I NEVER fail to be amazed at the short-sightedness of councils but Glasgow’s takes the biscuit for its low-emission policy(“Fares rise warning as radical bid to slash fumes targets only buses”, The Herald, September 22).

Let’s look at the facts. In central London, which faces similar problems with air quality, six per cent of the problem is created by buses and coaches, with cars, taxis, trucks and vans creating at least 70 per cent.

These are Transport for London’s own statistics and they do not even begin to analyse reality.

Cars, taxis and buses transport people, and the key statistic which should be taken into account (assuming you do not want to remove people from the city centre) is the fuel efficiency of these vehicles in moving each person.

Taxis and cars in cities, at best, create pollution at a rate of 30 miles per passenger/gallon; buses and coaches, travelling around 10 miles per gallon, carry upwards of 30 people at a time: 300 miles per passenger/gallon.

They offer 10 times greater efficiency, using one-tenth of the fuel and commensurate pollution.

Only electric cars can beat this tail-pipe emissions figure. Buses are not the cause of poor air quality; they are the solution.

Of course, we know why the council might focus on buses. Bus passengers such as the elderly, young and infirm are a soft target compared to car drivers, who are well-resourced and a source of electoral problems if anyone dare tell them they cannot drive their cars into a city.

So the council foists the cost of this politically-motivated exercise on to bus fares and, ultimately, people who can least afford to pay.With regard to its 70 to 80 per cent of nitrogen oxides” calculation, at pinch points everywhere in which the majority of traffic is buses it is unsurprising that buses cause the most pollution.

The answer is to prevent cars entering the city so that not only can buses run freely, but also that displaced drivers have to travel on them, paying fares that can pay for cleaner buses (upwards of £250,000 each). It’s called social justice.

Mark Williams,

Group Editor,

Bus & Coach Buyer,

Orton Southgate,

Peterborough.

YOU report that toxic fumes from diesel vehicles have been blamed for 3,500 premature deaths in Scotland (“Emissions zone debate must balance health benefits with bus usage”, The Herald, September 22); in which case we are clearly experiencing something of an epidemic.

It seems surprising that no political party has proposed an obvious solution. Over 60s are entitled to free travel passes. Could it be that an in-depth cost-benefit analysis might suggest that this privilege should be extended to all citizens, regardless of age?

Apart from other consideration, the present system is discriminatory, favouring older people who may often be better off than struggling families and zero hours 20-somethings.

If this measure was to be enacted, at least in urban and outlying areas, and bus fleets were to be upgraded to meet higher environmental standards, car use would plummet, pressure on the NHS would be mitigated and we would cease poisoning our children.

Better still, if buses were to observe maximum urban speeds of 30mph while other transport modes (emergency services excluded) were limited to 20mph, we would be well on the way to achieving car-free cities.

What’s not to like?

David J Black,

6 St Giles Street,

Edinburgh.

THE coalition challenging the Scottish Government on climate change did not point out that, in Scotland, there are at perent 40 per cent of households living in fuel poverty.

In addition, it did not address the fact that Holyrood has failed in its pledge to eliminate such poverty by 2016.Also, the higher fares to be introduced to remove older, polluting buses will hit the 40 per cent the hardest.

Why does the coalition not campaign on these problems affecting 21st Century Scotland?

A further point not addressed by the coalition is the cost of subsidies being paid to the renewable energy sector.

There are few voices in Scotland that highlight the fact that, to meet the installed capacity of Hinkley Point C (HNC), would require a renewable project that is eight times the installed capacity of the NnG offshore wind farm project off the Fife coast.

However, as wind is intermittent, the nuclear plant will produce twice the output of such a wind farm every year.

Hence, to match the output of HNC, the project capacity would have to be doubled with a 100 per cent increase in capital cost.

In addition, 50 years after the wind farm had gone to the scrap yard, HNC would still be generating inexpensive, green electricity to the UK grid. It is to be hoped that the coalition will switch its energy to address solutions in Scotland that do not increase the burden on the 40 per cent of Scots existing in fuel poverty.

Ian Moir,

79 Queen Street,

Castle Douglas.

YOUR article (“Islanders call for motorhomes drivers to face new ferry levy”, September 21) stated that the Western Isles Council is backing a proposal for a “motorhome levy”. This is not the case.

The Comhairle has no particular policy on a motorhome levy, although the local industry is firmly opposed to such a move and we would have to take account of that.

The Comhairle is exploring all options which could increase investment in infrastructure which is required as a result of the undoubted success of Road Equivalent Tariff and our tourism industry.

One of the most pressing issues is that of capacity on the ferries which on the Ullapool-Stornoway route could be resolved with the use of an additional ferry, a case which the Comhairle has been making to the Scottish Government since before the new ferry was introduced.

Indeed, I have been in ongoing correspondence with the minister urging him to arrange additional capacity before the year end as people sort their summer travel for next year. Humza Yousaf has already accepted that there is a capacity issue as he indicated in July that he was looking for another vessel.

Roddie Mackay,

Leader,

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar,

Sandwick Road,

Stornoway.