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.

I don't think there is a "best way" - but increasing costs is one way. Singapore is an example of this - you have pay up 106K SGD for the COE (certificate of entitlement) to even be allowed to own a car.

An even more highly infectious and dangerous pandemic.

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 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

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.