a sofa and need to haul it home.

Perhaps I'd have better phrased it as no more priority for vehicles first, but it's the ideal or the vision. Every country will have the more spaced rural communities where eliminating personal transport probably won't work. As a human I'd like the vision to be humans first.

Sticking with cities, all of your points can be achieved designing roads for no cars and pedestrians everywhere. We already do it to a limited degree in the pedestrianised urban centres - which still permit emergency services. Deliveries to shops and tradesmen are often restricted to specific time ranges only. Barriers at the periphery enforce time or permit access. More space for pavement cafes, planting, but keep a single lane for the few trucks, emergency, even taxis in some places.

You can also see it with "shared space" becoming more common in residential areas. I think it was a Dutch idea, sometimes called "naked streets" depending where in the world you are. That's removal of all lights and markings from junctions and streets, sometimes combined with calming features to ruin line of sight, maybe by planting trees, or insert slaloms. That results in kids able to play out, or pedestrians walking in the middle of the street, and crossing wherever they like. The driver becomes no more important than the foot traffic, and they have to pay far more attention, especially at junctions. Still lets all traffic in, just vehicles no longer get to come first in a set lane that pedestrians feel excluded from.

Comes down to where we place priority. Seems pretty clear the 60s post-war ideal of Brutalism, walkways in the sky and expressways of cars, but no buses and trams, while gaining longer commuting distances everywhere was absurdly anti-human.