« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
ROADS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1984; ACQUISITION
OF LAND (AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE)(SCOTLAND) ACT 1947
M74 SPECIAL ROAD (FULLARTON ROAD TO WEST OF KINGSTON
BRIDGE) ORDERS
REPORT OF PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRY INTO OBJECTIONS
VOLUME 1 : MAIN REPORT
CHAPTER 4 : TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
4.1 Extensive traffic modelling and technical analysis
has been carried out on behalf of the TRA to predict the
traffic flows that would result from alterations to the
road system, new development, and assumed general increases
in vehicle flows. The modelling is based on the existing
road network together with various new projects that are
regarded as firm commitments (the "do minimum" or
"reference" case); and the addition of the preferred scheme
for the M74C (the "do something" case). The modelling
facility has also been used to compare the performance of
different versions of the completion scheme, leading to the
selection of the preferred option; and to test and then
optimise the performance of road junctions on the surface
(local) network that are likely to be affected by increased
traffic flows. The traffic predictions also provide an
input to the air quality predictions, and to the direct
economic benefits of the proposal, in terms of reduced
journey times.
4.2 Although there are criticisms of some of the basic
assumptions that underpin this traffic analysis, notably
the absence of a full multi-modal study and the assumption
that traffic will continue to grow despite the various
government policies to curb vehicle use and promote public
transport, no objectors have contested the methodology of
the technical analysis of the traffic flows. The resulting
traffic predictions provide useful information about the
probable traffic effects of the new road, and are the best
information available for that purpose. This information is
likely to be better than informed guesstimates.
4.3 The following section describes and (where
necessary) explains the probable traffic implications of
the preferred M74C scheme, based on the traffic modelling
information. This is followed by sections that summarise
the main points made by the TRA and the objectors in
relation to traffic matters.
Description of probable traffic changes and
re-distribution
4.4 The traffic modelling carried out on behalf of the
TRA to predict the traffic effects of the M74C sits within
the wider context of the higher tier modelling of traffic
throughout central Scotland, known as CSTM3A. The CSTM3A
results have been validated against observed traffic flows
on roads in the M74 corridor and vicinity, comparing well
on the main routes but showing more variable comparisons in
some local areas. The M74C modelling is based on the
national traffic growth assumptions described in the
previous chapter. The use of the Paramics modelling system
has allowed progressive refinement of the predictions to
take account of more detailed influences on drivers' choice
of routes, and micro simulations of the performance and
optimisation of local junctions where traffic increases are
expected to result from the new road.
4.5 The modelling facility has been used to assess the
operation of different versions of the M74C scheme, varying
from a more modest scheme (2 lanes each way and 2
intermediate junctions) to a larger scheme providing
progressively 4 and 5 lanes at the western end. The smaller
scheme would be likely to approach full capacity by the
design year (assumed to be 2010 as a proxy for possible
opening of the new road in 2008). The larger scheme would
have adequate capacity at the western end in the design
year, but would attract so much traffic that the eastern 3
lane section would approach available capacity in the
opening year.
4.6 The preferred design (3 lanes each way, except for
the 2 lane links to the M8 at the western end, and without
direct connections to the Kingston Bridge) would be
expected to operate below capacity along all sections in
the opening year, and in 2020, under both the low and high
growth scenarios. However there would be likely to be some
congestion on the approach routes, including the existing
M74 from the east (see paragraph 4.8-4.9 below). Thus
traffic would be expected to flow freely once it was on the
new section of road, giving considerable time savings both
here and elsewhere. The reduction in journey times (2010
and 2020 - both growth scenarios) are predicted to be up to
about 15 minutes (and up to 19 minutes in one example) for
strategic journeys, and up to about 6 minutes for local
journeys. These time savings are reflected in the direct
economic benefit estimated for the scheme (
see chapter 3).
4.7 The main changes in
motorway traffic flows expected to result
from the completion of the M74 are as follows :
- Reductions of approximately 13-18% (PM/AM peaks,
2010, high growth scenario, both directions combined)
from the section of the M8 west of Baillieston; and
9-10% (both peaks, both directions combined) west of
the M80 junction, a total reduction amounting to
approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. The resulting
combined AM flow on the section of the M8 west of the
M80 is predicted to be about 13,745.
- On the Kingston Bridge mainline, traffic reductions
of about 5% in the morning peak and 8%-19% in the
evening peak, but increases of 15% (am peak) and 29%
(pm peak) on the northbound outer braid.
- Increased use of the M73 and existing westernmost
section of the M74 by vehicles using the M74C as an
alternative to the M8 and the M80 to enter or pass
through central Glasgow.
- Increased traffic flows on the M8 between the Clyde
Tunnel and the M8/M74junction at Kingston.
- Increased traffic flows on the M77 to the south of
the junction with the M8.
- Reduced congestion in the vicinity of the
M8/M74/M77 merge area to the southwest of the Kingston
Bridge, due to redistribution of traffic between the
Kingston Bridge and M74 links.
4.8 At the eastern end of the new section of motorway,
the increase in the westbound flow on the existing M74
approaching the Fullarton Road junction resulting from the
new road is predicted to be in the order of +125% in 2010
(am peak) and even greater in the evening peak, compared
with the do minimum situation. These much larger traffic
flows would be close to or exceed the capacity of the road
during peak periods under the higher growth scenario in the
opening year, and to exceed capacity in both peaks by 2020.
Under the low growth scenario, the expected flows during
both peak hours would be slightly lower than the available
capacity, with a similar situation continuing to 2020. The
comparison of actual and demand flows contained in table
5.1 of document TRA/E/14 (Operational Assessment of
Preferred M74 Completion Scheme Option) shows that the
excess westbound demand in 2010 for the higher growth
scenario would be around 700 vehicles in the morning peak
and 850 in the evening peak, rising to around 1050 and 1170
respectively by 2020. The corresponding figures for the
lower growth scenario would be an excess of 373 vehicles in
the evening peak in 2010, and around 700 vehicles in both
peaks by 2020.
4.9 The excess demand of some 850 vehicles on the
eastern approach to the new motorway in the year of opening
(higher growth scenario) is predicted to form queues
occupying some 1800m (about one mile) of the motorway,
spread across all 3 westbound lanes, and possibly extending
eastwards beyond junction 3. In practice, some drivers
(with local knowledge or driver information) would be
expected to respond to this congestion by rerouting to a
theoretically less congested alternative route, re-time the
journey to avoid the peak, alter their destination where
that is possible, change mode, or refrain from travelling.
The TRA evidence indicates that it is very difficult to
predict what combination of these responses would occur.
However it is expected that a combination of these factors
and restraints resulting from congestion elsewhere in the
system would significantly reduce the queues of M74
westbound traffic approaching the Fullarton junction under
the higher growth scenario, and eliminate queuing under the
lower growth scenario.
4.10 At the western end of the new section of motorway,
an excess of some 600 vehicles is predicted on the
eastbound approach to the M74C from the M8 in the evening
peak (2010, higher growth scenario), rising to some 1100
vehicles by 2020, by which time there would also be an
excess of some 230 vehicles in the morning peak as well.
However this would be reduced by capacity limitations of
the local network on the approaches to the motorway system
in the Dumbreck area (see below), to the extent that the
eastbound flows on the M77/M8 approach to the new section
of the M74 would be approximately in line with the capacity
of this link. It has been found necessary to carry out
local improvements to the existing motorways immediately
west of Kingston to provide extra capacity in the critical
section between the convergence of the M8 and M77 from the
west and the M8 and the new M74 from the east. These
improvements, which are additional to the M74C scheme
itself, would consist largely of converting some sections
of hard shoulder to additional running lanes. The cost
would be in the order of £15 million. (Details are given in
document TRA/E/15, notably in figure 2.5.)
4.11 In relation to
increased traffic on local roads that will
serve the junctions on the new section of motorway, the
following changes are predicted :
(absolute and % increases in AM peak, year 2010, high
traffic growth, both directions combined.)
- Cambuslang Road east of Dukes Road : +296 vehicles
+15%
- Cambuslang Road west of Dukes Road : +108 vehicles
+4%
- Polmadie Road south of Rutherglen Road : +455
vehicles +36%
- Aikenhead Road north of Calder Street : + 252
vehicles +16%
These increases are not expected to result in any
significant queues on these approach roads, as the
additional number of vehicles is predicted to be less than
100 per hour. Any such queues would probably be reduced or
eliminated by optimisation of traffic signals, delays
elsewhere in the system, or re-routing or re-timing of
trips. The re-opening of the junction of Aikenhead Road and
Polmadie Road (south end) is expected to divert traffic to
and from the M74 Polmadie Road junction to a mainly
commercial street from a mainly residential street.
4.12 On other roads in the vicinity of junctions on the
new motorway, there are either reductions in flows, or any
increases are very small numbers of vehicles. The position
in 2020 is generally similar, bearing in mind that traffic
flows are assumed to increase both with and without the M74
Completion scheme.
4.13 In the
Rutherglen area, general traffic growth is
expected to lead to increasing congestion along Main
Street. The Completion scheme would provide an alternative
route for through traffic, reducing traffic levels. Some
improvements to local street junctions would be desirable
to accommodate traffic going to and from the motorway
junctions. Bus lanes are already in place on Main
Street.
4.14 In the
Govanhill area, the introduction of the
M74C is predicted to have little effect on traffic,
compared with the do minimum scenario. Some local
optimisation may be required to respond to continuing
traffic growth, with or without the new motorway.
4.15 In the
Kingston area, where some localised heavy
queuing is already predicted in the do minimum forecast,
the introduction of the M74C would alleviate some problems
(by creating a segregated east/west route for through
traffic) and relocate others. The modelling does not seek
to remedy existing problems, but to establish the
performance of the new arrangements that are proposed. With
detailed optimisation of local signal and junction
arrangements, the proposed arrangements are predicted to
work well, but some localised queuing would remain, notably
in the Shields Road/Scotland Street area.
4.16 In the
Seaward Street area, there are already
problems of congestion, which are expected to worsen due to
general traffic growth. The introduction of the M74
extension is predicted to make little difference to the
situation, although some improvement could be achieved by
local optimisation. (Again, the modelling does not seek to
remedy existing problems, but to establish the performance
of the new arrangements that are proposed.)
4.17 In the
Dumbreck area, the introduction of the
M74C is predicted to result in a mixture of decreases and
increases on local roads. The most significant increases
are on Helen Street in the morning peak, and on Paisley
Road West in all time periods. Congestion due to general
traffic growth would continue in certain places at various
times, and there is scope for local optimisation and
improvements. However the overall effect of the new M74
connection on the performance of local roads in this area
is regarded as neutral. If the new road was not built, the
do minimum analysis showed that existing congestion would
continue and worsen.
4.18
Reductions in traffic flows on local roads
are expected to be streets that are currently main east
side routes in and out of Glasgow City centre, where
traffic is expected to transfer to the new section of
motorway. Significant reductions are expected on the
following streets :
(absolute and % reductions in AM peak, year 2010, high
traffic growth, both directions combined.)
- London Road east of Fielden Street: -61 vehicles
-6%
- Dalmarnock Road north of Farme Cross : -151
vehicles -9%
- Shettleston Road east of Duke Street : -57 vehicles
-5%
- Main Street, Rutherglen, west of Farmeloan Road :
-254 vehicles -13%
- Main Street, Rutherglen, west of Cambuslang Road :
-422 vehicles -22%
- Cambuslang Road east of Rutherglen Main Street :
-739 vehicles -24%
- Calder Street east of Pollockshaws Road : -158
vehicles -22%
4.19 If the M74C scheme is not implemented, the do
minimum modelling of the Fullarton Road junction shows that
it would remain a focal point for traffic converging on and
dispersing from the existing M74. This would lead to
considerable peak hour congestion on all the approaches to
the junction, including the westbound M74 itself, which in
the worst case would be worse than would be experienced
with the completion scheme in place.
Traffic implications : the case for
objectors
4.20 In relation to traffic matters, the main points
made by objectors were :
- Traffic on the new motorway and the approach roads
to junctions would increase noise, air emissions, road
safety problems, visual intrusion, and community
severance for local residents and other road users.
(These matters are covered in more detail in following
chapters.)
- The motorway access junctions would be traffic
focal points that would create serious problems for
pedestrians and cyclists because of the numerous road
junctions and traffic flows.
- The reduction in traffic on Rutherglen Main Street
would be relatively small.
- Any traffic benefits of the M74C scheme at opening
would be likely to be lost due to progressive traffic
growth, with continuing congestion at various locations
on the motorway network and approach roads.
- It was unrealistic for the TRA to expect to achieve
a free flow of traffic on the trunk road network at all
times : some congestion was to be expected in urban
areas at peak periods.
- The scheme would feed more traffic into the city
centre, whereas proposed new developments along the
Clyde Waterfront should be served by public transport.
Similarly access to Glasgow Airport should be by rail,
rather than making provision for more vehicle
trips.
- At the western end of the Completion scheme, 2
lanes from the M74 would converge with 3 lanes
(westbound) from the M8, creating a bottleneck. The
proposal to provide extra running lanes at this
location by converting the hard shoulders would make
this heavily used area very vulnerable to disruption
caused by accidents, broken down vehicles, or
roadworks.
- No direct connections are proposed between the
western end of the M74 Completion scheme and the
Kingston Bridge (M8). Traffic using the new motorway
wishing to travel to or from the city centre and the
area to the north and west (eg the West End,
Kelvinside) would have to use the surface streets
between the Kingston Bridge and the M74 Kingston ramps,
or surface streets and other Clyde bridges. It would be
better for traffic to have a direct route from the M74
to the Kingston Bridge, and to avoid adding to flows on
the local network. (See paragraphs 4.23-4.32 below on
objection by Mr George Baillie for more detail.)
The traffic case for the trunk road
authority
4.21 The TRA considers that the main traffic advantages
of the proposed M74C scheme would be :
- It would complete the M74 motorway, giving a direct
motorway link between areas to the west and southwest
of Glasgow (Greenock, Renfrew, Paisley, Glasgow
Airport, etc) and areas to the southeast of Glasgow
(Hamilton, Motherwell, etc, and the motorway link to
England and Europe via the M6).
- This would provide a quicker and more reliable
route for freight traffic (predicted to be 7-15% of
vehicles) to and from the areas to the west and
southwest of Glasgow, where there are important
business users. (See chapter 3 for direct economic
benefits and chapter 8 for indirect economic
benefits.)
- It would considerably reduce traffic on the
parallel section of the M8 (between Baillieston and the
Kingston Bridge) where there is very extensive traffic
congestion and delay, and also on the A80/M80 approach
to Glasgow.
- Time savings for journeys across and through
Glasgow are expected to be in the order of 5-10 minutes
during peak hours.
- It would alleviate congestion at the convergence of
the M8 and M77 to the west of Kingston, by correcting
an imbalance in the use of the inner and outer
braids.
- It would allow traffic on the east side of Glasgow
to be diverted between the M8 and the M74 when either
was obstructed due to roadworks or an accident, using
the driver advance information displays along the
approach routes. This would add to the time savings and
economic benefits resulting from the M74C.
- These results would contribute to the Scottish
Executive's vision for 2021 that road traffic on all
parts of the network will be flowing smoothly without
congestion.
- It would relieve traffic on many local roads,
giving road safety and environmental benefits to those
using these roads or occupying nearby properties.
- It would create additional space on those roads
which would be used by the local highway authorities
for the benefit of pedestrians, cyclists, and public
transport (
see chapter 3, paragraphs
3.43-3.44 and
3.52).
4.22 In response to objections and criticisms, points
made by TRA witnesses included :
- The M74C scheme would generate some additional
traffic, as distinct from general traffic growth and
transfers of trips from other routes, but this increase
would be very small (see paragraph 3.38 above). The
main use of the new section of motorway would be to
relieve traffic on the existing network.
- The traffic reductions on local streets resulting
from the M74C will make them safer for children and
other vulnerable road users. It is predicted that there
would be 760-975 fewer accidents across the network
during the 20 year period after the opening of the new
motorway, a revised estimate that updates the figures
of 525-700 given in the Final Proposal brochure (March
2003).
- At the Kingston ramps, 73%-80% of M74 traffic is
predicted to pass through the M8 east/west links,
indicating that the majority of vehicles would not be
using the M74C for commuting purposes to go to and from
the city centre.
- References in consultant's reports to continuing
congestion on the motorway at Kingston resulted in the
proposed interventions west of Kingston to provide more
running lanes on the M8 between the M74 and M77
junctions. This would involve the conversion of
sections of hard shoulder to running lanes, but
adjacent emergency lay-bys would be provided wherever
possible.
Objection by Mr George Baillie : Omission of
direct motorway connections between the M74C and the
Kingston Bridge
Summary of case for the objector
4.23 The objection is to the lack of a direct connection
from the M74C in either direction to the Kingston Bridge.
As a retired professional engineer, he has provided
indicative plans to show how this link could be provided.
The boundaries of the areas to be acquired under the CPO
should be extended to facilitate direct connections, with
similar adjustment to the related Roads Orders. At the very
least, the possibility of direct connections at a future
date should be safeguarded. The development plan supports
better transport links and economic regeneration across the
conurbation. The objector has no wish to delay the M74C -
all he seeks is a minor modification of the 1995 proposal
for which planning permission was granted
4.24 In support of the objection, it is submitted that,
while the M74C is to be welcomed as a major boost to the
economy of the west of Scotland, all previous proposals for
this strategic road link have included direct connections
at the south end of Kingston Bridge. Indeed, as far back as
the Glasgow Highway Plan of 1961, there was a proposal for
an inner ring road. Without these connections, the Glasgow
urban road network will be incomplete and the south east
quadrant will be disadvantaged when compared to the rest of
the conurbation. Locations in the south east of the city
and South Lanarkshire will be less attractive to potential
investors and the local economy will suffer. The objector
is concerned that the omission of this option may have
disadvantaged Rutherglen and Cambuslang. Even between these
2 towns, Rutherglen is disadvantaged against Cambuslang
which will have 3 motorway connections to the M74C. The
economic witness for the TRA appeared to support the
concept of direct connections. Recently announced
developments in the north west quadrant, at the waterfront,
and the SECC underscore the need for direct connections.
Junction 19 of the M8, which serves the SECC, is already
over capacity.
4.25 The objector's scheme proposes 2 single lane (with
hard shoulder) elevated structures linking the south end of
the Kingston Bridge with the M74C, the construction of
which could be achieved without closing the M8. Instead of
the embankment at Scotland Street/West Street/Wallace
Street/Carnoustie Street proposed by the TRA, the elevated
structure over West Street railway station should be
extended towards Kingston Bridge, providing valuable city
centre parking and revenue for the city council. The
objector estimates the cost of the scheme at £10m, a small
sum when compared with the overall cost of the M74C. This
estimate relates only to the extended elevated structure
and not to the connections to surface streets. The
indicative scheme is not a working layout, being based on
minimal plans and profiles. Further work would be necessary
to achieve a satisfactory layout but an engineering
solution, not requiring additional land take, may well be
possible. There would be no need, as claimed by the TRA, to
demolish the existing on ramp to the bridge. It has been
closed before for a 6 months period when repairs to the
bridge were being undertaken. A similar period towards the
end of the M74C construction would be sufficient. The TRA
estimates of costs are refuted. The scheme, which is based
on 3 lanes in each direction, has not been tested by
traffic analysis to conclude that additional running lanes
would be required, nor have traffic flows across the direct
connections been analysed to support the TRA claims that
there would be more traffic on the M8.
4.26 The TRA proposals are criticised as using an
unusual arrangement, namely, the city surface street
network to link the M8 and M74C instead of direct links
which would offer alternative routes for traffic from
Lanarkshire, Stirling and Edinburgh, thus further relieving
congestion on the M8 northern flank. The use of the surface
streets link would result in increased journey times. The
comparison with junctions 8 and 13 of the M8 is invalid in
that these are not city centre junctions, nor is there any
demand for additional connections at these junctions. Use
of the surface street network would entail a heavily
trafficked one way system in an area that is becoming
increasingly residential and where the ES identifies a
number of visually sensitive facades. Despite several
requests, the TRA has failed to produce forecasts of
traffic flow in this area. Extending the elevated structure
as the objector proposes would significantly reduce the
amount of fill and construction traffic associated with the
long embankment proposed by the TRA. On/off ramps serving
the objector's direct links would be at much lower levels
and 2/3 storey parking could be accommodated under the
extended elevated structure.
4.27 The objector considers that direct connections
would overcome the problems of complex routing and
congestion associated with the TRA's proposed link. While
some traffic from the south east quadrant may use the
Polmadie interchange to access/egress the city centre, the
limited capacity of that junction makes it imperative that
adequate capacity is provided at Kingston. Traffic flows at
the Kingston junction will be among the highest in the UK.
The Outline Business Case for the TRA states that the
Kingston junction is the nucleus of the system. The bridge
has dual 5 lanes while the M8 from the airport has dual 3
lanes, leaving 2 spare lanes in each direction. Immediately
to the north of the bridge there are 3 exits and entrances
to the M8 in quick succession and the objector's scheme
makes use of the resultant spare capacity. This would
relieve the junctions on the northern flank of the M8 which
currently serve the SECC. Existing lane barriers on the M8
would be retained. The objector's proposal assumes a speed
limit of 50mph. The off ramp east bound uses the existing
dead end structures. The on ramp west bound would go over
the existing disused railway at West Street to connect with
the existing on ramp at Gloucester Street. The proposal
allows for the re-opening of Gloucester Street,
re-instating the surface street links from Cook Street to
the bridge and Gloucester Street/M8 west bound, while
retaining surface street connections to the M74C. In short,
the proposal is a modification of the scheme for which
planning permission was granted in 1995. The proposal may
require the purchase of additional land.
4.28 Reference is made to the government's key transport
assessment criteria of environment, safety, economy,
integration, and accessibility. The need for the strategic
link is urgent given increasing congestion, the economic
success of the east of Scotland when compared to the west,
and the increasing growth of air traffic at Edinburgh
Airport as compared with Glasgow. Competitiveness in the
conurbation will at best stand still without direct
government intervention, and existing business parks with
good communications to the east of the city are most likely
to benefit. Regeneration areas in the south east quadrant
including Rutherglen and Cambuslang will suffer from the
absence of a direct link. The Polmadie junction does not
provide direct access to the city centre and surface
streets would require to be used. The relief of traffic
congestion will not be as significant as the TRA claims and
the opportunity for better pedestrian, cyclist and public
transport routes may not materialise. It is accepted that
motorways have fewer accidents per vehicle mile.
Response from the TRA
4.29 In relation to Mr Baillie's objection, the TRA
adopts, so far as relevant, the evidence submitted on its
behalf in the non site specific first phase of the inquiry.
The M74C will be the completion of the main strategic road
transport link between west central Scotland and England
and will take 20,000 vehicles per day off the M8 northern
flank from Baillieston to south of Kingston Bridge. Its
primary purpose is as a strategic link between the M74 and
the M8/M77. While previous proposals did provide for direct
connections, subsequent reviews of these proposals resulted
in direct connections being abandoned because of the
strategic nature of the link, the desire to discourage
short distance commuting, and the likelihood of increased
congestion on the bridge itself. The deletion of 2
interchanges at Cathcart Road and Rutherglen Road also
followed from these considerations. The TRA proposal
results in a decrease in traffic over the bridge. Direct
connections to the Kingston Bridge would increase traffic
flow on both the M74 and M8, with the possibility of
additional running lanes being required. The on/off ramps
proposed by the TRA at Kingston are not intended as a
motorway to motorway link but to allow easy access/egress
to the motorway for essential traffic in the Kingston,
Tradeston, and Kinning Park areas. Direct connections would
encourage short distance commuting. It is not unusual for
there to be motorway junctions without direct connections
in either direction, examples being at junctions 8 and 13
of the M8.
4.30 The TRA has examined the objector's scheme against
current design standards, the conclusion being that it
would not be possible to achieve a satisfactory alignment,
due to gradient difficulties. Even were it possible to
achieve a satisfactory layout, the scheme would
nevertheless entail the demolition of the existing ramp
between West Street and the bridge, necessitating the need
for an interim on ramp, thus adding to costs. The scheme
would also require additional land and, with the TRA and
GCC content with the M74C proposal before the inquiry, it
is unlikely that such acquisition would be undertaken. The
M74C proposal before the inquiry does not preclude direct
connections at a future date, possibly by even higher
elevated on and off ramps. The objector's scheme would
result in the loss or relocation of a number of properties
in the Scotland Street area and a change of direction of
one way traffic at surface street level, with complex
junctions. Direct connections would also involve more
lanes, possibly 5 on the M74C between the bridge and
Cambuslang Road and 4 lanes east bound thereafter to allow
for merge and weave traffic manoeuvres. The TRA estimate of
the cost of the scheme, with the necessary adjustments
outlined above, is £18m and this does not include
additional land acquisition costs. If additional lanes were
needed on the M74C, the estimate would increase by a
further £95m. The objector's scheme would require to be
developed and tested with no guarantee of success. This
would take time and, on the available evidence, a fresh
compulsory purchase order and roads orders would, in all
probability, be required. The objector clearly indicated no
desire to delay the M74C, which has resulted from in depth
reviews of previous proposals, leading to a down sizing
aimed at meeting strategic objectives.
4.31 On environmental issues, the TRA proposal includes
high quality design of the elevated structure and
landscaped embankments to mitigate the impact on visually
sensitive receptors. The impact of an extended elevated
structure is difficult to mitigate and the potential for
landscaping beneath structures is severely limited. It was
nonetheless an option considered and ruled out for this
reason when the proposal was being designed. An extended
elevated structure would still have an adverse visual
impact. While to an extent the removal of some traffic from
the surface street network would be a benefit, the proposed
embankment offers a better overall mitigation. The ES
predicts that, during construction, increases in traffic
would not be significant, nor would there be much detriment
to local air quality.
4.32 In regard to traffic issues, the TRA submits that,
on completion of the M74C, traffic from North and South
Lanarkshire is likely to continue to use the M8 to access
the city centre and will benefit from the reduction of
20,000 vehicles per day on the northern flank. The
reduction in traffic on a number of key radial routes from
the south east quadrant will also benefit traffic from this
direction. Traffic analysis indicates reduced traffic flows
on the existing bridges over the river when the M74C is
operational. The M74C proposal does not introduce any new
one way roads at the Kingston junction and analysis shows
that the altered traffic flows can be readily accommodated.
The objector's scheme is criticised on grounds that it
involves the closure of the connection from Wallace Street
to the M8 west and also to the proposed M74 eastbound on
ramp, necessitating major re-routing of traffic. This in
turn could create major problems at a number of junctions.
The scheme also makes that section of Wallace Street
between Paterson Street and West Street two way, requiring
traffic lights at the West Street/Wallace Street junction,
where operational difficulties are envisaged. The need for
additional lanes on the M74C is again demonstrated and
there may be the need to re-design the Polmadie and
Cambuslang junctions because of increased demand on the
M74C. This may also require further land acquisition. The
suggestion that the Polmadie junction has limited capacity
is strongly refuted on the basis that the design is based
on traffic demand predicted for 2020. Similarly, the claim
that there is spare capacity on the Kingston Bridge is
unfounded, there being severe congestion in both directions
at peak periods. Direct connections would simply exacerbate
the situation. The traffic analysis undertaken on behalf of
the TRA clearly shows that traffic levels will reduce
significantly on local roads and that the M74C will result
in less accidents and enhanced road safety.
« Previous | Contents | Next »