OF course York's traffic has reached "breaking point" (April 27). The city council has closed off half the roads.

In particular, it has closed off those roads which include houses occupied by councillors, with the result that the residents of Bishophill, the Nunthorpes and the rest, now live on exclusive private estates with none of the inconvenience of having to pay for the privilege.

Meanwhile, we who are not so fortunate are being subjected to huge increased levels of noise and pollution. Motorists who are being forced to spend £165 a year to drive their cars are disbarred from the roads which they have paid to use. There is no such thing as a "rat-run"; a road is a road.

The council can protest all it wishes, but the end result of their long-term game plan will be the introduction of congestion charges.

Neil Richardson,

Bishopthorpe Road, York.

...MR Evely makes it quite clear that an increase in traffic is the result, not the cause, of the over-development that York is seeing.

Rather than shrugging his shoulders and saying that it is difficult for City of York Council to stop developments on the basis of increased traffic, Mr Evely and the council need to re-appraise the many developments.

Would it not be far more sensible to tackle the cause of the increase of traffic given the developments being proposed around York, rather than endlessly tinkering and restricting the use of cars?

Rising bollards and toll roads are poor remedies for the symptoms of the over-development in the city.

What will York be in five years time - a faceless copy of Leeds? Mr Evely suggests York residents "make some particularly hard choices".

What about the council facing up to the fact that approving every development is the easy way out and that not granting planning approval is the real tough choice?

Oliver Starzynski,

Murton Way, York.

...I SUGGESTED long ago that York is full and should not be required to tolerate yet more avoidable development.

The Evening Press front page on Tuesday ('Breaking point') appeared to support that idea; but what did we find on page five? A report telling us that yet more civil servants should be moved here to replace some who are expected to lose their jobs at Chancellor Gordon Brown's behest.

This suggestion is supported, apparently, by our MP Hugh Bayley.

So, here we have this small city, already home to hundreds, if not thousands, of Government employees who have come, largely, from wealthier parts of the country, forcing house prices up to the present, ridiculous, levels, and bringing with them at least one car per household, and almost certainly more.

They add to the thousands of students and staff already here and soon to be increased by perhaps 50 per cent.

What is suggested? Yet more!

Am I the only one who sees the absolute lunacy of this?

Phil Fowler,

Bramble Dene,

Woodthorpe, York.

Updated: 10:38 Thursday, April 29, 2004