DEAR Editor, I write to express my rapture on finding that Travel West Midlands has once again increased its fares. And why not? Surely this represents the service rendered by a fine organisation.

Many a time have I marvelled at the sight of the “Sorry, Not in Service” as it trots merrily down the Pershore Road, a veritable conga line of traffic in its wake.

The cheerful and engaging drivers are always happy to let down their passengers at an appropriate stopping point; on many occasions they have highlighted an alternative point of departure from that which I requested. The subsequent extended walk has helped me to keep fit.

As for the interior of the buses, I adore the Tracy Emin-style work of art, with a careful display of burger wrappers and old newspapers. The casual observer might think this a result of lazy cleaning, but no – a superb rendering of the 21st Century zeitgeist.

And how splendid too, the introduction of the laser-display boards at bus shelters across the Midlands, wisely reminding us to consult the Real Time Information System – I for one would surely have forgotten to do so, without such computerised help.

God Bless TWM – or Talent, Wonder and Magic as I prefer to think of them. Their decision to increase their reasonable fares only serves to remind us of the importance of helping small, struggling businesses at this time of financial crisis.

Richard Constable

By E-mail

---------------------

Lib Dems sacrifice green image to oppose Brown’s job plans

Dear Editor, Gordon Brown’s bold new move to create 100,000 jobs on environmental projects and from investments in new technology is precisely stage one of a progressive way forward, so desperately needed at this time, understanding as it does the consequences of inaction on the environment and economy would be vastly outweighed over the long-term by the “solutions” of the “do-nothing, sit on your hands” political nihilists in the Tory Party and across the right-wing of the Lib Dems who proposed many of the measures eg. repairs to school buildings in Cleggs pre-Christmas message.

But the reservations at the heart of the Lib Dems objections aren’t just that they thought of many of the ideas first (and so, like teenagers, now do a volte-face) but that there is still a strong core who unthinkingly cling to the dogma of an economic liberalism. Or is it mere stubbornness and not in fact an opportunism and a laziness to refuse the challenge to seek to question many of the nostrums in their own constituencies, despite the example shown by Obama that prejudice can respond positively to open and clear explanations and well-made arguments?

No one would have expected the Tory Party, whose adulation of the free market as a facile philosophy set off many of the economic problems and the greed culture, to do much other than criticise Browns initiative on costs. Most didn’t need to see the chauffeur-driven limousine following Cameron’s bicycle to recognise their “allegiance” to green ideas was always an empty good times fad.

It is, however, pitiful to see the party which claims to be the greenest fatuously joining in the negativity at this basic level, and if this is to be its future, it will split into an even greater ineffectuality.

Bill Haymes, Norfolk Street,

Coventry

-----------------------

Puzzled by exception to M6 observations

Dear Editor, I am sorry that J.E.S. Bradshaw felt it necessary in his letter of January 1 to accuse me of “sneering” in my earlier letter of December 22 and then justifying that by accusing me of saying things I did not say.

The specific points I made were that it was ridiculous to claim the number of vehicles actually using the M6 Toll had no effect on congestion on the M6, and it was obvious vehicles travelling efficiently on an unrestricted toll road were not increasing pollution. They would be creating greater emissions if they were travelling in more interrupted fashion on the less efficient M6.

I did not use the statement that I frequently use the M6 Toll to justify a claim it was a success, I just pointed out the lower than expected rate of use was an issue of pricing policy, not the suitability of the road.

Taking this and my previous comments about congestion and pollution into account, I simply criticised the publicised statement that the M6 Toll is a “catastrophic failure”, which is clearly an exaggeration. Therefore I am puzzled why Mr. Bradshaw takes such exception to my observations because I do not see anything that I said which seriously contradicts his obvious opinion that the pricing policy of the road is an issue. That is exactly what I said, albeit less emotively.

Gerald Kells’ letter of January 5 also supports this view, although I would suggest the question of the M6 Toll road only being a “sideshow” to the transport debate would be less supportable if the road had been properly funded by the Government in the first place and was a fully integrated part of the road network. As I pointed out before, the subject of transport needs to be analysed with proper objectivity and not be excessively influenced by narrow interests.

Yes, we absolutely need an efficient public transport system but we must recognise also the complex distribution of places where people live, travel to work and try to live normal family life makes the provision and maintenance of an efficient road network absolutely essential. If consecutive governments had properly accepted this responsibility in the first place we would have less congestion and vehicular pollution than we do now.

There is no reason to believe a properly integrated transport system which makes effective use of public and private transport appropriately, and with benefit to everyone is not achievable. It certainly is, but we need to get away from narrowly defined preconceptions and maintain a proper degree of balance in the way we make our decisions. The consequences of mistakes are with us for a long time.

Colin Leighfield, Operations Director, Wedge Group Galvanizing