I WAS most astonished to read of Labour's objective to reduce the number of cars entering the city, in Cllr Small's letter (September 20).
How does his letter sit alongside the Labour councillors' support for extending the M62 Edge Lane corridor and the completely unnecessary demolition of 300 houses alongside this route, the objective claimed to be to bring more traffic into the city?
How does his pledge to work towards sustainable communities, who depend less on cars, match Labour's voting record to support the Stanley Park Stadium site, with its projected extra half-million visitors per year coming into an already congested area.
Even more to the point, the stadium site, which does not even have a passenger railway link nearby.
The fact is that, without improved public transport (eg, government backing for the tram project) the reality of reducing the inflow of cars into the city will have one consequence: the collapse of the retail sector in the city.
The Big Dig fiasco is already crippling small and medium businesses alike. Does Labour want to finish them off altogether?
Increased traffic controls will mean more shoppers who would have come to Liverpool, will then drive out to Cheshire Oaks, the Trafford Centre and other shopping malls.
Can someone explain this economic reality to the Labour Party?
Cllr Steve Radford, Liberal Party Group, Liverpool City Council
