The calculation isn't so simple. The use of cars may enable additional business. If that leads to an additional £50 billion in tax revenue, then it would be worthwhile, from a bookkeeping perspective.
On the other hand, more pedestrian traffic also may enable additional business, as people are more likely to wander in and out of shops, and they aren't competing for limited parking availability.
Cycle Lanes have a similar impact. Cars go from A to B. Walking/Cycling goes via A to B via CDEF. Some studies have shown significant (150%) increases in business when they have been introduced.
What about the pollution, road maintenance, time spent commuting, and accidents? I think you are making a similar argument to taxpayers footing the bill for stadiums.
I wasn't being complete, only saying that it's not a simple calculation.
Only on the basis that if cars were banned that commerce would not take place, which is unlikely.
Strictly speaking, that is not true, as Venice and Mackinaw Island demonstrate.
That was my point. If there are no cars people find other ways to do business.
Ahh, I read 'which is unlikely' as referring to 'cars were banned' not 'commerce would not take place'. My apologies.