r/Glasgow Tools

Title
Author	eenbiertje
Comment	Sorry I'll be more specific. I mean provision in terms of coverage. In terms of number of bus routes, suburban train routes, and yes, the dinky wee subway circle (only 2 other cities in the UK have something similar). I stand by what I say. They're assets that add up to a high level of provision even by European standards. Fair enough we don't have a tram network, as is the norm in many mainland European cities, but this was largely replaced by the subsequent bus lines in Glasgow. Service quality is another matter entirely and I'm totally with you there. As is the lack of integration between the different modes. The subway hadn't been expanded for a lot of key reasons: * The combination of train lines, trams and later trolley buses served a lot of the potential routes, at much lower capital cost than excavating a subway tunnel. * Demand for the subway peaked around the 1950s, tumbling ever since. There was never a business case for expanding it after WWII. This of course is due to the rise of car ownership, something encouraged by central government through the 50s-present day. Billions spent on motorways, expressways and upgrading of roads. Also coincident with the dispersal of Glasgows population to the far edges of the city region over the 60s and 70s - meaning people were better served by train and, unfortunately by car, than by metro/subway. The de-densifying of Glasgow killed the case for a subway expansion essentially. * The unique track gauge of Glasgow's subway makes it an expensive prospect in any case, though not impossible. But another reason why it's been historically difficult to get subway expansion plans off the ground.
Reddit Link	https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/racjc0/lets_use_those_little_plastic_bits_so_the/hnq5wxs/
Created	Wed 8th Dec 2021 3:26pm
Status	normal ()

Sorry I'll be more specific. I mean provision in terms of coverage. In terms of number of bus routes, suburban train routes, and yes, the dinky wee subway circle (only 2 other cities in the UK have something similar). I stand by what I say. They're assets that add up to a high level of provision even by European standards. Fair enough we don't have a tram network, as is the norm in many mainland European cities, but this was largely replaced by the subsequent bus lines in Glasgow.

Service quality is another matter entirely and I'm totally with you there. As is the lack of integration between the different modes.

The subway hadn't been expanded for a lot of key reasons:

* The combination of train lines, trams and later trolley buses served a lot of the potential routes, at much lower capital cost than excavating a subway tunnel.

* Demand for the subway peaked around the 1950s, tumbling ever since. There was never a business case for expanding it after WWII. This of course is due to the rise of car ownership, something encouraged by central government through the 50s-present day. Billions spent on motorways, expressways and upgrading of roads. Also coincident with the dispersal of Glasgows population to the far edges of the city region over the 60s and 70s - meaning people were better served by train and, unfortunately by car, than by metro/subway. The de-densifying of Glasgow killed the case for a subway expansion essentially.

* The unique track gauge of Glasgow's subway makes it an expensive prospect in any case, though not impossible. But another reason why it's been historically difficult to get subway expansion plans off the ground.