Sir – The Government’s proposal to rebrand the extension of Bicester from an ‘eco-town’ to a ‘Garden City’ and to take credit for the new housing has not deflected The Oxford Times editor (December 4) from understanding that, “ ...the implications for the A34 are truly frightening.”.

Dr East (Letters, December 4) understands this, citing a number of references in support of the proposition that spending millions on this traffic corridor will not relieve congestion, but will add to traffic volumes, noise, air pollution, the waste of energy and increase carbon emissions.

However, ‘road-space charging’ is not the only response to the problems on the A34, and much of the national motorway and trunk road network.

Starting with carbon emissions, in 2006 the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Select Committee (EAC) recommended that the national speed limit should be reduced.

Unlike road pricing, this could be done immediately, fairly and at no public cost. At 50mph there would be about a 30% reduction in carbon emissions (Slower is Better 2010 CE Delft) moving towards the 60% reduction from road traffic which will be required by 2030. At slower speeds congestion is also reduced, including that caused by road traffic accidents, often associated with differential speeds, and coaches speed-limited to 60mph will no longer be disadvantaged. Noise from tyres and engines is also reduced, air-quality increased and vehicles (including electric vehicles) more efficient and less polluting at 20mph would become more popular.

While the Department for Transport accept the need, but regard speed limit reduction as “politically impossible”, the EAC saw reducing the national speed limit would as an effective way for the Government to show it was serious about reducing carbon emissions. Politicians should read the Select Committee report instead of taking photo-opportunities and throwing bungs at the motorist lobby.

Daniel Scharf, Drayton, near Abingdon