Yet it is the kind of unified vision that the city desperately needs. So here's the case for a car-free inner Melbourne. First, consider the areas that work the best in the city today. In the absence of a harbour bridge or an inspirational opera house, we have long craved an icon for our city. What is Melbourne now best known for? Leaving aside our enthusiasm for and ability to stage big sporting events, I'd suggest it's our laneway culture - car-free, pedestrian friendly, oozing with charm and character. Think filtered sunshine, the clatter of busy kitchens, the wisp of steam curling off a coffee, niche shops that draw like a magnet. The easy part of shifting to a car-free inner Melbourne is that we have already begun the move, in incremental but important steps. The first, crazy-brave move was back in the 1980s, when the Bourke Street Mall was created. The very idea of a pedestrian mall with trams cruising through the middle seemed preposterous, yet a remarkable accommodation has been reached between man and machine, even if it does require tram-driver nerves of steel and constant bell ringing.

Swanston Street has been hotly contested, with lord mayor Robert Doyle's 2008 promise to return cars to the street shunted into reverse by 2010. It's a work in progress, but getting there. Then there is a surprisingly long list of regular part-day road closures in the CBD, the best example of which is Little Collins Street between Swanston and Elizabeth streets. Turning it into a lunchtime mall transforms the area. We are also voting with our feet. The City of Melbourne's transport strategy reports that walking already accounts for 66 per cent of weekday trips within the council's boundaries, forecast to rise to 69 per cent by 2030. Meanwhile, car trips within the city are falling, and expected to reduce by two-thirds to 5 per cent over the same period. Growth is expected in cycling and public transport use. The council's transport strategy is an interesting document, with its declaration that we are a walking and cycling city. This view of the city fits the pursuit of more bike lanes, road closures and the 40km/h speed limit within the Hoddle Grid. We are, however, a long way from a pedestrian and cycling vision splendid. The strategy reveals the inherent tension with cars and trucks, acknowledging the importance of freight and commercial trips, with the objective of making these ''low impact''.

The document also reinforces that much is outside the council's control - big, critical projects such as the Metro Rail Link and the different road proposals that take pressure off the city are in the hands of other governments, state and federal. A car-free inner Melbourne only works if there are viable and attractive transport alternatives. So where does lord mayor Doyle sit in the debate? He declares himself somewhere between the two positions, arguing for the need to accommodate both people and cars. ''We need to work out ways of sharing the available space, and it's finite,'' he tells me. Doyle also sees the many benefits that have flowed when areas are given over to pedestrians. He points to a retail revival in Swanston Street. Rents are up 10 to 15 per cent, and vacancy rates are about half the rest of the city. ''People don't buy goods from their cars,'' he says. ''We don't have drive-through jewellery yet.'' The Bourke Street Mall, he says, is cited by visitors as their number one city experience. He points to the success of Zara, the international fashion chain. ''Where did they want to be? The Bourke Street Mall.'' There is one obvious policy that should be front and centre in this discussion: the congestion levy introduced by Labor in 2005. The aim of the levy on long-term car parking was, as the name suggests, to reduce city congestion - something the Napthine government seems to have forgotten. When it increased the levy in May's state budget, by more than a third to $1300 per space per year, the primary objective of reducing congestion wasn't mentioned in the media release by Treasurer Michael O'Brien. The increase looks like an old-fashioned tax grab and the anger is understandable.

The government argues the levy increase is all about funding big transport projects that will benefit all of the state. But it would be more palatable if the revenue raised was specifically directed towards transport projects that directly benefit the city and those who use it. That, of course, should be a prerequisite should any politician consider introducing a London-style congestion tax, a fee on cars entering a city zone on weekdays. It needs to fund a specific policy objective, not a love of budget surpluses. What's clear is that to make our city car-free requires governments to work together. And it will take bold and courageous political leadership. For those who dare to walk not drive, the result would be a much more liveable Melbourne. Shane Green is an associate editor of The Age. Twitter: @shanegreenage