If done right the stations will be in locations where having a car is more of a liability than a convenience (i.e. downtowns with lots of traffic and expensive parking).
I don't think this treatment is very equal or fair. Keep your house and your car (SUV?), but pay real tolls and real parking fees.
The US managed to build cities and suburbs fine before car drivers got government priority.
Also, you don't allow through-traffic of cars.
The only vehicular traffic are taxis (supply limited with licenses), delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, and those rare people willing to pay $60 to drive into the city to pick up a box or furniture.
I live in a big city like this. Ambulances pass through just fine. The only traffic jams are tolled highways in/out of the city. And those highways are capped at 4 lanes wide with demand moderated with tolls.
If you do a return-on-asset, where asset=sqft of space in a city, you really want to kick out car drivers b/c they are the most space intensive with least return (economic boost/tax revenue). They are like moochers in cafes that buy the cheapest coffee and sit for 5 hours.
You’re literally just describing how most of the population lives and has lived for the past 1000 years. Your “urbanist aesthetics” predate the invention of cars.
A very small percentage of the population lived in "urban" cities, with houses back-to-back. Rome was an anomaly in that regard, made possible by significant farmsteads held by the nobility outside the city and grain bribes paid out by them.
And Whittington says the designers must also ensure the rail remains dedicated to its high-speed route and that people have the ability to get to the rail through other means of public transportation. “There are going to be a lot of communities you want to serve,” Whittington said, “but you want to find a way to bring those communities to the routes as opposed to bringing the route to the communities.”