by Roxburgh » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:29 pm
There are a lot of things in this thread that I agree with. Generally, I'm in favour of infrastructure projects and most of the public infrastructure projects in Glasgow have been beneficial.
Having said that, I agree with jack that putting the M8 through Glasgow was a mistake in terms of its impact on the inner city. It wasn't a good solution for people whose destination was Glasgow and it is a terrible solution for through traffic. However, I do think it reasonable that we look to put through traffic around the city if we can. It would be good if it can be done in a way that is community friendly as well as environmentally friendly.
I think the council lost some opportunities in the 1960s to invest in public transport. We had a commuter railway network that was pretty good and a functioning subway. The opportunities were there to extend and link those in a far more effective way than was actually done. I remember well the debates about using the old railway line running under the Botanics and out to Maryhill but, in the end, all we got was a Park'n'Ride at Kelvinbridge.
If Glasgow is to be a retail centre and a business centre then making it easy to drive into the city is one option but far from the only or even the best option. In the real world you need a mixed solution because some people will always want to drive. You reduce that number by offereing viable and economic alternatives.
Given that I started the thread on the subject of council/government overspend then I should really add a couple more comments. First of all, it doesn't actually matter if it is Glasgow spending the money or some other part of government. It is still the public purse and we still end up paying for it. Its just that more people share the pain.
Secondly, government overspend is a scandal and there is no excuse - but sadly no accountability either - for bad management. This thread has been full of excuses ... 3 years, construction costs have gone up, the builders are busy, shortage of skilled staff, cost of copper (use something else then), oil prices, land values (thought they had the land) etc. etc.. Underpinning this is the assumption that government always underestimates so its okay. I don't think it is okay and I'm fed up with the excuses. If I did that at my work I would be out of a job pdq. Does anyone really believe that it will end at the 76m?
Finally, if private interests are going to benefit directly (as opposed to benefiting from the general economic uplift of the area) as hinted at in the Herald article, can we have them divvie up some of the cost?