Today the roads lobby, the construction industry, and their cheerleaders at Holyrood celebrate the opening of the M74 Northern Extension. They got what they and their forebears have argued for since the 1940s – another barren strip of tarmac cut right through Glasgow. They even got the chap who’s 20th in line to the throne along to show how important it is to The Firm: Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Disappointingly, not this one.
The scheme remains an overwhelmingly bad idea, whatever the cost and timescale, matters I’ll come back to shortly. The other arguments against the project – it won’t help with congestion, journey times or jobs, and it’ll be fantastically polluting – were accepted by the independent reporter, who ruled against it in 2005. To quote just one paragraph from that report:
11.100 Inevitably this recommendation will be subject to considerable criticism by those who support the road. The opposite recommendation has been considered with equal care. It is concluded that a recommendation to approve the construction of the road and the compulsory purchase of the affected properties would depend on setting aside the very serious disadvantages of the proposal in terms of objectives for the improvement of public transport and traffic reduction, CO2 emissions, the very serious environmental impacts along the route, and disregarding the potentially devastating effects on the local and wider economy due to the dislocation of existing businesses and services; and placing an unreasonable degree of confidence in employment forecasts that have not been demonstrated to be robust, and which at best would bring a relatively small number of new jobs to Scotland, the vast majority of the prospective new employment being transferred from other areas of Scotland, including other parts of the Clyde valley area. Even if a more positive view of the economic benefits were to be accepted, it would still be doubtful if this aspirational and uncertain prospect would justify the acceptance of so many negative effects.
Now even some former cheerleaders for the project have changed their tune, notably in an outstanding front page in the Scotsman yesterday. As Boris would say, this elevated motorway has already been demonstrated to be nonsense on stilts, literally, and Tom Greatrex should know better.
So for those of us who dream of a better urban Scotland, one that’s built to meet people’s needs not one that builds ever greater dependence on the car, this is a sad day. Yes – fighting it in court and through direct action delayed the scheme, and my only regret is that we didn’t do more.
But there is, as the phrase has it, a better way. From Seoul to San Francisco, the urban motorways are coming out (thanks to Jonny for that link).
The road to the left is the 1970s Cheonggyecheon Highway through the heart of Seoul, and the river to the right is what replaced it in 2005.
The city got a new park (the river was under the motorway, believe it or not), lower traffic levels across the city, improvements in biodiversity, and better public transport.
The post above has three more examples, and this one talks about more discussions about motorway removals in Syracuse, Buffalo, Seattle, Louisville, Cleveland, New Orleans and Dallas.
That’s right. Dallas is ahead of us. We’re still building these 1960s barbarities, but Dallas, the world’s fossil fuel capital, is already talking about taking them out. Can you hear the music in your head?
The New Orleans example is also interesting. To quote the Architect’s Paper:
Decades before the hurricane, the construction of I-10 in the 1950s precipitated Treme’s decline from one of the city’s wealthiest African-American neighborhoods to an area with high poverty and vacancy rates.
And in Glasgow, both the M74 and the M8 have certainly damaged communities like Anderston Cross (h/t @geopoetic for that pic). Sooner or later, given the future shape of oil supply if nothing else, these job-killing, time-wasting and polluting roads will have to be taken down and the city rebuilt in the gaps that remain. We should treat that as an opportunity, and, depressing as it is that Ministers have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on them, I look forward to the day that the ribbon is cut and the JCBs go in to undo all their hard work.
#1 by Hamish on June 28, 2011 - 5:11 pm
Eloquent article James.
But it is interesting to note that the Greens are playing down their opposition to air travel Why else support the Edinburgh tram project? There is dispute about where the line might end — Haymarket, St Andrews Square, Leith Waterfront — but the begin all is Edinburgh Airport.
Also not a word in your article about rail. Rightly so, since it has become prohibitively expensive, and is irrelevant to most of Scotland.
The only alternative you mention is water-based transport. I entirely agree with you about the importance of water-based transport, particularly for those who live on islands
The reality is that in most areas of Scotland, there is no alternative to travelling by road, whether that is by bus, by car, by bicycle, on skates, on foot.
#2 by James on June 28, 2011 - 5:46 pm
Hi Hamish,
Thanks for that. Of course we’re against airport expansion, and work on the trams should have started in Leith, not at the airport. Now the airport end is closer to completion it doesn’t make sense not to use it, but the timing and phasing isn’t what we’d have done if we’d been in the administration. I’d take that up with the SNP and Lib Dem Councillors who didn’t even take the contract to a vote in 2008. Still, people will keep going to the airport, and the trams will, if built, be a more efficient and greener way to do that than cars, taxis or buses.
And don’t assume anything about my position on rail. I didn’t mention airships either, but I passionately support them too.
It’s the diversion of ceaseless millions into projects like this that makes it harder to get about by public transport. Opportunity costs everywhere..
#3 by Luke Devlin on June 28, 2011 - 7:19 pm
That picture from Seoul is stunning. Can’t wait for the M74 to look like this http://www.thehighline.org/
#4 by EphemeralDeception on June 28, 2011 - 8:12 pm
I really do not understand some of the points raised.
a) Congestion, journeys. Why wont it help? There are no more vehicles on the road and now there is a new major artery. People will at least be able to save time and money and pollution travelling a shorter distance than they did till now, regardless of the congestion. Eg. Travelling to/from Galsgow Airport. Or do you just not like airports so exclude this factor?
b) This route will be here for a long time. People love their own private transport. I repeat, people love their own private transport. The use of the combustion engine as it is today is already being phased out either via hybrid or other technologies.
This project took about 40 years to realise. In 40 years time we will be using much cleaner personal transport, because we will have to.
c) There are many arguments to prioritise other modal forms of transport – most are public. This is viable in urban areas it is not in rural. even in Urban areas, like the energy debate itself, we need the right mix and roads play their part, including motorways.
#5 by James on June 28, 2011 - 9:33 pm
The Reporter’s report and the various posts linked to do explain the points I’m making in more detail.
#6 by Observer on June 28, 2011 - 9:16 pm
Totally agree. As an interested south sider I opposed the extension from day one. It didn’t make any sense to me then & it doesn’t now. It isn’t going to ease congestion & more to the point it has been a huge investment to encourage car drivers rather than public transport.
I have been inconvenienced for literally years now with the building of this thing across the main bus route into Glasgow from the south side & there is still a slalom ride for buses at the bottom of it as they haven’t cleared any of the site stuff away. Did all the dignatories look at that, I don’t think so. Moan over.
#7 by CassiusClaymore on June 29, 2011 - 8:34 am
The Government is mostly going to waste our money anyway, so it’s to be celebrated when they spend it on something which is actually of some use to the long-suffering ordinary taxpayer.
So, qualified approval from me. Dual the A9 next please.
(James, rest assured that when airships become commercially available at reasonable prices and can be parked at my house, the office, the golf club and wherever else I need to go, I’ll sell my cars and be first in line to buy one!)
CC
#8 by James on June 29, 2011 - 8:37 am
Love the airships anywhere fantasy! With you there..
Just wondering what use you think it’ll be, given the evidence that journey times will lengthen and congestion worsen. But perhaps you like sitting in traffic jams, resting on tarmac that used to be parks and homes and offices.
#9 by CassiusClaymore on June 29, 2011 - 8:51 am
James
I’m about to set off for Glasgow, and I’m hearing on the radio that traffic is unusually quiet. I regularly make this journey, at this time, so I will report back later!
If it helps my Green credentials, my car is 21 years old and has been lovingly recycled several times over.
CC
#10 by James on June 29, 2011 - 9:54 am
Absolutely it helps. A lot of embedded carbon in a new car. My personal thing when I used to buy cars (partly for that reason, partly for style) was Japanese cars 1977-1981. A wee golden age. Small efficient engines, a lot of design classics. I still dream of buying one and switching it to electric.
#11 by Alec Macph on June 29, 2011 - 9:12 am
From the Korea link:
Scotland has no bloody chance, then.
~alec
#12 by Gavin Hamilton on June 29, 2011 - 11:18 am
Good post.
It is always a tough one balancing the undoubted short / medium term benefits in congestion reduction and pollution reduction with the fact that these schemes ultimately tend to increase overall congestion and pollution over time.
I also note the point that the jobs incrase will to a large extent be existing jobs relocating from elsewhere in Clyde valley.
I hope it does turn out to aid jobs regeneration.
I think the really interesting thing is the comparison with the Edinburgh Trams project.
The costs of the M74 at near 700m and the latest costs for Edinburgh trams – approaching 780m to complete I think are similar.
However the trams line, despite all its problems will still make an appreciable difference to cut congestion and pollution – in a city which is currently one of the most congested in Europe.
And, I think, in better times the trams project can yet extend to Leith and maybe even out to the Royal Infirmary.
I think it will also be of significant benefit to the environment and mood of the city.
In short I think the dividends from a tram project will grow over time.
So I think the M74 helps put the tram project in some sort of perspective. And, despite its problems I am still minded that we should finish what we started.
#13 by CassiusClaymore on June 29, 2011 - 4:06 pm
Time for a traffic report – the M8 westbound into Glasgow was certainly far quieter than normal this morning.
I appreciate that this isn’t particularly scientific….time will tell.
CC
#14 by Robert D. Knight on June 30, 2011 - 6:48 pm
The simple fact is that infrastructure generates wealth. Scotland’s road network is 30 years out of date as is most of our transport network. By the logic of using Seoul as an example we should actually be ripping out roads, not building new ones. So which road networks should we get rid of first? Which are surplus to our current requirements?
If we ripped out all the roads we would have zero traffic. Food for thought?