Sir – Various correspondents discussing the West Barton proposals have used grandiose, pedantic or extreme language to put their case. I hope to add a little common sense to the debate.

The A40 is a wide dual carriageway which bears a lot of traffic. Whether it is defined as a “bypass” or a “trunk road” or something else is not relevant. A “boulevard” is a “broad tree-lined avenue” (OED). The idea of planting trees along it is good anyway and has no relevance to whether new houses are built as well. Finally, to describe the road as a “Berlin Wall” (Peter Thompson of Oxford Civic Society, Letters, January 12) is gross exaggeration and frankly ridiculous.

Has anyone asked the residents of Barton and Old Headington whether they feel cut off from one another? There is after all a subway connecting them. Even if the answer is yes, I fail to see how reducing the speed-limit from 70mph to 40 will make any difference. Presumably a pelican crossing would be added to (or replace) the subway but one could hardly wander carelessly across the road.

If that is the plan, it will become very like the ring-road a few yards to the south, where a crossing connects Risinghurst and Headington Quarry. It is still a wide road and one must still take care when crossing it.

As at Risinghurst, residents of Barton can easily take a bus to Oxford, or cycle into town. These earlier arguments from proponents of the development are using advanced rhetoric to introduce irrelevancies in order to distract those who may be sceptical of its advantages. What we should be discussing is whether we wish to dig up more land for houses and add further to the population density of the city.

Ken Weavers, Headington