NEWS RELEASE - September 28th 2000

U-turn on M74 shows Executive transport policy in collapse: Boyack's legacy will be one of motorway-building not public transport.

TRANSform Scotland Campaign Manager Colin Howden said:

"This is yet another U-turn by Sarah Boyack. Is there anything she is not prepared to U-turn on? She told the local councils to look at alternatives to the M74 just last November - and yet this September caves in and decides the Executive will pay up after all."

"This decision further undermines the Executive's environmental credibility. Its professed support for sustainable transport has been shown to be no more than a hollow pretence. Just when modern cities round the world are beginning to show success in reining back the domination by the car, Glasgow goes for the failed transport policies of the past, a concrete relic of the 1960s. If economic vitality is brought about by road-building then it should be Edinburgh's economy that is in collapse not Glasgow's."

"All of the Labour Party's rhetoric has been about providing better public transport. But it is difficult to single out any on-the-ground improvements over the past three years that have not been either privately-funded or planned under the previous Tory administration. Boyack's legacy will be one of motorway-building not public transport." (2)

See (3) below for a summary of the case against the M74 Northern Extension.

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

(1) TRANSform Scotland is the national sustainable transport campaign, bringing together 68 organisations - including transport operators, local authorities, national environment and conservation groups, chambers of commerce and local transport groups - interested in transport, the environment and a sustainable Scotland. We can be contacted at 72 Newhaven Road, Edinburgh, EH6 5QG. Tel.: 0131-467-7714; Fax: 0131-554-8656; e-mail: campaigns@transformscotland.org.uk; web: http://www.transformscotland.org.uk

(2) The Labour Party made no commitments to road-building in its 1999 manifesto and the Partnership Agreement signed by Labour and the Lib Dems following the election said nothing on road-building. But since then we've seen the Executive throw money at new roads schemes without evaluating the cost-effective and environmentally-responsible alternatives.

In the Strategic Roads Review announcement less than a year ago (November 1999), Boyack gave the go-ahead for five road schemes costing £140 million in total. None of these were appraised against transport alternatives using a "multi-modal" corridor analysis. The Scottish Executive has already announced above-inflation increases in road spending this year (SE news release SE0937/2000, 31/03/00), bringing the total to £444 million over two years. This follows two above-inflation increases in roads expenditure in 1999 (news releases 0868/99, 01/04/99; SE0817/1999, 06/10/99).

Labour's manifesto commitments to public transport, walking and cycling have however been painfully slow in delivery. The Public Transport Fund is stuck at £30 million per annum this year, rail re-openings remain halted, and the Labour Party's manifesto commitment to "extend support for cycling and walking" has yet to be delivered on.

(3) Five reasons why the M74 is wrong.

1. There has been no appraisal of alternatives to more motorway-building.
This means that we don't know if there are value-for-money alternatives to road construction; by failing to do so, the Executive is failing to seek 'Best Value' in transport investment in the city.

Boyack's statement in the Parliament last November called on the Councils to look at the alternatives: "I will be urging the councils to address environmental concerns about the proposal and to undertake a multi-modal study to identify whether there are options to reduce the scale of the road" (04/11/99). This has not been done.

2. The road goes against the Executive's own guidance to local authorities.
Local authorities "should review alternative transport solutions in the area. These strategies should have as one of their main objectives a reduction in the use of cars for commuting purposes." (Strategic Roads Review document, November 1999). This has not been done.

3. The road will cause traffic level in Glasgow to rise.
It has long been accepted that new roads generate new traffic. Last November, the Executive concluded that:

" The location of the scheme, cutting into the heart of a highly-populated conurbation, means that a major part of its function would be to serve local, as opposed to strategic, traffic. ... suggests that there would be very substantial volumes of car commuting on the route."

The road will encourage people to use cars rather than public transport to travel in to Glasgow; the road will encourage people to locate further from Glasgow because of reduced travel times (at least in the short- to medium-run until traffic levels rise).

4. There has been no credible economic impact assessment.
There has been no credible independent analysis of what else could be done with £307M to bring about economic regeneration in the south side of Glasgow. The research done by Scottish Enterprise was found to be out-of-date and misleading. Our critique is available at http://www.transformscotland.org.uk/news/campaigns/M74.html

5. The scheme is bad value for Glasgow residents.
Glasgow residents will have to put up with higher traffic levels, more pollution, more community severance - but the majority of Glasgow residents will never use the new road. In Glasgow, car ownership "remains significantly lower than the Scottish or UK average at 218 per 1000 population" ('Keep Glasgow Moving', GCC, 1998: 14). The road will be used to further support affluent car commuters to the city rather than the residents of the city.

For more information see 'The case against the M74 Northern Extension' at http://www.transformscotland.org.uk/news/campaigns/M74.html

or 'Joint Action against the M74' at http://www.geocities.com/jam74_uk

END OF PRESS RELEASE