Do car-free city centres do more good than harm?

Write my answer and get scored

Cities from Oslo to Pontevedra have removed private cars from their central streets, and the results have been convincing enough that the live question is now how to do it rather than whether it works. In my view the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages, provided the change is introduced in the right order. The gains are immediate and measurable. Air quality improves, injuries fall, and the space recovered is enormous, since a parked car occupies roughly the floor area of a small room and a central district holds thousands of them. Retailers who campaign hardest against pedestrianisation usually find their takings rise afterwards, because somebody walking past a window buys more than somebody driving past it. Streets without traffic also become usable for what cities are supposedly for, from markets to children walking to school by themselves. The disadvantages are real but narrower than the opposition suggests. Deliveries, taxis for people who cannot walk far, and access for disabled residents all have to be designed in from the beginning, and a ban imposed before the alternatives exist punishes exactly the people with the fewest options. My conclusion is that sequence decides the outcome. Cities that built the tram line, the bus lane and the delivery window first and restricted cars afterwards have kept public support. Those that reversed the order have spent years managing resentment. The policy is sound, but it does not carry itself out.