M74 Extension goes ahead

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

Postby Closet Classicist » Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:16 pm

Yeah Joan dearie thanks for condescending to speak to us. Now money where your mouth is. Please explain to us people who like the sound of our own voices and just spout the usual mindless tat that you hear at meeting's all the time how the M74 extension will be a good thing for the area? And I assume by area you mean the Rutherglen to Tradeston corridor? Is it the fact that people from A can get to B by moving through C faster? The only good thing I can see from this decison is that it has cleared up years of uncertainty over whether or not the the road was going to happen. Mind you canceling it would also have done that. Everything else appears to be ephemeral with the benefits being fleeting. Is it wise forking out £500 million + when the case is decidely not proven? So I would like to know if you have, in fact, taken the time to read the report as I have made the effort to do?

If you have would you care to comment on the number and types of jobs that will either be lost or will have to move elsewhere to accommodate this road? For instance (and none of the business people stating the case for this motorway have deigned to comment on this one yet) the Morris furniture factory which is a Glasgow institution (did the fit outs for the Queen Mary amongst others), and one of Scotland's export successes will have to move to make way for it. Why? Because the Executive is not prepared to tamper with the railway yards the motorway was originally to pass through and instead opted for a route that intersects exactly with Morris's factory. This alone means the loss of 500 + good quality highly skilled jobs from the local economy. Any new jobs created (which will probably be filled by people from outside the Rutherglen to Tradeston corridor) have to be offset against losses like this. That's a bit of an own goal for something that is supposed to help the economy.

In urbanistic terms this new road is disasterous. Particularly at Eglinton Toll where both the demolitions in the 80's and this elevated motorway will completely remove all evidence of the decent urban realm the Victorian's left for us (Greek Thomson's Eglinton terrace, probably Scotland's finest tenement, was pulled down for this). I find it disappointing that the motorway goes in a cutting under Cathcart Road but then has to rise up on stilts over Pollokshaws/Eglinton/Victoria Roads and the railway lines before carving its way through Tradeston. Some art work and lighting will not make up for the serverance of this area of the southside. This is not current best practice and as evidence I would cite both Boston and Milwaukee as cities that are trying to deal postively with the legacy elevated expressways have left their cities by removing them. And as someone who passes through this area everyday and has done for the last 9 years having lived in Govanhill for 4 years and Pollokshields (tenement bit not the villas before I am accused of being too comfortable) I do appreciate the impact it will have.

Ta ta

CC
Closet Classicist
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 5:23 pm
Location: The second empire state

Postby Joan Burnie » Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:18 am

Ya Gods a bunch of boring buggers. You don’t like my replies so you attack me personally……

Joan B
Read my page in the Record
User avatar
Joan Burnie
Busy bunny
Busy bunny
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:08 am
Location: Scotland

Postby Apollo » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:38 am

escotregen wrote:See letter in todays Herald from an affected local resident. I couldn't have put in better myself i.e. 'More Motorways=More Car Journeys=Worse and Even More Unsustainable Future=Short-sighted Demand for Even More Motorways'
Let's forget it and stir up the real thread...

I love these quotes, not only because they're so stupid, but for the image of a tree-hugging greenie, sitting in their grass hut, exercising their one brain cell on the imagination that their gas-guzzling car owning opponent has nothing better to do than sit in their brick built, CO2 spewing home, and search the news for new roads to go out and drive on.

The roads do not cause the journeys. Our society's willingness to separate people, their homes, families, places of employment and recreation by vast distances (in terms of footpower at least) cause the journeys.

An integrated transport, of any form, would be nice, but it isn't going to happen, ever, so long as all the parties involved are allowed to have biased and discrimanatory stances. The day they stop demonising one form of transport and idolising another, there may be some progress, and on that day, I expect Hell to freeze over too.

Stuff JB and fight over that :twisted:
User avatar
Apollo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby duncan » Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:10 pm

Apollo wrote:I love these quotes, not only because they're so stupid, but for the image of a tree-hugging greenie, sitting in their grass hut, exercising their one brain cell on the imagination that their gas-guzzling car owning opponent has nothing better to do than sit in their brick built, CO2 spewing home, and search the news for new roads to go out and drive on.

Apollo wrote: it isn't going to happen, ever, so long as all the parties involved are allowed to have biased and discrimanatory stances.
User avatar
duncan
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 9:54 am
Location: Glasgow

Postby crusty_bint » Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:16 pm

duncan wrote:
Apollo wrote:I love these quotes, not only because they're so stupid, but for the image of a tree-hugging greenie, sitting in their grass hut, exercising their one brain cell on the imagination that their gas-guzzling car owning opponent has nothing better to do than sit in their brick built, CO2 spewing home, and search the news for new roads to go out and drive on.

Apollo wrote: it isn't going to happen, ever, so long as all the parties involved are allowed to have biased and discrimanatory stances.


::): That is a very good point you make Duncan!
here i go, it's coming for me through the trees
crusty_bint
-
-
 
Posts: 4425
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:52 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby escotregen » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:29 pm

With reference to:

"I love these quotes, not only because they're so stupid, but for the image of a tree-hugging greenie, sitting in their grass hut, exercising their one brain cell"
and

"so long as all the parties involved are allowed to have biased and discrimanatory stances. The day they stop demonising one form of transport and idolising another"

For the second time in this thread, I'll say that the language you use often says a lot about the case you're trying to make.
escotregen
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1073
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:35 pm
Location: glasgow

Postby Strike Team » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:05 pm

I'm still trying to understand how building more roads "causes more traffic"? Can someone enlighten me please?
User avatar
Strike Team
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Leafy Suburbia

Postby kelvin_hall » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:08 pm

It's like cupboard space, no matter how much you have you still fill it.
User avatar
kelvin_hall
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:21 pm

Postby paladin » Wed Apr 06, 2005 6:22 am

kelvin_hall wrote:It's like cupboard space, no matter how much you have you still fill it.


That's a poor analogy.......you don't get things queuing up to get in the cupboard now do you/ cupboard rage between the items already in there/competing to be in the fast shelf or drawer/there isn't a rip-off service station in a cupboard/never any of those coming-togethers in a cupboard.............. :oops:

aye........mibbe your analogy is right after all.


:wink:
paladin
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1080
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:35 am

Postby red_kola » Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:22 am

Strike Team wrote:I'm still trying to understand how building more roads "causes more traffic"? Can someone enlighten me please?

Simple Scenario:

You live in Woodlands and work at the Tramway on the South Side. The Kingston Bridge is always full at the times of day you want to cross the river leading to a journey time in excess of half an hour for the under 2 mile journey.

Despite it being a 5 minute walk to St Georges Cross Subway and 10 minutes up from Shields Road to Pollokshields, it is still quicker, more convenient and less stressful to take the tube, even with a 5 minute wait for a train and 8 minute tube-ride.

Extending the M74 relieves the pressure on the M8. Not all traffic from the South has to go through the city and across the Kingston Bridge. Traffic volumes drop on the Kingston Bridge and there is less rush-hour congestion leading to the journey time from Woodlands to Pollokshields dropping to 15 minutes.

It is now quicker, more convenient and less stressful to make this journey in your own car.

As more people discover this, traffic volumes on this stretch of urban motorway begin to increase again. Journeys that were previously made on public transport are now made by car. The void is rapidly filled.

Yes this is a simplistic example, but yes this is what happens: When you build a road to alleviate pressure upon another road it merely creates a whole new viable category of journeys to take their place.
Destroy All Monsters
User avatar
red_kola
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:05 am

Postby Sir Roger DeLodgerley » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:17 am

All well and good, but decisions to commute are not made simply on the basis of how quick the car journey may be. Consideration also needs to be given to the proximity, cost, and security of car parking, the ease, frequency and cost of the public transport journey not to mention individual preferences such as being able to read a paper on the train or drop in at Starbucks on the way to work.

Simply building a new road has no impact on these aspects of the decision and so the process of deciding whether or not to drive to work is more complex that you maintain.
There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted.
User avatar
Sir Roger DeLodgerley
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:05 am
Location: Bedside Manor, Wilts.

Comprehension 101

Postby red_kola » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:27 am

Sir Roger DeLodgerley wrote:Simply building a new road has no impact on these aspects of the decision and so the process of deciding whether or not to drive to work is more complex that you maintain.

I merely answered the simplistic question which was asked and did not at any point suggest, let alone maintain, that things were anywhere near that one-dimensional. OK?
Destroy All Monsters
User avatar
red_kola
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:05 am

Re: Comprehension 101

Postby Sir Roger DeLodgerley » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:49 am

red_kola wrote:I ... did not at any point suggest, let alone maintain, that things were anywhere near that one-dimensional. OK?


You did when you stated:

"When you build a road to alleviate pressure upon another road it merely creates a whole new viable category of journeys to take their place."

I'm arguing that you cannot draw such a direct conclusion because there are many other factors which influence the outcome. I'm doing it in a friendly way though. :wink:
There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted.
User avatar
Sir Roger DeLodgerley
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:05 am
Location: Bedside Manor, Wilts.

Re: Comprehension 101

Postby red_kola » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:50 am

Sir Roger DeLodgerley wrote:You did when you stated:

"When you build a road to alleviate pressure upon another road it merely creates a whole new viable category of journeys to take their place."

I'm arguing that you cannot draw such a direct conclusion because there are many other factors which influence the outcome. I'm doing it in a friendly way though. :wink:

Noted :) But actually, I didn't. Your argument is that I said "The only factor which will make viable new categories of journey is the building of new roads". I plainly did not.

But this will be getting tedious for everybody else...
Destroy All Monsters
User avatar
red_kola
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:05 am

Re: Comprehension 101

Postby Apollo » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:41 pm

red_kola wrote:But this will be getting tedious for everybody else...

Not at all.

Reading this section, it occured to me that the government's transport policies, rather lack of them, are quite subtle. Only a fraction of the revenue raised from vehicles ever goes back into the transport system. By carefully manipulating their policices to maximise the number of vehicles on the roads, especially small ones, they can keep shuffling in small taxation rises that net the revenue vast amounts. If they actively reduce numbers, they still need the revenue, but would need to put larger increases over fewer vehicles, and we all know how much large vehicle operators like to pay tax.

Kind of like salt tax and window tax :wink:
User avatar
Apollo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: Glasgow

PreviousNext

Return to Glasgow Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests