This is a selective statistic. People who drive their cars don't care about the transport plans. People who would like subsidised transport do.

So, Seamonki - people who drive their cars don't care about the proposal to build more roads and tunnels? They're all just totally happy with the status quo? I think a better way to put it would be, people happy with the plans as they stood didn't tend to write in supporting it - you only speak up when you want something changed.

Just clearing up - Seamonki is not me.

Having read Iona Pannett's reported comments on the plan I must point out that her objections come with their own set of dubious assumptions. The push for environmental air quality (and Co2 emission) improvements due to "light rail" provision is based on the assumption of modal shift. However, the take up of public rail services by vehicle users often has the same result on existing roads that increased road capacity building has: This being that it simply frees up more road space for additional users, thus negating any emissions benefits from modal shift. Other users who previously used public transport because of congestion now return to suing their cars. Additionally I would like to know where light rail services would be run. Tacking rail onto the existing road network (surface sharing) would be far from easy due to the number of right angled and tight intersections that such a route would have to navigate. Cutting these corners would require the acquisition of a number of private properties. It would be interesting to see the number of objections to a light rail proposal, once a route was clearly identified. Pannet has over simplified the issue. While her concerns for the environment are admirable, her transport planning/modelling expertise seems wanting. It seems to me that Pannet has not spent much time reading the plan. She claims "Plan promotes the fantasy that an alternative source of energy to petrol will be found in the future and that we can and should continue to provide ever more road space for drivers." No where does the plan claim this. The plain simply mentions that alternative energy sources MIGHT result in increased car usage. This is a logical truth. The plan does not state this as a design assumption, but merely quotes it as an potential evidential modifier. I find it hard to have confidence in politicians who make these kinds of comments. Although I suspect that media is probably to blame for stirring it up - as usual. And BTW, I voted Green/Green this coming election (by special vote - I'm overseas).