One thing I haven't seem explored much is having car-carrying trains. Load your car onto a train, get to downtown fast without traffic jams, drop off the car in an adjacent parking lot once you're in the city. Walk around a mostly car-free city, then take the car-train back to suburbia where you can drive the last 5 miles back to your house and park overnight.

That sounds like a small improvement over Park and Ride schemes that already exist.

Yes. A goal is to reduce the number of cars & to optimize the space used for other modes of transportation. However, to achieve that goal, you need wide & motivated political support. You want people to support your goal in the way MAGA crowds line up for hours to cheer for Trump - otherwise, you're not going to get it done.

You don't achieve that by talking down to them, treating their choices with disdain, or telling them that they expect to much. You do that by giving them a vision they want to fight for & a path to fight for it. A vision, for example, where you don't need to drive, but you could drive - and that driving experience will be even better than today. A vision that you wouldn't want to drive, even though the driving experience is even better than today, because the alternative is even better than an improved driving experience. That's how you achieve support.

If you tell them they should stop using cars, they're going to ignore you, because there's no better alternative or even remotely equivalent alternative. If you actually try implementing it without making a better alternative, they're going to resent you and your goal.

I think what you are saying is you can't make public transport more appealing just by making the alternatives worse.

Yes, that's definitely what I am saying.

You need to tell them that you'll take away space from cars in the dense area of the city and make the suburbs denser. Otherwise you wouldn't be telling the truth. Neither statement is popular.