I READ with interest the letter by County Councillor Jonathan Sear of the Green Party, and his comments on the Western Bypass, which he predicts will be congested in 15 years.

This may indeed be the case, (although the time scale is open to debate), however possible future congestion is no excuse for not building a bypass.

If you take the Greens argument to its logical conclusion, it could also be applied to every new housing development, school, hospital, etc, and nothing further would ever be built.

We have to tackle the immediate problems which face us now, in particular how to remove the traffic passing through Lancaster. Unless this problem is resolved, then no other measures to solve Lancaster's traffic problems will be successful.

This can only be achieved by building a bypass, the question is which one?

The Western route would remove the most traffic from Lancaster's streets, (simply because most traffic is travelling to and from the south).

It is however the most environmentally damaging route. The Northern route is shorter, (therefore better for the environment), has more capacity as a dual carriageway, and will remain congestion free for a longer period of time, but presumably the Greens are opposed to that as well. Some people like myself favour building both bypasses, although I appreciate this will probably never happen.

If the Green Party oppose the building of both bypasses, then by default, they are endorsing the present situation of gridlock, which diverts motorists through the centre of Lancaster (even though they do not wish to be there.)

This adds extra miles to individual car journeys, and slows cars to a crawl using more fuel, and thus producing more pollution. They are in effect advocating deliberately created traffic jams, which is the exact opposite of the stated aim of the Green Party in Councillor Sear's letter. Green stands for gridlock, that is the reality.

David Uphill

Stanley Rd

Morecambe