"In fact, the very width of roads and pavements kept the traffic moving without the choking congestion we suffer here from the ludicrous narrowing of arterial routes"
GAH! I presume a bus lane counts as 'narrowing'? But referring to is as 'ludicrous', and mentioning the streets are 'arterial' really betrays the views of the writer.
"Of course residents might pay higher taxes for all I know. Perhaps local government has access to more funding. Housing rents could be higher"
Might + Perhaps + Could = I couldn't be bothered to research those points, which might actually give a complete view as to just how Berlin can afford to be pothole free. Nor am I going to look at relative traffic figures and options. Am I'm going to suggest that Edinburgh could save money for tourists, with two of my examples being a cheap bottle of wine from Lidl (something the council has no control over); and a tourist tax (which personally I think is a good idea, but if you're premise is that Edinburgh should be cheaper for tourists then suggesting one way to help the city is to make them pay more, you're straying into weird oxymoron territory).
Such a randomly mixed up, directionless, non-fact-checked piece. 2/10.