It is more than six decades since planners first outlined a ring road for Glasgow that would provide access to the city and enable through traffic to avoid clogging its centre. Today, that ring road is a reality, with the exception of a five-mile missing link between the south-east outskirts and the M8 south of the River Clyde. The completion of the M74 has been delayed for decades by a combination of well-founded objections, lack of political will and bureaucratic paralysis. In the meantime, the case in favour has grown from desirable to overwhelming. In The Herald today, we report that Scottish Government ministers have a month to complete negotiations with the Interlink M74 consortium. The circumstances are not ideal. It is incumbent on ministers to get best value for the taxpayer. This is difficult when there is only one bidder, especially at a time when so much capacity in the UK construction industry is being absorbed by projects linked with the 2012 London Olympics. But any attempt to delay this project yet again must be resisted for several reasons. First, if the government were to put the project out to tender once more in the hope of attracting more bids, it runs the real risk of drawing a blank. Secondly, both construction jobs and the capacity to pay for them are only going to get tighter in coming years, thanks to inflation and the looming issues of a second Forth crossing and the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Thirdly, the reasons why Glasgow needs this road become more compelling all the time.
The challenge of keeping Glasgow moving gets tougher every year. The M8 stretch through the city centre has become one of Britain's worst bottlenecks. The Kingston Bridge, the busiest river crossing in Europe, is almost permanently clogged with crawling or stationary traffic. There are choke points on trunk roads throughout Glasgow's south and eastern flanks. The cost to the city and to Scotland in terms of frustration and lost productivity from this congestion is incalculable. Scotland's auditor, Robert Black, is among those who have said the M74 completion is necessary to avoid permanent gridlock.
The number of jobs likely to be created by any particular infrastructure investment is always a controversial subject. Some question whether 20,000 posts, the equivalent of close to one per foot, will be conjured up by five miles of motorway, as has been claimed. What we can say with certainty is that, without it, the east end of Glasgow will continue to struggle economically. Of course, some of the firms likely to be lured to Glasgow by easy motorway access may have gone elsewhere without it but this area is home to some of the most deprived communities in Britain and attempts to regnerate them have been hampered by poor infrastructure. The challenge of preparing for the Commonwealth Games adds an additional incentive to get cracking.
There is even an environmental case for the M74C, as it has become known. The conventional wisdom is that road-building merely encourages more people to use cars rather than public transport. But congestion is environmentally costly, too, as well as adding to the city's poor air quality.
Millions of pounds have already been spent on buying out businesses along the route. For years a broad swathe of land running through south-east Glasgow, much of it heavily contaminated, has been blighted by this project. The time has come to cut the cackle. The main trunk route from the border was never intended to end abruptly in the outskirts of Glasgow. This project has been idling in neutral for far too long.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article