Letter: Off the roads

Sir: Your leading article of 9 December rightly criticised the Treasury and No 10 for rejecting John Prescott's radical transport proposals without coming up with alternatives.

Any finite resource in significant demand has either a price or a queue.

I am a "motorist". And a rail commuter, a parent, and sometimes but not always, a conservationist. Why would I vote only as a motorist? Some of my fellow motorists may place a very high value on the freedom to use a car whenever they like. But at busy places, in busy times they can only do this in a jam with thousands of fellow freedom-lovers. No government, regardless of resources, can deliver free-flowing highways without some sort of price mechanism.

I used to live in a historic town in the Midlands. A by-pass was built in the 1970s to relieve congestion. Now a junction at one end of the by- pass has a very long tailback at peak times, so motorists go through the town again and traffic is as bad as ever. What to do? Another by-pass?

We will get some investment in public transport. The trouble is this will take a long time to pay off and is too inflexible to cater for every need. I suspect the environmental benefits are exaggerated as well. Packed trains in the rush-hour may be helping to save the planet. But outside peak times, hundreds of tons of metal is often rolling along, carrying only a few dozen people.

Will people give up their cars and throw themselves wholly at the mercy of public transport. Obviously they won't. A car is still by far the best way to do a lot of journeys. However, given better alternatives for some journeys, and with a nudge from road-pricing, people might use cars less.

Road pricing has some disadvantages, but it will come. Sooner or later, doing nothing about congestion will become unsustainable, and what else is there?

DEREK BARNDEN

Alton, Hampshire