Your argument seems to be that if it hasn’t been done anywhere in similar conditions, it’s not something worth pursuing. That is how we avoid any progress as a society, science would not exist and education would be wasteful. I’m really confused about your logic here, you don’t seem to be interested in reducing congestion in cities beyond adding more lanes to roads encouraging inefficient forms of transport. I don’t want there to be no cars in the city but I want there to be substantially less and the only way forward is better public transport and more pedestrian friendly areas.

Your argument that people die without cars is confusing also, doesn’t congestion on main roads make it difficult for emergency vehicles to get to their destinations in time to stop a fire from spreading, apprehend someone committing assault or rush someone who is dying to hospital. Furthermore, many deaths occur on the road.

we will never have both the population or geographical size/density required for our cities to implement this in any meaningful manner within the next generation

Why is size a requirement? Also wouldn’t it be smart to get ahead of future growth by creating sustainable habits now rather than leaving it for someone else to clean up in the future?