r/Glasgow Tools

Scunnered20

Last 12 months	Total	Deleted	Removed
Reddit URL	https://www.reddit.com/user/Scunnered20
r/Glasgow posts	4	0	0
r/glasgow comments	706	0	0

Interests:

Sorry to be that guy but make sure you report it. Pal of mine works in a city centre business that was doing this. Seagulls were ripping the bags to shreds and neighbours cleaning it up, so as far as his business knew the bags were being collected and there was no issue. Letter from the neighbours and they've not done it since. by Scunnered20 (Sun 7th Aug 2022 10:36am)

Just to nip this in the bud. The council is planning to spend something in the region of £10m over the coming 6 months to a year on road surfaces repair. It's being delivered relatively sneakily through a fund designed specifically for neighbourhood improvement projects (NIIF, Neighborhood Improvement Investment Fund). But the repairs are coming. Loads of money is spent maintaining and constructing road infrastructure. So with this said, let's welcome some timely investment in transport infrastructure too. by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 10:14am)

Well, that's the timescale being talked about for delivering ~10 new light rail lines, all the necessary tunnels, recalibrating some existing heavy rail lines to light rail, and potentially building major interchange stations at West Street, Govan and elsewhere. It doesn't just happen overnight. by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 10:29am)

Down to budgets isn't it. Also lots of European cities that you might cite as examples to follow (Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Porto), their metros are also works in progress being added to incrementally year by year. They started earlier than us and are reaping the rewards sooner. But it still takes time and funding to make it happen. by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 12:16pm)

Was costed at roughly £2.2 billion around 2007ish for a second subway loop. Likely double that and you're close to the cost today. For that money, as Mr Yermawshole says, you build an entire light rail network and even a couple of interchange hubs with existing rail and subway stations. Definitely more bang for your buck that way, plus it can be built incrementally. One of the many benefits of a light rail network is you build it piece by piece, and that each piece can serve places that might otherwise be awkward or hard to justify serving with an out-and-out subway line / circle. You've simply got more flexibility with where you place the lines. Places like Castlemilk for example, which I think is included in the Metro plans, but would likely be left behind by a subway loop for the east end. by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 12:57pm)

A couple of reasons. Heavy rail is extremely costly to run, and only becomes cost effective when serving large numbers of passengers over long distances. Largely down to the fact trains are heavy, and take a lot of energy (and time) to accelerate and decelerate. This means there's only so many stops you can put on a train line before it stops making sense in terms of journey times. Some lines in Glasgow work fine as heavy rail, economically speaking. But some, like the Cathcart Circle for example, are at the higher end of cost inefficiencies and limits in terms of numbers of services. By regrading lines like these to light rail (something like trams or light subway style trains) you can amp up the number of trains per hour and journey times. by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 1:08pm)

But... these are real plans? by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 1:20pm)

Mmm that's not really what's happening. The concept was suggested by a city transportation commission about four years ago. That's maybe you first heard of it. Next major step was the plan being submitted to Transport Scotland for inclusion in their 10-year project planning assessment. The bid for this and the subsequent inclusion in Transport Scotland's strategic project review both generated further news coverage which may also be something you heard. Along the way, the city has understandably tried to beat the drum for the project in an attempt to get support (and importantly, funding) guaranteed by the Scottish Government. So it was raised at COP26 and on a few other occasions, generating further news coverage. The plans are now being worked on, with some of the budgets already assigned. by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 1:35pm)

I think this is almost what is planned, except the interchange would be at West Street, connecting Cathcart Circle lines, Paisley Canal, and the subway circle. by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 1:45pm)

Yes I think that interchange might've been included in any Glasgow Crossrail plans had they happened. GC isn't going to happen, but if some of the lines are converted to light rail, a similar interchange with the subway could be explored. by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 2:38pm)

Or... do both? Some of the things you suggested are in the process of happening now. It's okay, in fact it's necessary, to also plan for the next 20-30 years. If you don't start that process now, it won't be 20 years until it's all built, but more like 40, or 60. by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 3:13pm)

You can if it's all going to be on the same unified track gauge (width between rails) but I don't know that's what the plans call for. Some light rail networks use a smaller gauge, as does the Glasgow Subway (one of the smallest in the world). by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 3:53pm)

Autonomous self driving cars may have a a role to play, but when you're looking at moving large numbers of people within cities, single occupancy vehicles are hugely inefficient. In the simple sense that there isn't enough space for everyone to use one. Public transport will continue to be very relevant even as driving changes and adapts to technological change, simply because it is better at moving more people. by Scunnered20 (Tue 9th Aug 2022 5:08pm)

Not claiming this is going to be delivered quickly, but it is at least promising that Glasgow City Council is working on a River Strategy to dramatically improve the embankments on both sides of the river, from Glasgow Green down to Patrick. It overlaps with a few already-existing projects, which are only now getting up and running, like the Clyde Street and South Portland Street 'Avenue' designs, and a rebuild of Windmillcroft Quay complete with walking & footpaths. The continued problem is that the further east you go, from Broomielaw onwards basically, all the land is privately owned by Peel Ports. And so any developments happen largely at their whim. The council is at least getting organised in what it is asking for though, and seems to be working with the land owners on some good plans. There's a lot of good stuff in the pipeline. Being delivered at a snail's pace, but it is there. Keep an eye out for news on this. by Scunnered20 (Thu 11th Aug 2022 1:31pm)

The new tram line in Edinburgh is progressing very well to be honest. On time and on budget. I read this week that the track bed for the whole route is 80% complete. The debacle of the first tram line has cast a long shadow over any projects, but the current tram line project is showing it can be done properly. Hopefully Glasgow won't be far behind with the first Metro line. by Scunnered20 (Thu 11th Aug 2022 1:36pm)

> There seem to be no plans for more/improved public transport? Whether trams, trains or the subway - no long-term planning to improve things as far as I can see? There's quite a lot planned. Couple of links to things below. The council just launched its first draft of the new city centre transport plan, this time officially titled Glasgow City Centre Transformation Strategy. This is focused on recalibrating the city centre around the widely accepted transport hierarchy, with pedestrians, wheelchair users and cyclists above private vehicles: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/city-centre-transformation-plan Just last year, the city released its overarching city-wide Transport Strategy, dealing with more strategic aims for the city's transport system up to 2030. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/transportstrategy Also last year, the city launched its new Active Travel Strategy, the headline of which is the commitment (and detailed plan) to deliver a comprehensive cycling network by 2030. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/activetravel Click "City Network" on the page linked above and you'll get a download link for the delivery strategy which contains a lot of detailed info on what's coming in the next couple years. by Scunnered20 (Thu 11th Aug 2022 1:48pm)

That pic is one of the example images given in the Connectivity Commission report back in 2019. From memory they included three different visuals, each in a different part of the city and each with a different style of light rapid transport vehicle - just to illustrate that there are different options available. I think that specific image is literally just a Copenhagen metro vehicle, which, again from memory, the commission recommended as the better option to serve a future Airport line that passes through the QEUH. That's to do with much of that route being better suited to off-street running rather than on-street running. It's an open question which format(s) of vehicles we'll end up with. by Scunnered20 (Thu 11th Aug 2022 2:42pm)

I don't think the majority view among advocates of that is full on and immediate "removal". More a regrading of the route step by step over the course of a number of years, eventually building towards it being turned into a standard urban boulevard, with the adjacent land (currently used for sliproads and supporting structures) used for development. This process may begin with a downgrading of the route between Tradeston and Townhead to "expressway" status, with a slightly lower speed limit to match. This would likely coincide with signage and GPS / sat nav labelling being updated, so that drivers are encouraged to bypass the city via the M74 - M73 route, as appropriate. At the same time, the Scottish Government has a target of reducing car miles by 20% by 2030. Glasgow City Council has a target of 30% reduction by 2030. Both are bringing forward policies in support of this: improvements to public transport and yes, deterrents to driving in some instances. Not enough perhaps, but there are changes coming. Whether it'll result in those 20% and 30% targets being met is an open question. But the next 10 years will see a concerted push to get people out of single occupancy vehicles and into more efficient, environmentally friendly modes of transport. We may also see road pricing come into place in a national context, as the UK treasury attempts to claw back the budget hole which will be created once everyone abandons internal combustion engine vehicles and therefore don't pay fuel duty. With the ability to price road use, the relevant authorities then have an incredibly powerful tool to move traffic where they want and directly affect road demand. So, a lot still to be unlocked so to speak, but what seems fantasy could well be done in the course of 10-15 years. by Scunnered20 (Thu 11th Aug 2022 5:11pm)

Not quite. Patterson is pretty much on the outskirts of Newton Mearns. An option is to run a light rail spur straight along Ayr Road, south of Whitecraigs station. In fact I'm fairly sure that is one of the plans, just from looking over the preliminary metro map published earlier this year. by Scunnered20 (Thu 11th Aug 2022 11:33pm)

Kelvin Walkway. Start at the Botanic Gardens and follow the river towards the Art Galleries and Kelvingrove Park, stopping for a pint at Inn Deep or somewhere else near Kelvinbridge. Not a long walk, maybe 20 or 30 minutes, presuming you don't stop anywhere along the way, but it's a spectacular and overlooked aspect of the city that's often missed by visitors. by Scunnered20 (Mon 15th Aug 2022 10:32pm)

Construction started a month or two back. by Scunnered20 (Wed 17th Aug 2022 5:50pm)

The Buchanan Galleries car park will go in all likelihood, as part of the plan to redevelop much of the site of BG with an open, walkable street plan. Getting rid of the car park will be an important part of this, as currently it's a major physical barrier to connecting everything north of that point to the city core. With Sighthill nearly completed and more development likely around that area, making North Hanover Street an attractive boulevard which connects to Buchanan Street more directly will become more important. That said, there's tonnes of parking provision around the city centre. Loads to spare. The Connectivity Commission report in 2019 highlighted that the existing multistorey car parks dotted around the city centre are dramatically underused, with a minimum of 6,000 free spaces available even at peak times. There's plenty of capacity to play around with parking availability in the city in order to make improvements to the streetscape. by Scunnered20 (Wed 17th Aug 2022 5:57pm)

A better way of doing it is to prevent *through traffic* in the city centre. This is something that's become kind of standard across mainland European cities in recent decades. To be fair, this appears to be what Glasgow City Council is planning for the longer term. The idea being that you can still enter the city centre in a car, but through a combination of modal filters and one way systems, you can't *pass through* it to the other side. Maybe in the very centre you have a totally pedestrianised core, but oftentimes this will be 500-800 metres across, so a very walkable distance. This means drivers are dissuaded against largely unecessary trips by vehicle, freeing up the city centre roads for private vehicle trips which are necessary. by Scunnered20 (Wed 17th Aug 2022 6:02pm)

As a point of curiosity, the modern city centre motorway corridor was never meant to carry the volume of long distance, regional traffic that it does today. That was meant to be the job of the south flank motorway. Unbuilt in it's original form, but effectively what we have now with the M8 - M74 corridor. The M8 running parallel to north street was meant only as a local expressway and feeder road. That's why it was only two lanes in each direction initially, and its profile relatively "skinny" for a motorway. With the M74 connection in place, arguably we're in a position to make that the primary regional east-west route, and begin downgrading of the M8. by Scunnered20 (Wed 17th Aug 2022 6:07pm)

There's a deeply ingrained pessimism, cynicism, fatalism, call it what you want, that I find really hard to accept about Glaswegians. I don't know if it's the same in other cities. By this, I'm not saying everyone should walk around with rose tinted glasses. I'm not even complaining about general criticism of issues (whether that be rubbish on the streets, crime, etc). Cities have issues, and it's up to the people that live here to call it out. That's not what I mean. I mean more that general "gloom and doom", low expectations feeling that you get from a lot of people. How every planned improvement for the city is met with quite widespread cynicism. by Scunnered20 (Wed 17th Aug 2022 6:30pm)

I saw an interesting study a wee while back into people's perceptions of parking availability, specifically around walking distance from car to door. It found that people dramatically over-estimate the walking distance from their car parking space to office, while significantly under-estimating the typical distance they would routinely park at shopping malls (car to shop distance). The same people also significantly overestimated the walking time for each of those foot journeys. by Scunnered20 (Wed 17th Aug 2022 6:37pm)

It's been achieved in many other European cities already with great success, rejuvenating their urban cores. You're right that plans need to mitigate for those that need continued access by private car, but the best plans do. Most cities that have significantly reduced the presence of cars in their cores have done it through a combination of: * Car park provision all around the edge of the zone (Glasgow plans to do this) * Access *into* the core along retained boulevard style access roads (Glasgow seems largely to be planning for this), while using modal filters to direct unnecessary through traffic elsewhere. * Last mile delivery hubs, where large HGVs move goods onto smaller light vehicles for delivery inside the urban core (Glasgow has three of these planned) * Better cycling infrastructure (this is planned for here) * Better public transport (Glasgow has some things in the works) by Scunnered20 (Wed 17th Aug 2022 6:45pm)

The report was done in 2018/19, so that stat predates Covid and widespread hybrid working. It's not even necessarily a bad thing that it's historically underused. It means we have capacity to remove several thousand on-street spaces in the centre, and have had the capacity to do this for quite some time. It just takes a bit of political gumption and bravery to do it. Thankfully we're heading there. by Scunnered20 (Wed 17th Aug 2022 6:53pm)

News story: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29094#:~:text=Glasgow%20City%20Council%20has%20today,with%20increased%20connectivity%20and%20capacity. More info, with links to the online consultation: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/city-centre-transformation-plan by Scunnered20 (Wed 17th Aug 2022 6:56pm)

I don't completely agree... We have the bones (much more than the bones really) of a really comprehensive transport system, one which other cities would kill for. A suburban rail network better than anywhere outside London. Two major train termii. Underground suburban rail lines which run underneath those terminii, and could easily be rebranded as S-Bahn lines. A very broad bus network. A high speed metro on top of that in the form of the Subway, which is more than large cities in the UK have. Where we fall down is in the lack of proper integration in ticketing. Once that's solved, I genuinely think we're on our way to having the best transit system outside of London. The signs are promising that this can be resolved over the next five years it so. The buses will be under one ticketing system soon, with subway to join not long after. Just the trains then it's close to job done. by Scunnered20 (Wed 17th Aug 2022 9:30pm)

Transport Scotland are currently investigating and prioritizing specific routes for the Clyde Metro: a network of rapid transit lines, likely including some street running tram lines, for Glasgow. Should be more detail on the exact route of the first line some time next year. by Scunnered20 (Wed 17th Aug 2022 9:43pm)

I'm struggling to see why this a problem. The fact people were complaining about it on here and it's now had coverage in local media is a good thing, isn't it? by Scunnered20 (Thu 18th Aug 2022 9:34pm)

We're obviously going to disagree on this, but it is a news site, publishing news. My point was simply about them picking up the hogweed story and publishing it, and that not being bad in itself. But I'd go a step further and defend the website itself. It does publish a lot of guff - trash clickbait advertorials on real estate, lots of cringey "remember when" nostalgia content, etc. - but it's also a fair enough source for actual news content. Stuff that wouldn't necessarily appear in it's parent title the Daily Record. by Scunnered20 (Thu 18th Aug 2022 11:34pm)

There are a number of NCP car parks in Glasgow city centre. https://www.ncp.co.uk/parking-solutions/cities/glasgow/. The 4, 5, 6, 31, 75 buses will take you quite close to Hampden (each about a 20 minutes journey), or there's also the train from Central Station to Mount Florida station (about 10 minutes journey). by Scunnered20 (Fri 19th Aug 2022 4:02pm)

I'll agree with you on the necessity of stopping on reds, which shouldn't really be controversial. I cycle a lot and never go through reds, and it really does bug me when I see other cyclists do it. That said, I disagree on the helmet point. It's up to the individual whether they wear a helmet or not. by Scunnered20 (Sun 21st Aug 2022 10:55pm)

I've had a few of my own unpleasant experiences along those lines, of drivers offering unsolicited "advice" on what I and others are wearing on our bikes. One is burned into my mind from a few months back. Me and a friend had a great day out on our bikes cycling all over Glasgow, came back home using the South City Way route on Vicky Road. Sitting at the lights at the incomplete Brazen Head junction, a taxi driver behind us at the lights leaned out and gave us a horrible, tedious rant about us not wearing helmets. I wish I got his plate number, cause it was proper bilious, unsubtle, threatening stuff, warning us about the "need to be careful" from drivers when we're "wobbling about on our wee bikes". He didn't give a fuck about us wearing helmets or not or about our safety. It was his way of saying we had no place being on the road, in front of him and his wee tadger. by Scunnered20 (Sun 21st Aug 2022 11:24pm)

I will wear a helmet if I'm going on a route I think it particularly sketchy. A major arterial road with minimal safe cycling infrastructure maybe, where I know I'll be sharing space with cars for a lot of the time. If it's a shorter distance trip I tend not to. Speaking personally, though I think it might be the same for many others, helmets are just such a faff. I cycle to the shops a lot or other short trips, and carrying the helmet around with you is simply a bit of an inconvenience. I'd rather go without if possible. I also slightly resent the persistent image of cycling as being an extreme sport. I'm not into the high viz, the lycra, helmets, etc. I just want to gently cycle to where I'm going and carry on with my business. Helmets and other paraphernalia are just a bit of a hindrance to that. by Scunnered20 (Sun 21st Aug 2022 11:33pm)

I'll give it some consideration, but honestly I don't know if I will change behaviour all that much. Maybe I'll start to wear one more often for the longer journeys that I don't already. For short five minute trips, I probably won't. Maybe in the fullness of time we'll reach a stage where infrastructure is good enough that we don't need helmets at all, like in some other countries. by Scunnered20 (Mon 22nd Aug 2022 8:58am)

People love to whinge u/LordAnubis12. This is one of the better looking developments I've seen in Glasgow in years. It's a hotel, on the waterfront, close to our main train station... Not sure what's surprising about any of that. On top of that it looks the part. It's a fine use of an eyesore of a gap site. by Scunnered20 (Mon 22nd Aug 2022 7:11pm)

You can have both you know. Plus it's a gap site next to our financial district, waterfront and main train station. I dunno what's so surprising that the landowners have opted to build a hotel here. It's the ideal place for one. We need a mix of hotels, rentable housing, affordable housing even prescribed student housing, to avoid the rental market in the city from overheating. This is fine. by Scunnered20 (Mon 22nd Aug 2022 7:15pm)

However they want to brand it, my point is the gap site is in the exact corner of the city where you'd expect hotels to be built. by Scunnered20 (Mon 22nd Aug 2022 8:59pm)

Yes, pretty much across the board. Speaking generally, we're 12 years deep into real terms wage stagnation across the UK. The UK being an absolute outlier in this by the way among developed countries. And now people are being hit with sudden real terms value cuts to their take home pay of 10%, on top of that existing wage stagnation. I'm surprised the strikes haven't happened sooner. by Scunnered20 (Tue 23rd Aug 2022 6:44pm)

I don't get why people continually talk as if GCC plans every development in the city in some kind of top-down way? That's very far from being the case. We don't live in sim city. This is a proposal for a private development on private land. In fact, the very problem with the riverside and the lack of active use is that swathes of it are owned entirely by private land owners, who've been sitting on the land for decades. by Scunnered20 (Thu 25th Aug 2022 3:55pm)

There is a medium term plan to create a 'south bus hub' somewhere close to the river, which will serve bus routes to the south of the city. Rather than having all buses come and go via Hope Street and Union Street, which in itself creates congestion which slows bus journeys. As far as I know the rough expectation is it will be located near Stockwell Street. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th Aug 2022 12:29am)

More trees! So much of Glasgow is completely barren and windswept. Doesn't need to be that way. If we're able to plant more trees, which dampen wind, provide some form of light shelter from rain and shade on hot days, this could completely change our perception of existing public spaces, especially along the riverside. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th Aug 2022 2:15pm)

Don't think it was for this location. This specific site has been land banked by the landowner for decades, used only as a surface car park in the meantime. You might be thinking of some proposals that came and went for further west along the river, near the Kingston Bridge? It's become a bit of a tried and tested technique, to float speculative development plans to stir interest and valuations of sites. Only to then abandon the plans and continue sitting in the land as the value continues to rise. That's been the story of much of the north bank of the river for the last 50 years. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th Aug 2022 2:22pm)

Yeah, but I think the idea is to ensure that all neighbourhoods in the city become "20 minute neighbourhoods" like those places already successfully are, by fixing issues caused by the last 60 years of planning. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th Aug 2022 2:30pm)

I agree with you on those developments - big missed opportunities, whose main issue is the persistance of residential-only building, with a complete lack of mixed use, particularly along main roads - but this "20 minute neighbourhood" concept is a different thing. It's more about re-imaging and physically redesigning the urban realm to make it easier to active travel between different parts of "one neighbourhood". Something which unfortunately isn't always the case for neighbourhoods across Glasgow. Not to say that it's *impossible* to move around many neighbourhoods. But there are many, many physical barriers in place, whether that be large, borderline un-crossable roads, lack of safe cycling infrastructure, wide bellmouth junctions, anti-pedestrian metal fencing, traffic light sequences which leave pedestrians waiting for 5 minutes at a time, etc. Essentially everything that's come from 60 years of prioritising motor traffic above everything else. The "20 minute neighbourhood" movement represents a move away from that. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th Aug 2022 7:36pm)

To give you some more info on this: most train services to Edinburgh leave Glasgow from Queen Street Station. Historically that's the terminus station which connects Glasgow to other locations in the rest of Scotland. It has three routes to Edinburgh, one of which is an "express" service which has only a few stops in between and takes about 45 mins. Glasgow Central Station generally serves destinations to the south of Glasgow, but there is a service to Edinburgh which passes underneath Glasgow Central via its Lower Level platforms. It's relatively infrequent, and takes a very long time to get to Edinburgh (~1.5hrs), as it stops at many towns and villages in Lanarkshire on the way there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow%E2%80%93Edinburgh_lines by Scunnered20 (Sat 27th Aug 2022 12:58pm)

Aye right you are. Was wrong on that one u/mitchberk by Scunnered20 (Sat 27th Aug 2022 5:37pm)

A largely powerless council. Councils have compulsory purchase powers for property, and it's used sometimes on a case by case basis. For individual buildings or plots that cost £500k-£1m maybe. Happens much less often these days with the price of property though. But taking control over hectares of riverside land, worth billions, owned by a tax exile company? The council has no direct powers on this. AFAIK there exists legislation at Westminster level to allow government ministers to step in and mandate usage of land. Even if the government (UK) were minded to do that, it would come with huge political costs for them. I agree the council could lead on a politicised campaign for better use of the land, demanding that the Scottish Government lends their name to the cause and the UK government ministers step in. It all comes with political costs every step of the way, and if it looks like something that won't happen, I can see why the council doesn't think it's a good use of political capital. GCC seems to have a broad strategy for significant reuse of Clydeside land just now, to be rolled out over the next 10-15 years. I think this won't have been publicised if a behind-the-scenes agreement hadn't already been reached with Peel Ports over some land use. If it works out, we're going to see some movement in the coming years, with developments on vacant land along the north side of the clyde, and potentially some public works, like parkland being developed too. by Scunnered20 (Sat 27th Aug 2022 9:44pm)

No problem. Here's some more info you might find interesting. The council's River Clyde 2050 Strategy, published in 2020. It brings together quite a few overlapping and pre-existing plans, but does state some ambitious stuff on what could and should happen to the riverside over the next few decades. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=49640&p=0 by Scunnered20 (Sat 27th Aug 2022 10:19pm)

What strikes you as idealism? by Scunnered20 (Tue 30th Aug 2022 11:58pm)

A really tautological comment. We're evidently not living in a city like Amsterdam, because we've not taken the brave policy decisions over the course of decades (prioritising public transportation, pedestrians and cycling over private vehicles) which led Amsterdam to be "Amsterdam" as we now know it. The council proposes measures to potentially lead Glasgow to becoming a little more like Amsterdam, but it's criticised as pointless, because... we're not living in Amsterdam? by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 12:02am)

I hear this all the time but it's a really stupid point that people seem to think is some sort of 'gotcha'? Nobody is planning to build mass cycleways up steep hills like Gardner Street or up Montrose Street. Glasgow does however have loads of relatively flat, wide arterial roads which connect neighbourhoods to the city centre and to one another. It's these relatively flat roads which the vast majority of cycle lanes are planned for over the next 10 years. The fundamental difference between here and Amsterdam is the lack of infrastructure - infrastructure which makes it a piece of piss for anyone of any age to hop on a bike in Amsterdam and go where they like safely. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 12:05am)

Not being cheeky, just wanting to get a sense of how (and if) this affects your travel decisions: If it's now a twenty minute drive and a twenty minute walk, would it be at all tempting to get a bus which might take less than 40 mins, and might even be cheaper than parking? by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 12:11am)

The more I think about it, the more I think the council is right to just lean in on not appeasing people who want to treat the city centre like one big shopping mall. Redesign it for living in and prioritise all new regeneration, transport and urban realm planning on the city centre for those people that will be living there (as the council thankfully now seems to be doing). The city centre will fill up with residents and the place will take care of itself. The rest can continue to whinge online about being banished or stigmatised or whatever. Meanwhile the city centre can carry on changing for the better. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 12:17am)

The council has a well documented policy framework of increasing the cost of car travel going back a few years now, in order to reduce the number of single-use vehicles on city centre streets (making the city centre more attractive to spend time) and importantly, to improve bus journey times which have cratered over the last 20 years as the number of cars on streets has nearly doubled. Scotland has a national objective of reducing car journeys by 20% by 2030. Glasgow an even more ambitious target of reducing car journeys by 30% by 2030. This isn't money-grabbing. It's part of a well publicised set of policy objectives. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 12:23am)

In Nottingham the money raised from increased parking charges has been funneled directly into public transport improvements, including their bus services and tram lines. The idea is the same here, with quite a lot of infrastructure works planned to improve bus services in Glasgow over the next five years. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 1:38am)

This is the best advice. It's recommended in the highway code that cyclists ride in primary position when possible. I used to not really understand why and be very nervous about doing it, but through a bit of experience I've come to realize it's a basic necessity when cycling on the roads. If you cycle close to the pavement you invite close passes. Even worse, it can invite cars to attempt sketchy overtakes when there's plainly no room in the oncoming lane. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 12:52pm)

The thing I'm finding worst when going about town is drivers barely ever following the new rules in the highway code about giving way when turning onto side streets. Cars vans and HGVs constantly just swinging round corners without looking as you're trying to cross. Or when you're on a bike, it's sometimes like you might as well not exist. I'm finding a lot of drivers continually just swinging across the full lane I'll be riding in, in order to make a turn. If I was in a car I doubt they'd do the same thing. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 1:08pm)

I think those couple of things (on street play parks and gyms, like you see dotted around parks now) are extremely doable. As easy as reclaiming some street space and converting it into a pocket park. It's been done in cities all over the world the last few years. These things will likely be possible within the pedestrianised zone the council is planning. I don't see what's so idealistic about building the cycling infrastructure itself. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 1:48pm)

I disagree with this in a hard and fast sense. Ideally people wouldn't be on bikes on pavements, but there are instances where I wouldn't blame anyone for riding gently on a pavement to avoid a nasty stretch of road. On occasion riding on a pavement for a short stretch is the only way to access quiet routes, or to avoid incredibly unpleasant junctions. There are also a lot of designated shared space pavements in Glasgow which are part of the nominal cycling network. In all instances people on bikes should ride extremely cautiously and provide pedestrians with space, if riding on the road can't be avoided. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 3:42pm)

Broadly agree. I just mean that I wouldnt say it should never ever happen. If it does, the cyclist should only be there as a near last resort, and as you say, be travelling extremely slowly. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 5:23pm)

I find that those types of cars (big white or black SUVs) are usually a very very good indicator that the person driving is someone worth keeping distance from when I'm on a bike. My cycle home takes me past a massive wide side street junction, which you can see up for hundreds of metres as you approach on the main road. And my heart sinks every time I see one of those cars belting down it towards me, cause I know I'm 95% guaranteed to have them drive right out in front of me without stopping at the give way line. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 7:36pm)

I replied to meepmeep13 in this thread on this point, but I genuinely don't begrudge cyclists from using pavements if they really need to. Ideally they wouldn't need to, ever. But often I think it's reasonable for people to cycle very gently on short stretches of pavement to avoid dangerous intimidating junctions or nasty stretches of road. Finnieston Street is a good example - a long, wide street with fast vehicle traffic coming and going from the Expressway. I wouldn't begrudge anyone choosing to cycle up the pavement there. Even more so when you consider it's an isolated route with very few alternatives nearby. Sometimes coasting along a little bit of pavement is also necessary as a way of accessing "quiet routes", which can't be accessed any other way. Also, it's important to know that there are some pavements in Glasgow which are designated shared space pavements for pedestrians & bikes. These are listed on official maps of the city's cycling network. So I don't agree with the 'never ever' point of view. Any time a cyclist is on a pavement though, they should very definitely give space to pedestrians and move cautiously and carefully. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 7:42pm)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKJ2a7sCMAMlAXS.jpg:large by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 8:11pm)

It's against the law, but I'm just stating my opinion that it probably shouldn't be. I know you disagree with this, and lots of others will too. But I think pragmatically until we're in a position where cyclists of all ages, (dis)abilities and confidence levels have segregated infrastructure to depend on, I'm relatively sympathetic to people choosing to use pavements. So long as it's sparingly and as little as possible. To be clear, I am not supporting people having a right to speed down pavements full throttle as if it were a cycle lane, as so often happens with delivery riders. If and when cyclists need to use pavements, they should be as cautious as possible, proceed very slowly and give plenty of space to pedestrians. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 8:17pm)

Quite steep, but in slight defence of the eBike pricing, I think the reason for it being a high £30 cap is to deter people from hiring them out for the full day, as they're quite limited in number. A non-eBike caps at something like £10 for 24 hours, so even though an eBike is £2 per half hour and a regular bike is £1 per half hour, the eBike rental price escalates a fair amount for each added hour of use. You weren't to know, but I think at least that's part of the rationale behind the pricing. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st Aug 2022 9:11pm)

It was planned months and months ago, while we were still in the midst of Covid, as a way of boosting spend in local shops and helping out the economic recovery. (It's branded as a Glasgow thing, but the money comes from both Scottish and UK Govt budgets AFAIK. It's a top down initiative from central government in that sense. Gift cards are so being distributed across other UK council areas). Remember, things were utterly grim for quite some time for retail and hospitality, and projections were also fairly scary for how we would come out the other side. It's been exceptionally slow in being delivered, so slow that it now looks like one of the worst things you could do in an inflationary economy. Still, it's slightly helpful for businesses which are struggling with energy bills. Would've been better, or made a bit more sense at least if it was delivered about 9 months ago. by Scunnered20 (Thu 1st Sep 2022 7:58pm)

The story OP linked to is on road.cc, a site that specializes in cycling news, so it's reasonable enough they wouldn't immediately explain what a bike bus is. They'd probably assume their main readership is familiar with it. It's been covered elsewhere though, like here in The I, which has a paragraph explaining what a "bike bus" is: https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/glasgow-children-cycling-school-stop-traffic-wireless-device-1830534 by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Sep 2022 6:08pm)

Bit of an odd criticism. They use a route which picks up kids from their own streets along the way. So it necessary weaves through back streets, where the kids live (also helpful as a way of avoiding as much traffic as possible, except for where they cross main roads). Pollokshaws Road, Minard Road and Titwood Road are to get cycle lanes as part of the planned city network for 2030. Potentially once that's done a bike bus will be obsolete as the kids will then be able to cycle safely along the main arterial roads direct to school. by Scunnered20 (Sat 3rd Sep 2022 11:07am)

Hmm, the way you describe this it's like there's been an active societal choice to replace out of town shopping with internet shopping, rather than the reality that internet shopping is simply a global phenomenon that is happening anyway and sweeping all before it. The difference between out of town shopping centres becoming desolate hell holes and towns/city centres becoming desolate hell holes is that it doesn't impact people a great deal when out of town shopping centres fail. Not in the same way all-encompassing, hard to ignore way as when towns/city centres fail (which we were happy to allow with the advent of out of town shopping a couple of decades ago). IMO we shouldn't get too worked up about the eventual decline of out of town shopping centres. The genie is out of the bottle with internet shopping and home delivery, but that doesn't mean we should let our towns & cities continue to rot, especially if it means choosing to put out of town shopping centres on some sort of life support. Which would only harm our dwindling towns and city centres even more. Embrace the decline of out of town shopping centres, and allow what retail is commercially viable to relocate to town centres. by Scunnered20 (Sun 4th Sep 2022 9:30pm)

Pollokshaws Road is in the plan for a city network of segregated cycling lanes by 2030. Whether it's delivered by then I dunno, but it is planned. Conceivably the bike bus could simply travel along Pollokshaws Road and access the school via Eastwood Avenue or via the vehicle free side street that will be created as part of the Arcade redevelopment plans. But even if they don't go that route, what's the problem? by Scunnered20 (Mon 5th Sep 2022 10:26pm)

Cause the riverside is owned by private landowners (Peel Ports) from the Broomielaw all the way down to Yoker. Nothing happens without their say so or without them instigating it. Whether that be the development of the SECC, or the construction of housing at Glasgow Harbour, or something as small as using the car park they own next to the Casino as a pop-up bar. They're happy to sit on the land and see it rise in value, syphoning off token pieces of it here and there as the years pass. by Scunnered20 (Mon 5th Sep 2022 10:30pm)

I'm not sure Peel Ports own that stretch of the Clydeside. They do own pretty much everything west of the Kingston Bridge though. by Scunnered20 (Tue 6th Sep 2022 11:16am)

I raised this point in another thread about other redevelopment plans recently: the council doesn't own every site & decide on every bit of planning in the city. It's not a top down approach. Development plans come and go depending on the whims of specific landowners. The site of Buchanan Galleries is owned privately, and the owners have reached the conclusion that the structure in its current form isn't a money spinner for them any more, not in the medium to longer term. Build-to-rent property is quickly becoming a surer bet for returns for landowners than a bulking mass of retail units which are become harder and harder to find tenants for. It's something that's happening in other cities across the world too, with privately owned shopping centres being transformed in one degree or another to homes, mixed use retail / hospitality hot spots, etc. Anything to keep the site more viable in the longer term for the owners. The big benefits of the Buchanan Galleries plan will be: * Injecting a huge number of residents into the city centre, which can only help support other nearby on-street retail and make the city a more welcoming, inviting, successful place. * It removes a couple of significant physical (and consequently mental) barriers between parts of that corner of the city. North Hanover Street is going to become the main avenue in and out of the city from the new Sighthill estate, and lots more medium density housing is planned in that industrial area around Townhead too. At the moment Buchanan Galleries and the car park structures block easy access to Buchanan Street and other nearby streets. It also is in the way between Queen Street and the bus station. Reconfiguring the site will allow for much better connections between things on either side of it. by Scunnered20 (Fri 9th Sep 2022 7:44am)

Exactly. We've clearly reached the inflection point where landowners reflect that single-use retail hubs are not the money spinners they once were in terms of guaranteed rental income. Build to rent housing is a much surer bet for continued income. The owners of Buchanan Galleries, St Enoch Centre, Shawlands Arcade (and from what I hear, potentially Glasgow Fort) have all reached that conclusion separately. It bodes well for the city centre though. Mixed use space with a focus on residential is only good for making the city centre more (economically) sustainable for decades to come. Not to mention the physical and mental impact that redrawing streets will have and breaking up monolithic retail blocks will have. by Scunnered20 (Fri 9th Sep 2022 7:48am)

I suggested this in another similar thread recently: Visit the Kelvin Walkway. I'd recommend this to anyone visiting the city, especially if they're planning to go to Kelvingrove Museum anyway. Start at the Botanic Gardens (Hillhead Subway station is close by). Head down the back of the gardens. There are steps which lead down through the the trees down to the River Kelvin below (look for signs saying "Kelvin Walkway"). Follow the river southwards towards the Art Galleries and Kelvingrove Park, stopping for a pint at Inn Deep or somewhere else near Kelvinbridge or Great Western Road. Not a long walk, maybe 30 minutes to an hour, presuming you don't stop anywhere along the way, but it's a spectacular and overlooked aspect of the city that's often missed by visitors. The route takes you underneath huge Victorian bridges and takes you through Kelvingrove Park, maybe the city's nicest park. I'd take it slow, and stop by other nearby places on the way to Kelvingrove Museum. The (Park district)[https://maps.app.goo.gl/LwbVFL8SySRZ6frf9] is worth a wander and has great views. by Scunnered20 (Sat 10th Sep 2022 9:19am)

Best thing you can do is complain to: * [First Bus](https://www.firstbus.co.uk/content/id-make-complaint) * [SPT](https://www.spt.co.uk/contact-us/complaints/) * Most importantly, [each of your ward councillors](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/councillorsandcommittees/allMembers.asp?sort=2&page=0&rec=84) I'd urge everyone else to get into the habit of doing the same. If everyone does this every time this happens, we'll arrive at a place when we have better bus services much sooner than otherwise. by Scunnered20 (Sat 10th Sep 2022 7:42pm)

A significant portion of the land adjacent to the Clyde is owned by Peel Ports, a private company and inheritor of the portfolio of land previously overseen by the Clyde Navigation Trust, which was established in the 1800s as a public-private body with powers to manage growth of industry along the Clyde at the height of Glasgow's mercantile expansion. The land is still privately owned. And nothing happens on this former industrial land without it being the desire of the landowners. On occasion, it has been parcelled up for specific uses: the biggest probably being the construction of the SECC site in the 1980s. Since then there's been the construction of housing at Glasgow Harbour and some commercial developments around Finnieston and Anderston. Developments only arise on this land when it suits the landowners to do so. There's currently talk of a few new developments on notable gap sites along the river, housing at [Yorkhill Quay](https://www.urbanrealm.com/news/9392/Yorkhill_Quay_evolution_trades_scale_for_uniformity.html) and even [a waterpark facing onto the Transport Museum](https://www.urbanrealm.com/news/9726/Peel_pivot_from_retail_to_wellbeing_at_Glasgow_Waters.html). Sometimes these ideas are simply thrown around to help further inflate land values. The Yorkhill Quay scheme looks like it is going ahead though. by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Sep 2022 12:03am)

It can sometimes be more valuable to simply sit on land and watch its price inflate over years or even decades. If the parcel of land is bundled into part of a pension or hedge fund for example, it may make more financial sense to leave it empty rather than build on it. By building on it (whether with housing or retail or whatever) you lock in the value so to speak at that point in time. It becomes housing, and so loses a huge chunk of sell-on value. The owners then miss out on future price speculation on the value of the asset (the parcel of as yet unused land). by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Sep 2022 12:07am)

On the face of it it sounds like something has gone wrong with the backend of First's point of sale system in your case. I've personally had zero issues with Tap On Tap Off. I've heard of a couple of people being charged incorrectly over the course of a couple of days (maybe double charged for one time they swiped or something like that), but I've not heard of that happening. Sounds like you got unlucky and their system is to blame. Get in touch and get a refund. by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Sep 2022 12:19pm)

I've taken to not tapping off (to avoid the fuss of it when I'm getting off the bus) and it seems to have no discernible effect on what I'm charged. If you're taking short journeys under 5 stops, and so only costing £1.85 per trip or whatever it is, I'd make sure to swipe off so you're not charged the full £2.65. But otherwise, there's no real need to bother tapping off. I find it pretty useful overall to be honest. by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Sep 2022 12:23pm)

I only tap off if I'm making a short journey (<5 stops) and want to make sure I'm charged £1.85, and not the full £2.65. You're tapping off to let the system know you've finished your journey, so it knows what to charge you. If you've already passed the low fare threshold, there's no point in tapping off. by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Sep 2022 12:26pm)

Unfortunately you're right about this. The bus stop naming convention is all over the place in Glasgow. It's only in recent years that they've started to be named (mostly, but not always) after the nearest side street, but this is very inconsistent, with some stops named after the main road itself or in very rare cases after a nearby landmark. Unfortunately it's not a consistent system that anyone can rely on, whether asking for a ticket to somewhere, or knowing where you are or where you're getting off the bus. It also doesn't help that our buses don't have route diagrams inside, detailing the name of all stops along the route, which is common in many other cities and countries. Because we don't have this, people don't tend to "learn" the official name of their local bus stop. It's all very ad hoc and a bit of a mess. Google Maps can be helpful on your phone. If you tap on the icon for a bus stop, it overlays coloured route lines for all buses that pass by that stop. Can be useful for knowing exactly what route your bus is taking. by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Sep 2022 12:35pm)

That's roughly what's planned: https://bylines.scot/business/transport-business/the-clyde-metro-green-transport-for-glasgow-to-bring-investment/ by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Sep 2022 2:20pm)

Aye, that's a good tip. by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Sep 2022 10:01pm)

Good shout. I'll probably try to do it from now on then. by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Sep 2022 11:58pm)

If the North Clyde line which runs under Queen Street were branded as a subway rather than heavy rail, we'd be able to definitively say we had the 2nd oldest subway in the world. It predates any rail line running under an urban area anywhere, except for parts of the original Metropolitan line in London, some of which are now defunct. by Scunnered20 (Mon 12th Sep 2022 6:02pm)

Nope. People are pointing to the ZoneCard, but that's a prepaid weekly/monthly card. You need to go to a ticket office to get it and use photo ID. It's not a substitute for a single transport card that you can top up and use on whatever mode, whenever you need it. Which we don't have unfortunately. by Scunnered20 (Mon 12th Sep 2022 6:09pm)

Not the same thing. It serves a purpose but is a far cry from a flexible travel card that you can top up. by Scunnered20 (Mon 12th Sep 2022 6:11pm)

Honestly, the best way of buying tickets now is using tap on tap off with your bank card (only works on First buses at the moment). It caps what you pay per day or over the course of a week, and you avoid being stuck with a physical/mobile weekly or monthly travel card. by Scunnered20 (Thu 15th Sep 2022 7:34am)

No, they're recording the volume of vehicles on some routes ahead of planned improvements to streets across Battlefield. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/81d55a36d6a642a7bc0edeceea8bc6ec by Scunnered20 (Sun 18th Sep 2022 12:54am)

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/81d55a36d6a642a7bc0edeceea8bc6ec by Scunnered20 (Sun 18th Sep 2022 12:55am)

This is covered by Resident's Visitors Vouchers. >There is a minimum purchase of 1 book of visitor’s vouchers, containing 5 individual permits, at a cost of £10. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=26481 Maybe not enough people know about this, but the council has made provision for people having visitors arrive in the area by car. by Scunnered20 (Mon 19th Sep 2022 7:24pm)

Record Fayre near Trongate. You'll find tonnes of stuff there. by Scunnered20 (Fri 23rd Sep 2022 3:56pm)

https://freebus.scot/ by Scunnered20 (Sun 25th Sep 2022 9:27pm)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Act_1985 by Scunnered20 (Mon 26th Sep 2022 10:05am)

No sorry, can't seem to find it on the council website, just this direct link to the survey which they shared on social media. I'll keep having a look and update if I find it. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Sep 2022 2:58pm)

Unfortunately the plan as envisioned doesn't include a full cap directly in front of the Mitchell. Only the block between Sauchiehall Street and Bath Street and a small extension towards the Mitchell Library. I've included the need for any cap to go further south in my response. The push back on this is always that the motorway rises there to pass over the railway line underneath, and that any street level cap would therefore be impossible. In that case, we shouldn't rule out a sloping cap of some kind that matches the gradient of the motorway below. However it's done, it seems important to me that a cap of some form is eventually delivered for directly in front of the Mitchell, even if we need to get a bit creative with how that looks. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Sep 2022 3:32pm)

I think that's because the council has already consulted on the idea of doing it, and people indicated they supported it. This is on another layer of detail around what the actual project design should look like and what it should incorporate. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Sep 2022 4:47pm)

Agreed, that's what I suggested in the survey. You could be imaginative with the space and incorporate any gradient rise into seating for a pavilion or public arena type area, similar to Kelvingrove or Queens Park bandstands. Just because a cap can't be flat doesn't mean we shouldn't block the exploration of more creative options. Lowering the railway and then the motorway itself just to accommodate a flat cap at that location would be *possible*, but insanely expensive. A cheaper way round it is simply to accept we have that gradient and incorporate it into a cap. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Sep 2022 5:21pm)

Depends, are you a resident or just visiting the area for some reason? If you're visiting someone in the area they can get a Visitor Pass pretty cheaply to give to you for 6 hrs parking. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=26481 If you're just stopping by the area for another reason, you could get a bus or train or walk from the subway. by Scunnered20 (Sat 1st Oct 2022 3:04pm)

I suspect this is what happened to OP. Doesn't excuse the cyclist being an arsehole, but a common sense thing to do is to cycle on the left side of a path. Simply because you don't want to career into bikes coming the other way. by Scunnered20 (Thu 13th Oct 2022 12:56am)

Trying purely to try and understand what the cyclist was thinking: it's possible they were trying to stick to the left side of the path. The clydeside one is a busy route for bikes, and so cyclists are often in the habit of sticking to the left side of the path wherever possible to avoid clashing with oncoming bikes every few seconds. That doesn't excuse them riding aggressively towards you or challenging you in some way, if this is what happened. I also accept it's inconvenient bordering on unreasonable to assume pedestrians should walk on certain portions of the path but not others. It's not a good situation, and ultimately, pedestrians are at the top of the hierarchy so cyclists should always in the end give way and gently cycle around pedestrians in moments like this. Like I say though, just trying to think of a possible explanation for this having happened. by Scunnered20 (Thu 13th Oct 2022 1:04am)

OP was on an official shared use path, so no. by Scunnered20 (Thu 13th Oct 2022 6:23pm)

As u/Professional_Jury_88 says, I'm always in two minds when I need to use my bell. Half the time when I use it when approaching pedestrians it makes things worse, either by panicking them and encouraging them to move directly into the space I am cycling towards (beside where they were walking), or in rarer circumstances soliciting an annoyed or even abusive response. This is nearly always when going at quite a slow speed I should add. It's hard to know what to do sometimes. by Scunnered20 (Thu 13th Oct 2022 6:27pm)

Agree with much of the sentiment in this thread, but for a change of pace: anyone come across any good buskers lately? Best one I've seen lately is the older guy who stands near Waterstones on Sauchiehall Street playing folk tunes and older 60s pop songs. Usually on weekdays. The claranet guy was good too. Used to hang about the Royal Exchange Square corner of Buchanan Street on Friday nights. by Scunnered20 (Fri 14th Oct 2022 2:09pm)

Should you have been driving if you were that knackered after a 12 hour night shift? by Scunnered20 (Wed 19th Oct 2022 6:09pm)

The original post was deleted: https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/42qwc8/deleted_by_user/ But whoever did it set up a blog with the results here: https://gisforthought.com/glasgow-regions-mapped-progress-update-1/ by Scunnered20 (Sun 23rd Oct 2022 5:12pm)

100% agree with joining a club or group through uni. Even if it's something you're only slightly interested in, it's worth giving things a shot. Everyone's in the same boat in first year of uni, getting used to a new city, without any ties or close friends. Give different things a go with an open mind and you'll most likely meet people. I didn't get involved in any societies until late on (in 3rd and 4th year) and met some good people, but always wish I'd done it earlier. by Scunnered20 (Mon 24th Oct 2022 8:44pm)

Honest mate, you should report it to the police immediately, even if it was story from a plumber from a year ago. We're potentially talking modern slavery shit here. by Scunnered20 (Wed 26th Oct 2022 8:38pm)

I think it's mostly flats, and modern townhouse type stuff, even if they're not totally tenement style density. by Scunnered20 (Fri 28th Oct 2022 4:51pm)

This comes up every now and again, so a couple of points: * Nobody, and I mean nobody calls it the Clockwork Orange. Just had to be said. * An extension of what we know as the existing subway circle is probably never going to happen. The 2006 proposal was costed at roughly £2 billion. That was pre-financial crash and pre-crippling austerity. Add another £3b and we might be close to the cost today taking inflation into account. Outright extension has always been a technically difficult and questionable idea in terms of value for money, even when money was in good supply. Glasgow Subway has an entirely unique, tiny track gauge which means the trains themselves are designed entirely bespoke for the circle. How would a new circle or line integrate? Would it share rolling stock and tunnels, or run as a "parallel" subway network? Would this be cost efficient? It opens up a lot of questions regarding value for money. £2 billion gets you a lot of light rail lines which could do the job just as well. * Even if it's technically worth doing, you've then got to look at how Glasgow has changed. When the subway circle was built, it was one of the most densely packed cities in Europe, with one of the highest rates of population growth anywhere in the world. A subway made sense to get people en masse between the shipyards, the city centre, and the blossoming west end. Glasgow depopulated in the 1950s, with people being dispersed to faraway new towns. The population is more or less the same in pure numbers, it's just spread much much wider. A subway isn't necessarily good value for money for dealing with that. Suburban train tends to perform better (cost wise, journey time wise, capacity wise) over longer distances for a dispersed population like that. * As people have mentioned, a subway extension in one form or another has been explored by various authorities going back from the 1930s through to 2006. The current ambition is to deliver something different: a Clyde Metro network of light rail lines which run either on-road, on segregated routes, in tunnel, or to replace existing suburban rail routes. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=27921 by Scunnered20 (Fri 28th Oct 2022 5:03pm)

Meant to be news about it in the early new year, after Transport Scotland publish the final version of their strategic transport project review. by Scunnered20 (Fri 28th Oct 2022 5:09pm)

It's arguably down to their campaign that councils now have the specific powers to own and manage municipal bus networks. by Scunnered20 (Sun 30th Oct 2022 7:04pm)

> I know of them but they have achieved nothing since their founding. I have to strongly push back on this. It's arguably only because of GGM's successful lobbying of SNP and Labour MSPs and cross-party members of the Transport Committee that the Transport Bill (2019) eventually contained provisions for full council ownership of bus networks. These powers weren't contained in the original draft bill, and it took a Labour amendment and extensive lobbying of cross-party MSPs to ensure it passed. Councils have powers, but are predominantly taking a slowly slowly approach. by Scunnered20 (Sun 30th Oct 2022 7:00pm)

Benefits to the punter: you're guaranteed to always be paying the lowest price you need as it applies a cap to what your payment card is charged per day or per week of travel. Benefits to punters more generally: it reduces dwell times at bus stops by removing the destination/price conversation that people would otherwise have had with the driver. Some people will still pay by cash or want to ask the driver something, but in the round it means buses spend less time at bus stops. Adds up in the aggregate to help buses better keep to timetable and hopefully to shorten journey times overall. by Scunnered20 (Sun 30th Oct 2022 8:11pm)

There are pros and cons of flat fares but it's sort of a separate issue to whether we have tap-on tap-off or not. Even with flat fares, you'd still need a way of knowing how many journeys someone's made in a day or a week for capping to work. by Scunnered20 (Sun 30th Oct 2022 10:10pm)

That seems to be where we're headed, although [it may take seven years before it's delivered](https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/23016642.plan-public-control-buses-glasgow-asked-given-green-light/). That's based on the timeline of Manchester setting it up from start to finish, which overlapped with the pandemic. So it might well be possible within five or so. by Scunnered20 (Sun 30th Oct 2022 10:20pm)

Ah I get you now. Yes, this is right re. flat fares and tapping off. If you have a flat fare then you don't need to bother tapping off, likely trimming even more dwell time at bus stops as people get off. Only thing with flat fares is in London the average individual bus journey is relatively short compared to Glasgow. I heard recently in Glasgow the typical bus trip is 3-4x the distance of the typical London trip. A flat fare would probably require a huge subsidy to work in a Glasgow context. Unless you also did a massive revision of the bus routes. Not to say this is impossible, or not what might come eventually, but it'd take some doing to make it financially viable, even as a government run/funded scheme. by Scunnered20 (Sun 30th Oct 2022 11:53pm)

Oh this is so true! This has a huge effect of journey times in Glasgow but there seems to be a weary consensus that this ought to continue. The authorities fear a "you're taking away my bus stop" backlash, and the bus operators suspect it'll lose them revenue from fewer passengers. When in reality it's one of the biggest causes of buses being slow and therefore unattractive to a wider customer base. by Scunnered20 (Mon 31st Oct 2022 8:39am)

Not presuming you'll have an answer to this, but you've spurred a thought in my mind! Everyone knows how wet and rainy it can be here. It surprises me how shopfront awnings / rain canopies are so rare! You look at old pictures of Glasgow and they used to be everywhere, but they must have fallen out of fashion at some point decades ago. Strikes me that it would only help sustain footfall for businesses - and just generally make shopping locally a much more enjoyable and practical experience for everyone - if it became the norm again. by Scunnered20 (Mon 31st Oct 2022 1:40pm)

I've found Trivago to generally be the best "deal" aggregator around. It seems to pool accomodation listings from Booking and other holiday sites, showing you pretty much everything that's out there. Worth having a look through that. by Scunnered20 (Thu 3rd Nov 2022 8:53am)

Cancelled due to public outcry. https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/glasgow-four-lane-road-through-22010074 https://athousandflowers.net/2016/01/19/motorways-make-glasgow-another-70m-road-set-to-tear-through-the-east-end/ Controversial view: ring roads are generally necessary as a way of allowing regional traffic to both access and bypass city cores. It's deeply unfortunate that Glasgow pressed ahead with its inner ring road before any others, one which probably hugged the city core in a way unlike any other designed outside of North America. That said, a ring road was and probably is needed in future, and if the M74 is to ever replace the M8 as the main east-west regional route, you need a middling link like the East End Regeneration Route to act as a viable bypass. by Scunnered20 (Fri 4th Nov 2022 12:04am)

It was always designed to support a building. I think the original plans called for a much taller building with a restaurant / viewing platform on the top floor. by Scunnered20 (Fri 4th Nov 2022 11:39am)

There's a medium term ambition to build a new footbridge either directly underneath or more likely just to the west of the Kingston Bridge, roughly between Cheapside Street and the central entrance roadway in the Quay car park. It's not an active project but has been included in a number of council strategies. Might be something that's explored in the coming years with a specific funding bid, similar to how the new Sighthill M8 bridge has been delivered. by Scunnered20 (Fri 4th Nov 2022 11:41am)

Delayed, but on its way soon. https://www.scottishconstructionnow.com/articles/glasgow-accepts-funding-contribution-for-windmillcroft-quay-project by Scunnered20 (Fri 4th Nov 2022 11:52am)

https://www.gov.scot/publications/public-attitudes-towards-fireworks-scotland-representative-omnibus-survey/ > A majority (71%) would welcome an increase in control over the sale of fireworks in Scotland. > 58% of respondents said they would support banning the sale of fireworks to the public. by Scunnered20 (Sat 5th Nov 2022 6:16pm)

What a complete nonsense that this has to happen (people putting on hair dryers to distract their pets; locking them in bathrooms) just because some morons like to gaup at sparkly bangs in the sky. by Scunnered20 (Sun 6th Nov 2022 1:21am)

Nearest you'll get is polish restaurant U Jarka in the west end. by Scunnered20 (Sun 6th Nov 2022 1:45am)

The design that won that competition was a spanner and it's a good thing it got canned. We'd have ended up with a completely windswept gun-metal grey square, with next to no vegetation and a daft, over-engineered water feature, which would've made the place even less appealing to walk around, windy as it can be here. Honestly, I know the council (as an entity, regardless of political leadership) gets flack for taking ages to do anything, and going through endless consultations, but that design was genuinely rank. The new one looks extremely promising: more trees, more space reclaimed from the roads, a more orderly and less cluttered use of the central part of the square. by Scunnered20 (Mon 7th Nov 2022 11:28pm)

Quite a few measures in the works to improve the bus services in the city. Five major arterial roads are earmarked for bus rapid transit infrastructure, or at least something quite close to it, over the next five years or so. Each of these roads serve a half dozen different bus lines each, so this should dramatically improve the speed and reliability of bus journeys from the outskirts of the city to the centre. The council is looking into setting up a franchise system for buses, like how TfL runs its buses, and how Greater Manchester is just now adopting. That took seven years for Manchester to achieve from early concept stage proposals and funding rounds through to actual launch, and is the sort of time scale that's being talked about here. As I say though, there are shorter term fixes coming, like the bus priority arterial corridors, and integrated multi-operator ticketing (which is meant to go live in a year or two). by Scunnered20 (Wed 9th Nov 2022 8:02pm)

It was originally planned as a single project, but split into two this summer due to spiralling costs of materials and construction due to inflation. Keeping it as a single project would've broken the budget which I think has been in place for a number of years, at least since the concept stage of the project. It's either split it into different workable "projects" or not do it at all. by Scunnered20 (Wed 9th Nov 2022 8:07pm)

> Have you walked along Sauchiehall Street bother before and after the renovation? Before there was actually more and safer pavement space for pedestrians. After the renovation the tables and chairs and signage (and often crash barrier fencing to contain the drinking areas) takes up so much space on the pavement. This is unrelated to the renovation. It's down to rules on outside hospitality being loosened during Covid, with most places now having outside seating that didn't before. There are rules about having chairs and tables outside only so long as you leave 1.5m of passable space on a pavement. Cleary lots of places aren't adhering to this rule (something that is happening across the city centre, not just Sauchiehall Street where the Avenues works were completed. If this is happening, the venue can and should be reported. There's also the issue of street clutter (access panels, electricity boxes, road signage on the pavement) which is a bit of a general problem with place design across Scotland. This is an issue that long predates the Avenues works on the street. > Also, the decision to integrate the cycle lanes onto the pavement rather than the road was utterly stupid and dangerous to pedestrians. Legal ally cyclists should be on the road, so the cycle lane should have been as well. Slightly agree with some of this, but not entirely. In the sense that there should be clear physical separation at each point between pavement - cycleway - road. The cycleway needn't be at the same level as the road surface. It being at pavement height is okay, but the issue fundamentally is a lack of clear physical separation then between the pavement & cycleway. One reason some cycleways are designed to be elevated compared to the road surface is to discourage car parking on them. Doesn't always work, but it is a rational motivation for the design. > Ultimately, I feel like this work is all a box tick to say GCC is green and they spend eye-watering sums of public money making me less likely to walk to the shops. Sauchiehall Street was just the pilot in what's a quite large programme of works for street renovations and active travel corridors across the city centre. Many more are in the planning stages, and some have even had their plans publicised and are now at design and tender stage. My point is, it's not a tiny stretch of renovation done in isolation, just for the sake of it. It was the first step in what could quite legitimately be described as the biggest transformation the city centre has experienced since much of it was constructed in Victorian times. by Scunnered20 (Wed 9th Nov 2022 8:23pm)

It's gonna take a bit longer because they're keeping the road open while they do the construction. I imagine it'll be a little like Gorbals Street has been with the south city way works recently, where they've kept at least one lane in each direction going (with occasional single-file temporary traffic lights). It can be done quicker by closing full sections of the road, which has been done in a few other situations. But I think it's a mix of it being a north-south connecting road, trying to keep local businesses onside, and just generally managing a street with such high footfall, that they've opted for that approach. by Scunnered20 (Wed 9th Nov 2022 9:14pm)

u/Dunk546 gives the best explanation. Glasgow was a very late bloomer and always quite a small provincial town, right up to the early modern period of the 1500s when it started to grow due to maritime commerce on the Atlantic. It went through a rapid growth spurt, such that even in the 1700s - 1800s, most of the city would have been relatively new. The original medieval outline of the town was basically built around the four streets radiating out from Glasgow Cross (where the clock tower is today), but didn't extend much beyond that. The High Street leading north up the hill to the Cathedral and Bishop's Castle (the few wealthier folk around lived at the top of the hill, as tends to happen). The Saltmarket leading south towards the river. And Trongate leading west and Gallowgate leading east. Over time some other streets grew as stubs of these major artery streets, but that was generally it for the longest time. Much of this was built upon and replaced over centuries to the point that very little actual medeival stuff remained by the time the Victorians came along and carved out chunks of the old town for large warehouses and sandstone tenement dwellings. In the Georgian era, with the growth of Atlantic trade, Glasgow grew insanely quickly, to the extent that much of the rest of the town has a very Georgian character. You can see this on streets like Bath Street, which still has most of its Georgian townhouses preserved, and in buildings like at Royal Exchange Square and GOMA, both of which were mansion houses belonging to wealthy Caribbean tobacco plantation owners and shipping magnates. The Victorians replaced much of this, as well as the pre-existing old town core of Glasgow in the mid to late 1800s as the city went through another economic boom and insane growth in population (driven by steelworks, manufacturing and shipbuilding). The conditions of what might've otherwise been termed our "old town" we're so bad that it was cleared and replaced by tenement structures we largely still see there today, around Trongate, the eastern end of Merchant City, Gallowgate, along Saltmarket and up High Street. These photos by Thomas Annan capture what the old city core looked like at that stage - a hodgepodge of old pre-Georgian dwellings and early Georgian era tenements, a little like Edinburgh's old town looks today: https://digital.nls.uk/learning/thomas-annan-glasgow/explore/page-1/ Some of these were in then demolished in turn just a few decades later, around 1900, to make way for various things like railway lines and most obviously, the high street rail goods yard (which also involved the demolition and relocation of the original Glasgow University to the west end). This website is a good place to start if you want to learn more about Glasgow history: https://www.theglasgowstory.com/story/?id=TGSD0 by Scunnered20 (Sun 13th Nov 2022 12:14pm)

It's already happening, for buses at least. Set to be delivered across all bus operators by 2024. I think the plan is for it to hook up with Subway ticketing soon enough, which is operated by SPT and so not a big leap. Trains are more difficult and complicated as you need to untangle the pricing scheme. Need to remember that we don't have a Glasgow centric rail service, and that all trains that serve Glasgow are in effect national trains which merely stop here. Prices and subsidies for routes are set on a national basis. Short of totally rebranding and allocating control and ownership of our suburban trains to a Glasgow city or regional operator, you need to figure out how to weave the national ScotRail ticketing system with that of the new bus & subway one. Can definitely be done, but it requires agreement from a lot of stakeholders and direction to make it happen. by Scunnered20 (Sun 13th Nov 2022 12:20pm)

I think we needn't have kept the pre-1860s stuff to have something like that. The post-1860s Victorian architecture and city blocks around Glasgow Cross and High Street (though chunkier and much less fine grained than what came before) would have made for a coherent and distinct 'old town' neighbourhood if it hadn't been fragmented. A fragmentation that started pretty early on, beginning with Victorian infrastructure around the railways, and worsened in the 1950s as land was cleared around Gallowgate for the motorway ringroad that was never built. A little community of independent shops has cropped up around Trongate over the last decade or so. I'm pretty hopefully that the area around there could blossom even more once the big Candleriggs housing development opens up. We still have a lot of Victorian texture to that corner of the city, and even up High Street and down Saltmarket. If High Street can become something other than an offramp and onramp to the motorway system, it wouldn't take very much for it to see a resurgence. It's a very unpleasant street to walk down or try to cross on foot. I think I remember reading that there is some medium term plan to develop High Street - Saltmarket as a tourism trail. I'm not sure how far along that plan is beyond some new signage which appeared recently, but removing the direct connection to the motorway interchange is a necessary first step. by Scunnered20 (Sun 13th Nov 2022 3:15pm)

Light timber. Not designed to last more than a few months at most. It was all just temporary for the exhibition period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Exhibition_of_Science,_Art_and_Industry Looked cracking but. by Scunnered20 (Sun 13th Nov 2022 5:31pm)

Everything is driven (or better described as "ends up happening the way it does") because of existing regulations and planning policy at national level. These things change at a glacial pace. Change is hard, and only really comes about after sustained campaigning from people making the case for change to politicians at the requisite level. National Planning Framework 4, the fourth version of Scotland's national planning guidance for towns, cities and housing, amongst many other things, is currently being finalised. A draft consultation happened on it earlier this year. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotland-2045-fourth-national-planning-framework-draft/ It, thankfully, contains a lot of good stuff on exactly the points you make. About local authorities needed to put sustainability at the heart of their planning, encouraging transit led development, less urban sprawl, etc etc. Unfortunately, this won't be in place for a wee while yet. Not sure the timeline. We're still seeing sprawling suburban cul-de-sac nonsense proposed for Glasgow's periphery every few months. Robyoyston is a particular car dependant hellspace that's only continually being added to. But hopefully this will come to an end relatively soon under the new national guidance. by Scunnered20 (Wed 16th Nov 2022 1:06am)

I know 9 mil sounds like a lot, and at the current moment it probably sounds like a bad use of money to a lot of people. But it's not all that much in the grand scheme when it comes to a project of that scale. You're talking the full redesign of a major road that also in many ways serves as a business district of its own. Everything that goes with reconstructing and redesigning 1km of busy roadway to make it a more attractive place to spend time and also simply an easier place to navigate on foot or by bike. The project ties into wider plans for other roads and routes, including Queen Margaret Dr and Bisland Dr to the north, and the walking & cycling routes along Ferry Rd and the new bridge being built to Govan, to create an arcing corridor that arguably better connects places like Govan, Maryhill and Ruchill to the heart of the West End. Seems well worth it. by Scunnered20 (Wed 16th Nov 2022 9:59pm)

There was business pushback, but really it was delayed because the cycleway designs weren't up to snuff. Some things that would've become major issues related to the design were caught early in the consultation process, and they went back to the drawing board, to an extent. Then Covid. Finally on its way now though. by Scunnered20 (Wed 16th Nov 2022 10:08pm)

It's entirely fair enough as they aren't all that well publicised. Council seems to be getting a lot better at talking about it as time goes by to be fair but I'd say you'd be lucky if 1/100 glaswegians has an idea of whats in the pipeline. by Scunnered20 (Wed 16th Nov 2022 10:16pm)

Putting cars at the bottom of that list (or more accurately, *taking practical steps* to put them at the bottom of that list; they're already at the bottom of the notional public realm hierarchy), is needed if you're to improve some aspects of public transport. Buses can't get moving because of cars. People can't walk or cycle safely to places that are not terrible distances away, because of cars. People are disincentivised from spending time in the city centre, because it's so full of cars. Cars are wider than ever before, taking up more space than ever before, and there are more of them on our roads than ever before. This is true of Glasgow, of Scotland, the UK and a trend seen in cities across the world which have done little to divert people into other modes of transit. We've been through 70 years of an experiment in making Glasgow (and the UK more generally) optimal for travel by car, at cost to everything else. Massive investment in road building. Roads which are unwelcoming at best and impassable at worst for pedestrians, which cut neighbourhoods off from one another. Free parking at purpose built out of town shopping malls and drive throughs. And people wonder why the city centre isn't quite what it used to be. by Scunnered20 (Thu 17th Nov 2022 9:43pm)

It's frustrating but I think it's an unfortunate reality of the funding landscape. Projects that might've been delivered decades ago through the council's own capital budget or at the very least in collaboration with Scottish or UK governments are now only deliverable through national funding. Council has to apply for each and every stage of every project, and needs to use consultations to justify these applications. Hence the endless never ending consultations. by Scunnered20 (Thu 17th Nov 2022 10:24pm)

Really not true. The council could be operating buses itself but one of the major fundamental issues it would still face (definitely not the only one, but one of the biggest) is that buses are hugely impacted by the volume of cars on the roads. That and the space devoted to traffic flow - as opposed to bus dedicated space. Part of the plan is to reallocate road space for bus movement on main roads. Essentially beefed up bus lanes, with physical segregation where necessary and traffic light priority. Road space is finite, and so this can only come at the same time as deprioritising how road space and infrastructure is geared to favour cars. There are multiple strategies already at quite advanced stages to improve bus services. Some of it recently or now being delivered (prioritisation, bus stop build outs, etc.) and some of it a few years away but coming soon (integrated ticketing). by Scunnered20 (Thu 17th Nov 2022 10:31pm)

The omnipresence of vehicles isn't the only reason for the decline of the city centre, but it is by itself one contributing factor. At the same time, it's also true that you can't entirely isolate 'car centrism'or 'abundance of cars' as a problem in and of itself, unrelated to anything else: it feeds other issues which by themselves have contributed to the decline of the city centre over decades. * I've already mentioned it in passing, but a fundamental issue is that our city centre economy was hollowed out in at least two ways: 1) depopulated, with people moved to new towns and suburbs (which happened also to be designed entirely around the car as a way of getting around or out of those suburbs and into the city) and, 2) the construction of free-to-park-at out of town shopping centres, all around Glasgow's periphery. The result is a city centre with minimal local clientele and minimal appeal for those who drive as their main mode of transport. * You might not feel it or recognise it as a personal reason for not spending time there, but Glasgow has the highest percentage of land space inside its city centre devoted to roads. Road surfaces take up more space in Glasgow city centre than in any other city in the British Isles. To lots of people (again, maybe not you) it is in fact an *indirect* deterrent to have to cross so many roads. When you compare how many other comparably sized mainland European city centres look, with pedestrianised precincts and wide pavements devoted to outdoor hospitality and mini street parks, Glasgow city centre is almost all roads. It's not necessarily that people think "I don't want to go to town today, too many cars" (though undoubtedly some do!). It's more that the prioritisation of road space up to this point has held Glasgow city centre back in terms of what it can offer people. by Scunnered20 (Thu 17th Nov 2022 11:13pm)

People are continuing to make this 'public transport needs to come first argument', when improvements to public transport are part of the very transport strategy document being talked about. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 12:12am)

Exactly, but it's the case for pretty much any and all current headline projects. Whether getting funding from existing joint UK-Scotland funding streams (like the Glasgow City Deal) or UK-only ones (the Leveling Up Fund, which is up in the air at the moment) or national infrastructure funding. The situation has changed fundamentally since 2010, hence the continual consultations as the council scrambles to get money for projects or even worse, only small parts of projects that it wants to see through. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 1:00am)

There's abundant parking available in multistory car parks around the city centre. Something like 13,000 spaces in total, which peak at only around 7,000 in use at once during the busiest times. As unpopular as this will be, we need parking at out of town sites to at the very least be priced on par with that in the city centre, i.e. to no longer be free. From what I remember reading there's work being done on this. And again it's not about banning cars. It's just about rebalancing how our environment is built and what transport types it caters for. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 9:03am)

Yes, and developing that comes at the price of reducing available road space for cars. That's part of my point. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 9:56am)

All the things you say would be difficult or impossible are managed routinely, day in day out in cities across mainland Europe which have large central zones for low or zero private vehicle access. Usually it's done through: * Having dedicated loading times in the morning and evening, just like we do on Buchanan Street, when goods get brought in for retail units. * Using much smaller last-mile delivery modes: courier cargo bikes and when that's not possible, ultra small deliver vehicles. It's only in the UK that we seem content allowing HGVs up every street. It's totally unnecessary if you set up delivery hubs around your city centre where goods are transferred to smaller, more nimble and less obtrusive vehicles. Which is what is planned for here. * Although Glasgow is copying many cities with the idea of sizable a car-free zone, or at the least very car-light zone, in practise there's a range of ways this has been done elsewhere. A common approach is to have some roads still entering deep into this zone from the perimeter, though not having them connect to one another. This allows vehicles to access the central zone when absolutely necessary, but not use it as a shortcut. This allows deliveries and loading throughout the day, as well as taxis to get very close to final destinations, but still keeps the area as a low traffic zone overall. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 10:23am)

> Making the roads shite so that people have to rely more on the already shite public transport Depends on your perspective I suppose. If you ride a bus or cycle or walk regularly to get where you're going (or would like to be able to do those things more in future) you're going to see the proposals as improvements. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 11:14am)

I don't think many people truly want to disband all roads. Maybe some people say this or something like it in jest, but I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting getting rid of roads full stop. Maybe reducing spending on new road construction, but that's a different point. And, not meaning to be unnecessarily provocative to you here, but it needs to be said: quite often people aren't really listening to what people are calling for. You see it on social media a lot, Facebook in particular, where every proposed measure to improve the situation for other road users is viewed as a "war on the motorist" or a "war on cars". I think this is people seeing or fabricating a conflict where there isn't one. In truth what's being proposed (and advocated for by a lot of people) is somewhere in the middle, just a simple rebalancing of how we allocate finite space and make it work for more people. It's not even like it's without precedent, as I say. Like Glasgow is inventing some mad scheme that's never been tried before. It's been tried and tested in cities across the world over the last 10-20 years, with some cities in the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain having done this decades and decades ago, so we've lots of examples of success to follow. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 11:07am)

But my point is that one of the key reasons for the unreliability of buses is that they share road space with so much car traffic. You can't improve bus reliability and journey times in this city, whether they're run privately or by the council, without reallocating road space to buses and attempting to reduce the number of cars on roads, which is what's planned. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 12:14pm)

So many people in this thread complaining that the city transport plan to improve public transport doesn't say anything about improving public transport. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 12:17pm)

I didn't say free of cars. There might well be a small zone in the very core of the city centre that is effectively free from cars. But this will be about 500-750m across at most. Cars will be able to navigate streets everywhere else, even if they're not able to criss cross this zone in the city centre core itself. Again, as I said to someone else, you're painting it as a black and white, one Vs the other thing, when the truth is what's being planned is somewhere in the middle: continuing to allow access by private vehicles (even encouraging and nudging people to park their cars in different places, still close to the centre), but at the same time helping other modes of transit, whether bus, foot or bike, become more viable. In a world where cars are still welcome in and around the city centre, you absolutely need to deal with the market warping effects of free parking at out of town sites around the city's periphery. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 2:37pm)

Not quite right. The Strathclyde Tram had widespread support but was cancelled because the private bus operators were successful in killing it off at the parliamentary enquiry stage. They successful argued that it would be a competitor to bus services and would not get people out their car, as it would serve predominantly "poor" areas with low car ownership. That might be been partially true then, of course we've seen car ownership balloon, even in poorer areas (exactly because there's such poor transport provision!). Of course that was 30 years ago, and was a spurious argument at best even then. It ignored the wider societal benefits of having a more flexible multimodal transport network, and one that could easily be extended to other areas in future. Or that it was planned to serve a whole range of areas, from Hillhead and Kelvinside through to Drumchapel and as far east as Easterhouse. Anyway, the bus operators were much more powerful lobby group then, and got their way. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 2:47pm)

> it works in Amsterdam because guess what... It's flat! This is one of the poorest arguments against helping people to cycle in Glasgow. It's not like a mass cycle route is being proposed for Gardner Street or Montrose Street. Yes we have hills, but we also have long, flat main roads that connect neighbourhoods to one another and to the city centre. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 7:54pm)

The difficulty is that the more people drive, the worse it is for people driving. Put another way: if everyone had the 'freedom' to drive a car as their main mode of transport, presuming that is indeed their first choice and not something they're trapped into doing by lack of alternatives, the more cars there will be on the roads and the harder it is to 1) travel by car and 2) find a parking space. This isn't an abstract problem. It's something we're actually living through, with severe competition for parking spaces in residential areas and record breaking traffic volumes year on year. by Scunnered20 (Fri 18th Nov 2022 11:46pm)

https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/transportstrategy by Scunnered20 (Sun 20th Nov 2022 5:24pm)

2+ years of bottled up roadworks, large scale construction projects, utilities repairs, etc, delayed due to Covid, now all being underway at more or less the same time. That and the fact that road vehicle numbers have returned to their pre-pandemic levels in Scotland (IIRC they actually surpassed pre-pandemic levels around September-October). by Scunnered20 (Sun 20th Nov 2022 5:23pm)

"Um are" is another weird one, I guess more or less literally being *"Am are"*. As in meaning, "I am", usually in a defiant response. Example: "You're no goin' anywhere the night son" "Aye, um are!" Or "Jimmy, you're pure shite at your job aren't you?" "No um are'nae." by Scunnered20 (Tue 22nd Nov 2022 10:43pm)

Although it's not always reported on very clearly, it happens that the specific council report ([City Centre Transport Report](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/city-centre-transformation-plan)) that this news article covers contains a tonne of stuff. The Pedestrian First Zone is one ambition, but there is a lot of stuff about public transport improvements funded by both the city and Scottish Government. There have been a couple of other recent Glasgow transport-related strategies touching more specifically on public transport improvements. They're the ones to read if you want more info, but the plans that affect the city centre are covered in this one too. by Scunnered20 (Fri 25th Nov 2022 10:29pm)

Already replied to your other main comment in this thread, but I've just read this and have further info so I'll reply here too. The council is planning to emulate exactly what Manchester has done recently, and create a bus franchise. Basically, running the buses in Glasgow like they are with TfL: the city decides all routes, mandates prices, even designs the singular branding for all buses. But the services are tendered out and run (underneath the surface) by private operators, beholden to strict conditions. It took Manchester seven years, from concept stage to actual launch of the franchise system, so it *could* take that long here. Of course, that covered 2 years of Covid, and it's possible Glasgow could learn from what Manchester has done to shorten this period. In any case, there is significant work under way to improve the buses in the city, either through new governance models or by redesigning our roads to make bus journeys more efficient and attractive ([the city is planning five major bus rapid transit routes](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29726) along main arterial roads in and out of the centre in the coming years). by Scunnered20 (Fri 25th Nov 2022 10:36pm)

you can download the council strategy here, under CTTP documents. Has the the pedestrian first zone mapped out on a few different pages. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=27557 by Scunnered20 (Fri 25th Nov 2022 10:43pm)

I've just left a couple of comments in this thread that you might find interesting. Basically there's a lot under way to improve the buses in the city. We should start to see significant improvements over the next few years, a lot of it driven by dedicating road space to bus transit in order to speed up journey times and make buses much more attractive and reliable. by Scunnered20 (Fri 25th Nov 2022 10:41pm)

There's about 14,000 parking spaces in multi-storey car parks dotted around the city centre. You're hardly ever more than a 5 minute walk away from one at any point in the city centre. by Scunnered20 (Fri 25th Nov 2022 10:46pm)

You're doing the lords work by the way, sharing info on this stuff. It's clear from threads like this that people have a very skewed, and even quite outdated, view of the the situation re. transport provision in the city and scant awareness of what are quite well developed plans for improvements. Not to blame people for not knowing. Maybe the city has more work to do to promote what it is doing. by Scunnered20 (Fri 25th Nov 2022 10:53pm)

I think they're calling for a feasibility study into doing it, not necessarily calling all-out for it to be done. Or maybe both, but essentially it seems worth investigating at a minimum! by Scunnered20 (Fri 25th Nov 2022 11:02pm)

It's about proportion of green space in city centre cores. Glasgow has loads of great and sizable parks scattered around it's neighbourhoods. Possibly better served in that respect than many UK cities. The city centre is almost devoid of green space though, so I'm not too surprised to see this ranking. by Scunnered20 (Sat 26th Nov 2022 2:24pm)

It's comparing urban cores (city centres). by Scunnered20 (Sat 26th Nov 2022 10:57pm)

It's Mars. Venus is below the horizon and Jupiter is to the south. by Scunnered20 (Sun 27th Nov 2022 9:27pm)

Remade Glasgow we're looking specifically for electronics a couple of months back. Not sure if still the case. Worth contacting them to ask if what you've got would be of any use: https://remade.network/ by Scunnered20 (Mon 28th Nov 2022 3:07pm)

Looking down hope st at roughly west george lane. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 9:50am)

It's worth reading the full transport plan, it has a lot to say about improving transport. The council has started the ball rolling on setting up a franchise system for the bus network, essentially how TfL in London works. Where the council will dictate everything about the routes, service times, etc, even the livery on the buses if it wants, and will get private operators to deliver the service. Means ultimately the buses will all be under one single banner, with the many benefits that brings. Manchester has just recently finalised its franchising system, but it took seven years to complete, so that's sort of the time scale we're looking at here. In the meantime, there are plans to recalibrate major roads in and out of the city centre to give more exclusive space for buses, creating something like a rapid bus transit network (used by the existing operators) which will greatly improve bus journey times. Added to that, the fact this city centre specific transport plan lays out plans to greatly reduce the presence of private vehicles and simplify the road layouts in some ways, means that the city centre (currently a black hole for bus journey times, with so many traffic lights and cars) will become a much more efficient space for buses to pass through. The tap on tap off system that First has is also rolling out across the other operators in the next year or so. By 2024 they're meant to be fully linked up so a single system tracks your bus use through the day/week and caps your total fare. Improvements are definitely coming. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 2:51pm)

14,000 parking spaces available in the various multistorey car parks dotted around the city centre, but only around 7,000 are ever used at once at peak times (and that was from a study done pre-Covid). There will be loads of parking availability. Maybe not on the street, but then that means city centre street space can be used for other things: plazas, parks, outdoor hospitality, rain gardens catering for new city centre residents, even just freeing up space to make the buses pass through more efficiently. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 2:55pm)

The waterfront is changing, and I think will be a completely different and much more vibrant space in five years or so. You have continued development happening right now all along the riverside from Particle right down to St Enoch Square, with big plans for housing at Stockwell Street car park (which granted, might be a decade or so away, if the economy doesn't completely tank). Clyde Street is earmarked for an avenues style makeover. The Broomielaw and existing 'fast link' roadway is the likely route of the eventual Airport team line as part of the Clyde Metro. There's a lot coming. The historic trouble has been that most of the riverside land west of the centre is owned privately by peel ports. Nothing happens without them deciding so. No new investment, no development, nothing. It seems though we've reached a tipping point in the last few years where there's more money to be made by developing vacant land into build to rent housing, rather than continuing the land speculation. A good change, and hopefully we'll see a lot more life along the riverside in a few years through it. Also, just on the not improving public transport point. Much of what is planned for the city centre, whether greater pedestrianisation, rationalisation of street layouts, reducing the presence of vehicle traffic - it all benefits the bus network by making bus journeys through the city centre faster and more reliable in terms of scheduling. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 3:05pm)

That's fine! The thing is, this will greatly improve the experience of people who choose to spend time in and around the city centre, and will so make it easier to get into the city centre (less traffic = vastly improved bus services). Not everyone in Greater Glasgow will be enticed to abandon out of town shopping centres, but it's about repairing the city centre and making it not only attractive and easier to get into and to walk around, but to become a much more pleasant place for people to live. Glasgow has one of the least densely populated city centres in Europe, when compared with cities of comparable size and total population. This is about reversing that trend, and making the place more liveable and walkable. In terms of deliveries, there's also a parallel plan to encourage different methods of 'last mile' deliveries with smaller, lighter vehicles. As is normal in many other countries already! The idea will be to have freight hubs around the edge of the city centre, where goods are unloaded from HGVs and then taken the last mile or so to their destination by light vehicles or even cargo bikes. Happens routinely in many other cities already, so we are only copying what has been proven to work better elsewhere. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 3:12pm)

I'm struggling to understand your logic in coming to this conclusion, as it's not as if this plan will make the city centre worse in respect to how it competes (or doesn't) with existing out of town malls. Nothing is changing with the out of town shopping centres. People who like to drive and park and do their shopping at those places will still do so. This just means that the city centre becomes a more pleasant, welcoming space for those who choose (or have little choice, through not owning a car anyway) to spend their time there. Whether as workers, shoppers, diners or even residents. Thing that always gets me in conversations like this, is how people that complain about such changes, and who say they love shopping centres more than the city centre, never seem to realize the fundamental difference in experience between the two, and how, actually this plan is in many ways just emulating what's been shown to work in shopping malls for decades. I.e. in Silverburn or Braehead, you don't have queues of cars stretching down the central concourse. You don't have to wait at traffic lights to cross from one side to the other every 100 metres. You don't have cars belching out fumes feet away from the food court. They're fundamentally car-free places, which are easy to navigate on foot (once you're there). This is just levelling the playing field and making the city centre experience at least as pleasant as malls have it. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 3:36pm)

> Plus silverburn and braehead are.... pedestrianed shopping areas with good car access 100% this! How do people not see that beyond being easy to drive to, malls have an (in many ways unfair and designed) advantage over the city centre, in that they are utterly car free, pedestrian focused spaces. Meanwhile, if you want to walk around the city centre, you have to navigate heavy traffic, wait for signalled crossings at nearly every junction, and share outdoor dining space with the noise, fumes and overwhelming presence of motor traffic. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 3:40pm)

There are 14,000 car parking spaces around the city centre in multistoreys alone. They're not going anywhere. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 4:10pm)

You're looking at the city centre having around 8,000 new permanent residents by the end of 2024 through ongoing housing developments alone. And another 6,000 to 7,000 if other developments currently in the pipeline at design stage come to fruition. The city centre and its hospitality trade will get on just fine. Even better I would wager if the streets are designed to be inviting, welcoming, walkable spaces. Meanwhile, as u/artfuldodger1212 has been saying, out of town shopping centres are in a bad bad way across the board, with the bottom falling out of their economic model. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 4:15pm)

> I’m not paying to park in a multi story miles away from the restaurant. That's fine, that's your right. I would push back on the distances involved though - the multistoreys parking tends not to be much further than people are willing to walk between car park and shop / food court at shopping malls. People have some weird perception of the distances involved. When in fact, I reckon if the walking distance was as pleasant and car-free as when visiting a shopping mall, people wouldn't perceive much of a difference. Regardless though, that's your individual choice to make. But it's odd to pretend people don't and haven't historically travelled by public transport to dine in the city centre (or go to the cinema, theatre, etc). It happens every day of the week in Glasgow, and every day of the week in cities around the world. I think you're just making a category error in thinking what you do and don't want to do is the same for the wider general public. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 4:47pm)

Not to sound too dismissive (honestly, as it's affected me getting around the city too recently) but the current acute unreliability of the buses is, as you say, largely down to a recruitment crisis. Driven by wider inflation, cost of living, and acute demand on professional drivers across different industries, and something being seen around the world to greater or lesser degrees. Hopefully it's a temporary crisis. Presuming the driver shortage is resolved in the short to medium term, we're then looking at what other things can be done to improve the bus service in Glasgow. Right at the top of that list is how we allocate road space and reducing the number of cars on the road, particularly at bottlenecks for the bus network. This means 1) the main routes in and out of the city centre, and 2) the city centre itself, where nearly all bus routes congregate. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of remedies that can be done. Bus lanes, bus only streets, bus gates, etc. All of this is in the plan. This'll mean that bus journey times are reliable down to the minute since they're not being held up several miles away, which makes them more attractive for customers and more economically viable in turn. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 4:56pm)

Glasgow's in a bit of a sticky place where there's not necessarily an alternative operator with the financial heft waiting in the wings to step in. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 5:14pm)

Again, that's fine. A successful city is one with more than one healthy and bustling neighbourhood. If anything, the pandemic showed the value of having shops/restaurants/services close to home, and vice versa, for services to have a local customer base within walking distance. The point I'm trying to make is that these changes will be positive for the city centre, by making it a more hospitable place for people who either: live there, or are already warm to the idea of spending time there and comfortable using public transport (or even driving and parking at a multistoreys) to do so. This might not be you. But it will be tens of thousands of other people. Is the alternative to leave the city centre exactly as it is? Not sure what that would accomplish or what you're proposing. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 5:20pm)

Or live there. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 5:28pm)

Nope sorry. I know it's being rolled out in Stagecoach services in some English regions this year. Haven't come across the exact timescale for here unfortunately. But I wouldn't be surprised to see it appear in 2023. All bus operators have pledged to roll out a coordinated ticketing system in Greater Glasgow by 2024, so it must be on its way soon to allow for that. Frustratingly all the operators are calling it something different. FirstBus has "Tap On Tap Off". McGill's has "Tap and Cap". Stagecoach has "Pay As You Go". But it's all the same thing under the bonnet. So look out for that specific thing being announced in future. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 6:28pm)

Extending the subway is a non starter, but have a read of other comments in this thread for examples of how transport improvements are coming. Some of them included in this very plan. by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 8:13pm)

I guess the rationale is that if you call it "car free" or even "low car zone", certain people will also be up in arms. And this messaging is criticised as being somehow sneaky. So the council can't really win? by Scunnered20 (Fri 2nd Dec 2022 8:15pm)

Why? Is it something about this proposal/site in particular? Just, things have been proposed and built almost continually for about seven to eight years now, across the city. It's not like nothing that's proposed ever gets built here. A few hotels have been built on plots right next to this just in the last few years. So what are you on about? by Scunnered20 (Sun 4th Dec 2022 11:13am)

Would caution everyone to understand that the *"could see 2000 parking spaces go"* has been pulled out as a headline expected to garner most clicks and attention. There's a lot of meat to the bones of this proposal, it's quite far down the line, and it would be worth reading up more on the reasons behind it rather than reacting on impulse to this headline alone. https://buchanangalleries.co.uk/about-re-development-project First among the reasons this is happening: * The site is privately owned and much like owners of other shopping centres across Scotland, the UK and indeed the rest of the world, they see the writing on the wall in terms of dwindling return-value on their asset. Internet shopping isn't going anywhere, and the bottom has fallen out from underneath the long-term business plan of relatively monoculture shopping sites like BG. Shopping centres/malls might have made exceedingly good business sense 20-30 years ago when built, and *some* of them (BG is one of the few examples) might still be bumping along okay, but demand and the subsequent rents they can command are only going one direction: down. Owners increasingly see that rent derived from housing (or at least mixed use) is a much surer bet now, and so that's the direction their investments are moving in. It's good news though, if this and the similar St Enoch Centre redevelopment plans are seen through. There's an insatiable demand for housing, and this means more people living in the city centre. Streets and gridplan reinstated, removing barriers between sections of the city centre and its periphery and encouraging more footfall in neglected areas. A more walkable, and less compartmentalised city centre overall. Most of all, the pandemic showed better than anything the vulnerability of mono-use districts in cities all over the world. A healthy city economy depends on variety that can only come from having a high resident-base along with a good mix of retail. by Scunnered20 (Mon 5th Dec 2022 1:01am)

I [replied to a similar comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/zai3yx/glasgow_approves_people_first_city_centre/iymklsq/) on another thread the other day, but basically there is a lot in the works when it comes to public transport: * Major bus prioritisation corridors being built on arterial roads radiating out from the city centre. * Integrated ticketing is being rolled out on all bus operators by 2024. * the city has kicked off the process of setting up a bus franchise system, to run the buses like TfL. Might be 5-7 years away, but the process has started. * The metro plan which will involve new light rail lines is being developed with more detail to be announced on this in early 2023. Sauchiehall Street and Argyle Street are also highly accessible by car, with multiple large multi storey car parks within a minutes walk of both. It's not a lack of car-access which has caused them difficulties. by Scunnered20 (Mon 5th Dec 2022 1:10am)

Literally right next to Queen Street Station, the bus station and the subway. by Scunnered20 (Mon 5th Dec 2022 1:48am)

Right, but there's surely a difference between the developers saying, fairly, that it's in a location with great fixed transport links (which is true... hard to think of a single better location in the country?) and there being service issues across the transport system at the moment. by Scunnered20 (Mon 5th Dec 2022 2:01am)

The proposal comes purely from the owners desiring to make money from the site into the long term, through a different use. Not from some well-intentioned and benevolent effort to make Glasgow more walkable and liveable. It just happens that the land-owners' desires align with the city's wider environmental ambitions for the city centre. It's not that this is what's driving this proposal per se. Besides that, replying to a few specific points: >I understand the need to cut down pollution in the city centre of Glasgow which will happen as the number of people using electric vehicles increases. EVs will mean fewer pollutants in the air (though a lot of P2.5 particulate matter on roads comes from tyre-wear, so not entirely), but they don't won't remove traffic and road congestion. Public transport will still suffer if the number of cars on our roads continues to climb, as it has done for twenty years straight. > What about the people who do not want to use public transport or they have great difficulty doing so because they use a wheelchair and driving in gives them greater independence to go into Glasgow City Centre? I think you overestimate how many people need a 2,000 storey multi storey car park at any one time for this reason alone. Better public transport, through less congestive roads, will better serve people of all abilities. Those that absolutely do need to drive will have more options for parking if those that have other options use transport or active methods instead. by Scunnered20 (Mon 5th Dec 2022 2:14am)

Nah not really. There's no cultural affinity for what side of the river you're on, put it that way. It's not a thing, like it is in Dublin say, where you have cultural stereotypes about folk that live north of the river and those that live south of the river, and the two being very different. If you're looking for a historic cultural divide, it's always been more of a West-East thing for Glasgow. And that was always because of a indisputable difference in living standards and local histories, the West side of the city being where the rich folk lived, upwind of the swathes of industry and tightly crammed housing stock of the East side. Even at that though, we're talking areas that are broadly both north of the river but on opposite sides of the city centre: The Westend (Partick, Hillhead, Kelvinside, Woodside primarily), and the Eastend (Calton, Dennistoun, actually, basically anything east all the way out to the city boundary). But then people don't talk about themselves as being an "Eastender". Never heard that in my life, just doesn't happen. Some people might say they're a "Westender", probably as a bit of a tongue in cheek joke about themselves and nothing more. "Southsider" used to refer to people, but strangely that refers specifically to the areas immediately surrounding Queen's Park, and not anything else really (so not Govan, Mosspark, Pollok, Castlemilk. Maybe the Gorbals or Laurieston). Basically this should tell you it's a very mixed picture here. People take more stock in which specific neighbourhood they live in, if they care about it at all. by Scunnered20 (Tue 6th Dec 2022 11:47pm)

Both. The final approach to each individual route seems far from decided, but the latest proposals suggest it will see a mix of: 1) Regrading / categorising some existing suburban rail routes into **"Heavy Metro"**, as well as adding some new lines of this type. This seems to indicate a new heavy rail route running via QUEH, Renfrew to the Airport, but there are other examples in the map. I take "Heavy Metro" to simply mean retaining and adding to the existing heavy-rail network but having it branded under the same catch-all "Metro" heading. In London they have two types of trains running on the Underground network, even though the average user might not notice. Although it's all branded the same way, some London underground trains are very similar to heavy long distance trains. So that might be what's planned here, with those things coming under the heavy category. 2) Adding entirely new routes, named here as **"Light Metro"**. So I'm presuming that means anything between on-street trams (like Edinburgh), segregated light-trams, or all the way up to something like Copenhagen's metro which used very light vehicles on viaducts and in tunnels. It could well end up being a mix of all of these "Light Metro" types, depending on what each route calls for. by Scunnered20 (Sat 10th Dec 2022 3:13pm)

Different circumstances. The original GARL heavy rail link never made much sense by itself. It would've just been a spur via Paisley St James, and only interrupted Inverclyde services for very little benefit. A better plan was around in the 60s-80s to construct a looping route that crossed the river and returned to the city via Yoker. That wasn't what was proposed unfortunately, so on balance it's understandable the 2000s era rail spur proposal didn't go ahead. The later 2010s idea for personal transport pods connecting the airport to Paisley Gilmour Street was an even worse idea, ploughing a lot of investment into a tiny transit solution which could never be expanded. The new approach is better. It looks like any airport rail link (which may be similar to the once discarded Yoker loop) will be incorporated into wider plans for an enhanced metro network, providing a much better return in terms of an infrastructure project. by Scunnered20 (Sat 10th Dec 2022 3:25pm)

Public transport didn't figure in the last major review anywhere near as much as it has this time round. A sign of how priorities have changed for the better over 15 years. by Scunnered20 (Sat 10th Dec 2022 5:19pm)

It's been selected as one of several decade-long infrastructure projects to be taken forward by national government. The process of deciding these final shortlisted projects itself took years. So, quite the opposite of what you're suggesting. by Scunnered20 (Sat 10th Dec 2022 5:18pm)

Why is it unlikely to ever transpire? by Scunnered20 (Sat 10th Dec 2022 11:43pm)

This is categorically not a City Deal project... It's been included in The Scottish Government's shortlist of major transport projects to take forward over the next 10 years, as national projects. Not City Deal, not sure what makes you think it is? by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Dec 2022 4:14pm)

So it started out as an idea lifted from the Connectivity Commission report in 2019, which Glasgow City Council the used City Deal funding to develop a full business case for. This took a couple of years, and might be considered a small project in itself. That full business case was presented to Transport Scotland as part of the development of STPR2. The full Clyde Metro project has now been included in STPR2 and will now be taken forward as one of several major infrastructure projects to receive national funding. by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Dec 2022 4:49pm)

> At a time when GCR are looking at CD funding and both SG and constituent LAs are facing significant budget challenges, this will simply not take precedence. It's coming from Transport Scotland funding, likely over the course of 15-20 years. So, unless that's dramatically curtailed with TS funding redistributed to other parts of the government's budget, for whichever reason, I don't see why you have such strong expectations funding won't be provided? Granted anything can happen to national budgets. But it's high up in the priority list for infrastructure projects, so I don't really see where the scepticism comes from. Projects in STPR1 were identified at the very height of the financial crash when it was published in 2008. The great majority of them went on to be delivered. Edi-Gla rail electrification, M8 and A8 upgrading, the Queensferry Crossing, etc. by Scunnered20 (Sun 11th Dec 2022 4:59pm)

Cause it's a straight line. Nothing more mystical than people wanting to walk the most direct way to where they're going. I remember reading about a city somewhere (Spain maybe, not sure) which has a policy of making desire paths permanent after they've been established for a bit of time. After 12 months I think. Even if it means redesigning the public space to fit it in. by Scunnered20 (Wed 14th Dec 2022 8:35pm)

I suspect it was gritted at one point at least, but drippage from the motorway flowing downhill caused it to ice up within a day again. It's noticable that it's the only section that's in such bad condition. by Scunnered20 (Thu 15th Dec 2022 6:50pm)

You'd be well getting in touch with local press, Evening Times for example. This deserves to be publicised. as they're clearly just going to continue to scam people for years to come. by Scunnered20 (Fri 16th Dec 2022 9:51pm)

https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/councillorsandcommittees/addressSearch.asp by Scunnered20 (Sat 17th Dec 2022 10:45am)

Pleading with you, please report this in an email to ALL your ward councillors, as well as lodging a complaint with First Bus. The amount of people that complain to reddit and do nothing about it besides is astounding. You'll more than likely receive a response from your cllrs, but more than this, the more direct complaints received regarding First Bus and it's abysmal service, the more likely things will change sooner rather than later. by Scunnered20 (Sun 18th Dec 2022 4:31am)

Been in the works for a while. It's a Green Party policy which has gotten support from the Glasgow SNP group. Important to understand all that's happening is that there will be a short trial, probably involved a small group of circa 100-1000 participants. All to explore what happens if you do it in terms of cost-benefit. Lots of similar small scale free transport trials have happened in cities around the world in recent years. I'd be astonished if it goes much further than this trial though. So far there's been mixed, and often underwhelming results in trials like this. The most common findings are that it minimally encourages and helps those on low incomes to use transport more, but has a relatively underwhelming impact on encouraging people to swap cars for PT. Not to say no impact, but that it is often very minimal (suggesting it your goal is moving people from cars to PT, you need sticks as well as carrots). From memory, previous studies have generally pointed to there being an optimal low price point, higher than zero but still very cheap for the typical passenger, at which you maximise the appeal of PT and allow the system to still generate some revenue. Something like the €365 annual ticket in Vienna, as an example. In other news, the Scottish Government has the Fair Fares Commission under way, and is meant to report back sometime next year. It will be making recommendations on new subsidy levels for ticketing across Scotland, and will potentially lead to reduced bus fares for the average punter in Glasgow. by Scunnered20 (Sun 18th Dec 2022 10:56am)

It tends to be rural and exurban routes that are the ones most heavily subsidised. If you're looking for train and bus lines in Scotland which generate enough revenue to be considered entirely self sufficient funding-wise, there are not very many. But those handful that are, are largely in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Nearly all transport is heavily subsidised by general taxation anyway. by Scunnered20 (Sun 18th Dec 2022 11:03am)

A fleet of free-at-point-of-use shuttle buses criss crossing the city centre is one of the proposals in Glasgow's most recent Transportation Plan. by Scunnered20 (Sun 18th Dec 2022 11:28am)

> It can't be hard to actually plan a fit for purpose public transport system that serves the cities needs better than the current mess. [This has been done.](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/transportstrategy) Lots of things in the works the next couple of years. by Scunnered20 (Sun 18th Dec 2022 11:53am)

The free transport thing is just a pilot, probably involving a few hundred people. It's just to test the water and gather evidence for what system of pricing we might end up at, and how targeted free fares might be part of that. The report at the end will probably end up recommending against full universal free ticketing. Lots of similar studies have found the benefits are relatively marginal when compared with simple low ticket prices generally in getting people out of their cars and into PT. And that the cost of implementing such a free ticketing regime rarely outweighs the overall cost of subsidy. The council is also exploring a franchise model for the buses, the model used in London and recently rolled out in Manchester. They've started the preparatory work on this, but it would likely be 5 years or so at least until it's done. Still, it is on the way. by Scunnered20 (Sun 18th Dec 2022 12:51pm)

* Buses having single entry-exit doors next to the driver (near unique to the UK, and used primarily to prevent fare dodging, even if it increases dwell times significantly) * And having *far too many bus stops* too close to one another are two things which we're stuck with and which dramatically impact the efficiency of our bus services, purely because the private operators have demanded them. Slows everything down, but the operators see them as necessary to protect their income and maximise the number of potential customers, even at the cost of ruining the experience for those that use the buses. by Scunnered20 (Sun 18th Dec 2022 2:57pm)

what? by Scunnered20 (Sun 18th Dec 2022 3:01pm)

The joys of living directly underneath the jet stream 9-10 months of the year. It wiggles just a wee bit south for a few days, we get a deep freeze. It wiggles just a wee bit north, we get the business end of nice steady flow of damp air from the Caribbean deposited right onto our heids. by Scunnered20 (Mon 19th Dec 2022 11:04am)

Not a 2.5 tonne SUV in sight either. by Scunnered20 (Mon 19th Dec 2022 4:11pm)

If cheap is your priority, you'll find good a good range of whisky in most large supermarkets, as others have said. If you're in central Glasgow and want the very best range & price to choose from, go to Morrisons in Partick or Gallowgate. the bigish Tesco on Sauchiehall Street is probably your second best option. Probably comparable prices, but might not have quite as wide a selection. by Scunnered20 (Mon 19th Dec 2022 8:21pm)

Sorry, too late for you to benefit from this, but you can get an "All Day Airport" ticket in the First Bus App. It's really hidden away, and you can only get it on the app, but it's useful if you're using multiple buses. Think you find it under "Network" (not "City") options for Glasgow tickets. Costs around £8 or £9, last time I checked. So it saves you spending £5 on a regular All Day mTicket and £8.50 on the 500 ticket. by Scunnered20 (Tue 20th Dec 2022 12:17am)

Nah, OP should just use their card to tap on and tap off the bus. They'll alway pay the least amount of money over a day or week that way. by Scunnered20 (Tue 27th Dec 2022 9:25am)

I mean, I'm all with you on the need to remove or reduce the impact of the M8. But its existence doesn't mean we should accept shitty air on Argyle Street! Bit of a mad argument that. It makes total sense that the city is attempting to reduce the presence of the heaviest polluting vehicles where people walk and spend time in large numbers. Dealing with the motorway is a different thing. by Scunnered20 (Wed 28th Dec 2022 1:42am)

Try Voltaire & Rousseau on Otago Lane. Thistle Books might have something round the corner too. by Scunnered20 (Wed 28th Dec 2022 11:10am)

Doesn't just happen overnight. Cities in the UK are almost entirely skint, but funding for this specific network will largely come from Scot Gov's transport budget. The plan you share is the city's overall plan, and some of it is already being worked on, but it'll likely need to apply for external funding for each part of it over the next 10 years. Funding is being ramped up at central government level for cycling and walking infrastructure over next three years, which is good. So we should start to see elements of Glasgow's city network being delivered over the next couple of years. The city's meant to publish it's official delivery plan early in 2023. Was meant to be late 2022 but delayed. It'll contain the definitive list of priority routes to do first. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 11:24am)

These projects, much like all road infrastructure going back decades and decades, is paid for by general taxation. Roads and car use is incredibly well subsidised by the public purse. Not to say it shouldn't be, but it's important people have a sense of proportionality. A few tens of millions of pounds (upwards to a couple of hundred million pounds at most) is a drop in the ocean compared to spend on roads from all of our taxes. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 12:37pm)

What roads do you have in mind? (Which are too steep to be attractive for cycling). The city network is planned for mostly flat roads. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 12:59pm)

You'd know if you'd read the relevant plans that nobody is suggesting putting a route on St Vincent Street. The network both in the city centre and across neighbourhoods is planned for relatively flat, wide roads, of which there are many in Glasgow. It's how cities across the world, many with as many hills as Glasgow, are building their networks. These are really just poor excuses tbh. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 12:58pm)

Not aware of any major cycling routes in Glasgow that are planned for steep hills. Sure we have Montrose Street, Gardner Street and the like, but no one is proposing turning these into cycle superhighways. The network will use relatively flat, wide, long arterial roads, which Glasgow has plenty of. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 12:55pm)

Typically roads (major ones which act as thoroughfares, connecting neighbourhoods and towns to one another) are built on as flat a route as possible. Laying out the road network around and avoiding the hills wherever possible. That's the case in Glasgow as with most cities. It's perfectly possible to build a comprehensive network of cycle lanes overlayed onto the existing road network here. In fact that's what is planned, as has been done in other cities with hills. You can check out the network map for yourself in u/LordAnubis's reply further up the page. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 1:36pm)

Mmm there is a national cycling route that runs relatively close and parallel to the M8 from the Broomielaw through Anderston. Definitely 'uphill' but I wouldn't say steep. It'll eventually be upgraded and be a fairly viable way of getting from the riverside up to Charing Cross area, avoiding steep streets like Pitt Street, which oddly does have bike infrastructure planned for it (can't quite get my head around that one). Besides Pitt Street, which does stand out as a bad choice for new cycle route, all the others are planned for relatively shallow gradient roads. Talking about routes south to north leaving the riverside, there's the route I mentioned earlier, also Yorkhill cycling village improvements, Byres Road renovation, and an ambition to include Crow Road in the eventual cycling network. None of these are crazy steep and will work fine. Otherwise, there will be a few north south connector streets inside the city centre itself, connecting networks on either side of the centre to one another. You can already get from the riverside to Maryhill on traffic free routes via: Buchanan Street, Sauchiehall Street, Cambridge Street, Garscube Road. None of it all that steep. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 2:28pm)

Build for the city you want. Want everyone driving everywhere all the time? Build roads. Want people using public transport to get around? Invest in public transport. Want more people using bikes to get from A to B if they want to? Build cycling infrastructure. That's the simple lesson from 80+ years of experimentation in city planning across the globe. We're quite far down the car-prioritisation path, but it's never too late to change direction, as shown by countless cities over Europe and the US the last 5 years or so. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 3:56pm)

Early concept designs from 2017, pre-Covid. https://www.glasgowwestendtoday.scot/news/plans-making-queen-margaret-drive-cycle-and-walking-friendly-to-go-on-public-show-426/ Public consultation info here, from 2017: https://www.glasgowconsult.co.uk/KMS/dmart.aspx?strTab=PublicDMartCompleted&PageContext=PublicDMart&PageType=item&DMartId=781&breadcrumb_pc=PublicDMartCompleted&breadcrumb_pg=search&breadcrumb_pn=dmart.aspx&filter_Status=2 Not sure on the status of it. It's definitely going to happen (as part of the city network, but these plans for QMD predate even that), can't recall what the latest is. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 4:02pm)

The city is doing both ;) There's no need to view them as opposed to one another. In the Netherlands cycling as a modal share at any one time peaks at around 20%, with the other 80% moving by train, bus, and by car at any given time. The idea isn't to make everyone cycle. Simply to make it so it becomes a viable option for people who want to as a means of transport. The more people you help to cycle for journeys the more space you create on roads for people who have no option but to drive. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 8:03pm)

I don't see how they get in your way so long as you drive within the lines of the lane. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 9:07pm)

Ok. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 9:05pm)

Ever been to Holland? by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 10:25pm)

tend to keep tabs on what GCC are announcing. I guess it seems a bit opaque and hard to keep track of everything at first, but they just recently published a few transport strategies and plans. Most of the individual projects either flow out of those or are pre-existing projects that have been bundled in. by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 11:32pm)

Honestly not much more than knowing it's 1) in the city network plan so will happen eventually, whether that's a year, two years, five years, ten... and 2) the design work has been done, from what I remember reading a couple years ago anyway. Haven't heard very much about it recently though and barely gave it a thought until it came up in this thread! This is the latest I could find https://www.northkelvincc.org.uk/2021/09/queen-margaret-drive-traffic-regulation-order-2021/ by Scunnered20 (Thu 29th Dec 2022 11:34pm)

https://twitter.com/Hackneycyclist/status/1605967623748927491?t=eM865Yf7-jGElcnc_E1NPA&s=19 Watch this video to get a sense of how it is in the Netherlands. If you create adequate, safe infrastructure for cycling, people will choose to do it in all weathers. Maybe not you. Maybe not everyone. But people have the choice to if they want. Weather is a very minor barrier in comparison to lack of infrastructure. by Scunnered20 (Fri 30th Dec 2022 9:56am)

Without knowing the specific road you mean, they've largely been installed on roads which are part of the city's City Cycling Network 2030 plan. So the orcas are only temporary until hard, permanent infrastructure goes in. Basically, those car lanes aren't coming back. The idea is that you need to build a viable network to encourage more cycling. It's only when you build a comprehensive network of routes that take people to a range of different destinations, that you see usage rise significantly. That's the lesson from cities across the world. You can see where 'mini-networks' have already sort of developed in Glasgow and ridership has increased significantly already. Garscube Road and the connected routes to Woodside & Maryhill, and on the Southside centred around Victoria Road. These areas have seen ridership triple in a couple of years, and it's only continuing to grow. If you build individual, unconnected roads, no one would drive on them either. by Scunnered20 (Fri 30th Dec 2022 12:34pm)

>“We could replace it with a boulevard like Boston, or downgrade it and make it more pleasant and create a more vibrant area." I mean, this sounds like a great idea. It's been done in dozens of cities in the US and around the world already. So why not here? by Scunnered20 (Fri 30th Dec 2022 12:41pm)

A multi-billion pound, multi-decade project affecting the national motorway network, like all multi-billion pound multi-decade projects, would be the responsibility of the Scottish Government, not GCC. by Scunnered20 (Fri 30th Dec 2022 12:40pm)

Unless you mean something else they didn't say they were going to *do* it years ago. The Charing Cross cap was suggested as an idea about six years ago. Included in council planning strategies as an official ambition a few years later. Funding was gained for a feasibility study after that. And now the full project's been included in Glasgow's application for UK Government Levelling Up Funding. by Scunnered20 (Fri 30th Dec 2022 1:23pm)

While I am very much behind the idea of removing or redesigning the M8 city corridor, I do think we need to think seriously about how to go about it. And I say "We" to include anyone involved in the discussion at any level including whoever comes up with the eventual range of options, and whichever level of government provides the necessary funding. As you say, in many of the often cited international examples, a new ring road or tunnel bypass has been created in place of a previous city centre motorway. This is not just in a few examples, but widespread. It is much rarer that cities are removing their city centre motorways with no alternative orbital road building to accompany the project. This needs to be included in the discussion for Glasgow, from a regional perspective. The key problem is that the M8 would then meet a hard end at Townhead Junction. Vehicles using the motorway to travel east from Edinburgh and elsewhere in the central belt would need to go somewhere. If it's to Inverclyde or Ayrshire, then the M73-M74 corridor is there for that purpose. Sorted. But there is no alternative route to travel to the northwest of Glasgow. All this said, there is an existing Scottish Government goal of reducing car KMs by 20% by 2030. We are seven years away now, and extremely far off target. I do not expect us to meet this target, but it is there in policy, so in principle it ought to be impossible for the government to condone further roadbuilding, even as a relief measure. On top of this, I only expect calls for more stringent measures to reduce emissions to grow between now and 2030. While meeting this 20% reduction target is a low political priority at the moment, this could well change as we approach 1.5 degrees average global temperature in a few years. There may be a political tipping point where all of this discussion, about whether or not to repair the M8, whether or not to remove it, whether or not to build a relief orbital route, all becomes trivial as government cracks down on vehicle use with greater urgency, making the discussion moot. Who knows. by Scunnered20 (Fri 30th Dec 2022 2:40pm)

> Where are the developments to build over the motorway? I feel like you're sort of missing the point of where the discussion is at. The Cllr is attaching his voice to a sustained campaign to investigate alternatives for the M8 corridor. This may mean complete removal. Could mean repurposing the corridor as a wide boulevard with street-facing commercial and residential development. It could also mean keeping the route, but lowering it or tunnelling anew where possible and building stuff on top of it. It could be any or none of these things or a combination of them. We're at the very early stages of a conversation about what happens with it next. by Scunnered20 (Fri 30th Dec 2022 4:38pm)

Realistically, STPR2 contained zilch about altering the M8 corridor in Glasgow. So it's not even on the table as an infrastructure project any time within the next 10-20 years. It's only by Glasgow commissioning a feasibility study, and then pushing for inclusion of the project in STPR3 (whenever that is, if it's even called that 15-20 years from now) that replacement or redevelopment of the city centre M8 will ever happen. So, for now it's not really competing for cash with other projects which have already for the go-ahead. Like the Clyde Metro and other public transport improvements that you mention. Of course, there are things short of a massive infrastructure project that *could* be done in the short-medium term, to test the waters. Much lower limits or tolls on the route for example. I could see this being explored in the next 5-10 years. by Scunnered20 (Fri 30th Dec 2022 4:41pm)

Agreed totally. The debate around public policy response to climate change is itself prone to rapid change. We all know this, we've all seen how much the debate has shifted in just five-ten years. But I don't think we've all really internalised that the debate is fluid and ever-shifting towards greater interventions. Ordinarilly I might've said, I think people (mostly those dead against this very idea of tinkering with the M8 even if they "*get*" the wider climate debate) are behind the curve. As much as debate on climate policy has shifted already towards greater action to reduce emissions, we'll only see this ramp up as we approach and surpass the 1.5 degree barrier. Incredibly so I imagine. What seemed absolutely mental 15 years ago (demolishing motorways), and perhaps a little less mental but definitely leftfield now, could well seem completely logical, obvious, or or dare I say urgent in the policy agenda 5-10 years from now. by Scunnered20 (Fri 30th Dec 2022 7:37pm)

Even if it was a train every hour or two between midnight & 6am that would make such a difference. by Scunnered20 (Sat 31st Dec 2022 3:03pm)

> Also since when was the council called the “City Government”? Think the administration's been using this name for a while. Since the 2017 elections anyway. They're just referring to the council executive (leader's office & head of relevant departments), not the wider council btw. It's undoubtedly just branding, but I don't see too much of a problem with it. It's how many cities in other countries refer to their council administrations. by Scunnered20 (Sat 31st Dec 2022 3:05pm)

I'm more upset about its loss than that of the Art School Building, and suspect I will be for a long time to come. Not to claim that it was more culturally or historically meritable than the Art School. Both such losses, but the ABC building itself and it's role as a mid-sized venue filled such a niche for Glasgow which has yet to be replaced. by Scunnered20 (Thu 5th Jan 2023 11:14am)

Regularly £1 in student unions, mid to late 2000s. Outside of unions, I mind you could get it for £1.50 in your rougher / lower rent nightclubs around the same era. by Scunnered20 (Sun 8th Jan 2023 9:03pm)

It's a consequence of the FastLink separated bus route. It will make more sense once they have trams running on it as part of the Clyde Metro. by Scunnered20 (Sun 8th Jan 2023 11:13pm)

Very true about the recent concept plans showing something different. I'd be very surprised if the Squinty Bridge isn't used for trams eventually as part of the metro plans in the end though. It'd bring a tram line straight past the media hub at Pacific Quay, next to the Hydro & SEC too. The grade separated FastLink infrastructure continues all the way down to the 'International Financial Services District' at along Broomielaw and up to Central Station. Seems a no brainer for an eventual tram route. by Scunnered20 (Mon 9th Jan 2023 1:12pm)

I'd really back this idea of taking in a lower tier game. Good way of taking in a bit of nearby Scotland outside Glasgow, and it's also much more affordable. OP will likely struggle to get seven tickets for the Scotland game so this is a great suggestion. by Scunnered20 (Thu 12th Jan 2023 1:26pm)

Bit separate to the point of the thread (the prospective demolition of the Wyndford flats), but why is the article not worth reading? There's a lot of hate for Glasgow Live on this sub and I don't really know why. I get that there's hate for listicles, clickbait and advertorial property ads, but most of what appears in GL, including this article, is just regular local journalism. by Scunnered20 (Fri 13th Jan 2023 2:46pm)

What do you mean 'mega town/city generic'? I get that there are a lot of articles that are clearly just built on social media or reddit chat, but on the whole it's like 20% or less of their output. The rest of the stuff is just typical local news coverage. In some cases it's improved a fair bit recently with two 'local democracy reporters' covering official plans and city council business. I'm aware I sound like a GL cheerleader, but I'm honestly just a wee bit bewildered by the hate it gets. by Scunnered20 (Fri 13th Jan 2023 3:43pm)

No problem about the typo, was genuinely just curious about your point. It's a bit of a shame to hear this. I'm not saying GL, the Record (which GL is a subset of) or the Evening Times deserve endless respect in every aspect of what they do, but I find them to still be essential sources for local news. And I do think the quality of reporting has upped a bit for both GL and the Times in the last year or two. Markedly for Glasgow Live. Maybe I'm alone in thinking this. by Scunnered20 (Fri 13th Jan 2023 4:00pm)

Only partly covering the motorway, about a block and a half southwards to roughly where the Mitchell Library is. It'll come with [a redesign of the surface roads as well, with the possibility of a fully car-free North Street](https://www.urbanrealm.com/news/10047/M8_%27garden_cap%27_among_seven_Glasgow_projects_prepped_for_UK_funding.html). Glasgow included it as [one of several projects in its UK Govt Levelling Up Fund bid](https://news.stv.tv/west-central/m8-cap-peoples-palace-and-winter-gardens-among-glasgows-planned-bids-for-levelling-up-fund%EF%BF%BC) last year. Announcement on funding winners expected soon I think. by Scunnered20 (Fri 13th Jan 2023 6:56pm)

2 years of building (though I expect it might be a bit more than that) is nothing compared to possible decades and decades of benefits offered by having a more liveable and ideally densely populated city centre quarter. The embodied carbon of this or any similar scale project ought to be a concern, but it could be that the change of purpose of this area, away from mono-purpose retail and over to a multi-use residential, office and retail mix brings its own benefits economically and environmentally: i.e. more people living centrally and sustaining the city centre economy, paying council tax in Glasgow, and living as close to a major regional and national public transport node as is possible. The underlying cause for Sauchiehall Street's woes and that of the city centre more generally is the lack of people living in it. We have the least densely populated city centre core of any city of comparable size in Europe. Because of this, our city centre economy is extremely fragile, built upon a dependency on two things: spend by office workers and retail spend. In an era of online home deliveries and working from home, this simply can't be sustained. Plans like this aren't being driven by the city though, they're coming from private landowners who see there's minimal long-term profit to be made from medium to large retail lets any more: the exact type which make up Buchanan Galleries, St Enoch Centre and Braehead currently. It's just coincidence that the plan that the private owners of these malls have landed on (turning to mixed-use developments) is also likely to be the thing that will save the rest of the city centre. by Scunnered20 (Fri 13th Jan 2023 11:25pm)

There's a lot of work coming on public transport in Glasgow and more generally in Scotland. In many ways, we're at the beginning of a sea change in public policy on the issue. A return to prioritisation of public transport investment and project greenlighting which we haven't seen since pre-WWII. In Glasgow alone, bus prioritisation corridors are on the way (effectively a light version of Bus Rapid Transit) for five key arterial roads; light rail lines are being designed right now as part of the pre-planning works for the Clyde Metro; the Scottish Govt has an active commission which is due to provide its findings soon, on increasing public subsidy to bus ticketing (i.e. we're very likely to see something similar to or perhaps even better than the £2 cap on bus fares in England soon). Also, I know it is a running joke at this point and hard to believe, but with the roll-out of Tap On Tap Off ticketing systems on First, and soon all other bus operators this year and next, we're on target to have integrated ticketing across the bus and subway by 2025. That's just a few of the headline things relevant to us in Glasgow. There's a whole load of other stuff being planned for other parts of Scotland and for inter-regional transport. by Scunnered20 (Sat 14th Jan 2023 1:15pm)

> This is a money grab from developers to sell more units for more money and they only care about making it look like it's for the betterment of the city. It's absolutely a money grab from developers. They own land and want to see a return on their investment. Not claiming they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart! But getting more people living in the city centre, even as renters, is simply a good outcome. We can get into the specifics about rents etc., and it's not an insignificant, unimportant conversation, but that's detail. I'm talking big picture, it's simply a statement of fact that more people living in the city centre will benefit it. And I didn't say anything about developers wanting to reduce the cost of property. by Scunnered20 (Sat 14th Jan 2023 1:19pm)

> We both agree we need to get people back into the city. You think more people living there is the answer, I think giving people good reasons to be in the city is the answer. As with all things I'm bet it's a little from column a and a little from column b. Ultimately, we're actually in agreement about both these things to be honest. I think we need to do both, and thankfully, we're finally at a point in time where the council and independent actors (through financial incentive no doubt) are working on both. You've got gap sites filling in like nobody's business. Candleriggs and Holland Street stand out but there are many more. Talk of major redevelopments of Buchanan Galleries & St Enoch Centre, etc. More flats, more people living in the town. As we've been discussing. But the council also has a series of [well developed plans for the next 10 years](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=27557) to make the city centre a much more welcoming, inviting, pleasant place to spend time. Either as a resident or a visitor. I can't help but be very optimistic about the future for the city centre with both these things happening. by Scunnered20 (Sat 14th Jan 2023 2:15pm)

The owners of Buchanan Galleries and separately the St Enoch Centre both see the writing on the wall. There's no long term future in the rents they can command for medium to large retail. Online shopping isn't going away, to put it simply. We've reached the tipping point where there is more long term security in a business model built around residential rents. It's also why the landbanking has stopped in areas around Broomielaw and elsewhere in Glasgow. For the first time it is making business sense to develop the land for rented accommodation. This specific phenomenon of retail centre owners looking to change towards mixed use development, to avoid putting all their eggs in one basket, is something that's happening around the world by the way not just Glasgow or other UK cities. by Scunnered20 (Sat 14th Jan 2023 6:32pm)

All options considered (as there are quite a few), in terms of maximising what you can see the Riverside Museum and Kelvingrove Art Gallery & Museum are the two I'd recommend prioritising. A couple of hours in each would be a good use of time, and they're a very short distance from one another. The Riverside Museum is basically the city's Transport Museum. It tells the story of the city in quite a bit of detail through trams, trains, buses, ships etc. It has a full-scale replica of an early 20th Glasgow street and subway station, complete with old style subway car. Quite a variety of things to see all told. Strongly recommended. Also you can go onto the old cargo sail ship docked next to the museum. Kelvingrove art gallery and museum is a bit more of a mix. Art and sculpture from different eras, some social history and natural history exhibits. Feels a bit more geared for children, but there is a lot of good stuff to see. There's an exhibition of 20th century photos of Glasgow on the ground floor as well. It's quite hidden so you might need to ask for the exact gallery location, but it's worth seeing. You could probably visit both of these in one morning or one afternoon. Maybe 1.5 hours each and 30 mins walking between the two. by Scunnered20 (Sun 15th Jan 2023 8:32pm)

I disagree that it'll have a marginal effect. It'll connect Battlefield to the high quality cycle route in Govanhill, and by extension the rest of the city network. By extending the separated lanes south along Grange Road and Battlefield Avenue you make cycling a viable option for hundreds and hundreds of households that live in streets running off those roads. by Scunnered20 (Mon 16th Jan 2023 10:59pm)

Are we still having this debate? We're not the first city centre to take steps towards being a more liveable, walkable space by a long long distance. It's been proven to work time and time again. A body of evidence decades old. If people want to die on this hill so be it, but it's tedious. by Scunnered20 (Wed 18th Jan 2023 12:18am)

No, don't you understand, the all powerful council is directly responsible for this and everything else. by Scunnered20 (Wed 18th Jan 2023 8:13pm)

Legitimately, it's because the volume of car induced traffic by the 1960s made trams and then trolleybuses unreliable and this financially unviable to run. Trams were replaced by trolleybuses because they were seen as having more flexibility and ability to navigate through increasing traffic. But after a few years even trolleybuses struggled to justify their cost, and were replaced by buses at a time of immensely cheap diesel. This happened in cities across the world by the way, not just Glasgow. UK cities were particularly badly impacted though, as in many ways we embraced US style planning in a much more robust way than other European countries post-war. Many cities like Edinburgh are now reintroducing trams, but it's no coincidence its aligning with measures to reduce the presence of cars on streets. Street running of trams requires either complete grade separation (which isn't always possible) or traffic calming, particularly with regard to junctions, to make it viable. Glasgow is planning to introduce trams as part of the Clyde Metro network proposals over the coming decade or so. by Scunnered20 (Thu 19th Jan 2023 2:25pm)

Was that related to the aborted Strathclyde Tram? I get the cynicism, but it's fair to say we're closer now than we've ever been to seeing trams return to Glasgow. The Clyde Metro proposals have been given clear and official support from the Scottish Government, with preliminary route planning going on now from what I've read. It's gotten to a stage the Strathclyde Tram never reached. That was quashed at an earlier stage, when it was brought before the relevant (pre Scottish Parliament) parliamentary committee for approval or rejection. It was rejected on the basis that it would negatively impact bus patronage. That was at a time where massive public transport investment was lower down the agenda and bus operators held more power than now though. Things have changed fundamentally and the signs are all as good as they can be that we can reasonably expect trams in Glasgow again. May be years away but the plans are in motion in a way they haven't been before. In fact, the Strathclyde Tram project that your work related to is likely to be a component of the metro plans. by Scunnered20 (Thu 19th Jan 2023 9:28pm)

It was purchased, with renovation plans announced about a year ago. Works meant to begin relatively soon, hence why it looks a stage (no need to maintain it if it's being entirely renovated inside and out soon). by Scunnered20 (Thu 19th Jan 2023 9:32pm)

Think there's a slightly higher fee added on if your journey includes the bus stop at the airport, but it can't be more than like £5 or so total for the fare. Probably best combination of cheap and hassle-free, in that it's a single unbroken journey. Will take bloody ages though. by Scunnered20 (Fri 20th Jan 2023 5:13pm)

Please, complain to all of your ward councillors, SPT and First Bus. Everyone needs to do this on a regular basis whenever they have a similar experience. It doesn't take long, just fire off an email. Ward councillors are the most important ones, as in the end the glacial pace of improvement to bus services is through lack of political will. by Scunnered20 (Sat 21st Jan 2023 11:01am)

> it seems a popular thing today to waffle a lot about 'visions' This is because councils have no money. Gone are the days when we had powerful regional councils with strong tax bases and secure, reliable funding from national level year-on-year, allowing them to implement plans within a few years of them being hatched. Councils up and down the UK are utterly dependent on applying for handouts from national budgets to get anything done that isn't a base service. Even then, they are obviously struggling to fund many base services as it is. Councils need to bid for funding for every single stage of a project, from conception through to design and construction. It has to be layed out in multi-stage plans and 'visions', in order to secure this funding, as and when it becomes available through different pots (the highest profile ones being the City Deal and Levelling Up Fund but there are many others). by Scunnered20 (Sat 21st Jan 2023 11:45am)

Difficult to: * Give the concert hall an accessible street level entrance * Extend Sauchiehall Street eastwards * Maybe most importantly, provide a more direct through route to the bus station from Buchanan Street without removing the steps unfortunately. I like the steps. I like what they've become. But on balance they're a real obstacle to the first and third points there, so I think they probably do have to go in the long term. by Scunnered20 (Tue 24th Jan 2023 10:33pm)

I'm relatively pro the changes overall. Walkable streets. Mixed use development. More residents in that corner of the city. A much more direct through route to the bus station. An accessible entrance to the concert hall. Designs a bit underwhelming, but overall fine. But that proposed concert hall frontage is shockingly disappointing. What a downgrade. by Scunnered20 (Tue 24th Jan 2023 10:29pm)

Sorry, feel like I'm repeating myself here but needs to be said as this comes up so often: This is not the council planning this. It's proposals from the specific owners of Buchanan Galleries and the land it occupies. by Scunnered20 (Tue 24th Jan 2023 10:37pm)

These are plans from the landowners of Buchanan Galleries, not the council. by Scunnered20 (Tue 24th Jan 2023 10:35pm)

Queen Street is getting a three-storey extension (in the space behind the Millennium Hotel) soon. [Very early stage concept plans](https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/fresh-glasgow-queen-street-plans-20632485) were announced about two years ago, but the latest masterplan was submitted to council planning department last month. Current plans are for escalators leading up to a large rooftop terrace, level with Cathedral Street. So you could get off your train, head up the escalators and then, if I understand these Buchanan Galleries plans, walk through the park space at Cathedral Street direct to the bus station. by Scunnered20 (Tue 24th Jan 2023 10:41pm)

Separate owners, but that is bring proposed for St Enoch. by Scunnered20 (Tue 24th Jan 2023 10:48pm)

I'd argue it's not *quite* down to that. It's more down to how we depopulated the city itself and moved people out to new towns and remote estates in the 1950s and 1960s. The rate of car ownership within the city boundary is low, very low by the standards of a city this size (c. 600,000 residents). Car ownership spikes when you get to 3 miles+ from the city centre, as you cross into neighbouring local authorities. Transport in the city boundary itself is ok. Sure things could be better connected and integrated, and cheaper, and there are notable areas with poorer coverage than others (Castlemilk for example). But generally we've got very good bus route provision as well as the second largest suburban rail network outside of London to move people around. The main issue is with everyone who lives outside this zone and has little choice but to commute by car. This comes down to planning failures that are still going on. We're still building massive estates on the fringes of the city which are designed entirely, almost exclusively around car ownership. Just look at a birds eye view of Royrobston on Google Maps for example. Cul-de-sacs and dead ends which make walking from neighbourhood to neighbourhood a tedious and difficult talk. Shops and amenities located in one specific corner on the edge of the massive estate, again forcing people to drive. Multi-stage pedestrian crossings and retail parks which have one entrance (designed for cars), often at the opposite side to where people might be walking from. The mistakes go way beyond public transport, right down to the detail of how we design our neighbourhoods and public spaces. All designed with the car at the centre, and pedestrians and other road users an afterthought. by Scunnered20 (Fri 27th Jan 2023 10:45am)

You'll hear a lot of doom and gloom on here, and yes things are far from ideal, but works are underway to improve the transport network in Glasgow quite profoundly. There won't be any nationalisation of the bus system - better to let individual cities and authority areas manage their own systems than set up a national body. But that aside, there is work happening on: *Bus prioritisation corridors (effectively a light version of Bus Rapid Transit) for five key arterial roads running outwards from the city centre. These will provide bus lanes, which may be physically separated. As well as bus prioritisation at traffic lights, and a reorganisation of bus stops. This will make a huge number of our bus lines much more efficient and faster. *Light rail lines are being designed right now as part of the pre-planning works for the Clyde Metro *The Scottish Govt has an active commission (The Fair Fares Commission) which is due to provide its findings soon, on increasing public subsidy to bus ticketing (i.e. we're very likely to see something similar to or perhaps even better than the £2 cap on bus fares in England soon). * Also, I know it is a running joke at this point and hard to believe, but with the roll-out of Tap On Tap Off ticketing systems on First, and soon all other bus operators this year and next, we're on target to have integrated ticketing across the bus and subway by 2025. by Scunnered20 (Fri 27th Jan 2023 10:50am)

Expanding the underground is just not going to happen. A new line or subway circle similar in size to the existing circle would be between £2-4 billion. For that money, you can get a dozen tram lines and rejig your roads to prioritise rapid bus transport, which looks to be the route we're going down. by Scunnered20 (Fri 27th Jan 2023 12:40pm)

> And I really hope they don’t prioritise buses. Why? So they remain slow and unreliable? by Scunnered20 (Fri 27th Jan 2023 6:11pm)

Not sure if this has been fixed but I know the barriers had an issue for a long time where they wouldn't open if someone was standing *on* the dark grey floor pad. Like, the bit you would intuitively think to stand as you put your ticket in the slot. I had a bad habit of doing this, like most people I suppose, and remember on many occasions the staff telling me you need to stand off the floor pad until the gate opens. It seemed completely stupid and hard to believe, but from observing others it seems it might still be an issue. by Scunnered20 (Sat 28th Jan 2023 11:54am)

People have every right to ride bikes on the road. by Scunnered20 (Sat 28th Jan 2023 3:22pm)

Yeah I can understand that's what's going on, but it seems an obvious design flaw. People routinely step onto it as they pass their ticket through the machine. by Scunnered20 (Sun 29th Jan 2023 11:06am)

There are no cycle lanes on that section of GWR. Car ownership has been rising continually in Scotland for 20 years, but yeah, the gridlock is the fault of a couple of cycle lanes. by Scunnered20 (Mon 30th Jan 2023 11:55am)

Funnily enough Glasgow used to have close to that population inside our city boundary. One of the biggest problems caused by moving half of the population out to the sticks to new commuter towns in the 60s is that it made public transport much less viable for the region. Not impossible, but incredibly costly, inefficient, and to this day it places a structural burden on the transport system which isn't entirely sustainable. It's hard for a bus line to be both 1. rapid, and 2. serve a customer base that's spread across a wide area. It can't do these things at once, and since we our buses need to serve highly dispersed populations, we sacrifice journey times and reliability, making them less appealing and convenient for all users, whether out in the sticks or in the centre. On top of that, the same traffic that buses have to fight through is made up of people who might otherwise have been fare-paying passengers in a different timeline. Vehicle traffic is what killed off trams in the first place and trolley-buses not long after. We're still living with its impact on our bus network. One of the best things we can do is find ways of moving people closer to the centre of the city, and where that isn't possible, closer to transit hubs. Rather than continuing to build sprawl far away from train stations or along motorway corridors. I say all this simply to make the point that its not necessarily a bad thing if we have more people living in Glasgow. More people can equal more people sustaining and supporting the city's transport system. by Scunnered20 (Mon 30th Jan 2023 2:32pm)

There seems to be an underlying hard-to-shake-off sense in the UK that cycling is just a hobby or sporting activity. Something you do as a bit of exercise or for fun, rather than simply as a means of getting from a to b. When you see it that way, people's reactions to having a cyclist in front of them (not even necessarily a middle aged man in lycra, but a bog standard person on a bike) is slightly easier to understand, as bad as it is. They see someone on a bike as being out for a wee ride, wondering why they're using *their* bit of road while they're doing it. Of course the reality is they're not out for a wee carefree jaunt, the person on a bike is using that bit of road because that's the route to where they're going. And they have every right to. If there was a safer, segregated way of getting where they were going, they'd likely take that instead. by Scunnered20 (Tue 31st Jan 2023 6:56pm)

> Not to mention there’s people that will cycle at a snails pace in front of cars and act like there’s no issue with it. If a person walks slowly in a bike lane/doesn’t move out the road then they are rightly chastised. Same goes for the road What are you suggesting cyclists do here? by Scunnered20 (Tue 31st Jan 2023 7:14pm)

Exactly this. If you ever ride a bike you'll understand this uneasy feeling of approaching a pedestrian from behind. You should always ring your bell, to let them know you're coming not as a demand to move, as you say. But half the time it's met with annoyance or worse. Other times it prompts the pedestrian to move into your path as you try to move around them. by Scunnered20 (Tue 31st Jan 2023 7:22pm)

If I understand what OP raised, he's talking about the routine bile you see in comments under bike related stories in local newspapers, or in the social media comments, or routinely on FB groups whenever cycling is mentioned. It's pretty general and widespread bile to be honest, usually in relation to announcements on safer infrastructure or road redesign but not exclusively. You do see people whinge about cyclists riding two abreast as well. If anyone gets truly riled by this it's usually a sign to me that they ought to hand their driving licence back in or retake their test, as it indicates they don't understand how and when it's safe to overtake, or why people riding two abreast is safer for everyone (a line of cyclists naturally takes longer to overtake, therefore presenting a greater risk of collision with something coming the other way). by Scunnered20 (Tue 31st Jan 2023 10:08pm)

Not downvoting you, but you come across as someone reasonably thoughtful in what you say so I want to reply to a few things in a good spirit, hoping that maybe you take them on board? > What I see is roads being chopped to add a cycle lane in which in turn actually increases congestion, and emissions......so having freer flowing traffic makes more sense to reduce emissions to a point. As a starting point, vehicle emissions are caused by the vehicles that emit them and nothing more. Often you hear this point from drivers, and this sounds harsh, but I never ever ever get the sense that in saying this they are recognising or acknowledging in any genuine way the harm their emissions are causing, either to the climate, to people nearby on the street, or even themselves (studies show that drivers are exposed to astonishing levels of CO2, NO, NO2 and particulate matter from their exhausts, when inside their own cars). I feel I need to say this. I never ever feels like a genuine argument, but one only raised as some sort of throwaway gotcha. If we take it as a genuine complain, then good! We all should care about our emissions. We should be aiming to get more people out of cars and into any other mode of transport we can. Be it bus, train, bike or get them walking a journey if it's short enough. The more people that are able to make journeys by one of these modes - bikes included mind! - this means the only drivers on the road are the ones that either really really need to be there. It makes it much easier for them to drive around too, because they are sharing roads with fewer cars (cars by the way take up a huuuuge amount of space per user compared to buses or bikes, with most cars having an maximum of 1.3 - 1.4 people inside them at any given time on average, i.e. driver alone and no passenger being the most common situation). This is an exceptional video on the topic, which you might like: https://youtu.be/d8RRE2rDw4k > but cycle lanes being planned and added constantly for an extremely small minority of the population, with no real evidence to suggest that there’s going to be a sudden uptake in cycling if we had an incredible network The evidence is plain to see in countries and cities which have already built comprehensive networks. Build it and they do indeed come. If you don't create a well connected network though, you can have intermittent high-ish quality cycle lanes, but you're holding back what you can achieve in terms of ridership. It'll be five to ten years, maybe a bit more before we get anywhere close to Danish levels, but I do believe we are on the way in Glasgow. > It’s a culture change needed, not just lanes. The cultural change only comes after you address the way roads and urban spaces are designed. That's why the Netherlands is the cycling culture it is, and Denmark and other nearby countries following closely behind. They moved much much sooner than us to radically rethink their streets and roads back in the 70s to be much safer for more vulnerable people, cyclists and pedestrians, to use. The cultural shift then followed this, not the other way around. If you look anywhere in the world, the trick to getting mass cycling is the create streets and spaces that cater to it: good, reliable, well connected cycle lanes, and not much else. by Scunnered20 (Tue 31st Jan 2023 11:34pm)

u/ohffswhatnow The chat is that local people and councillors were promised a segregated cycle lane during consultation, with letters to that effect from Network Rail. I believe it was even included in the final design, but I can't track down a copy online. But it just wasn't done. I think this has potential to rumble on, with local councillors suggesting they're planning to escalate it (dunno if that means legal action or what). by Scunnered20 (Thu 2nd Feb 2023 1:20pm)

I guess I'm the only person who thinks this is a bit of a shame. E-scooters could solve so many of our transport issues if they were allowed to be used in some way. Maybe not as the main mode of commuting, and they're not for everyone, but they could help connect people to other modes of transport for longer journeys. Turning a 20 min walk into a 5 min ride to a bus or train station. And you can fold it up and pack it away. Can't do that with a bike so easily. They take up hardly any space, so would help with getting cars off the road and easing congestion for people that do need to drive. I just can't get my head around the point-blank refusal to find a way for them to work as part of the transport mix on our roads. by Scunnered20 (Fri 3rd Feb 2023 10:08am)

Been meaning to reply to a couple of your points here for a few days, and just getting round to it! > I need to walk 15 mins to the train into Queen street, or maybe 7 for a bus to somewhere in town, never used it to know where it goes. Unless I misunderstand the situation, this doesn't sound so bad? A 15 minute walk for the train could be shorter, but it's not that bad is it? And do you mean a 7 minute walk for a bus? That's hardly anything! Maybe I misunderstand. >Netherlands and Denmark. 2 countries that are significantly flatter than Glasgow/UK. I hear this all the time and it's a bit of a red herring. We have hills, but no one is planning to build our cycling network on hills. Much of our existing road infrastructure, particularly the wide, flat main roads in Glasgow are built to avoid hills. This is normal in cities all over the world and goes way way back in time to early days of laying out our road networks. Transit corridors tend to follow as flat a path as possible for economy of movement. [If you look at the plans for the future city network of cycle lanes in Glasgow, the vast, vast majority are planned for relatively flat roads](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29054). > Not in as much of a rush as us brits always seem to be... It all depends on exactly where you are and is not true of absolutely every situation, but for journeys within 2-3 miles of a city's core, whether Glasgow or almost any other city, cycling really does tend to be much faster than any other mode. This is something that doesn't seem to be widely understood or appreciated by people who don't cycle for transport - and I'll be honest and say it really surprised me how much quicker cycling is than taking the bus or even driving into town when I started! For example, I find I can reliably predict the length of my cycle commute down to the minute or so (usually it's 18 mins) from my front door to office. It never really deviates from this. Meanwhile an equivalent bus trip could be anything between 25 and 45 mins or longer if traffic is really bad. Driving can also vary hugely depending on traffic, from 20 mins to 45 mins. I find the reason for this is down to the fact that so much of the journey is segregated from other traffic. Sure there are occasional traffic lights that I have to wait in just like cars and buses, but these are few and far between, because the rest of the route is made up of a path through a park, quiet side streets, and segregated cycle lanes that bypass traffic completely. My point here is that this stuff (the infrastructure to support cycling) really does make a difference to people's journeys, especially if you connect it up. It makes cycling a doddle, and the more places that the infrastructure can take you across the city, the more appealing it is to do it. by Scunnered20 (Sat 4th Feb 2023 2:50pm)

Can't a guy just drive around without an MOT or insurance and not be hounded anymore? What is this, 1984? by Scunnered20 (Sat 4th Feb 2023 3:44pm)

Merchant Chippy by Scunnered20 (Mon 6th Feb 2023 2:41pm)

I like walking north and joining the M8 at Dobbie's Loan, then slowly tiptoeing my way anti-clockwise along the central reservation, past Charing Cross, droopying onto the top of a passing number 1 bus at Anderston, which I ride to Ingram Street. From there I moonwalk to Queen Street. What a weird question OP. by Scunnered20 (Mon 6th Feb 2023 2:48pm)

Not city centre but Hillhead Bookclub would be a good option. Fairly extensive vegan & vegetarian options, but also have a typical menu too. Good quality any time I've been. Nice place too, and you know, in the West End, so might make for a convenient stopping point for a wander around. by Scunnered20 (Tue 7th Feb 2023 4:51pm)

Think LordAnubis was just saying that it's another sign things are going kinda ok for the city centre, contrary to what you generally hear about it online. If you listen to most people on here or elsewhere on social media you'll be left with the impression the city centre is an unredeemable wasteland, killed off by Covid and a few cycle lanes. We're a couple of years into the biggest building and investment boom in decades, with lots of good plans in the works. Gap sites and decades long blight disappearing like nobody's business. Footfall is back to pre-Covid levels (albeit spread slightly differently, with new peaks at weekends and evenings). Should be c.10,000 new residents in and around the city centre in a couple years with the range of developments under way. Plenty still to do but it's not the dire picture some paint. by Scunnered20 (Tue 7th Feb 2023 9:52pm)

They've reduced the junction width there recently with a pedestrian island too. https://www.google.com/maps/@55.8709683,-4.3026456,3a,75y,200.85h,73.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0jE1YxkTUo76ijgzMU031A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 by Scunnered20 (Wed 8th Feb 2023 7:38pm)

It's got one of those [stupidly wide flaring bellmouth junction openings](https://www.google.com/maps/@55.8715567,-4.3024534,3a,75y,265.28h,82.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sr2vNCv2vB93kyUmUFYp84w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that invite drivers to turn without slowing down. Bad news if you're a pedestrian crossing the street or in a car travelling with right of way along the priority road. Surprisingly few accidents listed for that junction on crashmap, but loads listed for the next junction up at Chancellor Street, which also has similar flaring junction openings. https://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search It's typical of road design going back decades which favours traffic flow over pedestrian convenience or safety. Once you find out about this you can't help but see it everywhere you go. There are so many streets across Glasgow that could do with junction width reductions. Some are insanely wide and make these look like nothing. by Scunnered20 (Wed 8th Feb 2023 7:45pm)

Can I gently suggest that this is beginning to present something close to a public health emergency? It needs to be treated as such. If dozens of people were injured and five people killed in a single incident, heads would roll and there'd be instant action to prevent it happening again. I know the council and different layers of government have plans to reduce car KMs and improve streets for walking. But people are literally dying on our streets. We need changes now. by Scunnered20 (Thu 9th Feb 2023 3:06pm)

With the benefit that if there is a collision, it's at a much lower speed too. by Scunnered20 (Thu 9th Feb 2023 3:19pm)

Thing is the Glasgow LEZ isn't a piggy bank at all. Sure there are fines if you break it, but the idea is to deter people from entering with non-compliant vehicles, not asking them to pay for the privilege. It's not like a congestion charge zone where the council expects to get a steady income stream. Birmingham instated something like this recently, which they called a Clean Air Zone. Arguably it might've been a better thing to do, as drivers can enter the city but pay through the nose for doing so if their car is a high polluter. Funds raised are directly channelled into active travel and public transport projects in Birmingham. Now, that model *could* be described (cynically) as a piggy bank. But it would also be quite a useful piggy bank to have. by Scunnered20 (Thu 9th Feb 2023 3:47pm)

I'm getting a bit sick of this type of chat. There've been five people killed by drivers in Glasgow in a couple of weeks alone. Cars are everywhere. They're bigger and heavier than ever before and car ownership has continued to balloon in Scotland for decades. People drive aggressively in Glasgow and it's frighteningly common to glance at a driver in traffic and see a phone in their hand. Our streets are designed to prioritise the convenience of drivers over and above the convenience and safety of pedestrians or cyclists at nearly every turn. There is something wrong and it's staring us in the face. by Scunnered20 (Thu 9th Feb 2023 5:54pm)

Close your eyes everybody. Nothing to see here! by Scunnered20 (Fri 10th Feb 2023 6:16pm)

I replied to you or someone else in another thread making a similar point the other day. I don't see how you can call it a piggy bank? There are schemes in other cities, like in Birmingham for example, where it works like a typical congestion charge where people have to pay a fee to enter the city in high polluting vehicles. Birmingham is already getting a steady income stream from this, significant over and above what was projected. Income from this is then directed towards active travel and public transport projects. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/clean-air-zone-expected-make-25990189 Call that a piggy bank, but it's a nice piggy bank to have isn't it? Our system is different. It's built around *deterring* vehicles from entering at all if they're non-compliant. Logically, if it's successful, the council won't have a steady income stream from it. by Scunnered20 (Sat 11th Feb 2023 11:40am)

Sorry, I tend to disagree with this. On balance it's great news the development is going ahead. It's a major Glasgow 'Cross', which back in the old days had dense housing on all sides. More housing is required in Glasgow (in every city to be honest), and this specific development is replacing a surface car park. In the original plans all trees would have been felled, but the plans were revised to retain a number of them. It's a fair compromise. Taking a step back, Glasgow has various commitments in its ongoing city development plans to boost the number of street trees in all neighbourhoods. We need more housing and more greenery, but it's not an either or. Speaking of this corner of Finnieston specifically, I think there are medium term plans to turn Finnieston Street into something more of a boulevard lined with trees. So overall I don't really understand the push back against this individual development. by Scunnered20 (Sun 12th Feb 2023 5:16pm)

You could keep those trees, but the development would be pushed back from the street edge. And as they're mature trees, you're talking setting the development 3-5 metres or so back from the street edge at least, which amounts to a not-insignificant surface area. This isn't the end of the world, but it would go against the city's preferred design code for new buildings, which recommends buildings touch up against the street edge where possible. In part this design recommendation is (in small part) to reflect the existing character of the Victorian built environment, where most pre-1920s buildings similarly touch against the street edge. By coincidence this is generally seen as 'good design' practise in urban planning now, which is the larger reason for it being part of the design code. As it results in the development interacting with activity on the street much more than if it were set back by some distance. The reasons for this are many and relatively academic, and you could go down a rabbit hole reading more about this if you want to. I could say more if you want but it's a relative tangent so I'll leave it at that for now. On top of this, for a private developer, this kind of difference in available surface area can make or break the financials of a development (especially when you're limited in height by other city planning guidelines). When you look at the whole concept overall, you're trading a few trees, which will soon be replaced, for new housing in a highly urban location which is itself well served by public transport. And which is replacing a literal car park. I mean, I say all this, but an alternative might be to move the trees elsewhere? I don't know if any of the opponents suggested this. That seems an even more sensible compromise. But then again, in the round, I don't see it as an issue worth preventing this new housing from going ahead. by Scunnered20 (Sun 12th Feb 2023 5:47pm)

Well, this is a Glasgow sub and the reason we're talking about it is because 8 or so people have been killed in Greater Glasgow walking across the street or even just along the pavement in the last few weeks alone, but whatever. by Scunnered20 (Mon 13th Feb 2023 4:24pm)

That's just completely mental. Maybe we can get those wee flags they have in America for waving around whenever we want to cross the street as well. by Scunnered20 (Mon 13th Feb 2023 4:27pm)

Just to check, are talking about the bridge being built between Partick and Govan? Seems an odd thing to criticise money being spent on. by Scunnered20 (Wed 15th Feb 2023 10:33pm)

Couldn't disagree more. The Squinty bridge and Clyde Tunnel are pure miles away from the centre of Govan. Govan and Partick are two of the more densely patches of Glasgow. Govan less so, but loads of development is under way now and more planned for the next few years on brownfield land close to the cross. There's talk of some of the industrial sheds along Helen Street being converted into residential units at some stage too. So overall Govan will come to be one of the more densely populated parts of the city again, as it once was. £20 million is next to nothing as infrastructure projects go. It's great bang for the buck, creating a direct walking and cycling route between these two neighbourhoods (Partick of course having far more amenities) long into the future. by Scunnered20 (Thu 16th Feb 2023 12:52pm)

If it's a constant issue and really causing difficulty passing, consider leaving a note on the windshield. But people who do this don't give a fuck so it's unlikely to help. At least they then know what they're doing isn't totally harmless and inconveniences and puts pedestrians or disabled people in danger by forcing them onto the road. As u/twistedLucidity says, take a picture and report via the council's app. Needs to be on double yellow lines for them to take any action though. And by action, I think all that happens is someone receives your complaint and passes it on to the enforcement team for them to maybe (but probably not) send someone round that way more often. The single most effective thing you can do is document the problem by taking pictures over a week, fortnight or month. Report every instance you see via the app as well during this time. Submit the gambit of pictures with dates to your local ward councillors asking for increased enforcement. I did this a while back and the increased enforcement they did for a week or two led to a couple of months where the issue disappeared. by Scunnered20 (Thu 16th Feb 2023 3:14pm)

Not sure it'll kick in from April, but yeah, the pilot removal of peak fares is meant to happen some time later this year. by Scunnered20 (Thu 16th Feb 2023 5:04pm)

> I honestly think half of Glasgow Council folk need to be binned and replaced. I've lived in Glasgow on and off 10 years now and there has never been a feeling or consensus that Glasgoe Council are competent. People say this all the time but I never see it backed up with any examples? Are you just complaining about the general run-down nature of things? Cause we're 13 years into a programme of planned central funding austerity. I don't think it's fair to blame council officers for the state of things, unless of course you're talking about specific examples of incompetence. The entire austerity agenda was a political masterstroke by Cameron & Osborne. It was always part of the plan that if you defund councils and local authorities, people will ultimately *blame* those local authorities for failures to provide services. by Scunnered20 (Thu 16th Feb 2023 10:09pm)

I feel like some people have been living in a cave for 13 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme by Scunnered20 (Fri 17th Feb 2023 12:48am)

Not to sound like a total misery guts but even though that was by far the best of the three options it's still so underwhelming compared to what it replaced. by Scunnered20 (Fri 17th Feb 2023 1:00pm)

https://www.gobike.org/about-us/cycle-rides by Scunnered20 (Fri 17th Feb 2023 2:06pm)

Unfortunately not. There's no option for a short term pass covering all modes of transit. Your options are: * Pay individually for each mode you use. It's around £5 for a day ticket on First buses, £4.20 for all day subway travel. No all day ticket covering trains, except for: * A £7.40 [Roundabout ticket] giving all day travel on the subway and to nearly all train stations in Greater Glasgow. Needs to be bought at staffed train stations or from staff on a train, and is only valid after 9am on weekdays. * Another option is to get a week ticket for First buses, which is around £18-19, depending on if you buy one in the app or on the bus. I would recommend against doing this though, and paying for your bus travel by scanning your credit/debit card on the bus. This way your total cost will be capped over a single day or week, and can mean you don't waste money on a weekly ticket you don't use. But you still achieve the same savings as a pre-bought weekly ticket would offer you. by Scunnered20 (Fri 17th Feb 2023 9:27pm)

We don't have a municipal transit authority unfortunately, in the style of TfL for example. A situation lots of UK cities have been stuck in for a couple of decades due to limitations in law. SPT (Strathclyde Partnership for Transport) is close to this, and is the inheritor organisation of our old municipal transit authority, but SPT only manages the subway circle today. Buses are privatised and trains are only just very recently nationalised, so we lack any truly integrated ticketing system at the moment. There are moves under way to change this with the law being changed recently, but it is taking an age to fix. by Scunnered20 (Fri 17th Feb 2023 11:15pm)

I wish the council would be more forceful in its communication about the Brockburn Road cycle lane. It's not just a random lane plopped down for the sake of it to piss off drivers. It's part of the city's long term city cycling network, and one of the key routes through Pollok in that plan, so it's (hopefully) going nowhere. I wish they responded to the criticism by saying this. The majority of planned routes are on major neighborhood roads, because international examples going back decades show this is how you encourage and support greater numbers of people cycling. People want to ride in the most direct way to where they're going, on well lit roads with with routes that connect up and directly pass by various amenities, not along back streets or sketchy off road routes. The problem with the Brockburn Road route at the moment is the junctions. The separation from traffic is fine and helpful for cyclists, but there's no protection at any of the multiple junctions and roundabouts it touches, particularly that massive horrible roundabout at Peat Road. And at the moment, it's fairly disconnected from the rest of the growing network. It looks temporary at the moment, but the idea is it will be developed into permanent infrastructure and better connected to the rest of the network via Crookston Road and Corkerhill Road when funds allow. by Scunnered20 (Sat 18th Feb 2023 11:00am)

1. It rains in the Netherlands and in Denmark. People still ride in large numbers because the thing that allows them to is the infrastructure. https://youtu.be/WkgKYjrNLwg 2. We have hills yeah, but no one is proposing building our growing cycling network on those hills. If you look up Glasgow's plans, it's for routes along what are largely wide, flat roads connecting neighbourhoods. Like how it's been done in hundreds of other cities already which have some hills. 3. That's fine. You don't need to ever ride one. But some people do and are held back from going places by bike because they're terrified of being injured. The infrastructure allows people of any age and any confidence level to go wherever they want to by bike, *if they want to*. Currently they don't have that choice. by Scunnered20 (Sat 18th Feb 2023 11:17am)

They have to be on main roads. Because main roads are where shops, schools, post offices, all amenities you can think of, and connections to other routes are. If you're designing a network to encourage and support more cycling for normal, typical daily journeys (to and from amenities and to and from different neighborhoods), you need to build them along main roads. You don't encourage more cycling by telling people to take meandering routes along dark, off road paths. You do it by making the journey as easy to make as possible. by Scunnered20 (Sat 18th Feb 2023 12:12pm)

The pandemic helped illustrate that there is an underlying demand from people to be able to cycle more. Not everyone. People always jump on this and say "but I don't want to" or "not everyone wants to". Yes, deifnitely true. No one's pretending 100%, or even 50%, or even 30% of people want to cycle everywhere all the time. But the point is there's a latent level of demand that isn't being supported. It might be something closer to 15-20% of journeys, but that would be fine. As I say, if you're looking for as clear an illustration as possible of why infrastructure and traffic calming is much much more important than weather, look at the period of the pandemic. Did the weather change for 2 years? No. But cycling rates more than doubled. What changed was there were fewer cars on our roads, and people were able to cycle around confidently like they hadn't before. Separate bike infrastructure replicates this effect, by giving people a safe space to ride on. by Scunnered20 (Sat 18th Feb 2023 12:54pm)

Having a bit of trouble fully understanding your research question. Is your question basically asking something like: "Did (does) Govan's reputation for poverty and deprivation come from the construction of new housing (in Govan), meant to alleviate overcrowding in other areas?". As in, Govan might've been fine otherwise but it took the brunt of reconstruction to help out other parts of the city? Because I don't think that's quite how it happened. The city's [Comprehensive Development Areas programme of the 1950s](https://www.theglasgowstory.com/story/?id=TGSFG) covered most of Glasgow. I think there were 24 or so in total. So it's not like rebuilding Govan was seen as a remedy for issues elsewhere: the rebuilding was envisioned to be citywide. It's just that Govan was one of the handful of districts where CDA plans were almost seen through to completion, before a combination of civic pushback and 1970s government debt crisis forced a complete halt to most of the programme. In fact, Govan's CDA works actually stalled as far as I know, and the better, more complete examples were Townhead, Cowcaddens and the Gorbals. by Scunnered20 (Tue 21st Feb 2023 5:42pm)

Worth someone saying people shouldn't get carried away, as OP isn't sharing something which isn't already publicly available info. Transport Scotland included the Clyde Metro amongst several other projects in its list of national-level transport infrastructure projects for the next decade or more, earlier this year. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29851 This concept map OP shares is a slightly older one, released in the first draft of that shortlisting and updated slightly in 2021. The more up to date concept map from 2022 is available here: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/26965. Superficially the map looks a little different but it's more or less the same in terms of identifying potential routes. Unless OP knows otherwise, the latest is simply that it has tacit support from national government, which is definitely a win. Glasgow City Council is leading on creating a full business case for the overall project, which is a necessary step before further funding is released. This business case will likely outline which routes are deemed 'priority' routes to be delivered, and slightly more detail on what form they may take. This will all be quite a slow process, but we are at the beginning of something which could be quite revolutionary for the city. by Scunnered20 (Wed 22nd Feb 2023 9:41pm)

Sounds like the campaign group was just giving an update on the recent announcement about metro plans being shortlisted for (future) government funding. by Scunnered20 (Wed 22nd Feb 2023 9:56pm)

national transport budget, over the course of 20-30 years. by Scunnered20 (Wed 22nd Feb 2023 10:05pm)

More up-to-date map [available here](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/26965). by Scunnered20 (Wed 22nd Feb 2023 10:13pm)

Yes, as I recall HS2 (or would the Scottish extension have been HS4?) would have shaved 30 minutes off the fastest Glasgow to London journey. Not a game changer in itself. That said of course, the wider benefits of building a separated long-distance high speed rail alignment are that you use that for your high speed services, freeing up the other, existing lines, for many many more regional services. by Scunnered20 (Wed 22nd Feb 2023 10:11pm)

It'd run through Central lower level. by Scunnered20 (Wed 22nd Feb 2023 10:25pm)

I get this. My best guess is because they're extremely early stage concept designs, it's about keeping the design relatively vague. To avoid being pinned down on the detail (should things change), or causing an unnecessary stooshie early on should any single part of it be hugely controversial. It's all fairly broad sweep at this point in time. There's some fun though in trying to understand the routes based on what's been provided so far. There's not much to go on, as you say, but you can more or less begin to understand how it would knit together by comparing it to a real world map. by Scunnered20 (Wed 22nd Feb 2023 11:34pm)

GARL in that form with a terminal station at Glasgow Airport was never a goer. It was raised as an project idea in planning circles as far back as the 80s, with the central problem identified as early on as that too: you can't add a spur track running off the main Paisley to Glasgow corridor without also significantly interrupting services and trains-per-hour to Inverclyde and Ayrshire. You can get round this to an extent by triple tracking the route, but you still have to find a way of bypassing Paisley Gilmore Street. On top of this, you need to justify the cost, both financially and to loss of other services. Which is hard to do for a spur route which serves one single station. That it was resurrected in that form in the 2000s was baffling. It was never able to stand on its own feet as an infrastructure project cost-wise, so even if political promises were based on honest intentions, it gave people a false sense of what would be possible. That's not to say a cost effective version of the project doesn't exist. A better way, which was identified in the late 80s as an alternative, would be a much longer spur line taking in many more stations beyond the airport alone, tilting the cost-benefit ratio in favour of the project. A route which extends so far that it becomes a loop back to Glasgow is even better, as it provides alternative routes for passengers. You can also have higher frequencies on the "north" side of the loop than on the south, so freeing up space for existing Inverclyde or Ayrshire services. A slight variation of this alternative idea is included in the current metro plans, which suggest a possible extension of the Paisley Canal rail line around Paisley, and then on to Renfrew and Glasgow. by Scunnered20 (Thu 23rd Feb 2023 12:45am)

If the Botanics line is to go ahead there would most likely be compulsory purchase orders on the homes which are situated on the old Kirklee Station stretch of the line. Them being there wouldn't be enough to stop project of this scale and significance from happening. On the point about serving the richest and best served area: the line would extend via the Botanics out to Maryhill. Indeed Maryhill Tesco was built with specific provisions to leave clearance for any future tram / train line along the old alignment. That's why it's on stilts with a car park underneath. Beyond that, there would be scope for such a line to continue on to Drumchapel, as was proposed for the Strathclyde Tram in the 90s. It was quashed by a range of arguments at the time, one being that the route served the richest area of Glasgow (Hillhead). That might've been true, but it is one section of a line which would have dramatically improved transport options for people in two of the poorest areas of the city, connecting Drumchapel and Maryhill directly to subway services at Kelvinbridge, with the line continuing on to the Exhibition Centre and Glasgow Central. The metro plans look like they're rehashing this plan, which should be welcomed. It also suggests the line could potentially extend on past Central Low Level on to the southside via the Cathcart Circle, providing direct services between Maryhill and the Southside. I don't know why anyone would be against this? by Scunnered20 (Thu 23rd Feb 2023 12:56am)

If it serves hundreds of thousands of residents who have limited transport options and allows for likely millions of new trips by public transport a year, then yes. There's an imperative to do it. The project isn't just about building a couple of nice-to-have tram lines. It's about thoroughly upgrading Glasgow entire transport system, and bringing the city's rapid transit network up to the standard of comparator cities of similar size. If this plan is carried forward you would have multiple new interchange nodes connecting existing suburban rail network, subway and regional rail network in a way that hasn't been done before. For this all to work as well as it can and serve as many people as it can, there will likely need to be some compulsory purchase orders. The ideal thing to do is also construct new medium density housing around these new and enhanced network nodes. This is what is planned around West Street for example (where much of the housing is already being constructed as part of a separate long term neighbourhood regeneration project). But there are plenty of other opportunities too where the planned metro network rubs up against brownfield land. by Scunnered20 (Thu 23rd Feb 2023 9:56am)

There's talk of reopening Parkhead station as part of a light rail line which would run via Central Low Level. It's one of the purple lines on the more recent map. Hampden would be served by the Cathcart Circle lines. There's also talk of reopening Ibrox train station, although that would be part of the existing suburban rail network so possibly not exactly part of the Clyde Metro project itself. by Scunnered20 (Thu 23rd Feb 2023 10:22am)

Nah it's unrelated. ScotRail ownership is related only to the trains that run on Scottish rail lines. The rail lines themselves are run by Network Rail. The overall metro proposals pull together individual project ideas that have been floating around for a while. Tram lines, reinstating old rail alignments, changing rolling stock on some suburban lines to lighter rail metro trains. I think in some ways having the national rail operator nationalised allows for greater synergy in planning, especially where the proposals cross over with suburban rail services in Glasgow. But it isn't fundamental to any of these plans going ahead. by Scunnered20 (Thu 23rd Feb 2023 11:33am)

I replied to someone else answering that point (about why just building a small link to the airport isn't a great idea by itself). https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/1193n69/comment/j9mflkr/ by Scunnered20 (Thu 23rd Feb 2023 12:14pm)

I do worry that there will be a sustained push against this specific line of the metro for this very reason (the bit it is slated to run partly through the northern end of KG park). It does present issues, and although it would be a line running a very short distance along what was previously an active rail line anyway (90 years ago), you're right. It is a park now. It will be tricky to convince the public of its merit given the potential impact. That said, it is such a vital link for a route which would extend out to Maryhill and potentially out as far as Drumchapel, serving communities with very limited transit options. Above this, the line would connect these areas to the Subway loop and regional lines that cross the path of the Botanics (via Exhibition Centre and Central Station). The line is also proposed to run south via Central Lower Level and along the Union Line bridge, on to to today's Cathcart Circle lines to the southside creating a direct rail connection between Southside and West End for the first time ever. On balance, I really do think it is worth doing. If it ends up being lighter tram-like vehicles, it shouldn't be too much of an issue, disturbance-wise. And steps can be take to create grade separation at the park, should services be so frequent (pedestrian and cycle underpasses). It's far from ideal, but this really is such a lynchpin for the line that I don't see an alternative. And not just the line in the context of the west end and Maryhill. Many of the wider benefits of the metro project hinge on shuffling some services off of the existing suburban rail infrastructure and onto new or reintroduced lines. This shuffling of services would be extremely limited, almost to the point of there being zero point in continuing with wider metro plans, if the Maryhill line isn't constructed. by Scunnered20 (Thu 23rd Feb 2023 1:05pm)

The Renfrew branch seems a good option if your plan is simply to divert some services that run from Glasgow to Paisley GMS north to the airport instead. But the difficulty is that this interferes so much with existing Inverclyde and Ayrshire services that it's not particularly worth doing. This is the reason GARL was shelved. By running a line to the airport via Paisley Canal and looping around the west of Paisley using these old rail beds you're able to bypass the lines that run through PGS entirely, so maintaining higher train frequencies across the network. That said, the Canal option is tricky because some of it is built over in places. It's not an insurmountable problem though, especially if the end benefit is an enhanced network with a looping route serving the airport, Renfrew, Braehead, Govan, QEUH, etc, undisturbed by other existing lines. by Scunnered20 (Thu 23rd Feb 2023 1:11pm)

It's because it's next to the river. I don't think anything is being dumped into the river at that location now (I may be being very naïve), but it certainly did when it was first build about 150 years ago. As far as I know there isn't a 'processing unit' there now. It's simply that the massive pipe that allows sewage to flow parallel to the Clyde between the different parts of the city to the west and to the east of the River Kelvin passes that point. You can see it from the Dumbarton Road bridge. Usually when the weather's warm, it heats up and stinks the area out. There's not been much wind in recent days, so that's probably what's contributing to the smell hanging around. by Scunnered20 (Sun 26th Feb 2023 8:33pm)

Need to reduce the volumes of cars on our roads, both in motion and parked, to improve bus journey times and reliability. by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Feb 2023 12:16pm)

Trouble is, an individual's unbridled freedom to travel by car sounds fine until you realise that many many different individuals choosing to do the same makes life worse for everyone. Drivers included. It's a classic 'Tragedy of the Commons' effect, where what makes sense and can be an extremely positive choice in many respects for an individual, becomes a disaster for society at large if everyone does it. Put simply, the more people driving, the worse everything is. More congestion, more traffic, more delays for drivers, more localised air pollution. Less viable bus services, less pleasant walking or cycling options. The effect is *everyone's* freedom is greatly limited. We're about 80 years into an experiment of designing our cities around car use, at cost to everything else. We're now thankfully beginning to revise some of this. It's not about stopping people from travelling by car. But about empowering people to take other options. Whether by trading existing road space for public transit (protected bus lanes) or reducing pollution so pedestrians aren't put off walking around their neighbourhoods or the city centre itself. by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Feb 2023 12:40pm)

City centre footfall is back at pre-Covid levels. Peak footfall times have moved around a little: there are fewer people in the centre on weekday mornings but there's greater evening footfall and significantly more at weekends than pre-Covid. It's a bit of a trope that the city centre is dying. It has significant issues but we're seeing a boom in housing development inside its boundaries, with around 7,000 new residents expected within the next couple years. The LEZ and other traffic calming measures will help make the city a more pleasant, welcoming environment, which local business can only benefit from. by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Feb 2023 12:50pm)

You can't park in the centre, but you could park at one of the SPT park and rides and take the subway to either the centre or the west end. You can even do the same by train at dozens of stations around Greater Glasgow. There will continue to be plenty of options but changing behaviour away from the days of simply driving directly to your destination in the centre is necessary for a couple of reasons. In terms of priority: 1) reducing people's exposure to harmful pollutants such as NOx and particulate matter that sits in your lungs and spreads throughout your body, 2) improving bus services by reducing congestion in the centre and key peripheral roads, 3) reducing car use more generally by improving alternatives (bus included) so reducing our contribution to global climate change. by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Feb 2023 1:38pm)

What was the city? There's an extremely good chance there was some form of bus-traffic separation going on, even if it was only in key spots. I can think of a couple of big cities I've been to which have proportionally more cars than us on the roads, but their bus services run like clockwork by having extensively dedicated routes clear from other traffic. It's not just about numbers of cars either in proportional terms. It's about road space and what you do with it. I can't remember the figure off hand but for cities in the British Isles Glasgow has the single highest percentage of land space provided to private vehicles (as opposed to other uses, such as pavements, bus lanes, cycle lanes etc.). Congestion caused by the volume of cars on the road is what killed off Glasgow's trams in the 50s and the trolleybuses which replaced them in the 60s. What happened to the tram and trolleybus has been the status quo for buses for about four decades. by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Feb 2023 2:15pm)

IDriving has remained highly subsidised with costs largely frozen in real terms over the last 10-15 years. All while public transport has gotten more expensive across the board. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2c1w_eWYAUZkTs.jpg by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Feb 2023 3:34pm)

It's already had the effect of reducing localised pollution caused by buses, which had to meet LEZ standards several years ago. I don't know how you can say it's not been effective or can say confidently it won't be effective in further reducing air pollution on city centre streets? by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Feb 2023 4:54pm)

>The fact the M8 is excluded while also running through the city tells you all you need to know. I don't understand this point at all and why people keep raising it as if it's some sort of gotcha for the LEZ? The point of the LEZ is to reduce vehicle induced pollution on city centre streets. That it doesn't cover the motorway, which is a through route bypassing the city centre surface street network, doesn't make or break the LEZ it in that sense. by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Feb 2023 4:51pm)

People are overcomplicating this by assuming the primary goal of the LEZ is to reduce traffic and car access to the city centre. That may be a beneficial secondary result, but it's not the primary aim. The primary aim is simply to ensure a minimum standard of quality in the air in the centre of our city! By preventing vehicles from belching out record levels of particulate matter and nitrous oxide I to the air that people breathe when they're in the city. I don't see how anyone could be fighting for that to continue. by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Feb 2023 5:00pm)

It sounds like we both have the same negative view of the presence of the motorway in the city. But it's entirely besides the point about the effectiveness of the LEZ. The LEZ exists to reduce air pollution on surface streets inside the city centre. Inside it. The area bound by the Clyde, the motorway and High Street, typically understood as the city centre. Whether that includes the M8 or not doesn't impact how it reduces pollution on surface streets. by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Feb 2023 6:24pm)

Students need housing too. And as others have said the loss of these buildings has nothing to do with what's now in their place, 50, 60, 100 years later. (The answer to OP's question is 0/16 by the way, as far as I can tell). As u/LordAnubis12 points to, most of these were lost to a combination of Comprehensive Development Area planning in the 60s and the unfulfilled motorway ring road plan. Bit tired of this revulsion whenever student housing is planned or built. We are a student city. Three unis, three major multi-campus colleges. 40-50,000 students or so, or just shy of 10% of the total population. They need somewhere to stay, and if they're scrambling for the existing housing stock, that affects availability and cost for everyone else. Modern student builds are typically planned for the city centre because 1) more student housing is needed generally, 2) there's an impetus to increase the city centre population however possible to better sustain its economy medium-long term, 3) the centre of town is where most students are happiest and keen to stay, given proximity to transport, uni/college itself & nightlife. by Scunnered20 (Wed 1st Mar 2023 9:30pm)

Both are happening. People get riled up about student builds, but housing is currently either in planning or already under construction for home for 7,000+ residents too. The two aren't mutually exclusive, especially when Glasgow city centre has been full of gap sites for decades. We need more housing of all sorts in Glasgow. More student housing means less competition over existing housing stock, increasing costs and decreasing availability for other residents of Glasgow. An increased population of students and residents is happening in the centre and it's on course to continue for a couple years to come. This is good news, as different demographics support different aspects of the city centre economy. by Scunnered20 (Wed 1st Mar 2023 9:35pm)

Laurieston Living, New Gorbals, Oatlands, Duke Street and Meat Market site redevelopment, Sighthill. Vast sweeps of long-term brownfield land and decade-long gap sites already redeveloped for thousands of new homes. Govan Cross redevelopment under way now, with multiple new tenement scale builds finished in the last decade. Candleriggs. Multiple new builds in and around Finnieston and the Exhibition Centre station already with more coming down the line. "Holland Park" site on Holland Street in the city centre. All gap sites at the Broomielaw around the Kingston Bridge are now accounted for with plans at various stages. 1,500 new homes just approved the other week for the empty land near High Street station. The Victoria Infirmary redevelopment in the southside. Hundreds of new flats at the huge Butterbiggins Road site in Govanhill. That's just a handful off the top of my head. by Scunnered20 (Wed 1st Mar 2023 11:06pm)

All funding for this and a number of other major projects is coming from a distinct national capital funding pot, the [Glasgow City Deal](https://glasgowcityregion.co.uk/city-deal/). Not from council tax. by Scunnered20 (Thu 2nd Mar 2023 9:39pm)

I might be wrong, but I suspect the £11m is the total cost of specific "block" or grouping of Avenues works that Holland Street is part of. That includes nearby Elmbank Street, as well as the whole length of Clyde Street and Broomielaw, and Stockwell Street - Glassford Street. £11m sounds about right for all those things put together, especially when you think the grand total for all Avenues works is £115m, which takes in around 12 major streets in total *and* George Square. by Scunnered20 (Fri 3rd Mar 2023 9:54am)

What stop were you at? by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Mar 2023 9:17am)

It's easy, you just tap on at the driver to log the start of your journey and tap off at the other scanner before you get off. You don't need to think about much else, because it's always the cheapest way of using the bus. It charges you 10p initially as a pending charge, because First doesn't know what the end fare will be. A small pending charge is commonly used by businesses to charge to bank accounts when they don't know the full eventual price of something. It gives permission to continue charging later through the day. Eventually First charges more from your account to make up the full fare So if you just complete a single trip, it charges you another £2.70, totalling a fare price of £2.80. If you travel again that day, in the past you'd have had to pay another separate single fare. But the process will only charge you £2.20 for this second trip, as there's a daily fare cap of £5. If you travel the same number of journeys every day that week, after three and a half days you basically rack up enough to hit the weekly cap (£18.50), and you're not charged for journeys made after that. You should continue to tap your card though as this can be used as proof to show you're not fare dodging. by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Mar 2023 9:16am)

> you get charged for an all day Not quite. You get charged for the maximum possible for that bus journey. If your bus finishes its journey inside the "City" pricing boundary, it'd max at £2.80. If the bus is one that crosses into the "Local" boundary (what First calls the zone outside the city area) you'd be charged the maximum single fare for that, £4.50 or something like that. by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Mar 2023 12:31pm)

Where was it being ripped out? by Scunnered20 (Wed 8th Mar 2023 8:07pm)

Going to restaurants is posh? by Scunnered20 (Sat 11th Mar 2023 12:20am)

Here's what you need. A list of all open space markets and when they take place. https://www.citypropertymarkets.co.uk/ by Scunnered20 (Sat 11th Mar 2023 12:11pm)

Aye alright. by Scunnered20 (Sat 11th Mar 2023 2:41pm)

Why is it immoral? by Scunnered20 (Sat 11th Mar 2023 6:57pm)

Might be a small inconvenience or annoyance or a few seconds of someone's life. Immoral? A short glance at it and it's clearly not a parking notice. by Scunnered20 (Sat 11th Mar 2023 7:51pm)

I mean, it's Reddit. We're all just wasting our time. It seems to really have upset you to a degree which I found puzzling. That's all. by Scunnered20 (Sat 11th Mar 2023 8:57pm)

> for the sake of advertising your subpar ten a penny arsehole bar The quality of the place itself doesn't make a difference to whether it's moral or immoral to have done this though. I can understand annoyance in the moment at seeing it on your own car, but I'm fairly bemused by the widespread outrage and people bringing "morality" into it. "Oh no, I've got a parking ticket. Oh wait a minute, it's just a flier for a trashy bar. Oh well. Life goes on." by Scunnered20 (Sat 11th Mar 2023 10:14pm)

Not sure I agree a SPT Zone Card is the best way to go. It depends how long you're all staying and how much travelling you're planning on doing in the Strathclyde area. It's a potentially quite a complicated and cumbersome option, designed more for commuters who make regular trips and know which of the small zones they need coverage for. If you feel like researching it, and weighing up if the costs suit you then go for it. https://www.spt.co.uk/tickets/zonecard/ But really in terms of simplicity, cost-effectiveness and relative flexibility, the best thing to do is simply buy tickets as and when you need with your YourTrip card. As I understand it, it's simply a pre-loaded credit card type thing? Swiping your debit/credit card as you board the bus is the cheapest way of paying for bus travel. It automatically caps what you pay over a day or week of travel, no matter how many journeys you take. When it comes to trains or subway, you're best just buying individual tickets as and when you need them. by Scunnered20 (Sun 19th Mar 2023 3:08pm)

You might like this. It's an interactive map of all railway lines in the UK, either existing, dormant or removed: https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php Fill yer boots! by Scunnered20 (Tue 21st Mar 2023 6:04pm)

This would be the tallest building in Glasgow. Far from "mid rise". Sorry, maybe that's what you're saying? That something of this height is welcome. by Scunnered20 (Wed 22nd Mar 2023 8:01pm)

This is a residential development. by Scunnered20 (Wed 22nd Mar 2023 8:00pm)

Was originally trying to reply to someone complaining about this, but it wouldn't let me. So I'll just post here: Rents have appreciated to such a level in Glasgow (read UK, or the wider western world) that it makes economic sense to develop banked land rather than sit on it. Especially when compared to other opportunities for investment in land ownership, such as retail (which the bottom has largely fallen out of, thanks to online shopping more than anything). It's why we're seeing abandoned, brownfield gap sites in Glasgow get developed at a rate unseen in decades. If you own a site which is effectively in Glasgow City Centre, but outwith its conservation zone, is close to several decent local and regional transit options, and is in an area where urban blight is already pretty bad, a tower is a fairly sensible shout. by Scunnered20 (Wed 22nd Mar 2023 8:17pm)

https://www.glasgowworld.com/news/woodside-viaducts-works-on-m8-set-to-cost-ps100-million-and-last-until-end-of-2024-4041350 eventually, after hundreds of millions of pounds worth of repairs. by Scunnered20 (Wed 22nd Mar 2023 11:02pm)

Most likely [this carbuncle](https://www.google.com/maps/@55.8627952,-4.424157,3a,79.4y,306.12h,92.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shCl1UGppifH2RDHGERrCDQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) by Scunnered20 (Fri 24th Mar 2023 5:48pm)

> Do you know what’s round the corner from the King’s? A train station. Which is fine if you live close to a station which links to that specific station. Not so useful if you don't live near a train station! Just to jump in and join this conversation... I wouldn't necessarily contend that we need trams on Elmbank Street specifically. But to the wider point of what purpose trams might serve: in the city centre: it's as simple as LordAnubis says, that it isn't necessarily about shuttling people between Argyle Street and Charing Cross but more about having lines which cross from one side of the city to another and give reliable transit connections to communities outside the centre. The Clyde Metro plans are taking into consideration some unfulfilled ideas and transport plans which have laid dormant for decades. One of which is the Strathclyde Tram route, which would have seen trams (re)introduced on St Vincent Street in the 1990s. The wider aim of this scheme was to provide a reliable fixed-rail link from Drumchapel to the city centre, and Easterhouse to the city centre on the other end. It would have provided these communities with a fixed rail link to the city centre, as well as direct connections to the rest of the transit network (at points such as Kelvinbridge Subway, Central Station, High Street). There's a reasonable chance this, or some variation of it, might be included in the final Metro plans. More transit options are better, offering people more flexibility and opportunity to connect to the wider network. by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 3:34pm)

Sort of answered this in another comment, but there's no tremendous need to run trams down Sauchiehall Street. The fact it's difficult to do it the street's current urban realm design (which can always be changed) doesn't mean that the idea of trams are a non-starter in other locations. There are other east-west streets in the city centre that would work quite well for tram corridors. You could transform Sauchiehall Street to host trams, but I don't think there's any need to prioritise it, and don't think any current plans envision it to be honest. St Vincent Street is the most likely eventual candidate for trams at some point in the future. It runs through the very centre of the city centre, and would provide a straight forward interchange with Queen Street Station at George Square, while allowing easy further passage for trams onto the best candidate for an eastward tram route: Duke Street. by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 3:40pm)

There are definite spacial usage issues with accomodating both trams and cycle lanes, but other countries show it can be done. That said, on some of the tightest city centre streets it might not be possible. With the city's ambitions to significantly lower the presence of vehicle traffic though, not to mention the car-free zone in the absolute middle of the centre, the likelihood is that most city centre streets should soon be much more hospitable to bikes than they are currently. So while some streets really do need separated lanes, especially those which are segments of cross-city cycling corridors, you should be able to get away with not having them on every single street. Leaving room for other uses: be it parklets, bus lanes, tram lanes, etc. by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 3:45pm)

The problem was that the rise of vehicle traffic in the 1940s through to 1960s made trams completely economically unviable. Not just in Glasgow but in cities across the world. Trams would get stuck in traffic, taking ages to reach their destination. Unlike buses they can't manoeuvre around obstacles and are extremely vulnerable to congestion. The US was probably the worst hit. Most US cities, even small ones, had tram or "street car" networks to rival modern European ones. So did many UK cities, like Glasgow. Those cities that retained their trams on mainland Europe did so either by limiting the presence of vehicle traffic, or by giving trams their own dedicated road space (usually only possible on wider boulevard roads). Glasgow does have wider boulevard style roads which accommodated trams, but in our case traffic was so bad in the city centre (where the majority of tram lines congregated) that the reliability and speed of the entire tram network was severely affected. The city moved to trolleybuses in the late 50s in an effort to get past this problem. But the viability of these and the bus system which replaced them in turn have always been hindered by traffic congestion. Even to this day. by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 3:53pm)

I think they should build the houses. by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 4:06pm)

How does building more houses make housing more expensive? by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 4:06pm)

I know u/ThereIsNoBean, pfft, where's your fully costed peer-reviewed analysis backing up your very obvious and simple point on a Reddit thread? by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 4:10pm)

Genuinely, what do you mean? What are you suggesting will happen? by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 5:01pm)

Their plans have been published though. And while the side of the plot facing Govan Road will be developed into new housing stock, one of the docks is being retained for possible future use. [The plans state this](https://govangravingdocks.com/housing-community). The docks are derelict and decades out of use. That's not to say they have no heritage value. They patently do, but after a while you have to weigh up what is being gained by retaining such a large brownfield site so close to the centre of a major city. I understand the we in Glasgow have a historic issue with throwing away prime cultural and heritage assets, often with questionable benefits. We can all think of good examples. But that reasonable and understandable sentimentality surely shouldn't mean that everything needs to be preserved in situ, as if the city is to be some sort of permanent living museum. The docks themselves were built on top of the old Main Street of Govan. We don't cry about the loss of Main Street's housing stock and the hundreds-year old community that it displaced. I don't mean to be antagonistic. I simply don't see the basis for the complaint against this new housing development. Especially when the development itself is an evident compromise, both in terms of volume and with how much of the dock complex itself is being retained. by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 5:16pm)

Similar situation on my street. Two hulking SUVs with flatbeds in the back appeared recently, but they're so big the owners clearly have trouble fitting them in a typical parking space. So they're nearly always parked on the pavement at the end of the street. By the way, what do you do in a situation like this? I don't know who owns them otherwise I'd simply say something to them directly. They're usually both parked in exactly the same spot on the pavement, covering the dropped kerb at the crossing points, meaning wheelchair users and folk pushing prams can't get on the pavement. No one else can get past them either. Is this something the council deals with? by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 5:25pm)

Thanks for the answer, but > It's legal to park on the pavement, but not to drive on the pavement What. How do you get on the pavement in the first place? Surely the act of parking on a pavement is already illegal then, unless the car is airlifted in. by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 7:22pm)

The Edinburgh trams are fine. They're turning a profit and the extension to Leith has been delivered within the predicted timescale. Within budget too. The initial project in the early 2010s was an uninitiated disaster, that much is true. Mismanagement on an incredible scale. But this seems to have led to a widespread and mistaken belief in Scotland that trams are somehow a tainted or foolish idea from the get go. It's not really the case. Edinburgh will be all the better for having it's 2 or 3 interconnected tram lines by the end of the decade. There are opportunities for Glasgow to do something similar. Trams could help plug gaps in our existing rail network, and they delivery much much more bang for your buck than alternatives like a subway extension possibly could. by Scunnered20 (Sat 25th Mar 2023 9:50pm)

Yes, it's taken a very long time of doing things only one way, but thankfully now there's a significant international shift going on in planning practices. We're a little behind the curve in the UK but not by terribly much. Some good plans in the pipeline for Glasgow in particular. by Scunnered20 (Sun 26th Mar 2023 9:00am)

That happens **all the time** at that junction. I see it happen increasingly across the city. Drivers not stopping before the pedestrian crossing area while they're in a queue of traffic, only to then sit there and block the crossing when there's a green man. But it happens every single time I cross that and other nearby Charing Cross junctions without fail. I think it's something about the motorway mentality setting in, either just coming off or about to enter the motorway, that people completely switch off their awareness of other road users that aren't in cars. It makes for *really* dangerous and unwelcoming areas across the city. The M8/M77 offramp at the Springfield Quay is just as bad. The driving on Paisley Road West is horrendous all around that area, whether the speeds, red light running, or mad high-speed turns without looking. I think it's the same thing: drivers not switching out of that "motorway" mode, despite being in an area full of pedestrians, buses, folk on bikes etc. by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Mar 2023 12:13pm)

No, there is something quite real about how people's mentality changes when they are inside a car. It's been well observed and tested over the years. Your sense of spatial awareness, connection with surroundings, awareness of other people on the street, perception of risk, and sense of consequence of actions on other road users are all significantly affected by being inside a car. It's related to the sense of isolation and separateness from the outside world. To put it in simple terms. by Scunnered20 (Mon 27th Mar 2023 12:19pm)

Who cares? How often are you making stops at the airport? by Scunnered20 (Tue 28th Mar 2023 10:33pm)

There was a big hubbub about it last year. It's a sign of how strapped Glasgow and other councils are for cash. by Scunnered20 (Fri 31st Mar 2023 11:54am)

It's definitely getting worse. by Scunnered20 (Sat 1st Apr 2023 11:56am)

It's become a real exception to see *any* dropped kerbs without cars blocking them in my area. Practically all junction crossing points across the neighbourhood have cars parked at or on them too, meaning you need to walk on the road to simply keep walking ahead in a straight line. For anyone thinking "oh no what a tragedy", it affects a lot of things: With no free dropped kerbs, wheelchair users can't leave the pavement and cross to the other side. People with prams need to push them onto the road. Fundamentally we're talking about cars parked in the path of pedestrians being normalised and somehow viewed as not a problem. Junction corners are meant to be kept clear, and usually have double yellows showing this, to allow fire engines to turn onto streets. It's completely selfish to park like this and definitely getting worse. The only answer to this is expanding existing district parking zones to cover all residential areas. by Scunnered20 (Sat 1st Apr 2023 12:31pm)

Not to let everybody off the hook, as sometimes it is obviously people going for an unwieldy status symbol that's entirely unsuitable for urban environments, but increasingly there's little choice provided by the manufacturers. At least in the States, there are significant cost, safety and regulatory loopholes to be found in classifying something as a sports utility vehicle or light van, even when it's clearly just an significantly oversized hatchback. I don't think the cost savings and regulatory exemptions exist to quite the same extent on this side of the pond, but we're living in a global market where trends spread quickly. A combination of there being various incentives for car manufacturers to produce cars of this style, and undeniable demand from consumers who want to be *inside* what they perceive as a bigger, more robust car, mean all cars are getting bigger. Sometimes the only solution is regulation. by Scunnered20 (Sat 1st Apr 2023 2:56pm)

Meanwhile in Birmingham: [Police get new powers to seize and crush antisocial vehicles in Birmingham ](https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/police-new-powers-seize-crush-26597339) by Scunnered20 (Sat 1st Apr 2023 3:03pm)

By "enhanced" bikes do you mean regular e-bikes? E-bikes have limiters that kick in at 15.5 mph in the UK. Above that and the pedal assist motor switches off and you'd be moving under your own pedal power. But then e-bikes are generally so heavy that it's unlikely someone could sustain it much beyond 15.5 mph for more than a few seconds under their own puff. by Scunnered20 (Sat 1st Apr 2023 9:18pm)

Lots of people on social media replying that it doesn't reach 30 mph in parts at rush hour anyway, are slightly missing the point. The council has limited powers over the motorway but appears now to have some settled ambition to redesign it in the longer term. While building the overall business and strategic case for a redesign / downgrade / full tunnelling boulevardisation of the city centre motorway stretch (something which will take years) there are a few things the council can do to act in the shorter term. Not only for the sake of it, but to make those changes easier when the time comes. One of these things is to take steps to make the M74 the main regional east-west corridor. A quick way of making this reducing the speed limits on the city centre M8, so that navigation apps like Google Maps treat the M74 as the default option for the majority of journeys. by Scunnered20 (Tue 4th Apr 2023 7:11pm)

Long term ambition to redesign the M8 motorway corridor in the city centre. Whether that's removal / boulevardisation / tunneling of the motorway along the existing route or something else is very open to investigation. We're at the early stages of what may be a decades long project, beginning soon with an investigation of options and costs. by Scunnered20 (Tue 4th Apr 2023 7:25pm)

I'll look out the report in a bit and add the link, but u/deadkestrel is right. The Glasgow Chambers of Commerce (essentially the group representing the interests of businesses in Glasgow) did a state of the city centre report about 6 months back. It showed the centre is back to pre-Covid footfall. Peaks have shifted from early morning and midday during the week to evenings and weekends but overall footfall is as high as ever. Can't remember for sure but I think it commented that hospitality spend is up on pre-Covid levels, again with people visiting in evenings and weekends. More residents are living into the centre now than have been in decades, with ongoing developments either in planning or construction meaning another 7,000-8,000 city centre residents can be expected in the next few years. The death of Glasgow city centre is a tired meme at this stage that doesn't bare scrutiny. I've long suspected the people who bemoan the city centre are those who spend time in it least. It has trouble spots, no doubt. And it certainly doesn't help that one of them is Union Street - the street most people see as their first and last image of the centre before they get a bus, taxi or train. But it leaves a false impression of how the wider city centre is performing. by Scunnered20 (Tue 4th Apr 2023 10:07pm)

Yes, I'm not saying the idea is simple. We've built a transport system which necessitates lots of car travel. And we see that in the congestion and traffic volumes. It needs to be noted that none of this will happen overnight. There are strong plans in the works, some of it already under way, for significantly improved public transport in Greater Glasgow. I'm not just talking the metro project with potential tram lines connecting underserved areas, but that is part of it. We'll have integrated multi operator bus ticketing within the next two years. The rollout of tap on tap off systems is part of this. It'll be linked to Subway ticketing with rail to follow not long after. We can reasonably expect to see caps on bus fares as has been delivered in England recently. There is a commission investigating this for Scotland, set to deliver the specific proposals some time this summer. Glasgow will have something close to bus rapid transit in place along five bus corridors in a couple of years too. Corridors in and out of the centre which serve dozens of bus routes. The planning for this recently went out to tender. There is a government aim to reduce car kilometres by 20% by 2030. Glasgow's stated aim is 30% by 2030. This isn't to punish people, but to help move people to different modes of transport where possible. And as I say, there are multiple areas where new infrastructure and mechanisms will make public transport work for a lot more people in coming years. More work is being done on moving freight onto rail. As with switching car trips to public transport, it's not a case of moving everything. But just enough that you reduce the volumes of vehicles on roads, which have ballooned in Scotland in recent decades. With these plans in mind, it's the M8 ideas seem perfectly plausible. by Scunnered20 (Tue 4th Apr 2023 10:26pm)

Reducing the speed limit will have the effect of deprioritising it as the default east-west route for many journeys in navigational apps (e.g. Google Maps), without necessarily downgrading the route. The effect will likely be that the M74 becomes the priority strategic east-west corridor for the Clyde Estuary, as it was always intended to be. The city centre section of the M8 as we know it now was intended as the northwestern arm of the inner city motorway ring road. Not as the primary east-west route, but as a very close orbital express route on the west and north flank of the city centre. Hence it only initially being two lanes in each direction when built. If the whole ring road system was built, the city centre M8 would likely be viewed today as an 'expressway', not necessarily the main east-west route. by Scunnered20 (Tue 4th Apr 2023 10:57pm)

I replied to someone else who was making similar points. We are making significant improvements to public transport. We're in the early stages, and the average person might not be very aware of lots of the plans, but *a lot* is happening. I won't restate it all here, but [here's the link to my other reply](https://old.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/12bp401/council_pushes_for_30mph_limits_on_m8_in_glasgow/jeyyt5c/). by Scunnered20 (Tue 4th Apr 2023 11:06pm)

I see the logic. Removing or downgrading the city centre section of motorway opens the question to how vehicles from Bearsden or Anniesland or East Dumbartonshire cross the city eastwards. An outer ring road is what we should have led with in the 60s. I understand the arguments for why this didn't happen (and why the inner ring was prioritised and the outer ring was at the bottom of the list for the network), but cities across Europe avoided motorways hugging their urban cores by having outer rings. In reality, I don't see it ever happening. It would likely be tens of billions of pounds in today's money. 10s of billions would buy you brand new metro systems for Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee, with money left over for an expansion of the national rail network among other things. Just as an example. I don't see how the case for it would ever make sense in the context of today's national budgets and priorities. by Scunnered20 (Tue 4th Apr 2023 11:20pm)

You're a bit off here. The works on the M8 are because the concrete structure of several viaducts is literally crumbling. Hence the lane reductions at a few places to reduce the vehicle load. What started as emergency works on one specific span at Woodside has spread as further problems have been discovered. [Seems a very reasonable time to ask if hundreds of millions of pounds should be funnelled into emergency repairs](https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/23375864.m8-repairs-should-paused-look-alternatives-motorway/), thereby ensuring the motorway remains unchanged for another 40-50 years. by Scunnered20 (Tue 4th Apr 2023 11:28pm)

Copying a link rather than copying the whole thing, but [here are some points](https://old.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/12bp401/council_pushes_for_30mph_limits_on_m8_in_glasgow/jeyyt5c/) I made in response to someone else on public transport improvements and national aims to reduce vehicle kilometres by 20% by 2030. It addresses your points. by Scunnered20 (Tue 4th Apr 2023 11:33pm)

> it still costs less money in fuel and takes less time than train, subway and bus; and I live within 5 minute walking distance of a central line station I touched on this point in [my longer reply](https://old.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/12bp401/council_pushes_for_30mph_limits_on_m8_in_glasgow/jeyyt5c/). I think we can reasonably expect a bus fare cap to be introduced in Scotland in 2023. England introduced a £2 bus fare cap last year, extending it for another year in January. It's very quickly become a permanent national policy, helping encourage more people onto buses. Up here, the reason for the delay is that a commission was set up to investigate this idea early last year. Once they report back, I think we can expect a similar bus fare cap to become the norm in Scotland too. Also on buses, we're getting closer to full integrated ticketing in Glasgow. The infrastructure to allow it is rolling out on all bus operators this year, with multi-operator fares to be available from 2025. Subway tickets will be bundled into this ticketing system, with rail to follow though possibly a few years down the line. Glasgow is powering ahead with [five bus priority corridors](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29726), which will ultimately create something like a lite-bus-rapid-transit model for routes serviced by those roads. Services will be drastically more efficient and improved by this. A [6 month pilot scrapping peak fares for trains in Scotland](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63998198) is planned to launch in the next couple of months. I can easily see this being made permanent. by Scunnered20 (Wed 5th Apr 2023 12:49am)

> I dunno why they don't just do that with the surrounding areas first. They are doing that. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/liveableneighbourhoods by Scunnered20 (Wed 5th Apr 2023 8:36am)

But we (not just Glasgow, but the wider western world) decided cars were the way forward. To provide maximum individual freedom. Of course, that meant trams became stuck in growing traffic. Then the trolleybuses and buses that replaced them became stuck in traffic. Now everyone is stuck in, part of, or impacted by the presence of vehicle traffic. Two generations of planning normalcy created this situation. Together with decisions over where to house people. In the past, Glasgow was much much denser, making public transport much more financially viable as a service. When you disperse one third to a half of your city region's population to the outskirts and edges of the region, it becomes difficult (borderline impossible) to serve them with efficient, affordable transportation options. We're at the relatively early stages of unpicking these catastrophic errors. It won't be easy work fixing it and it will take a long time, but we're at least beginning to reckon with it. by Scunnered20 (Wed 5th Apr 2023 8:46am)

If you mean more info on various public transport improvements, here are a few links for further info: * [Bus priority corridors, under development for Glasgow.](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29726) * [Clyde Metro plans, given government support as a priority transport project for the next decade. In early development.](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29851) * [6 month pilot scrapping peak fares on all Scottish trains.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63998198) * On integrated ticketing, I'm struggling to find an up-to-date source on timescales, but it's been spoken about by operators and SPT as being delivered by 2025. Which does seem realistic with Tap On Tap Off being rolled out across all buses this and next year. by Scunnered20 (Wed 5th Apr 2023 10:44am)

Scotland's Fair Fares Review, which was set up in 2021, is set to report its recommendations soon. I think this summer, though not certain. We've been overtaken by the UK Government acting quickly to provide higher bus subsidies for a £2 fare cap in 2022, which has since been extended for another year. They acted without a review of this type. But it should be known there has been a medium term policy in the works to look at subsidising fare caps in Scotland. It just seems that action won't be taken until the review reports back with its recommendations. I strongly suspect we'll end up with a situation very similar to England by the end of this year, with single fares capped at around £2. by Scunnered20 (Wed 5th Apr 2023 11:20am)

Just because you need a car once in a while, doesn't mean you need to own one though. You can hire a van or hire a car. Use a car club. There are options. Please don't read this as me saying everyone should do this and no one should own a car. It's just that there are alternatives to car ownership that can and do work for lots of people already. by Scunnered20 (Wed 5th Apr 2023 12:24pm)

[New City Road](https://www.google.com/maps/@55.8691271,-4.2623809,3a,75y,245.73h,99.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smTnGpQWtQ16eIQ6VFTR3XQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DmTnGpQWtQ16eIQ6VFTR3XQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D349.74954%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). by Scunnered20 (Wed 5th Apr 2023 4:53pm)

You should read through the comments. by Scunnered20 (Wed 5th Apr 2023 9:40pm)

Sincerely hoping the pavement parking ban is as rigorous and unwatered-down as possible when it come in later this year. You should genuinely forfeit your car for something like this. by Scunnered20 (Sun 9th Apr 2023 3:00pm)

Doesn't seem all that related to the steep annual increase in fares that we've seen for a couple of decades now. by Scunnered20 (Tue 11th Apr 2023 3:40pm)

But the cost for concession fares are directly subsidised? So how does that make sense. by Scunnered20 (Tue 11th Apr 2023 4:58pm)

No, John Street is slated to retain the pedestrianised traffic filter at the Cathedral Street end. It's included in the most recently published designs for Avenues works that take in George Square and surrounding streets. The entire area is to be part of a future low-car, highly pedestrian-centric zone anyway, bound by Hope Street, Cathedral Street, High Street / Saltmarket and Clyde Street. So there won't be much in the way of through traffic using John Street or Montrose Street in any case. At least much much less than there is now. by Scunnered20 (Wed 12th Apr 2023 5:56pm)

Nah, given the plans for the centre, through-traffic will be drastically reduced so there's no real need to give that consideration for John or Montrose Streets. The whole area is set to be part of a future low-traffic, highly pedestrianised city centre zone in any case, set to be established later this decade, likely bit by bit. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29106 by Scunnered20 (Wed 12th Apr 2023 6:01pm)

Do you mean the 'pilot project' announced today? As the story says, that's being funded by UK Infrastructure Bank (UKIB). For more info, this pilot covers ["development of financial and commercial plans for the mass transit project"](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=30124). Take that to mean early stage option creation and cost benefit analysis. Only an early stage, but an essential one. Or do you mean the metro project as a whole? Because that will be funded through the national transport budget. Not in one go, likely over the course many many years. But that doesn't necessarily involve the creation of new funds. A wide range of things are funded through national transport budget already. Priorities come and go, and this has been selected as a priority for funding over the next few decades. Not sure what you mean about the centre becoming a ghost town. by Scunnered20 (Wed 12th Apr 2023 6:16pm)

I guess they should just pack the whole project in then. No point starting it if we're that inferior. People talk about some places having a superiority complex. Our problem seems to be the opposite: an acute inferiority complex. by Scunnered20 (Wed 12th Apr 2023 9:49pm)

Progress. In simple terms it reads that this money will be used to fund a preliminary optioning or cost benefit analysis of potential routes. By itself this process might take some time, potentially a year or two, so people should be patient. By the end of it, they'll likely be able to announce plans for the first line(s), along with cost estimates and specifics of the first route. It's a fair question you ask though. To a degree I can understand the widespread cynicism, but I suspect people who hear about things like this from time to time don't realise how far down the line this specific project is compared to other things that have been talked about in the past. It's not right to compare it to other ideas such as GARL or a second subway circle which despite much fanfare were never much more than just *ideas*, to one extent or another. This is a multi decade project, but importantly it already has financial backing and political backing at all necessary levels, with clear signs that important early stage works are already under way. by Scunnered20 (Wed 12th Apr 2023 9:45pm)

> Maybe the could improve the subway first? A new subway circle would cost £2-3 billion, minimum. Not happening. Sounds attractive as it's a relatively headline & attention grabbing idea, but it's extremely limited in terms of benefits to costs. >Improve the roads and cycle ways? Not sure about the specific complain about roads, but if you mean surface quality (which is a very fair complaint), a many millions is being spent over the coming year in Glasgow via the [Neighbourhood Infrastructure Improvement Fund](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29388). Most of it on road and pavement resurfacing. See here for some information on plans for [cycling infrastructure](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/activetravel). >Improve the absolute shithole that is George Square, and Sauchiehall Street. And Union Street. [George Square and adjacent streets' plans, construction set for 2024, completion in 2026](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29478). [Sauchiehall Street Avenue extension plans](https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/23297399.latest-sauchiehall-street-avenues-work-goes-tender/), both of these being funded by the City Deal. Nothing much in the works for Union Street to be fair though. >Improve the train stations in and around the city? The entire metro project is about improving the existing rail network. Supplementing it in places with entirely new lines and stations, and maximising the potential of some existing lines and stations by looking again at the types of trains that use them. Can smaller, lighter, 'metro' style trains run on some lines to offer higher frequencies, for example. >before spending millions on the PROPOSAL of a fucking MONORAIL?!? What monorail? No one's proposing a monorail. by Scunnered20 (Thu 13th Apr 2023 9:41pm)

What are you actually saying here... Unless you build something in one go it doesn't *ever* get done? It's a huge project, akin to building a citywide motorway network or Crossrail for London or a citywide rail network from scratch. I outlined how some key steps have already been taken and more are now being taken. People are free to be cynical about anything they want but to paint it as some sort of con or PR stunt with no actual end result planned is so far from the mark. by Scunnered20 (Thu 13th Apr 2023 10:04pm)

Without defending First Bus here, I don't know that this is necessarily true? The bus from Glasgow to EDI Airport is £15 single and £25 return. To be fair the price of that hasn't risen all that steeply in a few years and has been quite stable. But does a £10 single to Glasgow vs a £15 single to Edinburgh really factor into people's decisions on which airport to depart from? And if it does, does an increase to £10, still less than a bus to EDI, make that great a difference to someone's choice? by Scunnered20 (Fri 14th Apr 2023 5:23pm)

On the flip side, there are lots of people who would like to be able to use PRW to cycle safely to where they're going, but wouldn't dream of it in current circumstances. With the speeds people drive at, double parking as you say, big wide junctions etc, it's all a recipe to deter cycling or even walking if we're being honest with ourselves. Paisley Road's long, straight route, connecting many neighbourhoods to one another and to the city centre, and serves many key destinations along the way. It's a great candidate for safe cycle lanes and other measures to make it an easier and more inviting place to walk around. Even if you're not travelling from somewhere directly on PRW to somewhere else directly on PRW, the road is the key arterial route for people to access all manner of things. And helping more people do this by bike, if they want to, should be a priority. by Scunnered20 (Tue 18th Apr 2023 4:15pm)

Sorry, misunderstood. Yes you're right. Regardless of these specific cycle lanes themselves though, rationing out spaces via residential parking permits is probably needed in most areas now, given we've reached such an oversaturation point with cars. It's the only way residents can be sure they'll have a space. by Scunnered20 (Tue 18th Apr 2023 4:43pm)

From the 40s to the 60s we flooded the roads with cars to the extent that we killed the trams' very business model. Suddenly insurmountable congestion = highly unreliable, slow tram services. As congestion got worse, people used the trams less and drove more, so sending tram networks the world over into a death spiral. by Scunnered20 (Tue 18th Apr 2023 5:07pm)

You don't need to look very far at all to find other countries who show that cycling *is* a regular and routine form of transportation for millions. Their examples also show that to achieve this you need to invest in well connected networks of safe cycle routes, taking people where they want to go. A little like if you built pieces of roads here and there but never connected them, you'd have next to no car traffic. If you don't build these networks, that's how you keep cycling as only a 'hobby'. by Scunnered20 (Tue 18th Apr 2023 5:37pm)

You sound like someone who's not read a single thing about the Clyde Metro plans. by Scunnered20 (Fri 21st Apr 2023 1:39pm)

To try to give you and others a bit of (hopefully) helpful info, rather than just join in the endless moaning on this sub... probably not 10 years, but obviously new tram or heavy rail lines aren't going to appear in Glasgow overnight. The latest is that Glasgow has secured funding for the route optioning analysis through the UK Investment Bank ([announced just a few weeks ago](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=30124)). This follows from Glasgow and nearby local authorities including Renfrewshire setting aside funding for an initial business case a couple years ago. This business case was an essential step, succeeding in getting the project included in the Scottish Government's once-every-fifteen-years-or-so shortlist of national infrastructure projects. This shortlisting means the project is prioritised for national funding. The reality is that it will all be done slowly, step by step. But the signs are very much there that it will happen. There are umpteen ideas for individual rapid transit routes which were abandoned in Glasgow over the decades, but they're not all necessarily relevant for here and today. Some older route ideas might work as part of the Clyde Metro, but it's likely that brand new route ideas are being designed from scratch which take into account changes to the built environment in recent decades. The next step is a route optioning and early design options for the first few routes, which seems to already be under way. It seems like it might be a year or two before this is published. Once it is, they'll probably press on with putting out various tenders for that first route, meaning to make a reasonable best case guess, you could imagine construction on line one beginning in 4-5 years' time. I wouldn't bet my life on that exact timescale, but I certainly expect works will be under way well within 10 years from now. by Scunnered20 (Fri 21st Apr 2023 1:55pm)

NIMBYism pure and simple. by Scunnered20 (Sun 23rd Apr 2023 5:20pm)

The DRFs aren't really all that relevant. The two big changes on the way for the city centre when it comes to permeability for cycling are the Avenues and (possibly an even bigger deal) the pedestrianised or low-traffic zone that is scheduled to be developed over the next five years (branded as a "People First Zone"). From council statements to date, this will be a zone bound roughly by Hope Street, Bath Street/Cathedral Street, High Street and Argyle Street, creating an effective pedestrianised or at the least extremely low-traffic zone. More info here: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29522 With a zone like this, you don't really need much actual new infrastructure. Traffic will be so low that the zone will make cycling from one side to the other a doddle for most people. That said, the Avenues works in that area (such as St Vincent Street, Cathedral Street, Argyle Street, George Square and surrounding streets etc.) will provide a fair few highly segregated cycle routes crossing this zone. So everyone will likely be catered for, no matter their cycling confidence level. by Scunnered20 (Tue 25th Apr 2023 11:20pm)

I'd recommend popping along to Vicky Rd one weekday morning. There's a constant stream of cyclists now using the new lanes from about 8-9am to get into the centre. by Scunnered20 (Tue 25th Apr 2023 11:59pm)

Pitching in here to add that if you examine the [latest Clyde Metro maps](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=26965) closely enough, it gives the very strong impression that this Hillington/Braehead rail stub is where the depot will be for the network. The giveaway is the short stub line (purple dashed line) that extends westwards from the QEUH. If you take the logic a step further and presume they'll need a depot for whichever line is built first, it makes me presume the network will probably begin development in and around that corner of the city. by Scunnered20 (Thu 27th Apr 2023 6:09pm)

Who wants to run a business above the motorway. Who wants to walk above the motorway. Who wants to live in a tenement above the motorway. See how the cycle lane isn't the problem here? by Scunnered20 (Thu 27th Apr 2023 7:06pm)

Thing is, this guy stonewalling the cycle route wouldn't *just* impact (for good or ill) the couple of dozen others that run businesses or live on that street. That small stretch of St George's Road doesn't exist in a vaccum. It's a core road leading in and out of the city centre. It would impact the thousands of people who live anywhere northwest or north of St George's Road who would like to use it as a safe cycling route to wherever they're going. The point in the city we're talking about is situated adjacent to **12** road lanes dedicated to motor vehicles. Is it too much to ask that *some* of that space, likely all of 2.5m, is used to give people a safe path for cycling in and our of that corner of the city? by Scunnered20 (Thu 27th Apr 2023 7:11pm)

Peak train fares are being scrapped in October. https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/six-month-scotrail-peak-fares-suspension-to-start-in-october-humza-yousaf-4108967 It's a 6 month pilot, but there's a chance it could be extended into the longer term. by Scunnered20 (Thu 27th Apr 2023 7:18pm)

What road are you talking about? by Scunnered20 (Thu 27th Apr 2023 7:26pm)

A slip road for a left turn (like was there previously) is an astonishingly bad waste of limited space on a junction like that. What benefits vehicle traffic quite often comes at the cost of pedestrian permeability. The new situation means easer crossing for pedestrians, a junction that facilitates safe cycle journeys, and at the same time vehicle traffic can still traverse it. by Scunnered20 (Fri 28th Apr 2023 8:39am)

I don't really understand your specific criticism. You say a cycle lane will necessarily result in "shambles", but that you also "can do both". I mean, you seem to say yourself that roads such as this can accommodate space for different road users. So what's your specific criticism? by Scunnered20 (Fri 28th Apr 2023 8:36am)

It's been having a closing down sale for about three years. by Scunnered20 (Sat 29th Apr 2023 1:40am)

You just don't get this kind of content anywhere else. by Scunnered20 (Mon 1st May 2023 5:48pm)

It looks more complicated than it is, but here's an example. The prices have obviously just changed and I don't know for sure what a single fare costs now, but for talking sake, say you're doing an outbound and return trip to work every day from Monday - Friday: * **Monday**: You tap your credit/debit card on the pad next to the driver when you step on the bus. Then tap off at the post near the door when you leave. After journey #1 on Monday morning, you're charged for a single trip = £2.85. Or whatever it is now. On your return journey home on Monday evening though, you're only charged £2.55. Bringing the daily total to the daily cap of £5.40. They can't charge you more than that in one day. Any other trips you do that day will effectively be free, but you need to tap your card to record your journey. * **Tuesday**: Come day two you do the same thing. Being charged £2.85 for the morning journey, but only £2.55 for the return. Another £5.40 total for the day. * **Wednesday**: By day three though, after the morning journey you're sitting at £13.65 (2 daily caps + one morning single). The 3-day cap is £14.70, so when you do your return journey on day three, you'll be charged only £1.05. Again, any other trips you do on day three will be free, as you'll have reached the 3-day cap. * **Thursday**: On day four, you're charged much like you were on day one. £2.85 for your first journey, £2.55 for your second journey, hitting the daily cap of £5.40. You've got a running total of £20.10. * **Friday**: This means come Friday morning, you're only 50p away from the weekly cap of £20.60. So you're charged 50p for that first journey, and nothing for anything after that, all the way through to 7 days after that first tap you did at the start of the week. by Scunnered20 (Fri 5th May 2023 2:53pm)

That first single cost you £2.85, but the second would've been £2.55, and any other journey after that on the same day would've been free. A weekly ticket bought in advance or 10 singles bought in a pack costs £20.40, but using tap on tap off would cost you £18.60 max for the week. Not defending the prices of single tickets themselves, which are astonishingly overpriced, but I'm surprised to see so much confusion over the tap on tap off and the benefits it has over buying tickets in advance. by Scunnered20 (Fri 5th May 2023 3:14pm)

They expire after a few weeks I think. by Scunnered20 (Fri 5th May 2023 3:18pm)

Oh in that case yeah you're right. by Scunnered20 (Fri 5th May 2023 3:21pm)

Are you meaning the expressway or the motorway? Cause the M8 is undergoing some fairly sizable and expensive structural maintenance at the moment to keep it from falling down. Likely to be disruption for some time to come. by Scunnered20 (Thu 11th May 2023 3:04pm)

> Cyclists do my absolute box in. When you get in your car for a 10 minute journey, you don't want to get boxed behind a cyclist for 5 minutes... I know you go on to say how everyone has a right to space on the road, and that's great. But come on... try not have this anger or frustration towards people in the first place who are simply trying to get where they're going by bike. This isn't just in response to you, but I'm saying this for anyone in this thread. People on bikes get grief for riding on the pavement (justifiably if it's not a shared space), but the segregated cycle lane network is still very bare bones... So you're inevitably going to get lots of people riding on roads until this is addressed. Just live with it. It's a vulnerable position to be in, on a bike on a busy road, and I can assure you the person riding isn't thinking "god this is so much fun winding drivers up". They're more likely thinking about the movement of the cars around them, watching the upcoming junction, looking out for car doors opening, etc. Just a call for a bit more understanding from everyone here. by Scunnered20 (Mon 15th May 2023 11:34am)

Probably even more dangerous. He's on the opposite side of the bus from the driver. Just as you shouldn't creep up the outside of a large vehicle from behind, I wouldn't pop my brakes to slide back down that side of it in motion. If the cyclist brakes, he risks the driver miscalculating the distance between the bus and the parked cars and squeezing him in there. The safest thing is always simply to ride in the middle of the lane, where you can't be crushed against parked cars, or forced into the gutter. If anyone wants to overtake you, they can, just as if you were a car: by passing you in the opposite lane *only when* it's safe to do so. by Scunnered20 (Mon 15th May 2023 11:40am)

>The bike didn't have enough space in the lane it was in to travel safely because of the parked cars. What he should have done is merged into the other lane when safe to do it. Everything was fine up until 31 seconds. Up to that point everyone's in their lane and doing the appropriate thing. Sure it's far from ideal having to cycle in the doorzone of parked cars, but that's routine. The bus was also in its lane, not crossing the white lines. Everything fine. The only error in the video happens at 31 seconds, *after they've passed the line of parked cars*, when the bus driver decides he wants to enter the cyclist's lane exactly where the cyclist is and push him out the way. by Scunnered20 (Mon 15th May 2023 7:58pm)

Yeah it's a rotten crossing for pedestrians. Should all be fixed and easier to cross on foot once the 2nd set of Byres Road works are done in a couple of years. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th May 2023 10:08am)

Copying this from a response I left in another public transport thread a couple months back. Obviously the transport system is in some state, but there are some things in the pipeline that could make a lot of difference in the meantime, until everything is properly joined up. * [Bus priority corridors, under development for Glasgow](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29726). * [Clyde Metro plans, given government support as a priority transport project for the next decade](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29851). In early development. * [6 month pilot scrapping peak fares on all Scottish trains](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-63998198). Expected to launch in October 2023. * On integrated ticketing for Glasgow buses and subway, I'm struggling to find an up-to-date source on timescales, but it's been spoken about by operators and SPT as being delivered by 2025. Which does seem realistic with Tap On Tap Off being rolled out across all buses this and next year. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th May 2023 10:59am)

A direct (or at the very least smooth as possible) Southside - West End is one of the options being explored as part of the Clyde Metro. Among the things being examined are turning Cathcart Circle into light-rail. What that means exactly is anyone's guess, but could be something like a lighter tram-train or something closer to the specialised light metro trains that run on Copenhagen's metro system. Lighter rail has a better acceleration profile, allowing you to have more services on the line per hour. One of the ideas is for construction of a major new subway & rail interchange at West Street in Tradeston. Something similar to what exists at Partick station just now. This would allow people coming from the south of the city to switch to the subway or onto rail services going towards Paisley, Ayrshire or Inverclyde (and vice versa). Another idea is to run the Cathcart Circle lines across the Union Line bridge and then, somehow, get tunnel them down to join the Argyle Line running underneath Central Station. The services would then go on westwards until the Exhibition Centre, where they'd branch north and use old rail alignments and tunnels to reach Kelvinbridge, Hillhead and ultimately, Maryhill. The tunnelling down to reach the Argyle Line aspect of that last plan seems a little difficult to imagine happening. But one other possibility that lighter vehicles allows for is street running. You could potentially run light rail tram-trains along the Union Line, and have them run along streets along much of the same route up to the Exhibition Centre, where they can join the rail lines again. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th May 2023 2:21pm)

> How are we ever going to get an airport link or a 'Clyde Metro' if we don't plan for them? I find this a bit of an odd reaction to this news. The shopping centre used to be the site of a massive terminal rail station, but that doesn't mean it would be logical to build a new terminal rail station there. It's not at all obvious that we need a new terminal rail station. In any case, the Metro plans contain lots of varied solutions for different needs the city has for new fixed rail routes. Like you say, one of them is a fixed rail route to the airport, but there's zero need to build a gargantuan new terminal station just to provide for that. It'd be a waste of energies and funds you could otherwise use for building a dozen new tram or train lines. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th May 2023 5:39pm)

Without having found the detail that might explain it, that might only be related to phase one of the four phases. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th May 2023 5:41pm)

Well, it does. Especially near transport nodes like Central and Queen Street. More hotel rooms in the city centre means taking (some) heat out of the private short term lets market and easing pressure on housing more generally citywide. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th May 2023 8:43pm)

> well, just build housing instead of Hotels. Not meaning to sound snippy but to illustrate my point: who would that instruction / request be directed at? We're talking about a plot of privately owned land being developed into something the owners see offering them significant returns. In and around city centres, hotel space is often a high-demand and high-return investment. Or offices, though that's become very patchy in terms of potential returns for developers. Increasingly, residential rent values in urban cores (over the world, not just Glasgow) are peaking to a point that new permanent-residential builds make increasing financial sense for landowners too. That's why we're seeing a build-to-rent boom, with lots of previous retail space (see St Enoch) being converted into new office-resi mix. Point is, this is privately owned development. It's not sim city where you can decide exactly what gets built on each development site as it comes up. And in a city centre site so close to major transit nodes, a large plot with a mix of hotel-office-resi is a good balance. by Scunnered20 (Fri 26th May 2023 11:26pm)

Glad to see the increase in the indicated density/height of the housing units too. It's a main arterial road which may one day host a tram line. Five minute walk to the shops at Govan Cross, the subway, and soon a short walk to the new bridge. So it's good to see the something similar to tenement level density here, an upgrade on the low-rise housing suggested in the first designs which almost seemed embarrassed to have any housing at all. by Scunnered20 (Sun 28th May 2023 5:01pm)

This is definitely the route to take (it's the most direct, and the other routes provided here unecessarily take you out towards the west end adding several miles to your journey). But they've left a little bit of information out of the description after Cowcaddens underground station: After you go through the underpass under Cowcaddens Road, the underground station will be on your left hand side. From there, make your way north and follow the path that runs alongside Garscube Road. Once you cross another underpass under the motorway (you'll recognise it as it has large metal flowers as decorations) you'll join the new cycle path on Garscube Road, which runs about a mile all the way to the ramp leading to the Forth and Clyde Canal. You're aiming to get to this location here: https://goo.gl/maps/gC3AVFFWbhVxzfAx5 by Scunnered20 (Sun 28th May 2023 10:35pm)

This can't be right. I read some highly informed comments on the Evening Times website and replies to the Glasgow Live Facebook page just this week, stating how Glasgow city centre was an irredeemable ghost town, killed off by a few cycle lanes and handful of bus gates. by Scunnered20 (Mon 29th May 2023 11:20pm)

> For a city so proud of its river and the heritage within it, they really do feck all to utilise it. The wider issue with that is that much of the riverside is privately owned, greatly limiting how it has been used up to now. But that's a separate point for another discussion maybe. It's also true that our habit of plonking single use megastructures along the length of the river - The St Enoch Centre being a great example - greatly limits how active or appealing the riverside could ever be. You could talk about and critique the St Enoch Centre from many angles, but just sticking with the one you raise, there's a lot to be said for its barrier effect and lack of interactivity with the river, specifically how it limits the rest of the city centre from engaging with the riverside too. It has no active frontage along the entire southern stretch, acting like a 400m barrier between the busiest section of the centre (Buchanan Street, Argyle Street, Queen Street, etc) and the Clydeside. The same is true to a slightly lesser extent on its west side facing St Enoch Square and it's eastern end facing Stockwell Street. Granted these ends do have entrances, but that's all. There's zero street frontage to entice people to those areas. In effect the bulk of the centres activity faces just one direction: north, onto Argyle Street. This barrier effect is the most basic problem the shopping centre causes. by Scunnered20 (Tue 30th May 2023 5:03pm)

I think the pace of change in the last few years has caught many landowners, even those large-scale hedge-fund retail property managers, by surprise. 10 years ago, or maybe even as recently as 5 or 6, keeping places like the St Enoch Centre on life support by sinking money into medium-scale renovations or bowling alleys or cinemas or different entertainment offerings, might've seemed worth it. Throw some money at it and see how much longer your investment can continue making you a return. Cities are changing at such a rapid pace though, as are the economics of retail. The pandemic fired rocket boosters onto online retail. At the same time, worldwide since 2010ish, we've been living through a period of massive scale re-urbanisation, with cities drawing growing populations in a way not seen since the industrial revolution. The growth isn't uniform of course, but Glasgow is seeing a huge growth in inward population growth towards its urban core for the first time in decades. All this together suddenly means simply that the pendulum has moved, and there's now much, much more money to be made long term and impetus to invest in rented residential properties in city centres, rather than rented retail space. It just so happens that this aligns with a lot of wider ambitions Glasgow and other cities have: about making their urban cores more people-friendly, hospitable, walkable, liveable, etc. But the drive is very much market economics. by Scunnered20 (Tue 30th May 2023 11:39pm)

I think those developments, many of which are still under construction, like Laurieston Living and Sighthill, are symbolic of thinking 5-10 years ago when they were first planned. Back then, they were considered dense for the time. I think if these sites were being masterplanned now, we'd see much greater density. That's basically the norm now. Public appetites and planning directives have changed, meaning car parking space and the perceived value placed on it has fallen down the list of priorities when planning a new development. Although the gap sites are (thankfully) disappearing quite quickly in Glasgow, I'd expect higher densities to be the norm from here on out. by Scunnered20 (Wed 31st May 2023 12:11pm)

Why does that make it pointless? The point is to remove highly polluting vehicles from surface streets in the centre, where people are walking and actively spending their time. by Scunnered20 (Sat 3rd Jun 2023 8:22pm)

First Bus's fleet was almost entirely upgraded in 2018-19 to comply with the incoming LEZ limits. Many of their buses that pass through the city centre have been made entirely electric since then. Same is true of McGills buses that enter Glasgow City centre. In fact, they've been ahead of the game by quite a bit and most of their buses are now 100% electric. by Scunnered20 (Sat 3rd Jun 2023 8:21pm)

It's not really about reducing traffic volumes. If anything it's overly targetted, and quite far from being a general anti-car measure. If it were, the limits would be much, much lower than they are in order to widen the number of cars that are non-compliant. It's aimed simply at reducing the number of vehicles in the city centre that emit extreme levels of NO2, which [is highly damaging to people's lungs](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/air-quality-statistics/ntrogen-dioxide#:~:text=Short%2Dterm%20exposure%20to%20concentrations,cause%20changes%20to%20the%20environment.). by Scunnered20 (Sat 3rd Jun 2023 8:28pm)

I can see that it looks like it won't make much difference, if your expectations are that it should/could really dent the presence of traffic overall. But its aim is different. Its aim is to remove the 5-10% of vehicles which are responsible for the vast majority of N02 emissions. Older diesel engine vehicles mostly. They only account for 5-10% of traffic, but removing them removes the vast majority of that specific pollutant. by Scunnered20 (Sat 3rd Jun 2023 9:43pm)

They have inbuilt dynamo lights so that shouldn't really be possible generally, unless there's a fault. But they mostly all have working lights. by Scunnered20 (Sat 3rd Jun 2023 10:14pm)

How do you mean? by Scunnered20 (Sun 4th Jun 2023 11:49am)

Ah I see, you mean move traffic through Hope Street faster so it leaves less pollution. That doesn't really work because if you facilitate higher traffic volumes (by making transit of the street faster), you just facilitate the same or higher emissions. Individual vehicles may spend less time on the street, but more vehicles spend time on the street overall. Maybe if things go well you reduce net emissions by doing something like that, but it comes with huge detrimental effects on navigation for pedestrians too. Better to keep it a city centre street rather than an expressway-lite, and tackle emissions another way (i.e. through LEZ criteria). by Scunnered20 (Sun 4th Jun 2023 8:17pm)

Better to let the viaducts crumble? by Scunnered20 (Mon 5th Jun 2023 12:49pm)

My first thought is the Islay Inn (on Argyle Street in the west end, near Kelvingrove Park) is your surest bet. They have trad music most nights though you're more likely to find something closer to the weekend. Check this out for live music in Glasgow, the listings for "*Folk & World*" down the bottom of each page is what you're looking for: https://www.gigguide.co.uk/Glasgow%20Listings/glasgowtuesday.htm Sure enough, there's a student session on at the Islay Inn tomorrow night, and a few other traditional music sessions elsewhere. My tip would be Islay Inn, and if you're not digging it, head on up to Machair to catch the rest of their session. It's also in the west end and only a 15 min walk through Kelvingrove Park. by Scunnered20 (Mon 5th Jun 2023 10:02pm)

I get this sentiment and hear it a lot but the council doesn't directly decide what happens with empty units. Retailers will only move in if the value proposition is good enough for them. And a public realm programme like this can definitely boost the chances of new retailers moving in. Sauchiehall Street (despite what people will tell you) is still a valuable proposition for retailers. It's a main pedestrian thoroughfare and sees tends of thousands of people walking down it every day. Putting the fires at GSA & Victorias aside, which were definitely the major cause for the street's recent woes, I suspect having these plans on the books but not actually happening may have actually dampened retailer interest for the past few years. The idea of setting up shop *just before* a major 1-2 year public works programme could be a significant deterrent for retailers, especially those bigger brands that do their due diligence and would plan to spend big on store fronts, upkeep, etc. Once the works are completed, I'm quite confident the street will be in a very good position. by Scunnered20 (Tue 6th Jun 2023 12:37pm)

Here's a list of some current / planned developments for other nearby sites on the river: * Windmillcroft Quay, to the west of the Barclays site: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29952 * Avenues 'Plus' public realm works, planned to begin this year on Carlton Place, South Portland Street: https://www.urbanrealm.com/news/10141/Avenues_Plus_to_reinstate_lost_grandeur_of_South_Portland_Street_.html * New proposals for a built-to-rent tower the the east side of the Kingston Bridge on the gap site at Washington Street: https://www.urbanrealm.com/news/10407/Washington_Street_skyscraper_to_tame_the_Kingston_Bridge.html * A 14-storey office development was just approved next to there, on the gap site at Carrick Street: https://www.scottishconstructionnow.com/articles/glasgow-approves-14-storey-office-block-at-carrick-square * Dandara Living has submitted a proposal for another tower flanking the Kingston Bridge, on the gap site at Cheapside Street (1,000 flats): https://www.scottishconstructionnow.com/articles/glasgow-approves-14-storey-office-block-at-carrick-square * A huge mixed use site is planned for the streets around that area, at Central Quay: https://www.glasgowwestendtoday.scot/news/public-to-view-central-quay-proposals-1567/ by Scunnered20 (Tue 6th Jun 2023 12:54pm)

Most of the riverside west of Tradeston all the way out to Greenock is privately owned and in the hands of inheritor companies of the original port and dockyard owners. That's the basic reason for the lack of meaningful or joined up development. It's an endless challenge for the city, and what little development has happened over the last few decades has happened either through lengthy negotiation between the city and the landowners, or more often than not, only because there's a financial prerogative for the landowners to act. For a long time they were content to landbank, to sit on the land and watch its value increase over time. A change has happened though in that very recently it's become more financially viable and appealing to use city-centre adjacent gap sites for housing development and rental income streams, than to simply watch the land value increase over time. That's why we're seeing a boom in development along the river. The city's doing its bit to harness this new interest in development and coordinate it into some sort of coherent plan as best it can, creating a Strategic Development Framework for the River Corridor just a few years ago: https://www.glasgowconsult.co.uk/UploadedFiles/River%20Corridor%20Strategic%20Development%20Framework%20-%20Draft%20November%202018.pdf by Scunnered20 (Tue 6th Jun 2023 1:09pm)

> Do you think the choices about how to improve the street will influence what’s kind of businesses might invest there? No doubt. But it's important to think about the wider retail environment today and what's possible and what's not. Some businesses are simply no longer viable on the high street. Curries or HMV type brands, department stores, white goods, electronics, etc. All particularly vulnerable to online shopping and probably not ever making any meaningful return to city centre bricks and mortar retail. Clothing is vulnerable, though that's got more of a personal and experiential shopping dimension so probably has a bit of a future. In that sense, city centre retail is just changed fundamentally in that it's geared now towards services or experiences, so basically, food & drink. That's true around the world, not just in Glasgow. As you say I'd expect many more restaurants, cafes and bars than were on the street in the past. Grocery stores are also doing very well in cities now, with urban populations increasing. I think we can expect convenience stores and small supermarkets become a common sight. by Scunnered20 (Tue 6th Jun 2023 1:29pm)

This one's already been through the consultations. This is us now at the end of that specific years-long tunnel! by Scunnered20 (Tue 6th Jun 2023 1:43pm)

It's money from a fund given to the city about 10 years ago from Westminster and the Scottish Government specifically for infrastructure improvements. https://glasgowcityregion.co.uk/ by Scunnered20 (Tue 6th Jun 2023 1:42pm)

Other end of the street by Scunnered20 (Tue 6th Jun 2023 2:21pm)

https://www.firstbus.co.uk/greater-glasgow/routes-and-maps/network-maps This is a map of the "city" and "local" zones: https://www.firstbus.co.uk/sites/default/files/public/maps/WebMap_Glasgow%20Fare%20Zone%20Map_Aug2019.pdf by Scunnered20 (Mon 12th Jun 2023 1:26am)

Glasgow Castle, or the Bishop's Castle, was roughly on the spot where the Museum of Religion is now. So just next to the Cathedral at Castle Street, which still bears its name. by Scunnered20 (Sat 24th Jun 2023 12:12am)

I think those are covers for wind turbine nacelles. The white columns laid out on the left quay are segments of wind turbine towers. And you can see stacks of turbine blades in the top left of the image too, behind the warehouse. by Scunnered20 (Sun 25th Jun 2023 2:49am)

Does anybody know if the Shieldhall sewer tunnel was built to mitigate White Cart flooding as well? Or was that built for another reason. by Scunnered20 (Tue 27th Jun 2023 9:37am)

If everyone does this though, you quickly run out of space for all the massive cars. It's a fairly good example of a [Tragedy of the Commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons): something that may make sense and be a perfectly rational act for an individual given a range of options, but is a disaster for everyone in the aggregate. In the UK and Europe we're still in the relative early stages of this trend but we're very much following the trajectory of the US car market, where each generation of cars is getting bigger and heavier. There's been research showing that the mass increase in SUVs is actually countering and nullifying any fuel efficiency gains too. On every front, from worse road safety for pedestrians, to increased road congestion, to impact on the climate, the hulking design of modern cars is a disaster. by Scunnered20 (Wed 28th Jun 2023 12:36am)

>Hopefully the competition will shame the city into providing some basic cycling infrastructure to replace the current dismal offering. Other councils can do it. Why can't Glasgow?! https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=30155 by Scunnered20 (Wed 28th Jun 2023 12:41am)

Yeah https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/avenues If you click the phasing map you can see the full programme. About 15+ or so. by Scunnered20 (Wed 28th Jun 2023 8:38pm)

They updated the app very recently and while you still get live bus times displayed for your stop, you can't click to see each bus's location on the map like you used to be able to. As far as I can tell the bus times *are* tracking the buses live. There was a period though where "live" buses often turned out to be ghost buses, and the only way of confirming that they weren't was to track it on the map, giving you that extra bit of reassurance that one was actually on its way (or not). by Scunnered20 (Mon 3rd Jul 2023 6:10pm)

Councils are skint after 13 years of relentless austerity and the wider picture is that the UK is not as rich a country (per capita) as most people think it is. by Scunnered20 (Tue 4th Jul 2023 9:05am)

This surprised me so I just looked it up and it's pretty much true. UK GDP per capita was around $46,500 in 2021, and Mississippi's (lowest in the US) was $43,000, though was a couple thousand higher in 2020. We'd probably be ranked 47th or 48th richest US state per capita most years. The US is phenomenally richer than most other developed countries though. That said, most people would be shocked to learn this comparison. What people are feeling here - though not explicitly realizing because it's almost never discussed in this way - is that we are now approaching the point of being overtaken by countries such as Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, in terms of standard of living. GDP per capita being one measurement. The idea that we are the "sixth richest" country in the world is common, but it's very misplaced. by Scunnered20 (Wed 5th Jul 2023 6:40pm)

>explain how a bus fare in LONDON is £1.75 no matter where you go The biggest fundamental difference is that the two cities' bus and wider transit systems are run entirely differently. Glasgow having had its municipally owned bus service broken up and privatised as a result of the [1985 Transport Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Act_1985) like every other UK city, while London retained an exemption allowing it to set up TfL. On the specific point about fare costs though, as far as I know London bus fares are massively subsidised by (local and national) government grants. That's to say, the bus service isn't by itself profit-making. The London Underground however does turn a profit, or at least did routinely up until Covid. I really don't know the ins and outs and happy to be corrected, but I had read revenue from Underground services part subsidises cheaper bus fares in London, though only in part. The significantly larger portion of bus fare subsidy coming from direct govt grants. The Scottish Parliament passed necessary legislation to repeal key aspects of the 1985 Transport Act just a few years ago. Scottish local authorities now have legal powers to set up their own municipal bus networks. Having the funding to do this is another matter entirely though. by Scunnered20 (Fri 7th Jul 2023 12:36am)

For info the council's most recent cost estimates for a range of options are: * £4m-15m to set up a bus franchising scheme (which they seem to be exploring as the priority project in the medium term). * c.£200m for full acquisition of buses, depots, but excluding revenue costs (staffing). by Scunnered20 (Fri 7th Jul 2023 1:31am)

To add to this, and without wanting to seem like a shill for the private operators, there are some things about our bus network that make it more expensive to run and much much less efficient than it could be. Raising costs that even a publicly owned network would face: * Bus stop dwell times: When you compare to most other cities, there are far too many bus stops on most Glasgow bus routes, and they're far too close together. Buses spend a significant amount of their journey time dwelling at bus stops. This is a legacy of privatisation, with some bus stops established to serve specific operators, but it now being quite politically difficult to remove them. It's completely unhelpful for the bus network to have bus stops 150-250 metres apart on most routes. * Drivers selling tickets: Unlike most continental cities where you purchase a ticket in advance, the default method here is for passengers to buy their ticket from the driver. This adds *a lot* to bus stop dwell times and makes journeys a lot longer than they could be otherwise. Overall this makes the service slower, less cost effective, and less attractive for potential passengers. by Scunnered20 (Fri 7th Jul 2023 8:45am)

Yeah single doors for boarding *and* exiting is another issue. My understanding is the existing operators are against double doors for fear of it aiding fare dodging. It does add on time to the journey though. All these things might sound trivial by themselves. It's only 15 seconds here for a ticket purchase, 30 seconds there for a queue to disembark and let others on. But on a route with 40+ stops, that all adds up to be an extra 20-30 minutes where the bus is not moving. by Scunnered20 (Fri 7th Jul 2023 10:19am)

The legislation's in place now. The primary legislation passed in the 2019 Transport Act (Scotland), but it's only in the last year or so that the necessary secondary legislation was passed. Councils now have the powers to set up bus franchise systems (which Glasgow has started work on, costed at around £5m-15m) or to take everything into public ownership (which no councils have the funds for by themselves, and has been costed at c.£200m for Glasgow). by Scunnered20 (Fri 7th Jul 2023 11:26am)

It's one of these things we've been conditioned to be used to and not think to question, but once you notice it you can't help but see it - and the impact it has on travel times - every time you're on a bus. by Scunnered20 (Fri 7th Jul 2023 1:07pm)

Aye, OP u/yoda_layheeho, I was about to link to this. Someone shared a photo in another thread. It's a temporary vehicle category monitoring station. For automatically counting the numbers of different types of vehicles that pass. Useful for a range of reasons, not necessarily anything to do with extending the LEZ as some people are suggesting. Best guess, it's positioned there to monitor whether there's an uptick in vehicles using that M74 exit since the implementation of the LEZ. But it could just be a separate and routine investigation of traffic volumes and flows related to the motorway network. by Scunnered20 (Sun 9th Jul 2023 12:02pm)

Can I make an earnest plea? Anyone on the sub who is frustrated, disappointed or angered by this, please write to your councillor and to SPT. Even just a quick email. The council has powers to set up a franchise system for the buses, which thankfully it is exploring through a first stage business case, with the expectation we might have a franchise system for the buses (with significantly greater public control) in around seven years. But that should be sped up as a matter of urgency. Councillors should also be exerting pressure on SPT and First, even if it's only public relations pressure and not backed up by statutory powers. by Scunnered20 (Mon 10th Jul 2023 10:56am)

The powers have already been given to Scottish councils, through the Transport Act (Scotland) in 2019. The final necessary secondary legislation was passed within the last year, and councils do now, finally, have powers to either: 1. Set up a franchise system (like TfL) where they mandate the bus routes, branding, pricing, etc, and allow multiple private companies to bid to run those services (under a Glasgow Buses banner). or 2. Go the whole hog and set up a municipal bus service by purchasing existing assets (buses, depot's, etc). This would be extremely costly (costed recently by a council report at c.£200m) and certainly require Scottish Government funding support. The council is currently in the early stages of option 1, having launched a study into the business case, a first necessary step. Following the route taken by Manchester (which Westminster passed legislation for a couple of years ago), it's expected to take 7 years from business case to launch of a franchise system. by Scunnered20 (Mon 10th Jul 2023 11:15am)

Join, follow and share [Get Glasgow Moving](https://www.getglasgowmoving.org/). They're the central campaign for better public transport in Glasgow. Just as important: **email you councillors**. If you have any strength of feeling at all about how poor the bus services are, contact your councillors about it today. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/councillorsandcommittees/allMembers.asp?sort=0 by Scunnered20 (Mon 10th Jul 2023 11:34am)

This will only happen if and when the council makes it happen. They now have the powers (since the law was changed in Scotland in 2019), and a plan to establish a franchise system for buses within the next decade. But it needs to be sped up as a matter of priority. People need to direct their feelings on this to their councillors to demand more urgent action. by Scunnered20 (Mon 10th Jul 2023 12:42pm)

Agreed on the cost. It's close to insurmountable for the council alone, but it would be a good candidate for a nationally supported project in terms of impact. by Scunnered20 (Mon 10th Jul 2023 1:25pm)

I might be wrong, but I guess you mean your MP? by Scunnered20 (Mon 10th Jul 2023 2:40pm)

> I don't understand how Edinburgh can manage to run buses seemingly 24/7 and yet Glasgow struggles to even have some buses before 6am in places. It's a mix of reasons. * Edinburgh has no suburban rail network to speak of (it did at one time but it was destroyed in the Beeching Cuts) while Glasgow has one of the biggest existing suburban rail networks in the UK. It doesn't mean everything's hunky dory for Glasgow obviously, but as a starting point, it means Edinburgh depends on buses to power its public transit network to an extreme degree that Glasgow doesn't. * This makes Edinburgh's bus service naturally better placed to make a profit than Glasgow's. Should that matter? No, of course it shouldn't. But while we have private operators deciding routes based on performance, that means ultimately any route is vulnerable to being cut in Glasgow. Again, not defending this remotely, but that's the situation we're in. * On top of that, because Edinburgh's bus network turns a very healthy profit and is effectively municipally run, a bigger share of these operating profits are re-invested into better services rather than being squirreled away as part of shareholder dividends. by Scunnered20 (Mon 10th Jul 2023 7:12pm)

Sorry, completely correct point. I thought I'd said councillors but clearly didn't! Corrected now. As you say, it's important that people directly contact each of their ward councillors. I've found its often useful to CC them into a single email, that way they have added incentive to provide a better quality of response. Or at least I've always had better results that way. Saves writing 4 separate emails too. by Scunnered20 (Mon 10th Jul 2023 7:24pm)

No. by Scunnered20 (Mon 10th Jul 2023 9:38pm)

The UK Transport Act of 1985 ended regulation of bus services by councils (London was the only place to get an exemption) and opened all municipal bus services in the UK up to purchase by private entities. Like almost all other UK cities, Glasgow's buses and route rights (owned up to that point by Strathclyde Region) were quickly purchased by private entities, and are now in the hands of First Bus Group. Edinburgh is something of a freak case where the regional transport body (Lothian Regional Transport, their equivalent of SPT) simply never sold its control over their buses and rode out the initial waves of privatisation. Currently, The City of Edinburgh Council and neighbouring Lothian Councils share ownership of Lothian Buses. Together they set routes, timetables, pricing, etc. Glasgow and the vast majority of other UK cities have not had this power for the last 40 years. Hence the fragmented, expensive, disjointed transit system we have. The Scottish Parliament passed legislation in 2019 to repeal aspects of the 1985 UK legislation, and provide Scottish Councils with powers to buy back buses and run their own bus services in totality, if they want to. The full suite of legislation hasn't yet been enacted in parliament, but it's expected to be this year. Once this is done, there's nothing legally holding Glasgow back from buying back the buses and running things. There would be a tremendous up front cost, probably too much for the city itself (estimated at c.£200 million+ in a recent council report). But it would be relatively small cost for an infrastructure project of its scale for Scottish Government to take on. by Scunnered20 (Mon 10th Jul 2023 10:58pm)

Without tax a range of raising powers they'd still be going cap in hand to central government. Of course, having the council tax base of East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire in the environs of Greater Glasgow would be helpful. by Scunnered20 (Tue 11th Jul 2023 6:34pm)

In Andy Burnham they have a mayor who's an incredible advocate for better transport for the city region. Not to completely discredit him, but (and I hate to say this) most of the change has come because of actions made by the UK government. They established mayoral regions in England, changed legislation to allow Manchester and other English cities to control their bus networks (repealing aspects of transport laws their party enacted in the 80s) and are responsible for the fare cap too, which is a national scheme across all of England funded by central govt. We've done only part of this work in Scotland. On law changes on transport powers for cities: this is mostly though not completely finished with secondary legislation still to be passed. On national funding: fare capping may well be coming somewhere down the line later this year or early 2024, but there seems to be zero appetite to take on funding of a municipally owned transit system for Glasgow, even if it will soon have the legal authority to do it. by Scunnered20 (Tue 11th Jul 2023 7:08pm)

There's a danger of us simply continuing to go round in circles here. There's a widespread misunderstanding among the public about the options we have. It's important that the public does understand things, so we know where to direct anger and demands for action. First Bus can't be coerced to reintroduce night services. They can't be coerced to do anything. I keep reading people demand the council "tear up their contract!", but there is no contract to tear up. We don't have a franchise agreement system for the buses (yet), like how Scotrail was run for example with the likes of First, Arriva or Abellio bidding to run set routes for a number of years: It's a near free-for all with private operators running services they see fit to. It's been this way since UK transport laws made it so in the 80s. First run a private bus service. And that's it. Angry letters from leading politicians to the company and petitions asking them to politely reinstate services should not be celebrated. It's embarrassing and impotent. This will not achieve substantial, lasting change, even if First were to relent on this single issue. Nor should the news that McGills Buses might, maybe, if it the wind blows the right direction and it makes financial sense for them to do so, begin running competitor night buses on very select routes in Glasgow. This is a sticking plaster and should not be celebrated by anyone as a lasting solution. Fundamentally, First are simply doing what is in their own interest and no one can fault them for that. But just as First Bus are acting in their interest, the time has come for Glasgow to act in its own interest. The city [recently kick started the process to develop a franchise system for buses](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29774), making use of [changes the Scottish Government is in the middle of making to transport law in Scotland](https://www.route-one.net/news/legislation-to-enable-bus-franchising-to-be-introduced-in-scotland/). But a Glasgow bus franchise system is not expected to be close to launch for a *minimum of seven years*, according to the council's own evaluation of current timelines. Hopefully this action by First Bus is a catalyst for change, and that it's focused minds on the need to improve things with urgency. But it's important to know where to direct demand for action. The franchise route being explored by Glasgow is the answer, but seven years is too long to wait. The council and govt needs to be pressed on much more urgent action, which undoubtedly will mean treating it as a priority project in terms of policy and funding. by Scunnered20 (Wed 12th Jul 2023 6:24pm)

I know I'm a broken record on this, but there's a danger of people's response to this being generalized (to despair at the situation, complain to First, demand vague action) rather than being extremely specific in what we ask the council and Scottish Govt to do. The right plan is in place: franchising the bus network as a first step, running it like TfL, TfGM or like ScotRail used to be, by rendering out services but controlling everything. With the option for exploring full municipal ownership further down the line. The problem isn't necessarily convincing the council to do this. They're already on board and have started progressing a business case towards franchising. The problem is it's going to be *painfully* slow, unless the Scottish Government can be convinced to speed the process up by treating it as a priority project, with the requisite funding and national backing such a project needs. by Scunnered20 (Thu 13th Jul 2023 11:24am)

> I think the headline kind of takes what he's saying out of context. I don't think it does. I'm tempted to be slightly generous in that The Herald knew what they had with a statement like that and obviously went with it for their headline, but... It quite starkly illustrates the fundamental problem here: that what many view to be a "public" is in reality not that at all. It's a business service provided at the whim of private enterprise. He's perfectly entitled to make his points in whichever crude way he wants. That's for his shareholders to grumble about. But the level of detachment and tone deafness should ring alarm bells for everyone here, if they're not already paying attention. It's perfectly fair to have it shown front and centre like this. by Scunnered20 (Thu 13th Jul 2023 11:54am)

If anyone's writing to councillors or MSPs, they need to be specific in their demands. We should be demanding that Glasgow City Council make immediate representations to the Scot Govt and the transport department for priority assistance with accelerated development of its bus franchise system. Demands should be made of Government to support this acceleration, and of opposition MSPs to pressure the government into such acceleration. by Scunnered20 (Thu 13th Jul 2023 11:57am)

The problem is it's a service in the same way that McDonald's selling burgers or Vodafone selling phone contracts is a service. No matter how essential it is to the end user, it will never be treated that way by a private business. It's unreasonable to expect that it would. Moments like this crystalize this and show the situation for what it really is. Considerations such as public safety, convenience, or support for the economic prosperity of the city itself, will never compete against the simple objective to deliver a profitable return. That's the reality and we need to recognize it and take steps to remedy the situation. by Scunnered20 (Thu 13th Jul 2023 12:17pm)

Don't have any special knowledge re. the situation with The Lighthouse specifically, but Glasgow Life has struggled terribly with funding cuts. Venues opening hours have been trimmed across the board and staffing levels at many venues seem to be at or even below bare minimum. I can understand why The Lighthouse might have > Another example of Glasgow not taking care of its artistic heritage and letting it just…decay. It should be said that one of the big problems cultural venues in Glasgow face is that they are by and large *city* assets, not *national* assets (or liabilities, as the case may be). In Edinburgh, a significant number of popular museums and cultural venues are national assets, supported directly by national funding to a degree that just doesn't happen in Glasgow or elsewhere. by Scunnered20 (Tue 18th Jul 2023 10:44am)

But the wider picture is that the council is facing a continual funding crisis itself. Glasgow certainly has assets worth saving, but there is only so much a city can do by itself. by Scunnered20 (Tue 18th Jul 2023 10:52am)

You're talking about diversion of national funding, so ultimately it's a matter for the Scottish Government budget. Changing the funding system for museums would be quite a shakeup: which museums are granted national status and why? Is it just Glasgow museums? What's the criteria? Is there a hard limit on the number and category of museum that becomes a national asset? Etc. These are all things that would be considered. Petitioning the Cabinet Secretary for Culture is one route, but really you'd need a ground swell of political support for a change to take place. Anyone looking to lead this kind of public action would do well to bring the Greens on board and use them to press the issue. by Scunnered20 (Tue 18th Jul 2023 11:02am)

I'd push back on Glasgow being a city 'in decline', which may have been the case in the 1970s-80s. But the wider point about centralising tendencies, a modern-day Edinburgh favouritism and a change in relationship between the two cities has some validity. Glasgow is growing and performing okay across a few metrics (gradual repopulation, GDP per capita growth, private investment) It's maybe less that we're in a position of decline, just that Edinburgh's growth has (somewhat) eclipsed Glasgow's in a range of ways. Possibly for the first time since the industrial revolution. by Scunnered20 (Tue 18th Jul 2023 11:26am)

Knowing zilch about building maintenance, is it really be that much more costly to maintain Glasgow City Chambers rather than any other (slightly less ornate) civic building from the 19th century? What huge additional cost are you assuming here. Waxing the floors once in a while? The council HQ has to be somewhere, and a sizeable building designed specifically for the purpose of hosting the council, bang in the middle of the city centre, physically attached to the corporate services and civil service wing of the council doesn't seem all that problematic. by Scunnered20 (Fri 21st Jul 2023 12:08am)

There's a lot of impatience and even disbelief expressed at the Clyde Metro plans, but we need to be realistic about timescales, because it is a massive undertaking when you really think through what's involved. It typically takes a couple of years to develop plans for a single highly-urban tram route or rail alignment. Then you have tendering and figuring out the kinks at detailed design stage before proceeding to construction. All in it's reasonable to assume we're looking at end of decade for the first Metro branded vehicles to get rolling in Glasgow, at the earliest. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing, nor that the steps leading up to it aren't important. Something also overlooked in all this is that, perversely, Glasgow's abundance of existing rail infrastructure (and the degree to which it's actively in use) makes it a real headache to decide where to prioritise development of new lines. In many ways it would be easier if you were starting from scratch in a city with either zero rail alignments to begin with. The problem we have here is that nearly every touted Clyde Metro related project will impact existing services in one way or another, such is their level of interaction with the existing suburban and regional rail network. All elements of the Clyde Metro plan may all end up being constructed in the end, after several decades. But along the way you cause significant disruption, and so the sequencing is very important to get right from the beginning. This takes time to deliberate and decide upon. For example, one of the major plans is conversion of the Cathcart Circle lines to tram trains, which may run on street through the city centre or even (somehow) connect to the Argyle Line tunnel that runs via Central Lower Level. The goal being to ease capacity at Central Station for more long distance services. This would have knock on impacts for regional services running on the Glasgow South Western Line. Not to mention while this work is underway, the Cathcart lines (among the very busiest services in Scotland) would be out of commission for several years. There are other ideas which involve overlap or interaction with existing regional lines too: a Hyndland - Botanic Gardens - Kelvingrove Park tram-train tunnel connector, which would likely impact any services going via Hyndland for a while. The airport line also appears to have two options being considered, according to the recent concept maps. One would be a tram, as suggested by the Connectivity Commission. Although it seems a heavy rail extension of Paisley Canal wrapping around Paisley, past the airport and on to Renfrew and the QEUH is being considered, involving potentially a new crossing of the Clyde. Each of these are radically different propositions, with different benefits and widly different costs. Both might happen in the end, but which comes first is the key question to be decided. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/media/image/g/m/Clyde-Metro_map-v3_1_(002).jpg by Scunnered20 (Fri 21st Jul 2023 4:27pm)

Entirely fair. It is frustrating! We live in different times though and it's hard to compare the two. The subway circle was built in an era with a fairly carefree attitude towards health & safety or environmental considerations (I mean consideration of the impact on the existing local built environment, not emissions). If I remember correctly there were regular accidents during construction of the tunnels and even a handful of worker deaths. That was also at a time when money was *absolutely swilling around* Glasgow and the British Isles. Glasgow was a manufacturing hub at the core of a global empire, and experiencing economic and population growth almost unparalleled anywhere else, except for a few similar highly industrialised cities like St Louis, Chicago or major capitals like Paris, London, Vienna or Moscow. On it taking 20+ years: it really shouldn't take that long to deliver the first line, whatever that may be. Conceivably a relatively simple airport tram route via AMIDS, Renfrew, QEUH, Govan to the centre could be done in 6-10 years, probably delivered in phases like Edinburgh's has been. 20-30 years, and the overall 35 year timeline would be for the delivery of the full network. by Scunnered20 (Fri 21st Jul 2023 8:26pm)

I am a simple person too. I see an infrastructure thread I immediately comment. by Scunnered20 (Sat 22nd Jul 2023 1:04pm)

When walking or cycling around, I notice that the road users I'm generally most intimidated or endangered by are those that are involved in a time-pressured delivery activity. Whether someone delivering food via bike or in an Uber stickered car, someone ferrying people or racing to their next fare in their taxi, or someone delivering goods in a van. I'd say these account for 90%+ of the stressful and dangerous situations I experience either as a pedestrian or cyclist. Taxi drivers constantly tail-gaiting or carrying out dangerous overtakes, delivery cyclists bulldozing through on pavements. Van drivers parking entirely on pavements or ignoring give-way, stop signs or generally taking crazy risks on the road around other people. The delivery activities we've come to expect as standard - and the pressured conditions these people probably have to work under - don't feel compatible at all with road safety. The delivery bikes are a new facet of this, but it's part of something much broader and invasive. Better enforcement and stronger penalties across the board would be a useful thing, as well as an expectation that road safety trumps anything, even if it means delivering food, goods or passengers slightly slower than otherwise. by Scunnered20 (Sat 22nd Jul 2023 1:00pm)

Cause it's not mandatory in the UK. by Scunnered20 (Sat 22nd Jul 2023 1:09pm)

What lanes? by Scunnered20 (Sat 22nd Jul 2023 1:14pm)

Not to say it's close to all pavements in the city, but a significant part of the official cycling network in Glasgow includes many shared use pavements. by Scunnered20 (Sat 22nd Jul 2023 1:22pm)

Key sections of the document are page 19 (Proposition) and page 20 (Action). *Proposition* As evidenced in the Stantec retail report, Glasgow, much like other cities in the UK, can no longer rely on established national chains to occupy the majority of the available retail space within the Z. There is a need to diversify the retail offer, augmenting with local independent retailers together with convenience retail to support the expanding residential community to provide a strong, attractive retail mix within a right sized offer of retained resilient brands. A number of other uses such as Healthcare, Leisure, Creche / Daycare, Commercial and Maker Spaces that historically were located in our city centres should be reintroduced to occupy space vacated by retail, encouraging greater footfall throughout the Z (and benefiting retail). The Vision contains a 3 dimensional analysis of each of the three streets and commentary on each: Buchanan Street Buchanan Street is a successful component of Glasgow’s retail offer but stretches of it contain little in the way of other uses. New F&B [food & beverage] / Leisure at key corners and junctions complete with structured pavement cafe seating would extend activity into the evening, preventing the current ‘dead-zone’ from Gordon Street to the junction with Argyle Street. Buchanan Street is a high-quality public realm but is a predominantly hard landscaped environment that is tired in places, suffers from encroaching clutter and needs a refresh. It would benefit from additional greening and free to access shelter. Sauchiehall Street / Argyle Street The diversification of uses on these key streets away from retail dependency (workplace, education, F&B/leisure, civic/third sector etc.) will redefine their fortune and character to be more focused on serving their local communities, both residents and those who work there. Retail will still be an essential component of this new mix but of a more independent nature, influenced by the existing energy, culture and creativity present on and around both streets thanks to the GSA / GFT and RCS in the case of Sauchiehall Street and the studios, galleries and creative workplaces around Trongate / King Street. *Action* Diversify Uses at Street Level. Encourage a beneficial proportion of complementary uses to reinforce retail and extend hours of activity. Revise policy presuming for retail on specific stretches of the Z to encourage evening operations into predominantly retail stretches without compromising the Apex retail status of Buchanan Street. Support delivery of proposed Avenues and seeks to introduce further targeted improvements to the quality of the public realm (greening, shelter, quality materials) to support dwell time, pavement activity, attract footfall’ Supporting policy recommendations are included in the delivery section. by Scunnered20 (Sat 22nd Jul 2023 1:34pm)

> I do believe it’s high time there was a rail/tram link between the centre of Glasgow and the airport but again, that would involve two (three?) councils working together to make it possible. The two councils (Glasgow & Renfrewshire) have been working together for a few years to develop, initially, the business case for an individual 'metro' line to the airport, which has since grown into a wider scope Clyde Metro plan involving many more lines. Their joint funding of this initial business case is what kicked off the whole Metro project https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-51008481 > I also believe that the Southern General (showing my age now) should be more easily accessible by rail. The recent Clyde Metro concept maps suggest one of the preferred options is a heavy-rail or potential tram-train extension of Paisley Canal, to wrap around western Paisley, serving the airport, Renfrew, Southern General, and looping back to the city centre along the Clyde corridor. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/media/image/g/m/Clyde-Metro_map-v3_1_(002).jpg by Scunnered20 (Sat 22nd Jul 2023 2:25pm)

[JD Sports](https://publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/files/4DF5DE3E44397B9F15D077C609E7FC77/pdf/23_00145_ADV-EXTERNAL_SIGNAGE_PLANNING_DWG_B-5656691.pdf) by Scunnered20 (Sun 23rd Jul 2023 3:17pm)

Another vote for the Park Bar, Islay Inn, Ben Nevis. The Ben Nevis has a younger crowd of the three, often with people new to Glasgow or visitors from out of town stopping in. With its limited seating, I find it's a place that naturally promotes conversation with strangers. Brass Monkey down the road is also a good place for this. by Scunnered20 (Sun 23rd Jul 2023 11:32pm)

What's up with walking? by Scunnered20 (Mon 24th Jul 2023 1:35pm)

Brain worms. by Scunnered20 (Wed 26th Jul 2023 12:45pm)

It's not that it's in the wrong place. It's that nothing else has been built around it, yet. There are solid, relatively advanced plans for large scale housing in the massive empty void at Yorkhill Quay to the east. As others have said, the bridge from Govan will be open at the start of 2024. by Scunnered20 (Wed 26th Jul 2023 10:40pm)

As u/lordanubis12 says, it's partly down to the dominant mindset of the time that cars and the idyllic, problem free, individual freedoms they would afford were the future and that's where the investment went. The other connected reason is a practical one: cars simply overran everything. Trams couldn't get moving for congestion caused by motor traffic by the 1950s. It led to a vicious cycle: Trams became slow and unreliable, and completely unprofitable with ridership plummeting. The poor tram service made cars all the more appealing, making trams all the more unreliable. Even Edinburgh's newly opened Leith tram is experiencing these very issues nearly every day now, with services delays caused by them having to share road space with cars. Or in extreme, but all too frequent cases, of cars and other vehicles being illegally parked in their path. Glasgow Corporation switched from trams to trolley buses in the 1960s as a way of mitigating this congestion issue (trolley buses being capable of weaving amongst traffic to a certain extent). But fundamentally the issue was never fixed. We live today with buses that are cripplingly slow and unreliable because the city was redesigned in the 50s-60s to cater for cars over and above public transport. by Scunnered20 (Sun 30th Jul 2023 11:59pm)

The entire idea that Glasgow is on its knees is tedious at this stage. by Scunnered20 (Wed 2nd Aug 2023 10:58pm)

Two hugely consequential fires affecting two entire city blocks and the wider issue of the ongoing decline of traditional on-street retail in the face of online retail is what's driven this. Sauchiehall Street is a problem area but it's not representative of the wider city centre. It's also consistently busy, even in its current rough looking state. In the face of prevailing winds of online commerce, the only way to improve things in these specific problem areas is to massively repopulate the city centre. Thankfully the city council has has this as a central pillar of its city centre strategy for around four or five years now. We're on the brink of several thousand new households moving into developments in and around Sauchiehall Street. Massive, seemingly permanent, conspicuous gap sites like at Candleriggs are being developed, with others coming down the pipeline. It's easy to be dismissive and think things aren't improving, but in reality, the city is on the right track. Things could be moving faster, but in a few years, the centre will be in even better shape. by Scunnered20 (Thu 3rd Aug 2023 3:31pm)

Generally speaking, city cores across the developed world are undergoing a change from: * Office and retail focus, with big name brands occupying large units. To * Denser residential population, with more immediate retail (groceries) and leisure and hospitality services (cafes, bars, restaurants) to serve this. We're still at quite an early stage in the curve with this, hence the growing/changing pains. The city centre population has been significantly increasing in recent years, with the face of retail slowly changing to catch up. In a few years it will settle. You'll for sure see less big box retail brands in the city centre. But you'll also see way less American Candy / tartan tat shops, as the money to be made from setting up cafes or convenience stores (which will have a high level of latent demand) will be too much to ignore. by Scunnered20 (Thu 3rd Aug 2023 3:38pm)

Don't forget the transformational ['Hampden Transport Hub and Landscape Improvements'](https://maps.app.goo.gl/buVrRz96DrBccXKi6). by Scunnered20 (Thu 3rd Aug 2023 4:35pm)

They'd still need to have several thousand pounds savings in the bank each and for her to have a salary above the minimum threshold, which seems to be increasing annually. Even getting hitched isn't a straight forward solution. by Scunnered20 (Thu 3rd Aug 2023 4:40pm)

The council's in the process of greatly expanding the number of Resident Parking Permit Areas, with a programme of new areas to be introduced over the next year or so. As far as I know they're also scoping out areas for expansion in future phases further down the line. It'd be worth you presenting the issues you're having to your councillors and requesting the area be considered for residential parking permits too. Ultimately it's the only solution as there's only finite road space available in every neighbourhood. by Scunnered20 (Sat 5th Aug 2023 9:44am)

> There simply isn't space available to have more cycle lanes as is clear to see in all the roads that have had them installed. Leith walk in Edinburgh being the latest example of a council's madness. There's loads of space, especially on main arterial roads connecting different communities, which is how much of the network is planned. Leith Walk is a mess not because of the lack of available space but because of how that space has been used. It's the widest urban road in Scotland and one of the widest urban boulevards in the UK. The main problem comes from the fact the design team inexplicably insisted on using 1.5+ metres of road space for pylons between the two tram pathways, rather than squeezing the tram-running spaces as closely together as possible, as is normal elsewhere. The trams are also the widest to have been built anywhere in the world, as far as I know. They are such an odd design for an urban space. Other issues such as excessive pavement clutter, insisting on squiggling the cycle paths around bin storage, not simply having buses use the tramway, and the relatively high prioritisation given to maintaining wide vehicle maneuvers at junctions, all mean the project delivery has been hugely compromised. But it didn't have to end up this way. These were all (poor, largely inexplicable) design choices. You certainly should be able to provide cycle lans *and* public transport lines along most urban boulevards, even in Glasgow or Edinburgh. by Scunnered20 (Sat 5th Aug 2023 10:00am)

> ...which is where most of the money for building and maintaining roads comes from. That's simply historically not the case. by Scunnered20 (Sat 5th Aug 2023 12:34pm)

Clutha junction is only half finished. The rest of the route to Merchant City has to be built so there'll be further work done at the junction. by Scunnered20 (Sat 5th Aug 2023 12:35pm)

Not exactly a great answer for OP, and more a question for others: are these basically like "dumplings"? My granny used to make mince and tatties with a couple of these dumplings thrown in with the mince gravy. I've known other (older) people in my family to add them to stews. You used to get them fresh in many supermarkets, but now they're much harder to find, usually frozen bags of Aunt Bessies Dumplings in Farmfoods or Iceland: https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/aunt-bessies-8-hearty-dumplings-390g/19261.html I don't know what the Southern US biscuit recipe is OP, but could these be relatively similar? by Scunnered20 (Sat 5th Aug 2023 10:29pm)

Can't be used for paid delivery work. If they catch you, or more likely figure out through your usage, they'll give you a permaban. They made a public statement about it last year after the bikes started to be used increasingly by delivery folk leaving fewer for normal users. [Ts & Cs](https://websites.nextbike.net/media/2022_Terms_and_Conditions_UK_nb_by_TIER.pdf) by Scunnered20 (Sun 6th Aug 2023 4:58pm)

It's a very fair issue to complain about, don't worry. Glasgow and other UK cities are very bad for this. AFAIK the council has a policy (contained within some recent strategy document, possibly the most recent one on Transport) of attempting to reduce pedestrian wait times at junctions whenever a complaint is raised. The roads department can't always achieve it, but I've heard of cases where they've looked at the setup and changed the sequence timings. There are other times where they simply say no dice, from their perspective it'd have too big a knock on impact on traffic flows. It's worth contacting your councillor to request it at whatever junction of crossing point you're experiencing this at. by Scunnered20 (Mon 7th Aug 2023 6:10pm)

Unfortunately our transport "system" is a fragmented mess. There's a lot of choice and of trains, the subway circle and various bus companies to get you where you're going, but none of it's connected ticket-wise. So for visitors like yourself it can be quite easy to accidently overspend by hopping on different modes or bus types. First Bus is the single biggest operator in Glasgow. If you'll be travelling in and around the city by bus a lot, you can buy day tickets from the driver. Exact change if paying by cash (sorry), but you can also pay by card on the bus. Worth knowing though that you can now just tap your credit card on the pad next to the driver when you step on the bus, and tap it on the black scanner near the door when you leave. This tracks your journey length and limits what you're charged, capping at a maximum daily spend. by Scunnered20 (Tue 8th Aug 2023 6:29pm)

This motorway point from critics of the LEZ is such a red herring. The entire purpose of the LEZ is to reduce and near-remove highly dangerous pollutants like nitrogen dioxide from the air in and around the city's surface streets. Now, whether you want to go a step further and tackle pollution emitted by vehicles on urban motorway stretches is another question, and probably worthy of discussion and investigation in the near future. But the LEZ is aimed at improving air quality on surface streets. The motorway not being included in the zone isn't really relevant. by Scunnered20 (Fri 11th Aug 2023 4:32pm)

These are generally on the higher quality fully separated lanes. And there are more of them appearing all the time. by Scunnered20 (Sat 12th Aug 2023 11:27am)

I think you're being a little bit harsh. The rougher routes you're thinking of are in the majority ones that were put in during Covid as an emergency measure. You're right enough that the junctions were not really considered as part of this, and that the protection has a very 'temporary' feel, but that's because it was mostly to get these routes on the ground ASAP without the normal design stages and construction costs. The London Road route is being converted in stages to permanent infra, and the section that just opened near the Velodrome is looking very good. Not many gaps left on that entire route now to be honest, as they've been building inwards from each of the ends (Bridgeton and Mt Vernon), with only the stretch between Springfield Road and M74 junction 2 still to be upgraded. It's all beginning to come together. by Scunnered20 (Sat 12th Aug 2023 6:12pm)

JD Sports moving into the whole unit. by Scunnered20 (Sun 13th Aug 2023 6:22pm)

Difficult to administer something this in the UK as we don't have ID cards noting your town/city of residence. Charging non-nationals would be problematic as a big % of people don't have passports, incl. a higher & of people on lower incomes. You'd end up adding barriers to entry for people who don't have a handy form of ID available. by Scunnered20 (Sun 13th Aug 2023 10:01pm)

You'd think. Public revolt against it in the mid-2000s. No govt will come close to touching it again. by Scunnered20 (Mon 14th Aug 2023 12:42am)

Worth noting Edinburgh doesn't have anything quite like the proliferation of out-of-town American style shopping malls that Glasgow does, between Braehead, Silverburn, The Fort, which draw people away from the centre of Glasgow (and the centre of Paisley & Renfrew). The Gyle is most similar to these and Fort Kinnaird is sizable, but not quite the same thing. When it comes to retail parks both big and small, Glasgow has plenty more, to the detriment of the city centre. It's not the core reason, but it is one part of the picture along with Edinburgh's tourist foot traffic skyrocketing these past 10 years. This of course is in the wider context of brick and mortar retail fighting a losing battle against online retail. But within that context, Edinburgh's a little better positioned for its city centre streets to continue to cater to higher profile brands. It also helps that Edinburgh city centre is significantly more densely populated than Glasgow's, which has among the least densely populated city centres in Europe. by Scunnered20 (Mon 14th Aug 2023 12:58am)

There's a long list of plans, with repopulating the centre and taking action to encourage that thankfully now high up as a council priority. Thousands of residential units are under construction just now at several locations in and around the city centre (Candleriggs, Holland Street), with several thousand more units in advanced planning or pre-proposal stage (multiple sites on the Broomielaw; several developments close to Charing Cross railway station; multiple mixed use developments across the city like M&S building on Sauchiehall St; several blocks have been snapped up for development at Tradeston; there's Laurieston Living; several major planned housing developments around Port Dundas Street and Cowcaddens Rd; the King Street car park plans...). by Scunnered20 (Mon 14th Aug 2023 1:06am)

That's just the McGill's services. The routes are being split between First and McGills. McGills taking the west routes, First taking the east. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-66496466 **McGill's Group Night Bus Routes** * Service N3: City Centre - Shawlands - Thornliebank - Nitshill - Pollok * Service N4: City Centre - Shawlands - Eastwood - Newton Mearns * Service N6: City Centre - Anniesland - Scotstoun - Clydebank * Service N38: City Centre - Ibrox - Paisley * Service N60: City Centre - Maryhill - Drumchapel **First Bus Night Bus Routes** * Service N2 (East): Sauchiehall Street - Central Station (Renfield St) - Parkhead - Shettleston - Baillieston - Easterhouse. * Service N18: Sauchiehall Street - Central Station (Union St) - Rutherglen - East Kilbride - Greenhills * Service N240: Sauchiehall Street - Central Station (Renfield St) - Parkhead - Tollcross - Viewpark - Bellshill - Motherwell - Wishaw - Coltness - Cleland * Service N267: Sauchiehall Street - Central Station (Union St) - New Gorbals - Rutherglen - Cambuslang - Hamilton - Hillhouse by Scunnered20 (Mon 14th Aug 2023 6:44pm)

Very much worth contacting your councillors with suggestions for pavement build-outs, especially if you're able to show that it's a near-permanent issue. There are examples of relatively recent ones across the city, so they do get built. Usually only when an issue is raised to councillors who then request action from the neighborhoods and roads team. by Scunnered20 (Tue 15th Aug 2023 3:01pm)

Depends how far you have to travel of course, but if you're riding along the new cycle paths or a route that doesnt mix with traffic very much, you don't necessarily end up a sweaty mess. There's a weird assumption that cycle commuting = being sweaty in the UK. But that's probably more down to the tendency until more recently for those who are cycling to work to generally be cycling amongst traffic at traffic speeds. Do in a leisurely way and you don't need a shower when you get to work. by Scunnered20 (Tue 15th Aug 2023 6:03pm)

I think there's political will at council level, but as you say, critically no funding to act rapidly or independent of Scot Govt support. The powers are there, or nearly there? I'm unclear. The latest I heard is the final powers on franchising & ownership from the Transport Scotland Act 2019 still need to be unlocked at Scottish Ministerial level, and may be later this year. In any case, it'd take political will at national level to provide funding for it either speedy Franchising (tens of millions to set up) or full public ownership (likely hundreds of millions of £ to purchase the fleets and take on staff). by Scunnered20 (Tue 15th Aug 2023 6:11pm)

*taps the sign* [Deregulation and privatisation of all city-run bus networks in the UK in the 1980s, except London, which got an exemption](https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/14sokqv/comment/jqyh9um/) The reason Edinburgh has what looks like and basically acts much like a city-run bus network is that, for whatever political reason, the city simply never sold it's stake in the resulting private entity which became Lothian Buses. I think Nottingham may have done the same, but they're the exceptions. Glasgow and nearly all other cities simply sold off their stake in the resulting private bus companies. What we know today as First Group grew out of the Aberdeen and Grampian region's resulting private bus entity, which grew to take over many others. Glasgow, and all other cities it services, have little say in what it does though of course. by Scunnered20 (Tue 15th Aug 2023 9:49pm)

> If this LEZ/ULEZ nonsense was anything to do with fresher air and public health.... That would be the first target. What do you mean? It's literally targeting the <10% of vehicles which enter the city which emit 90% of the most toxic pollutants. It couldn't be more targeted. by Scunnered20 (Tue 15th Aug 2023 11:16pm)

It was very clear this was your point and I don't quite know why people are not understanding it. You weren't necessarily making a value judgement about whether people on bikes crossing red lights should be penalised or warned. Your point wasn't really about this, as I understood it. For all I know you possibly or probably agree that under current laws they should be cautioned! You were making the entirely separate - and entirely accurate - point that traffic lights developed out of a need to control the flow of vehicle traffic, and avoid collisions between vehicles (with other vehicles, or with pedestrians or cyclists). A great number of vehicle free streets which are heavy with cycle flow on the continent have no light system in place. They depend on the negotiation of road users, which is fine in the context of small mass objects like pedestrians or cyclists. You're also very right to highlight how France has been exploring allowing cyclists to continue through red lights (not always, but in specific situations where collision risk is minimal). by Scunnered20 (Wed 16th Aug 2023 9:36pm)

There's a fair amount of general residential supply being built or in the planning in and around the city centre. We're living through what might fairly be viewed as a boom time for resi builds (of all types) in the centre, and in nearby neighbourhoods in a historical context. Thousands and thousands of units of resi getting built. A good mix too, which is what you need. On the student housing point: students need somewhere to live. Glasgow is very much a university city. 3 major unis, half a dozen colleges. Tens of thousands of student population. Student accomodation means they're not scrambling and competing with locals for finite local housing stock. by Scunnered20 (Thu 17th Aug 2023 1:35pm)

I'd be more worried the council planning approval committee *doesn't* approve it. Enough of them seem to be swayed by local sentiment against student builds. It's so unfortunate. Glasgow need a real mix of housing. Some locations, like this (next to the biggest nightlife zone, equidistant between the three uni campuses, in a relatively unappealing location next to the motorway) is ideal for more student housing. Should the area exclusively feature student housing? No. But then there already is a housing mix, and there's currently a good mix in the pipeline. More housing supply is good. More housing supply in a central location for young people (keenest to live in the centre) and adjacent to a transit hub, is excellent in terms of sustainability and supporting the areas local retail economy. Get it built. by Scunnered20 (Thu 17th Aug 2023 5:58pm)

But are those people coming your way also then walking on *their* right? This is just overcomplicating things unnecessarily. It's easier overall if everyone sticks to the left, and you overtake only when it's clear to. by Scunnered20 (Tue 22nd Aug 2023 10:16pm)

Yeah don't commit to anything long term. Peak time fares are being cut to normal prices as part of a six month pilot from October. Or at least are likely to be. by Scunnered20 (Thu 24th Aug 2023 1:55pm)

The whole build has street level retail frontage facing Kilmarnock Road. Which is essentially what we should be expecting as a minimum on any main road developments. It fulfils this, while many other similar builds on main roads don't. And I don't buy the out-of-keeping thing about the height of this. It's not a tower. It's six storeys facing onto Kilmarnock Road at its highest. With individual floor to ceiling heights smaller than tenements from 100+ years ago, that makes it not very much taller than the tenements on the other side of the main road. Sorry, I just don't see the argument. by Scunnered20 (Fri 25th Aug 2023 10:22pm)

> There are plenty of other spaces in need of redevelopment in the area But the owners don't own those other sites. Whichever ones you mean. Why not have this particular site developed into medium-density housing, with some on street retail to boot? by Scunnered20 (Fri 25th Aug 2023 10:56pm)

Also, it's worth knowing that train tickets are significantly cheaper after 9.15am. Something like £29.50 for a return ticket between Glasgow & Edinburgh if your outbound journey is during the morning rush hour. But after 9.15am, your return ticket will only cost £14.90. Just keep in mind you'd need a peak fare ticket to come back during the evening rush hour, but if you plan your trip with those times in mind you can save a bit of money, especially if you're planning multiple trips with a few people. by Scunnered20 (Sat 26th Aug 2023 12:05am)

More housing supply is good. Housing supply in one of the most bustling neighbourhoods in Glasgow, with some of the better range of existing public transport options in Scotland, also good. There can't possibly be parking provision for every resident in medium density urban housing developments, whether old or new. As the other commenter said, the existing tenement stock didn't provide for cars. Sure, many people own vehicles and park on the street, but count up the cars on nearby streets and compare it to the number of domiciles on those streets: the ratio is never more than a space for every two housing units on that street. Not everyone needs a parking space. Above that though, building in parking provision means you 100% guarantee 600 additional cars, *at a minimum*. 600+ cars which only add to congestion and traffic issues for the neighbourhood's streets. by Scunnered20 (Sat 26th Aug 2023 12:21am)

You could say that at every stage in development for every neighbourhood anywhere. by Scunnered20 (Sat 26th Aug 2023 8:37am)

Nearly every development is marketed as "luxury flats" these days. It's mostly meaningless marketing fluff. But the term persists unfortunately because it suits two opposing groups very well: those who want to sell new housing units, and those who are against new housing developments and are happy to use the term to portray them as 'exclusive'. by Scunnered20 (Sat 26th Aug 2023 11:31am)

That's how the market works. There's red hot demand for housing supply, so there's an strong impetus for private developers to build housing to then be rented at market rates. More supply though is a good thing. That's not to say anything against social housing. Social housing is also fantastic, and we obviously need much more of it as well. But this is a private development on privately owned land. The council has opportunities in lots of other council-owned pockets of land to build social housing. Which it has been doing a lot of over the last five years, and is planning to continue doing, as per its [current housing investment strategy](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=44876&p=0) which will see 6,500 housing units built in the next five years. by Scunnered20 (Sat 26th Aug 2023 12:11pm)

Yes it's true. They're separate plans which have come about for the same reason: the landowners currently have all their eggs in the retail basket, and the future doesn't bode very well for that. At the same time there's huge demand for housing. So we've reached an inflection point where it simply makes economic sense to redevelop completely from the ground up. https://st-enoch.com/masterplan/ The plan for St Enochs looks to be relatively residential focussed, with lots of space for street facing retail. The first phase involves renovation of several of the older buildings on the site facing Argyle Street, and demolition and replacement of the shopping centre segment facing onto St Enoch Square. The phasing moves eastwards after that. https://buchanangalleries.co.uk/articles/buchanan-galleries-development-updates Buchanan Galleries more a mix of office, retail, with less resi in the mix. They're a bit more ambitious about timelines, stating they expect it can be completed in roughly 10 years. The first phase involves demolishing the multi-storey car park and replacing it with new city blocks of office / resi mix. by Scunnered20 (Sat 26th Aug 2023 6:23pm)

Ring your bell and you get people jumping in your way or out their own skin with shock. Some even giving abuse or venting their annoyance. Don't ring your bell and you get abuse for that too. You can't win. Generally, if folk are using their bells, they're not saying "get out of my way", they're just indicating they're approaching you from behind and about to overtake on your right. by Scunnered20 (Sat 26th Aug 2023 6:51pm)

What you're saying exhibits a lot of the hallmarks of the dominant way of thinking about the city centre in the past, and up until well, very recently. That it's a place for almost exclusively for commerce, for office work, and for high end retail. With some space for hospitality and leisure here or there. That's the past. We're merely catching up with continental cities which already have high populations in their urban core, and the form of the city centre will adapt as this happens. There are already a suite of public realm works under way, on top of the major urban regeneration projects around Buchanan Galleries and St Enoch which this thread is about. More pedestrianised areas and greener spaces are coming, as are more schools (the city has plans for three new primary schools to serve the city centre in the coming years). There's an overwhelming trend across much of the western world now for urban cores booming in population. Partly it's down to the fact populations are moving from peripheral to urban areas at a rate not seen since the industrial revolution. City centres, like Glasgow's, also tend to be public transport hubs, also quite appealing. City centre living is definitely not for everyone, but it does appeal to many, especially people looking for *anywhere* to live, where the added amenity and transport provision is icing on the cake. by Scunnered20 (Sat 26th Aug 2023 9:47pm)

Two points: 1. Train services on the Cathcart Circle are a fraction of what they used to be, but it's a temporary problem. The important thing is the infrastructure is there and it's active, with plans to return to more frequent services once it's possible. There's an industry wide driver shortage, but ScotRail have just finished a mass recruitment drive, and the Cathcart Circle is a priority line for Clyde Metro development. A temporary, albeit very unsatisfactory, drop in service frequencies isn't reason by itself to prevent new housing along a particular transit corridor. 2. More people moving into the area boosts the case for reinstatement of services sooner. by Scunnered20 (Sun 27th Aug 2023 9:39am)

I think you need to remember we're talking about projects that are 10-20 years long in timescale. The very process of these long-term projects will by in itself contribute to those parts of the city centre being nicer and more appealing places to live: simultaneous public realm works like the Avenues works, creating new active streets where deadzones currently exist around St Enoch and the riverside, etc. It's all a process. Essentially of turning the city centre into a real neighbourhood much like anywhere else. All this said, although it might not appeal to you, city centre living does *currently* have its attractions for many people. This is only going to grow as the actions I've mentioned (more green spaces, pedestrianisation, more active streets, more schools, nurseries & doctors surgeries) some online over this same period. by Scunnered20 (Sun 27th Aug 2023 12:18pm)

Building it underground is extremely expensive. Not impossible, but the cost is such that it only really makes sense if you're selling the apartments or renting them out at a highly inflated rate, in order to recoup the added costs. To build 300 parking spaces underground would be a phenomenal cost addition to the project. It's not as easy as just digging out a hollow space for that many vehicles and adding the building on top: you need to consider the massing of the building, utilities, etc. It could certainly be done, but at great cost and complication. The basic thing everyone needs to remember though is that 300 cars parked = 300 cars travelling round the streets of Shawlands, which is fundamentally against the city's current objectives of reducing congestion and other negative externalities presented by vehicles in residential neighbourhoods. The roads are also major bus routes. Adding another 300 cars at a minimum to these streets is not a priority. by Scunnered20 (Sun 27th Aug 2023 12:34pm)

You're totally right. Sorry, I should have made clear, I wasn't disagreeing with you in any way. Just adding to your response about why car parking isn't and shouldn't be a priority. Your points on how it works elsewhere are completely correct. Fundamentally not everyone can be guaranteed a space, and in many instances it's a given that entire neighbourhoods (and new underground car parking garages) come with limited resident parking permits. Something we're slowly moving towards. by Scunnered20 (Sun 27th Aug 2023 3:40pm)

This is it as it currently exists. It's the body responsible for allocating and managing spend of City Deal funding: https://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/sites/default/files/images/city-deal/map.png I wonder if what's been hinted at today is a slow increase in powers for the body over the next few years. by Scunnered20 (Mon 28th Aug 2023 10:08pm)

What? by Scunnered20 (Tue 29th Aug 2023 1:17pm)

> Sooner Glasgow and other councils strip they routes off these arseholes the better. Doesn't work like that, which is arguably the problem. GCC doesn't dish out routes. It's an open market with limited regulation. The city has a plan to move to a franchise system which works like you're suggesting, where the city designs the overall network, livery, routes, pricing model, etc. and allows companies to bid to run parts of it, like TfL's buses. Scot Govt's been slow in passing the final legal steps but the word is GCC will *technically* have legal power to do it from next year. Having the finance to do it quickly is another matter though. If you want to do something about it, follow and support **[Get Glasgow Moving](https://www.getglasgowmoving.org/)**, who had a big hand in the law getting changed in the first place and are pushing for more to be done quickly. by Scunnered20 (Fri 1st Sep 2023 6:46pm)

It works fine in many, many mainland European cities which have denser city centre populations and larger pedestrianised or low-traffic districts than us. Either: * Establishment of delivery hubs around the perimeter of the city centre, with last mile deliveries done by [smaller vehicles](https://www.google.com/search?q=last+mile+delivery+vehicles&sca_esv=561979705&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=707&ei=qiryZODGEpWWxc8Pp_-SMA&iflsig=AD69kcEAAAAAZPI4ul_3j7edgmygBvlwXCTdA3hcD5iM&ved=0ahUKEwjgw5TcgoqBAxUVS_EDHae_BAYQ4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=last+mile+delivery+vehicles&gs_lp=EgNpbWciG2xhc3QgbWlsZSBkZWxpdmVyeSB2ZWhpY2xlczIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGAgYHjIHEAAYGBiABEjcBlAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAE8oAE8qgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAYoCC2d3cy13aXotaW1n&sclient=img) or cargo bike * Many more parcel locker hubs and shops offering delivery collection. It's not a big problem. Several delivery hubs are being planned for the city centre now. by Scunnered20 (Fri 1st Sep 2023 7:19pm)

Shops need customers. How can repopulating the city centre possibly be a bad idea? by Scunnered20 (Fri 1st Sep 2023 7:22pm)

This may not be popular, but I need to push back on some of this. > I'd love things to actually change but I don't see how gcc can actually afford anything meaningful Sort of with you here. In the sense that the council, like nearly all councils, is hugely dependent on national funding and is nearly skint. It has to continually make hard decisions each year on what services to cut. The days of a strong Strathclyde regional council are gone, and large-scale projects only happen with national funding. > they have half assed the cycle lanes and most don't even connect it's just a vanity project. As you say, they don't have funding. They're prioritising what they can deliver and some of the more recent works are of very high quality. The pipeline for further routes is filling up all the time and we're beginning to approach the point where we have discrete networks in certain areas, where as before there were just separate disjointed cycle routes. The real impact will come once more gaps are filled in the next few years and these mini neighbourhood networks are joined up. Calling it a vanity project is harsh and a bit off the mark. > If they really wanted to do something for the public good the subway would go north to robroyston etc where the place has expanded massively and is still getting bigger, Two points here: First, subway extension is simply a non-starter, it's just too expensive. The eastern circle was costed at around £2.2billion in 2006 money. That's very likely closer to £4 billion or more today. It's just not very good bang for your buck, when you can spend that money on multiple tram lines, integrated subway-tram-train hub stations, bus priority routes along arterial corridors... [all of which is the actual plan](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=26965). Secondly, somewhere like Robroyston unfortunately is probably *the worst possible place to build a subway line*. It's just too thinly spread out and lacks the density. This isn't a small point: it's fundamental to many of the problems the city faces today, all down to how it was designed post-war and how it's unfortunately *still being designed*. Building car-centric neighbourhoods on the periphery which will never be cost effective to serve by public transport. How we build the city is as important as how we service it, and indeed how we built it greatly affects how it can be serviced on multiple fronts. by Scunnered20 (Tue 5th Sep 2023 9:59pm)

Yeah there's very widespread misunderstanding that First, McGills etc. all tender to run services, and that the council is to blame because they refuse to pull the plug. When in reality that's the problem: they council doesn't *yet* have power to do that. It's a deregulated open market, with anyone able to run any bus services they want. by Scunnered20 (Tue 5th Sep 2023 10:38pm)

Need the money to do it (expect £4-5 billion for a new subway line). But more than that, you need the density to make it viable. by Scunnered20 (Tue 5th Sep 2023 10:42pm)

It's how it's done in London and effectively most mainland European cities. by Scunnered20 (Tue 5th Sep 2023 10:40pm)

> is massively funded by central government Yes. That's basically how it works in nearly any city in nearly every country. Transport networks are usually highly subsidised, especially in the examples where you have extremely high level of service. Bus services tend to depend on subsidy more than other modes. In the London example, the underground network turns a significant profit, but the buses require a substantial government subsidy to be able to run the frequencies they do at the £1.75 flat fare they do. You get what you pay for. And other cities have extremely well connected, easy to use transit services because it's a non-controversial government priority. The direction of travel is that we are slowly moving towards that model that's normal everywhere else, and we should expect our transit provision to improve. by Scunnered20 (Tue 5th Sep 2023 10:51pm)

This isn't such a strange thing, and it's a great shame OP is being downvoted. It's a campaign group. It's highly likely that they'll be discussing (potentially sensitive) campaigning strategies at meetings. A £1 annual membership is really just about the minimum you can ask for with something like this. by Scunnered20 (Wed 6th Sep 2023 6:43pm)

Thanks for your work. GGM deserve significant praise for getting the bus franchise powers over the line and added into the 2019 Transport Act, something was far from inevitable and which I don't believe would have happened without your lobbying of MSPs from various parties. It's a shame this thread has gotten so hung up on the £1 membership fee. Such a trivial thing. Seems obvious a campaigning group like yourselves would have it in place to encourage meaningful involvement from members. I replied to another commenter making this point, but I expect as well you'll be discussing relatively sensitive campaigning strategies at meetings, and this is a way of encouraging those attending being quite on board and engaged in the campaign. Anyway, thanks. I and others appreciate what you're doing. by Scunnered20 (Wed 6th Sep 2023 7:39pm)

Get Glasgow Moving have been around for 6-7 years now. You can find info about the key organisers here: https://www.getglasgowmoving.org/about/. If anything, the membership structure is there to *protect against* infiltration from people opposed to the group's aims, or at least to slightly deter that from happening. by Scunnered20 (Wed 6th Sep 2023 10:29pm)

Whether these are electric bikes or not (they're not, they're micro delivery vans, which is fine) this is real progress. People often question policies such as the LEZ or ambitions to create a more pedestrian friendly city centre by asking how deliveries can possibly be made. Well, this how it works. Mass deliveries to a delivery hub, where the last mile or two is done by smaller, lighter, electric or man powered vehicles. Completely normal in lots of other cities. And it's probably only the start. I expect a lot of other delivery businesses, even local ones, will move to small electric vehicles like this or e-cargo bikes in the next few year. by Scunnered20 (Thu 7th Sep 2023 12:03pm)

Yeah minimising frequent deliveries by grouping them as much as possible is a good strategy. On the point about the need for hubs, this is absolutely true. The city is actively planning for three last-mile distribution hubs around the edge of the city centre, which they're calling "Freight Service Hubs". They've not publicised specific locations for these as they're likely still under planning and development, but the recent city transport strategy details plans for one in Broomielaw/Anderston area, one near High Street Station, and another in Cowcaddens. by Scunnered20 (Thu 7th Sep 2023 12:45pm)

u/LordAnubis12 u/RingerMinger I think this is less to do with the LEZ specifically, and more to do with Amazon anticipating more profound changes to accessibility of the city centre and other neighbourhoods over coming years, the main thing that stands out being the People First Zone, or a large pedestrianised zone covering the area between Hope Street and High Street. Added to that, ambitions on reducing the availability of on-street parking (condensing parking into the underutilised multi-storeys), more bus gates, etc. All of which is coming very soon. Amazon have the clout and scale to plan for these things a couple of years in advance, but others will follow. So I think we're seeing the very tip of a dramatic shift in how road space in the city centre is used and how that then creates a more friendly environment for people. All for the better of course. And it needs to be remembered this isn't an approach and change unique to Glasgow. These changes are happening in nearly every city of comparable size in Europe. by Scunnered20 (Thu 7th Sep 2023 12:55pm)

Totally disagree with this. First already makes fares as opaque and difficult to be aware of as possible. It didn't need this to achieve that. Tap On Tap Off ensures you only ever pay what you use the bus for. If anything it gives you the most flexibility possible, as opposed to physical day/week tickets which you pay for up front, regardless of whether you maximize your use. It also works out as the cheapest possible way of buying your tickets. Sure, complain about First and their purposely unclear approach to publicising ticket prices, but the criticism of TOTO is misguided. by Scunnered20 (Fri 8th Sep 2023 11:17am)

Sounds like your problem isn't with the mechanism of TOTO itself, but with the fact the network is run by private entities motivated by profit. Which is entirely valid! But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There are ways of fixing the wider transport network and having more city control. But I promise you it'll still adopt TOTO, as it's the easiest mechanism for everyone. Passengers and operators both. by Scunnered20 (Fri 8th Sep 2023 6:54pm)

Well, that is essentially the plan with the Clyde Metro. All of these things are happening in concert. by Scunnered20 (Sat 9th Sep 2023 11:58am)

No, they're trying to make the city a more pleasant place to walk around and spend time, and reduce congestion faced by buses so as to make it easier for people to travel to the city by public transport. by Scunnered20 (Sat 9th Sep 2023 12:00pm)

> Create a Strathclyde Buses service then. That is essentially the plan. Scottish councils get legal bus franchising powers next year. Glasgow started the business case on setting it up earlier this year. Might take 5-7 years (presuming national funding support) but that's where we're heading. In the meantime, the bus operators are rolling out a combined multi-operator ticketing system by 2026-27. The council is at planning stage for bus priority infrastructure on half a dozen arterial roads. At the same time the Clyde Metro plans for new light-rail routes is being progressed. It's all coming together, and a congestion charge is one way of both funding all of these things and reducing car traffic to make bus travel faster, more attractive and more financially viable to run. by Scunnered20 (Sat 9th Sep 2023 12:32pm)

Probably a very low % indeed. There have been a lot of studies into customers and business owners' perceptions of travel mode to business districts, and comparing those perceptions to the actual range of modes used. Business owners tend to dramatically overestimate the % of people who drive to their business, and greatly underestimate the % of people who walk, travel by public transport or cycle. There was another study looking at the reasons for this, and often it's down to the common fallacy of people extrapolating their own experience onto others. To put that more simply: business owners (and average people) who drive tend to expect most people also do that. When that's not the case at all. by Scunnered20 (Sat 9th Sep 2023 12:37pm)

Public transport in London is in a great part so good *because* of the congestion charge. Bus patronage shot up by 30%+ in the first year of the London congestion charge. All that extra revenue to sustain services, coupled with reduced congestion makes buses hugely viable and attractive. by Scunnered20 (Sat 9th Sep 2023 12:41pm)

That's fine and a perfectly logical decision for you to make. But this is part of the calculus with a congestion charge, and part of it working properly. Some people will pay the charge, which helps fund services, including public transport. Some people will go elsewhere and their car will not be adding to traffic or taking up space in the city centre. Some people will change their behaviour further and take public transport. A mix of these outcomes is the aim. by Scunnered20 (Sat 9th Sep 2023 1:08pm)

Central London, famously a dead zone for business. The basic point is that congestion charges and other efforts to reduce the presence of vehicles in cities provide massive benefits: * freeing space for more efficient public transport to carry more people into the city centre. This is specifically about buses, but congestion is also what killed off Glasgow's trams. Tackling traffic and congestion is priority one if the planned trams which will be part of the Clyde Metro are to be viable. * freeing space for people to walk, sit, relax, dine outside. * reducing street level air pollution, again making the area more attractive and appealing for a range of business purposes. by Scunnered20 (Sat 9th Sep 2023 1:37pm)

So they're probably not necessarily meaning obvious stuff like museums, parks, etc, although that will be part of what they mean. The bigger picture involves other costs that are accrued by serving high volumes of single occupancy vehicles in cities, all of which apply to Glasgow: * increased road maintenance costs (caused by wear and the large land surface area utilised for vehicle movements: Glasgow having the *highest percentage of city centre surface area taken up by roads anywhere in the UK*.) * Negative revenue impacts on buses and other connected transit modes. Congestion stifles bus service levels, meaning higher subsidy costs. * The cost impact of on-street parking, connected to the earlier point about use of city centre surface area space. Space used to facilitate the movement and storage of single use vehicles is space which isn't either: housing someone, providing amenity space, or providing taxable revenue (i.e. by a bar or cafe with outdoor seating). by Scunnered20 (Sat 9th Sep 2023 2:00pm)

Edit - short answer, yes --------- No way of knowing this for sure but my strong reading of it is that for 5-10 years or so now there's been a growing political consensus that "something must be done" about the buses. And so yes, in reaction to that the operators have been *encouraged*, should we say, to act in a way that preempts full regulation, which of course they continue to ardently oppose. To be able to say "look, things are working". Things have changed significantly since the 90s, when the bus operators truly did hold the whip hand. For example, they were so strong that their lobbying nixed the Strathclyde Tram project when it went before the Scottish Office, arguing that it would lead to reduced bus patronage in Maryhill and the West End. Times have changed. People are tired of things, are seeing how it's working differently in many other cities, and campaign groups such as Get Glasgow Moving have had a big impact in focusing minds. The 2019 Transport Act (Scotland) included provisions for council to get on with bus franchising. Around that time, the bus operators set up a Glasgow bus operators' alliance, complete with a manifesto for positive change, including unified multi-operator ticketing. https://glasgowbusalliance.com/ I'd say the average person is largely unaware of this grouping. And they keep it on the down low as it is largely a means for collective lobbying. But it has allowed the operators to work together for the first time in a more productive way. Some good things are coming out of this, including multi-operator ticketing. At the same time, the Scottish Government has welcomed their moves and pledges, helping fund various things such as fleet conversions to electric and lower emissions buses and funding projects in Glasgow and other cities to provide rapid bus transit routes. Though that's still in the early stages. The writing's on the wall though. There's a strong political consensus that franchising (ala TfL or Greater Manchester) is the way forward, and that's where we're heading. by Scunnered20 (Sat 9th Sep 2023 5:45pm)

From TfL's Congestion Charge Impacts Monitoring Report, 2006, published three years after introduction of the charge zone. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/fourthannualreportfinal.pdf *"The scheme generated net revenues of £122 million in 2005/6 (provisional figures), partly reflecting the charge increases from July 2005. These are being spent largely on improved bus services within London."* Page 60: **Bus reliability** *As well as changes to the service provision and patronage of the central London bus network in the period since 2002 there have also been significant improvements to the reliability of bus services. These have reflected a variety of factors, which have included increased investment in robust schedules, enhanced route supervision and the introduction of Quality Incentive Contracts, as well as the introduction of congestion charging that has reduced congestion in and around the charging zone.* *One measure of bus service reliability is ‘excess waiting time’, reflecting the additional waiting time at bus stops experienced by passengers caused by service irregularity or missing buses. In the first year after charging there were improvements in bus service reliability for passengers in and around the charging zone of around a 30 percent reduction in excess waiting time. This was greater than the network wide average of around 20 percent for the same period.* *In the following year TfL recorded a further improvement of 18 percent in the charging zone. This was similar to the network wide average for the year of around 20 percent, as would be expected given that the ‘step’ change represented by charging did not apply in 2004.* *In the most recent year bus service reliability has been maintained, and with a further fall in excess waiting time of 4 percent within the charging zone compared to the same period the previous year. This comparative stability is also reflected in the network wide change in 2005.* by Scunnered20 (Mon 11th Sep 2023 1:28pm)

It's definitely a *pilot* in the sense it's unclear what the outcome will be. I wouldn't view it as some sort of trick though. The hope is that in encouraging more people to use rail at peak times (or generally) you build a stronger revenue base for the future. It's possible, maybe even likely that prices will increase. They always do. But the hope is future price increases will be offset and kept to minimum by stronger demand, boosted by this scheme. by Scunnered20 (Thu 14th Sep 2023 9:13am)

>How is Glasgow City Council allowed to let the once great city rot? You hear variations on this on here and countless other places quite often. People pine for the past but don't seem to think too deeply about the substantial factors which mean what was normal then cannot exactly be reproduced today. Besides decisions taken by any political leadership at any given point inside the city over the past century... people need to get their heads around the fact there are basic differences in what a city which was *stupendously* flush with money as a powerhouse manufacturing hub and second 'home' city of the preeminent *global empire* of its time looked like 150 years ago... and Glasgow today. The two situations are not comparable. I know this is an innocent post pining for nice old streetlights, but it speaks to a very common tendency to disregard fundamental, centuries long economic factors and blame everything on "the city council". by Scunnered20 (Sat 16th Sep 2023 2:07pm)

First Bus charges £1.95 for single journeys up to 5 stops. £2.85 for a single journey longer than that. It means they can stick *"journeys from £1.95!"* on the side of their bus and website and technically they're correct. But in reality barely anyone is making journeys that short (a side issue is that bus stops in Glasgow are stupidly close together, resulting in slow bus journeys, but that's a complaint for another time...). The way they publicise their prices is technically by the book but it's incredibly disingenuous and misleading to the average punter. Just one of a litany of reasons why bus services in Glasgow need to be regulated as soon as possible. by Scunnered20 (Sun 17th Sep 2023 11:19pm)

Weird, but an explanation might be if there are wider public realm works planned for the street that involve moving the bus stop, that they've cracked on with that first. Happens from time to time. Where is it? by Scunnered20 (Mon 18th Sep 2023 2:04pm)

No that's a different quay. Mavisbank Quay is the section between the Squinty Bridge and Springfield Quay. Closed to the public since complaints from tenants and the landowners erecting fences. The section you mean is Windmillcroft Quay, to the east of the Kingston Bridge. The council has been working for a few years to develop plans and gather funding to repair and renovate it with a new widened pedestrian and cycle path, which is beginning soon: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/article/25904/Council-agrees-to-accept-funding-contribution-to-Windmillcroft-Quay-project-from-owners by Scunnered20 (Wed 20th Sep 2023 7:58pm)

It's notionally a core path, but it's been closed off with a fence at the Springfield Quay end and a more substantial barrier at the Squinty Bridge end since about 2011-13ish. Tenants of the flats complained about people walking through their 'private garden' (i.e. the Clydeside) and the landowners erected barriers. The council has mildly disputed this, but not very robustly. There's a sign close to the Squinty Bridge barrier that says something like: "Glasgow City Council is working with landowners to open this path." It's been there for close to 10 years. I agree, it's ridiculous. My recommendation is to demand action from your ward councillors, or better yet, the ward councillors for that area too. by Scunnered20 (Wed 20th Sep 2023 8:02pm)

It's so long ago I genuinely can't remember. I think it was a unilateral action by the landowners in 2010ish, which council officers meekly protested but found actually the landowners were on firm enough legal footing to do what they wanted. Here's a Facebook page that was set up about it: https://www.facebook.com/groups/189528807795280/ I'm really not sure what step has to be taken to force removal of the barriers. Whether it's merely a council mandate, or something like a technical acttion of parliament (e.g. a relevant Minister of the Scottish Government using their powers to issue a legal request). No idea. I do know that it seems to go through phases of getting coverage in local media, the Glasgow Evening Times usually. It'd be very much worth someone trying to get it back into the papers again. Despite what you hear on here with people bemoaning Glasgow Live or the Glasgow Times, they're always looking for local issues to cover, so if you do feel strongly about it, get in touch with one of their journalists or editors. Even just to ask if it's on their radar. MSP Paul Sweeney has also raised the issue on several occasions. It might be worth contacting him to ask if anything can be done: https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps/paul-sweeney by Scunnered20 (Wed 20th Sep 2023 8:31pm)

Good on you for raising this by the way. Let us know how you get on. by Scunnered20 (Wed 20th Sep 2023 8:39pm)

Some people are getting mixed up with another section of the south bank of the riverside. Just to the east of the Kingston Bridge at Windmill Croft Quay, there's a section that collapsed about six or seven years ago. There's a plan in place, crucially with funding, to get it fixed soon: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/article/25904/Council-agrees-to-accept-funding-contribution-to-Windmillcroft-Quay-project-from-owners by Scunnered20 (Wed 20th Sep 2023 8:38pm)

I'm not so sure it's much to do with Thatcher, I think the problem goes back further. That land (and essentially most land running along both sides of the river between the city centre and Clydebank) has been in private hands for around a century. Very quick summary here: http://www.clydewaterfront.com/clyde-heritage/the-broomielaw/clyde-navigation-trust Authority over development of land adjacent to the Clyde was given to the 'River Improvement Trust' in 1759, which dredged and canalised the river west of Gorbals Bridge to make it more suitable for river traffic and small ships to dock. Prior to that, the river was wide, uneven and very shallow. There was another Act of Parliament to transfer authority to a new body, the 'Clyde Navigation Trust' in 1858. They greatly developed the land to the west of Broomielaw, building Queen's Dock (now the SECC), Prince's Dock (now Pacific Quay) and King George V Dock (near Braehead), among several other large basins, quaysides and infrastructure to support these (warehouses, railways). Mavisbank Quay was site of a railway alignment and cargo sheds, and the main quay for concrete shipments. All of this land, square kilometres of the Clydeside, is still in the hands of the inheritor owners of the Clyde Navigation Trust: [Peel Ports.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peel_Group) It's the main reason development of the riverside has been so slow and piecemeal. Nothing happens without the landowners' wishing to do so. Occasionally over the last 20-30 year's they've released parcels of land for development: Glasgow Harbour housing, the development of the SECC campus most obviously. But the reason for the disjointed nature of the riverside is because of this fragmented history of its use. by Scunnered20 (Thu 21st Sep 2023 10:34am)

The land was already owned by Peel Ports, inheritor to the Clyde Navigation Trust. The land hasn't been owned in any sense by a public body for over 250 years. The same is largely true of most land on either side of the river, between Glasgow and Clydebank. by Scunnered20 (Thu 21st Sep 2023 10:35am)

I had a look online to see if there had been any recent discussion on this. Found this conversation that followed a tweet by Paul Sweeney earlier this year. The entitlement on display here: https://twitter.com/JamesMahonTV/status/1643871197279420418 by Scunnered20 (Thu 21st Sep 2023 1:24pm)

Given the spate of criticism for the LEZ, it seemed worth sharing this. An article speaking to parents about the positive effects of the LEZ and the need for further efforts to reduce pollution and make streets safer. Also available to read here if you can't access it behind The Herald's paywall: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/parents-backing-glasgows-low-emissions-040000381.html by Scunnered20 (Fri 22nd Sep 2023 10:11am)

>I understand that it's not meant to be targeted and trying to solve an issue with a broad stroke, but I do think that climate change is now progressing to the point (as in emissions and energy usage are still increasing, not decreasing) that I feel such naive approaches are untenable. I think that's why a congestion charge is where we'll likely end up. For a range of reasons, some you highlight such as negative externalities of having heavier vehicles on city streets (surface repair costs, increased danger to pedestrians, etc) through to a need to also curb fine particulate matter (caused largely by tires) which isn't touched by the LEZ which is focused on NO2 emissions, I expect we'll be moving towards more robust measures bit by bit. by Scunnered20 (Fri 22nd Sep 2023 11:01am)

Well, assuming it's a question posed in good faith... Many of us already live in '15 minute cities'. Places where most everyday services (schools, doctors, a good range of grocery and household shops) are within a 15 minute walk. But lots of people don't have that simple luxury. Whether living in poorly designed post-war housing estates with poor amenities, or living in areas separated from by physical barriers, often in the shape of roads, where they're locked into travelling some distance by car just to reach shops. Glasgow, like many other cities across Europe, has a framework to improve those areas which have poor access to amenities, even nearby ones, and make it easier to access nearby services by foot, bike or public transport. Glasgow has lots of projects planned as part of this, mostly about removing barriers to active travel where they exist. by Scunnered20 (Fri 22nd Sep 2023 1:53pm)

Glasgow will be able to legally from the beginning of next year. Just as the UK Government repealed elements of the 1985 Transport Act for certain city regions, the Scottish Government has very recently repealed it for Scottish Councils. Glasgow has already begun exploring the business case for setting up a franchise system for the buses. It'll need national funding and also take a few years to set up. If everything goes well, the estimates based on Manchester's experience are that it could be up and running within 5-7 years. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29774 [More info on the existing situation, caused by the 1985 Transport Act, which set forth the deregulation and privatisation of all city-run bus networks in the UK, except London, which got an exemption](https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/14sokqv/comment/jqyh9um/) by Scunnered20 (Sat 23rd Sep 2023 8:31pm)

I know this sounds hopelessly naive but I'm fairly sure they'll stop parking there once it opens. It's happened in other places, and once there's frequent cycle traffic, the regular illegal parkers get the message and stop. Not to say something shouldn't be done about it now. These are 2 tonne SUVs for the most part and they'll be having some effect on the surface that's literally just been laid. Not to mention it's double yellows so they're not entitled to park there anyway. by Scunnered20 (Sun 24th Sep 2023 10:51am)

What? by Scunnered20 (Sun 24th Sep 2023 11:04am)

Nice job! Of these, I love the pink one. When the buses are back under council control soon, I hope we go for the old Corporation style: https://www.caingram.info/Scotland/Glasgow_bygone/glasgow-bus-fleet.jpg It would make sense even if it ends up being a Strathclyde-wide network. Like the Trans-Clyde branding of the 80s which used similar colours. https://www.flickr.com/photos/27108685@N03/35137879491 by Scunnered20 (Sun 24th Sep 2023 11:36am)

The more I look at these the more I think the bright bold orange Strathclyde's Buses (from the early 90s I think?) might be my favourite. https://www.flickr.com/photos/busmanscotland/48165153376/in/photostream/ by Scunnered20 (Sun 24th Sep 2023 12:51pm)

I was also confused, thinking they'd removed the bus tracker feature. But it's still there. It's on the previous layer, when you click on a bus stop it shows all bus lines running through it. It might take a little time to load all the buses but that's where they appear. You can click on the coloured bus number tabs for it to only show buses of specific lines. by Scunnered20 (Tue 26th Sep 2023 6:46pm)

The first thing that strikes me is how international this front page is. Of course it's from the day of the 1968 US election, so don't know if that's representative. by Scunnered20 (Tue 26th Sep 2023 7:32pm)

So, this isn't really about climate change. That's a separate issue. This is about limiting and ideally reducing local air pollution and the damage that dirty air laden with nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants does to people breathing in air on city streets. It's the kind of thing that normal people can have an impact on: by driving less polluting cars (or simply by driving less: around 50% of harmful pollutants produced by vehicles are in the form of micro pellets and rubber particles expelled from tyre wear, rather than stuff that comes out there exhaust). by Scunnered20 (Wed 27th Sep 2023 9:47pm)

Big one in the middle is Beinn Mhòr, which oddly enough means big hill. by Scunnered20 (Thu 28th Sep 2023 10:41am)

It's the beginning of [Avenue works for this section of Sauchiehall Street](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=30375). by Scunnered20 (Thu 28th Sep 2023 10:29pm)

https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=30375 by Scunnered20 (Thu 28th Sep 2023 10:28pm)

Avenues works, renovating this section of Sauchiehall Street which will involve adding more trees. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=30375 by Scunnered20 (Thu 28th Sep 2023 10:27pm)

Everyone losing their minds over this needs to calm down. This is the Avenues works for this section of Sauchiehall Street just getting under way and these trees are being replaced. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=30375 by Scunnered20 (Thu 28th Sep 2023 10:25pm)

Nah, I think you're way off here. This problem you identify, about general dispondency around the centre. There is indeed a plan for tackling that: *repopulating the city centre*. The Avenues works are a very small part of gearing the city centre to be a place that's more hospitable and welcoming to people. People who might choose to visit for hospitality or leisure reasons, but also for people who might like to live there. On a basic level though, you can't ignore the damage that online shopping has done and is doing to town and city centres. It's the root cause of Sauchiehall Streets woes. Up and down the UK, and all around the world. Glasgow isn't unique in this experience. In many cities, Glasgow included, this collapse in the appeal of town centre retail has been compounded by construction of isolated out-of-town American style shopping malls. Which have also done their fair share of damage. Braehead, Silverburn, the Fort. Glasgow has at least three major examples of this, and umpteen retail parks of variable size to add to that list. All sucking footfall away from the city centre. In the context of Sauchiehall Street, there were also two hugely impactful fires. All of this has shaped the situation the street's in now. So how do you fix it? You get more people living in the city centre. And public realm works are one small but important strand of this. by Scunnered20 (Thu 28th Sep 2023 11:01pm)

Maybe people have incredibly short memories, but it's a blessing the George Square design you mention was ultimately binned. It would have turned the square into a hugely sterile, lifeless, grey, windswept space, removing much of what greenery there is. https://cdn.rt.emap.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/01/29060609/entry-2-Copy-Copy-1.jpg It's a good thing it got canned. If anything, the decision was made to *avoid* an outcome you describe. The new plan which is past its final consultation stage and close to tendering for detailed design and construction, is a vast improvement and will involve greening the square even more. https://glasgow.gov.uk/media/image/n/j/Aerial_sketch_George_Square_.jpg by Scunnered20 (Thu 28th Sep 2023 11:35pm)

More housing stock is good. The only thing this'll be pushing out are cars from a defunct PC World car park. by Scunnered20 (Thu 28th Sep 2023 11:50pm)

Don't know. Apparently they were unhealthy, which isn't that unknown for city trees. *More (and healthier) trees will replace these through the work on the Sauchiehall Precinct and Cambridge Street Avenue project, which began earlier this week. You are correct in thinking this is the latest project in the city centre-wide Avenues programme.* https://twitter.com/GlasgowCC/status/1707413661327798747 by Scunnered20 (Fri 29th Sep 2023 12:12am)

There was a housing proposal for the police station site but it was rejected at planning due to complaints from people in the Houldsworth Street flats behind it that it was too close to their back windows. The developer will probably come back with a new proposal, but risk is it'll be smaller than it otherwise might've been. by Scunnered20 (Fri 29th Sep 2023 9:09am)

I don't even know where to begin with this. https://www.ft.com/content/86836af4-6b52-49e8-a8f0-8aec6181dbc5 by Scunnered20 (Fri 29th Sep 2023 9:32am)

Congested with what? by Scunnered20 (Fri 29th Sep 2023 9:52am)

Why? by Scunnered20 (Fri 29th Sep 2023 1:59pm)

I don't think it will be radically different, but there will be noticeable changes. The main thing I expect is that the city centre will be in much better shape. If council policies continue as aimed, we'll have an expanded (and largely, though not entirely) pedestrianised zone covering about 12 city blocks, roughly between Hope Street and High Street. With the residential construction that's already ongoing and stuff sitting either at planning or design stages, we'll have around 10,000 more people living in or very close to the city centre by 2035. Broomielaw, Cowcaddens, and the area all around Glasgow Cross are set for the heaviest development. This'll only be good news for retail in the city centre. It might be optimistic, but by 2035 I would like to think the bus franchising will already be in place (2030 is a reasonable timeframe for this to be up and running) with transport under a single pricing and ticketing regime. Whether elements of the Clyde Metro will be delivered by then, I think is far from certain. If we're imagining by 2035? Maybe the line to the airport and conversion of one or two rail lines. The whole plan is very complicated and many potential developments are highly interconnected, so it could easily demand very long timescales. There's a long way to go but there are good things happening. by Scunnered20 (Sat 30th Sep 2023 9:19am)

> There also isn't the capital to execute on any epic visions of subway extensions, bringing back trams, Subway extensions, no. Costed at something like £2.2billion in 2006, and not cost effective when the city is a fraction of the density it had during Victorian times. But trams are part of the Clyde Metro proposals, which [has been included in STPR2](https://www.transport.gov.scot/our-approach/strategy/strategic-transport-projects-review-2/) and so are now considered a national level infrastructure project to be taken forward within the next decade (akin to the construction process behind the Queensferry Crossing or the Glasgow-Edinburgh Rail electrification project). by Scunnered20 (Sat 30th Sep 2023 9:47am)

The council is doing a business case, for both franchising and full municipal ownership options. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29774 by Scunnered20 (Sat 30th Sep 2023 5:13pm)

With you on this. People are rightly annoyed with the poor service levels but the way this is so often used to dismiss the fact we're sitting on some of the best rail infrastructure of any UK city outside London. Word is ScotRail's been on a successful (and expensive) recruitment drive for drivers and supporting staff, with plans to bring most services back to pre-covid levels in time for Christmas. by Scunnered20 (Sat 30th Sep 2023 5:11pm)

The good news for you is that GCC has published a vision for the city to become a pedestrian friendly city. https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29106 by Scunnered20 (Sat 30th Sep 2023 6:26pm)

Govan Partick bridge opening early next year 🙏 by Scunnered20 (Sun 1st Oct 2023 12:10pm)

There is pretty much always signage showing it's a shared path. Usually a blur circular sign with a pedestrian and bike symbol next to one another. I've had a number of occasions when someone walking has made their annoyance very clear that I was on such a pavement on my bike, right next to these signs. by Scunnered20 (Sun 1st Oct 2023 9:58pm)

Why should they not be cycling, on a rented bike or any other type of bike. What is your specific complaint here? by Scunnered20 (Sun 1st Oct 2023 10:02pm)

> going at my pace, still super close to the left of the road and people will actually come for you Genuinely my experience on a bike has changed so much for the better since taking someone's advice to always cycle in the middle of the lane. If you cycle in the gutter, drivers often feel they can attempt to squeeze by you, even in the most dangerous circumstances. It's better to always go down the middle of the lane, and not give them the chance to try it. by Scunnered20 (Sun 1st Oct 2023 10:05pm)

To be completely fair, although there are many shared paths about, there are some high traffic ones that could do with a lot more signage. The Clydeside is the most obvious one with a lot of clear signage (not that it helps), but other examples can usually be found on pavements along roads close to motorway on-off ramps, where the pavement is offered as a safe refuge for people on bikes (until a segregated cycle network is in place). Buchanan Street and Sauchiehall Street are the biggest ones that doesn't have enough signage. They're core paths, designated as protected for pedestrian *and* cycling use. But AFAIK, there are no signs at all indicating this. I so often get grief from pedestrians for travelling up it, and have heard the same from many others. by Scunnered20 (Sun 1st Oct 2023 10:25pm)

Yeah it takes a while to build up the confidence to do it. I started by attempting a more 'confident' lane-owning ride on my usual route, on a few roads I feel most familiar with. Took maybe three to six months to get in the habit, but now I find it easy enough to 'take the lane' in most circumstances. That said, there are some roads I simply will not cycle on, no matter the situation, and I'll design my route around just trying to avoid them. Such are the outrageous speeds cars go at or wild driving I've seen. by Scunnered20 (Sun 1st Oct 2023 10:33pm)

On Argyle Street: I get your criticism of speed but if you're complaining about the presence of people on bikes full stop, it's worth knowing the pedestrian end of Argyle Street is an official shared space and part of the core paths network for walking or cycling. by Scunnered20 (Mon 2nd Oct 2023 9:47am)

GCC really needs to put up signs about this. The amount of disinformation going about in absense of real information from the council is unreal. It's the start of the 2nd part of Sauchiehall Streets 'Avenue' works, taking in the section from Rose Street to Buchanan Street. The trees are being removed because (you can see from the pic here) they were very poorly planted originally. They're squeezed into 10 inch wide holes with no room for growth. The Avenues works involve repaving most of the street, so the trees are being replaced, with the replacements being fitted into wider verges to allow for more growth. by Scunnered20 (Mon 2nd Oct 2023 4:34pm)

No cycle lane will be included in the the public realm works for this section of the street. https://glasgowgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=f407395d75774e34aeae0c9b02bee5d2 by Scunnered20 (Mon 2nd Oct 2023 6:11pm)

Google Maps gives you a heat map of typical traffic levels at any hour on any day of the week if you hit the "Traffic" view, then select "Typical traffic". by Scunnered20 (Mon 2nd Oct 2023 6:32pm)

I think this is correct by Scunnered20 (Mon 2nd Oct 2023 7:46pm)

> who's "think tank" came up with this latest "bollocks"???? Nobody did. They're replacing the trees [as part of public realm improvements which have just started](https://www.scottishconstructionnow.com/articles/glasgow-to-begin-sauchiehall-precinct-and-cambridge-street-avenue-project). The entire street is being repaved, and these trees are being replaced because the existing ones were poorly planted originally, in tiny holes which prevented them growing. The new ones will have more space to grow. Of course, maybe you're right and it's part of some devious council policy to chop down trees for no reason. Who's to know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ by Scunnered20 (Mon 2nd Oct 2023 9:50pm)

Going from the location description (between Central and Argyle Street stations), there's isn't an offshoot tunnel that leads somewhere else in that segment. What you're seeing is probably the abandoned Central lower level platforms that were used for the railway about 100 years ago. They weren't brought back into use when the Argyle Line was redeveloped and reopened in the 80s. The spare platform has been renovated recently to host a small museum as part of the Central Station Tour. Might be you saw lights related to that. by Scunnered20 (Tue 3rd Oct 2023 10:15am)

It's frustrating for absolutely everyone involved that drivers have to deal with this. Drivers should do one thing: drive the bus. Not deal with tickets, not deal with handling change, ideally not have to deal with queries except in rare circumstances. We have such an odd, parochial, old fashioned way of managing our public transport systems. From how the networks are managed, to the service itself. And it leads to situations like this: people who are not trained for customer service, having to drive a bus, worry about adhering to timetables, and deal with an array of customer interactions. Needs root and branch redesign. by Scunnered20 (Thu 5th Oct 2023 2:08pm)

But they have a Student NEC card, which they swipe to 'pay' for a ticket. They wouldn't have one if they weren't a student. by Scunnered20 (Fri 6th Oct 2023 12:14am)

32k followers. Christ. by Scunnered20 (Sat 7th Oct 2023 3:36pm)

A postmodern remembrance of a square kilometre of tenements which housed generations of immigrant communities, all of which was swept away in the name of modernism. by Scunnered20 (Sat 7th Oct 2023 6:05pm)

I think this misunderstands what this consultation is about. If you read through the consultation you'll see it's not an open call for ideas, but sharing info about concrete and practical actions the council has planned and are in the works. Some of it is about getting policy processes more streamlined (necessary and good) and some of it is about actual on-the-ground projects that are about the get under way, in order to deliver the aims of the city's newest transport strategy. Including: * Creating bus priority corridors [[link to map within the survey](https://files.smartsurvey.io/3/0/QZECVAPL/Bus_Priotiy_Corridors_A4.png)] * New Park and Ride locations [[link to map within the survey](https://files.smartsurvey.io/3/0/CNXGAYEF/GTS_Current_and_Proposed_Park__Ride_Sites_A4.png)] * "Mobility Hubs", i.e. car share hubs, electric car charging stations, transport interchanges which are to be developed [[link to map within the survey](https://files.smartsurvey.io/3/0/DL1G86RA/GTS_Mobility_Hubs_A4.png)] * The development of future Freight Distribution Hubs for various neighbourhoods, where large loads are switched from HGVs to smaller last mile delivery vehicles. [[more info here](https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a/page/Freight-Hubs/)] ------ The delivery document: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=60624&p=0 Link to the survey, which itself contains summaries on each of the things being developed and consulted on: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/GlasgowTransportSurvey/ by Scunnered20 (Sun 8th Oct 2023 3:56pm)

The situation is ultimately that Glasgow (and all councils) are beholden to national funding for nearly anything they want to do that is outwith their statutory baseline services. The council can and should set out its ambitions, as publicly as possible. That's what these various strategy documents are. The council can get one with *some* things on a smaller scale, but nothing major or sweeping can be delivered without guaranteed funding and in many cases 100% partnership from relevant government level agencies. So, it's not really GCC's fault. It's the rather centralised funding and legislative framework we have in the UK & Scotland. by Scunnered20 (Sun 8th Oct 2023 4:43pm)

> Look at things like the Glasgow airport rail link for example, most people agree it’s s good idea and it was probably first mentioned around the millennium but yet here we are with nothing new. In some ways I do understand people's fatigue with consultations, but it's important to not lump everything into one pile of 'abandoned for no good reason or laziness'. GARL (in its mid-2000s form) was abandoned because although it made it through a couple of layers of proposal and evaluation, on further scrutiny it wasn't a great idea. At least not as a project to be done in isolation, which is how it was being proposed. It would've meant a heavy-rail service for the airport, sure, but it would have used a stub line coming off the Inverclyde lines. This would have directly interfered with Inverclyde and Ayrshire services to Glasgow via Paisley Gilmour Street: limiting the number of trains per hour possible for Inverclyde & Ayrshire routes *and* trains-per-hour for the airport itself. The newer metro plans have been developed with this in mind, proposing a range of alternative routes which would avoid creating a bottleneck at Paisley GS. by Scunnered20 (Sun 8th Oct 2023 6:09pm)

A second subway circle is definitely not on the cards, but much of the rest is contained in one form or another in the [official Clyde Metro proposals](https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=26965). by Scunnered20 (Sun 8th Oct 2023 6:36pm)

It's just outside of the St Enoch Masterplan area. Though the buildings just west of it are included in the last phase, Phase 4. If the masterplan does all go ahead though, I expect this building to go. Either because there'll be a compelling case for the owners to do more with the site, or as an outside possibility, that it could be compulsory purchased as part of a Clyde Metro project to create a link between the underground Argyle Line and the Union Line that crosses into the Gorbals. That project is suggested, vaguely, by the current concept map, but raises all sorts of technical questions. So that might never happen. by Scunnered20 (Wed 11th Oct 2023 3:36pm)

https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/200376927-linthouse-church-9-skipness-drive-glasgow-glasgow by Scunnered20 (Wed 11th Oct 2023 6:24pm)

> Anyone know if this is part of the new Patrick bridge? Yes, it is. https://news.stv.tv/west-central/unsafe-winds-delay-arrival-of-29-5m-govan-partick-bridge-span by Scunnered20 (Sat 14th Oct 2023 10:39am)

The Swingy Bridge by Scunnered20 (Sat 14th Oct 2023 12:19pm)

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186534-d12546759-Reviews-Best_Kebab-Glasgow_Scotland.html by Scunnered20 (Sat 14th Oct 2023 12:20pm)

It's set to be developed soon. James Scott House, the old-2 storey building that was on that site, was demolished last year. https://publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PDK9YXEXM7Y00 There's a separate application in to build a 7 storey office block in its place. https://publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=RSE77AEXGLQ00 by Scunnered20 (Sun 15th Oct 2023 2:24pm)

People working in the Skypark? Why? by Scunnered20 (Sun 15th Oct 2023 5:29pm)

Most likely Giffnock sandstone. by Scunnered20 (Mon 16th Oct 2023 10:07pm)

The council doesn't really build shopping centres or office blocks. Bridges, yeah, but those other things are never the council. [Before hitting reply just now I did stop to think is this obvious? Is this a pointless reply? And I landed on, nah, it's worth saying given how common a belief it seems to be that this is how things work] by Scunnered20 (Tue 17th Oct 2023 5:10pm)

> Council sanctions it. And if they were to build such things Well yeah, sure, I take your point. My reply was definitely on the side of being tedious, but then so many people seem to think the council is responsible for every rivet and brick in the city, it felt worth saying. > Other cities have regenerated their entire river front - ours - still a wasteland in places. An entirely fair point. The difficulty is the council, again, has very very limited influence on developments along the riverside, being that the bulk of both banks of the Clyde west of Central Station is in the hands of private land owners, in the shape of Peel Ports. No development happens without them having a notion to kick something off. Occasionally that has been parcelling off land incrementally for housing in fits and starts, or the SEC and Pacific Quay clusters. But their interest has typically been limited to maximising value from individual land parcels, so there's usually no joined-up-thinking or masterplanning from them for the whole river. As it happens, quite separately, two things are happening which make the future look a bit better for the riverside. 1) Inner city rents and housing demand have risen to such a level that there's now more long term value for landowners like Peel Ports in building residential developments, and doing it quickly and at scale, rather than simply landbanking. If you look along both sides of the river from Partick to the Broomielaw, there is now barely an existing gap site without a planning proposal attached to it. That wasn't the case a few years ago. 2) GCC has developed a few related governing strategies for the river and riverside land which is has some control over. The housing will come from developers, but GCC has published plans for a mix of urban realm improvements, road reconfigurations, public transport improvements, and pockets of green park land, all of which will be introduced in tandem with the private housing developments. So basically the issue of the riverside being quite a barren, disjointed space, should be tackled substantially over the next 5-10 years. by Scunnered20 (Tue 17th Oct 2023 6:14pm)

I don't get this attitude (which seems to be very widespread) in favour keeping Govan a sealed off exclave. The idea that it should be easier to cross the river that separates *miles* of communities in our city should be a fairly uncontroversial one. Some of the takes I've seen on here and social media in response to news of the bridge have been absurd. by Scunnered20 (Wed 18th Oct 2023 6:19pm)

It's worth people knowing the LED displays at bus stops aren't tracking live times, just displaying timetabled arrival times. For years people have assumed they're providing a live feed of ETAs but it's never been the case. As you say, the First app tends to be fairly reliable in terms of live tracking. One issue I experience a lot though is when there's a timetabled bus, but the app shows no bus in motion or listed arrival time. On some occasions the bus has shown up, but others, it never appears. It'd be good if they could just say "no bus running" for the time and make it clear whether it's one or the other. by Scunnered20 (Thu 19th Oct 2023 5:26pm)

Has anyone on this thread read the story? It's literally about the idea of bringing them back into public control. by Scunnered20 (Wed 25th Oct 2023 6:59pm)

Probably this, as construction begins next year. by Scunnered20 (Wed 25th Oct 2023 6:57pm)

A full public buy out would take years to implement too. Difference is the money involved. And how likely that is to be 1. £5-10m to set up a franchising system. 2. Or £200-500m to go the whole hog with full public ownership: buy out the fleet, the staff, the business support involved, etc. The second option *could* be done, but would need national funding from the get go. It'd be a national level project, equivalent to a new major motorway alignment, railway, tram line, etc. Money that would have to be taken from somewhere in the existing project portfolio. It's also a big, risky undertaking. I personally think going with franchising first makes the most sense. It could be the model we settle on, akin to TfL. Where SPT/Greater Glasgow City Region sets the routes, the services, the fares, etc, but everything is run under the hood by various private providers. It doesn't rule out full on public takeover further down the line. But I'm less convinced that is ultimately much better in terms of value for money. The majority of "public" transport systems we all have experience of using abroad are run in this franchised way. by Scunnered20 (Wed 25th Oct 2023 7:06pm)

Worth everyone knowing that while George Square renovation is the main headline, and certainly a major project in its own right, it sits as one small part of the wider Avenues works which will be happening on nearly every adjacent street. More trees, more planting and green rain capture strips, new paving, more benches, wider pavements, cycle lanes, etc. With these works happening to renovate St Vincent Place, Cochrane Street, George Street, Hanover Street, North Hanover Street and John Street, it makes sense to also carry out renovation of George Square at the same time. So while the George Square redevelopment isn't reinventing the wheel (thankfully I would say, as the winning 2011 proposal was an abomination), it isn't intended to be. It's simply part of a much wider programme of greening and upgrading the city centre's streets. by Scunnered20 (Wed 25th Oct 2023 7:31pm)

Not an excuse for every instance, but it's worth people being aware that a good amount of the [existing advised cycling network in Glasgow includes many shared-use pavements](https://glasgowgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8eb9f600ed154ae58b09c2c5902ce7f0). Pavements along nearly the full length of the Clydeside, a couple up near Cowcaddens, and often most pavements which wrap around parks are some which I can remember off hand. But there are many others. So, it's worth not lashing out and understanding that this may well be the case. Quite often people on bikes have nowhere safe to travel, and shared spaces like this make the difference between a journey by bike being possible or not at all. All this said, yes, I too see *some* people on bikes on pavements which I know for sure are not designated shared-use. In some situations, like on busy city centre streets, this is quite obviously a stupid thing to do. But in all honesty, there are lots of places where I can't blame the person on a bike from avoiding using the roadway. I know from experience too that such is the fragmented state of the city's cycling network, that many quiet routes or existing cycle lanes lead you onto entirely inhospitable roads. Often using a pavement for a few hundred meters before you rejoin the network and go on your way is the safest thing to do. Of course, pedestrians have absolute priority, and anyone who's doing this should be going as slowly and carefully as possible. by Scunnered20 (Sat 28th Oct 2023 7:59pm)

As a first step, I'd recommend using the First bus app rather than Google Maps for planning out your bus journey or checking live bus locations and times. Google Maps hasn't had reliable timetable info for buses for a year or two. But that aside, what you describe is quite strange: "it goes in a wrong route but ends up in the destination I want." What bus number? by Scunnered20 (Mon 30th Oct 2023 7:30pm)

Even lots of parts of Glasgow have outdoor seating now, at all times of year! A change for the better. Take a walk down Great Western Road, Byres Road, Pollokshaws Rd, Vicky Rd etc, and even many of the little side streets with cafes in those areas and you can find people sat outside with a coffee or brunch in basically any weather short of a storm. People really love to whinge. Just because they don't fancy the idea of something seems to mean no one could possibly want to do it. by Scunnered20 (Sat 4th Nov 2023 11:11am)

Not to bring everything back to this, and I'm not trying to suggest this is the reason for ScottishRajko's comment specifically, but when people's travel experience predominantly involves sitting inside a warm, air-conditioned car, sheltered from any type of weather and separated from activity on the street, it really warps perspectives of what's possible. by Scunnered20 (Sat 4th Nov 2023 11:57am)

Maybe I'm misreading this, but I'm not sure what your point is... that what's been done in places like Amsterdam is completely unattainable, and therefore any improvement in that direction is pointless? The entire reason Amsterdam is a highly walkable and cyclable place is because they decided to drastically redesign their urban environment in the 70s after waves of protest against pedestrian deaths. There's a perception that these places have always been cycling havens when really the change happened a lot more recently than people think. Through active redesign of the urban environment to make cycling easier and safer. Of course, with that there was the beneficial side effect of making city streets and neighbourhoods more people friendly more generally, fostering better social interaction among other things. To say people want Glasgow to become Amsterdam overnight is to claim something which isn't really the exact true, and kind of a sneaky way of painting any ambition for safer walking and cycling streets as pointless, when it's anything but. We don't need to become exactly like Amsterdam, but incremental changes involving things that have been tried & tested there can make things better. by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Nov 2023 10:38am)

The horror by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Nov 2023 10:41am)

U/CanadianDraven If you take nearly any random tenemented street in Glasgow and sit and calculate how many households there are, then compare that to the number of on street car parking spaces out front, it becomes clear just how ridiculous the constant calls for more parking provision are. And how ridiculous the idea is that we *ought to* somehow provide parking spaces for everyone. Like, it's normal to have a street of 3 storey tenements have say 100 households, but maybe space for 20 cars along the length of the street, at a push. Again I think there's a perception / conditioning thing at play here. We see cars literally everywhere. They're arguably the most visually dominant feature of any street, certainly at eye level anyway, to the extent that we even sort of mentally blank them out. Certainly to the extent that we don't really give consideration to the space they take up. Lots of people seem to regularly assume we need 1:1 parking provision, when in reality that's not ever been the norm in existing built up parts of Glasgow. Nor should it be, as even if you somehow find the space to build the parking spaces (likely at cost of other uses of the space), all you're doing is inviting that many cars to use those roads. You solve your parking problem, but you immediately create an even worse congestion and road safety problem. by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Nov 2023 10:59am)

Beyond helping people that live in the local area to be able to cycle safely, the specific route they're complaining about is also one part of a very long planned safe cycling route that will arch across the north west & north east of the city, connecting dozens of neighbourhoods along the way. Linking basically everything from Balornock in the NE, to Maryhill, Hillhead, all the way down to the new bridge at Partick & Govan. It'll be one of the main orbital cycling routes in the final network plan, connecting to arterial cycle routes that take you into the city centre. So, when I see this sort of thing it's depressing on two levels: one for the local folk who simply want to get around Wallacewell Road safely by bike for short local trips; but two, if they were to succeed in their protests, it would mean having a huge gap on a vital part of the future network that's meant to serve thousands of people making daily trips across the city. by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Nov 2023 11:29am)

Not sure, but the traffic data has shown a rapid rise in cycling numbers along the South City Way since its completion. The evidence is essentially clear that if you build a route, or even better rebuild a connected network of routes, people use it. Put it another way: we're starting from a low level of cycling obviously, but you don't increase that by dismantling routes or tearing up plans for future ones. by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Nov 2023 11:33am)

Exactly. The worst aspect of this for me is that this is very very specifically a route that's meant to connect many other routes together as part of the future network. Cancelling it wouldn't just have a negative local impact. It would leave a 2km gap in the north orbital cycling route that's meant to arch all the way across the city from Partick to Maryhill to Robroyston and Blackhill. by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Nov 2023 11:42am)

Consultations aren't necessarily referendums though. They're the council laying out its plans publicly to invite contributions or adjustments, which might or might not make it into the final scheme. by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Nov 2023 11:57am)

> its the current flavour to make glasgow greener and lower emissions. I routinely read criticisms of these measures, as if these plans have just been drawn up. Consultation for this route began back in 2018. And although the detailed plans have just been published within the last few years, the council (under different leadership) had a stated aim for developing an eventual safe citywide cycling network back in 2010. It's very much a long term ambition, building upon years of transportation and city development strategies. Albeit one that has growing impetus to be carried through quickly, given the context of a climate crisis and pledges the city has made to reducing local pollution, GHG emissions, and making our roads and streets safer. > What better way to look like they are doing this by lowering the amount of traffic and increasing the number of people using bikes. Well, yes. That is literally part of the solution. by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Nov 2023 11:55am)

> When you take this into consideration you have to appreciate the upset that people have when services degrade but long planned ideas are getting invested in. I'm sorry, but to be completely honest with you I have zero belief at all that this stems from frustration with other council services. None. In this and every other instance of protest against safe cycling infrastructure, whether in Glasgow or further afield (and there are many examples of the same type of protest in Glasgow) the same underlying concern is always about impact on drivers and the loss of road space for something other than for use by cars. by Scunnered20 (Sun 5th Nov 2023 12:41pm)