How can a transport plan be described as ambitious when it doesn’t mention rail?

Given the urgent need to continue to reduce Scotland’s use of fossil fuel, I admit to being astonished that Transport Secretary Michael Matheson wrote an entire article entitled “Scotland’s most ambitious infrastructure plan is here” (Perspective, 19 October), without a single reference to rail.

The Scottish Government has spent large sums in recent years on three rail projects. Unfortunately, the same government cut the specifications of one of those projects, the Borders Railway, so it now does not have sufficient double track. Much more needs to be spent urgently and yet the only large transport projects currently under way in Scotland are road-widening schemes.

Outwith the Central Belt, rail routes have improved very little. Inverness is still connected in most directions, including south, by the equivalent of single track roads with (very few indeed) passing places. The journey from Edinburgh to Perth takes longer now than it did at the end of the 19th century.

Rail transport is the best way to move people around in large numbers and to convey freight with the lowest possible use of fossil fuels. Electrification and doubling of single track sections of the main intercity routes is required as soon as possible. Mr Matheson’s article gives the impression that he is totally unaware of any of this. I hope that, as he settles in to his new role, Mr Matheson listens to views other than merely those of the roads lobby.

IAN BUDD Villafield Loan, Bishopbriggs

Michael Matheson has just announced “Scotland’s most ambitious infrastructure plan” and states how critical transport links are “a driver of economic growth and future economic prosperity”.

Even though they’ll be spending an additional £1.5 billion a year until 2025, they still can’t find the £50m it would take to reconnect Levenmouth and its 50,000 catchment by train, in other words a tiny fraction of that annual additional cost. As with Brexit there seems to be endless delay and dithering about getting our rail line reopened, despite overwhelming evidence and many studies demonstrating the case for it.

This is not even ambitious but giving it the go-ahead will be a simple litmus test on how meaningful these fine transport intentions are.

NEIL STEWART Omar Cres, Buckhaven