Two views

SIR, — With the imminent second-round fight against the proposed rail terminal, it is important we play devil s advocate and determine how to challenge perceived benefits by the developers and Government. Two years later, and the political and economic

SIR, - With the imminent second-round fight against the proposed rail terminal, it is important we play "devil's advocate" and determine how to challenge perceived benefits by the developers and Government. Two years later, and the political and economic scene has changed.

A project, dwarfing the rail terminal, is the widening of the M25 due to commence 2009/10. To boost the economy, Government will ensure this goes ahead. It complements the terminal project as does the completed M1 widening. The rail terminal itself is perceived as a vital transport strategy, and its construction will boost the economy and will also be classed as "green" expenditure.

At some stage, to mitigate local congestion concerns, the possibility of combining both projects and creating simple slip roads on the north side of the M25 directly into the terminal only, may be revisited - easier with a four-lane motorway.

Developers will argue against noise concerns by pointing out that three local aerodromes have closed - Hatfield, Leavesden and previously Radlett itself, so ceasing the noise of heavy bombers.

The East of England Plan is forcing hundreds of new houses on St Albans, very local to the terminal, potentially reducing staff commuting. Second-generation technology to produce biofuels from the non-food part of plants will ensure "green-fuelled" diesel locos and lorries.

Above all, the gnawing pain of escalating unemployment will change perceptions.

STRIFE etc must plan round these points.

P. FIELD,

St Stephens Avenue, St Albans.