As a former resident of Oxford, a former city councillor even, I find it sad that the city still finds itself unable to deal with traffic problems and, compared to similar cities in Europe, its public transport is diabolical.

This is clearly hindering economic development, and traffic problems are usually cited as reasons to oppose any planning application.

There are those who wish for a tram network. But given the cost of construction and the disruption it would cause, this is highly improbable.

The city of Brescia in Italy had similar problems, and is about the same size as Oxford. It studied a number of potential remedies, including a conventional street running tram, but is now constructing a light automated metro, much of it underground.

When it opens next year, it will be capable of running a metro train (similar to the Docklands Light Railway) every 90 seconds and carrying up to 17,000 passengers an hour during peaktimes. It has been designed to link the city centre and all the major traffic generators in the area.

The advantages of an automated system, running underground through the centre and other heavily developed areas, are many. The construction cost is actually less than an on-street system.

The running costs are a tiny fraction of running a large fleet of diesel buses, while there is no exhaust or noise pollution.

Oxford could probably do it easier and cheaper than Bescia did, as it could use the Rail corridor from Water Eaton to Cowley as a major part of its route. There would need to be a tunnel from the rail station to the east of the centre, and further tunnels, along with ground level or elevated sections, would enable a rapid transit route to the JR Hospital, Barton and Thornhill.

This basic network could then be extended as appropriate, and linked to bus services.

Pie in the sky, many will say. But is it? Back in the early 70s, an urban motorway network was proposed, ploughing through residential areas. Oil-based transport is simply no longer an option for the future. Electric vehicles will always be expensive and still require more road-space.

Much of the money for systems like Brescia’s comes from European wide funds, allocated for sustainable projects likely to bring economic rewards. Oxford should try tapping in, and central Government should be facilitating.

There are many other similar schemes all over Europe (Mulhouse and Le Havre in France, for example), while the USA is developing many urban transit systems – even China and India are ahead of our game.

The key question is where does Oxford want to go? Does it want to remain an over-priced, congested, unpleasant and socially divided small city that disappoints visitors and repels investors, or does it want to be a place where people can live, work, invest in, visit and enjoy a healthy environment while providing much needed sustainable economic growth?

Without a modern, sustainable and future-proof transport infrastructure it can only, at best, remain in the first category.

Patrick Adams, Gibbings Down, Yarnscombe, Devon