1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190 
FTA road-building stance flawed
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I WRITE TO counter the bizarre suggestion from the FTA that refusing to build more roads because they soon become trafficchoked is "like saying we shouldn't build more hospitals because they will be filled with patients" ( CM 20 May).
The argument is flawed. We build more hospitals if we lack current bed capacity to treat patients, not in the expectation that demand is going to rise. However, if it does go up this is largely beyond anyone's control as the public generally does not choose to get seriously ill and end up in hospital. On the other hand, using your car as a means of getting from A to B, rather than using public transport alternatives, is a choice solely down to the individual. Unfortunately car use and car ownership are somehow seen as a divine right in this country, over which all other interests should be ignored. Never mind that we are giving over ever-larger
swathes of the countryside simply to build more car-clogged roads. Perhaps encouraging people out of their cars or promoting car sharing is a better way of increasing road space, without embarking on expensive road-building projects. I appreciate that in the context of the article it was
merely road widening in specific locations that was being proposed, as opposed to the wholesale environmental vandalism seen at Twyford Down or the Newbury Bypass, but the FTA must be more circumspect about who it chooses to get into bed with.
To make such blatant overtures to the motoring lobby is a little confusing, especially when one considers that the FTA is making such strenuous efforts to be seen as different from other motorists when it comes to fuel taxes, road use and who is to blame for the traffic jams. David Parry Portsmouth