By this logic, since planes can cover longer distances in shorter times than trains, should we quit trains in favor of planes?
Trains (most of the time) are a bit better in that regard because stations are more plentiful and often closer to where people want to be.
Cars, bicycles, and feet (mostly in that order; depending on infrastructure, it may be faster to get into your car than to hop on pot your bicycle) are even better.
Speed wise, it’s reversed. If there are no obstructions, speeds are feet < bicycle < car < train < jet plane.
That means that, only looking at trip duration, the detour to an airport and from the destination airport only is worth it for fairly long trips. Similarly, walking can be faster than cycling if you don’t have to go far, cycling can be faster than taking the car, etc.
Unfortunately, people also take trip costs into account, and those often are cheaper for air planes, compared to trains.
So, to ‘quit’ cars, we have to make it easier for people to go to a train station or to hop onto their bicycle and/or have to make it more difficult to hop into their car.
Banning on-street parking, requiring car drivers to walk a few hundred meters to a parking garage cuts multiple ways there. Using less space for parking allows for higher density, which leads to shorter travel distances, and increases the time to hop into one’s car.
The former is fine, since it's an improvement to society. The latter is not fine, since it's a worsening of society.
We don't need to be punitive, but we should make drivers pay their fair share of the costs they impose on the rest of us.