THE council is supposedly requiring financial savings - therefore the cost of this bollard should be way down the list of priorities.

If rising bollards' genuine purpose is to restrict unwanted traffic, there are far more important routes which should take priority - such as Piccadilly, the Nessgate end of Coppergate, Blake Street, and Goodramgate.

Why is a through route for local traffic even considered to be a "rat run" in need of blocking?

If this is the case, then surely all such routes should be blocked, such as Millfield Lane, Vanbrugh Drive, Crossways, Fifth Avenue, Dodsworth Avenue, Tranby Avenue, Hempland Lane, Galtres Road etc?

Setting aside the traffic problems which would be created elsewhere by funnelling everyone down just a few main roads, all local council tax payers have an equal right to access all council roads.

Where safety calls for drastic measures such as bollards to be installed, then fixed bollards should be the method used.

They are cheaper. They are fair to everyone in that everyone is equally inconvenienced!

They have already been used in Windmill Lane, Millfield Avenue, Thief Lane, the Groves and elsewhere.

The best alternative measure for controlling the excess traffic in York would be to have a cheap, frequent, reliable, regular bus service throughout York and environs.

Mrs Linda Maloney

Millfield Avenue, York.

Apology

WE mis-transcribed a word in a letter about the rising bollard from Ivan Hollis of Westlands Grove, York, printed on Monday. It should have read: "These passes contain a tiny battery which cannot be replaced". Apologies.

Updated: 11:31 Wednesday, April 06, 2005