The article mention cities, you are talking about suburbs. Nobody wants to remove cars from the suburbs because it is the backbone of it. Remove the cars => no more suburbs.
I get why cities are great, but suburb living leads to a very different — and for me vastly better — quality of life.
Here's one alternative: If we get rid of cars in cities, have commuter rail from the city to each surrounding suburb, and allow cars in the suburb? Then... there you go. This is called a "hub and spoke" pattern iirc
There are plenty of suburbs in the US that operate like this— where most people who work in the city commute via rail, but most families also have cars, and there is a spread-out spacious feel (some towns in NJ come to mind).
It's not even done particularly well in the NE US, and it still works fairly well compared to the situation in most places.
I don't think improving transit options in cities and maintaining a car-oriented existence in the suburbs are at odds with one another.
In practice the answer seems to be either (a) be subsidized and fill up early, as with BART today, or (b) be priced at market rate, so with BART people would have to pay $18/day for parking.