YOUR editorial (May 13) was absolutely right to criticise the spurious facts which Scottish Enterprise have used to try to bolster the case for the M74 northern extension. Extravagant claims of 6000 jobs lost if the road is not built will require the fullest possible scrutiny to assess the validity of the methodology used, but so far the consultant's report remains predictably confidential.
More fundamentally, this assessment of the economic impact of the M74 will remain worthless until a dispassionate comparison is made with the economic benefits of alternative uses for the #170m investment required. At no stage has the ''Complete to Compete'' lobby made any attempt to examine the impact of an alternative transport package making better use of the existing M8 (for example through the creation of HGV and bus priority lanes) while also investing in a Glasgow Airport rail link, modern freight railheads in Renfrewshire and Inverclyde, and new rail services across Glasgow.
Having disputed the economic benefits, it is odd that your editorial then concludes that it is a ''nonsense'' that the M74 northern extension has been postponed for so long. Given the experience of the M25 and countless other new motorways which have created more congestion problems than they solve, why should we automatically accept that a road conceived in the 1960s has any relevance to the transport needs of the twenty-first century?
Common sense dictates that the Scottish Office roads review should look at all the transport options along the M74 corridor and find the best mix of transport modes to meet the economic and environmental needs of the area. To do otherwise would make a mockery of the Government's claims to want a sustainable transport strategy.
David Spaven,
Chair, TRANSform Scotland,
72 Newhaven Road, Edinburgh.
May 14.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article