I agree with the overall message of Derrick Holt’s letter (April 10), that the best way to reduce the severe pollution and congestion in our city (and others too) is to reduce the number of journeys that are made by car. However, I disagree with Mr Holt as to the best way to achieve this end.

He is correct that increasing motoring taxes – fuel duty and vehicle excise duty – would probably have the effect of discouraging some car usage, and there is actually a sound economic argument to do just that.

Motoring organisations like to trot out figures of about £50bn a year raised from motoring taxes.

But they never mention any of the economic externalities of motoring, such as the treatment of illnesses caused by noise and air pollution, treatment of injuries from accidents, wear and tear on the roads, or the cost of policing etc etc.

Studies have suggested that by the time all of these costs are factored in, motorists are actually subsidised by the Treasury to the tune of several billion pounds a year.

The only realistic option available to try to reduce the number of journeys made by car is to make alternative methods of transport, such as walking, cycling and public transport, more attractive.

There are a number of ways of trying to do this.

They include more pedestrianisation of roads, better (preferably segregated) cycling infrastructure, and cheaper, more reliable, buses and trains.

CHRIS DAY
Woodstock Road
Yarnton