There has been talk about taxation to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution.

Joseph Cachia (‘Real [unpopular] solution’, November 3) informs us that, in spite of hefty registration and circulation taxes, insurance costs on buying newer and cleaner vehicles plus excise tax on fuel, he gloats how cheap his motoring is while exalting the authorities to increase costs on motorists.

Cheap motoring exists and is substantial. Owners escape the mitigating effect of high taxes at importation. The biggest hit is always taken by those who buy the newest and the cleanest.

Congestion charges – already mooted - would affect the motoring costs of those who can pay, of those who have no option but to pay and, however one looks at it, it will affect most low-income motorists. The government would have extra revenue, congestion will be reduced and the cars of low income earners will remain at home.

Restricting of low Euro emission standard vehicles from entering designated areas would have the same effect but without increasing costs to motorists driving newer, cleaner vehicles. Cheap motoring with high emissions would also be excluded. This time, however, government revenue would be unchanged.

In either of the above options, enforcement can only be maintained by installing number plate recognition cameras in the designated areas.

Would prominent associations have the clout to force exemption for their vehicles? Would they be allowed to enter designated areas without payment or with low emission standards vehicles?

Transport Minister Joe Mizzi was threatened with the discharge of employees when attempting to restrict circulation of heavy vehicles during peak hours.

Attempts at restricting only private passenger cars while allowing the above-mentioned commercial vehicles at no cost is a political party killer. If commercial vehicles are allowed to circulate without restriction, there would be only a minor decrease in particulate and nitrous oxide in urban air and the claim for improving air quality is tenuous.