Greens call for new economic principles for Glasgow
Posted on November 27, 2009
Despite the unprecedented challenges of recession, climate change and peak oil, Glasgow City Council has been pursuing a narrow consumerist vision of Glasgow’s future.
Along with Glasgow’s Green Councillors, I’m calling for a radical new approach to the economic development of the city. The ‘old ways’ have been demonstrated to have failed and we need to look instead to the “Prosperity without growth” model proposed by the Government thinktank, the Sustainable Development Commission. The Green New Deal is also proposed as the foundation for the emergence of a resilient low carbon economy for the city. This year we’ve published our alternative view in response to the Labour administration’s annual State of the City Economy statement.
Bailie Dr Nina Baker, editor of the Greens booklet on their economic views for the city, said “The old ways of doing things have repeatedly exposed the fragility of the city. We focus too much on one sector and on attracting big outside companies. If that sector has problems or those companies lose money, Glasgow cannot control the effects those problems have on the city. We believe a more varied approach, with more nurturing of SMEs and local enterprises would be far more resilient”.
MSP Patrick Harvie said” Around the world Greens are making the case for a different kind of economy. It’s an approach that’s urgently needed, not just to safeguard our environment, but to ensure better quality of life for everyone we share it with.”
Keep Buses out of the basement, and Save The City Steps!
Posted on November 17, 2009
What’s Happening?
In October 2008, Glasgow City Council granted outline planning permission for the owners of Buchanan Galleries to demolish their existing multi-storey car park and rebuild it across the road, on top of Glasgow’s main bus hub, Buchanan Street Bus Station. A bridge would cross Killermont Street to connect the new multi-storey carpark with the Galleries.
Buchanan Galleries plans to build a huge extension to the shopping centre where the car park is at present, as well as constructing an additional building in the space between the existing centre and Dundas House on Buchanan Street. This would increase the total retail space by up to 66% or 65,000 square metres and create an overall increase of 250 parking spaces. They would demolish the Royal Concert Hall steps and constructing a new “landmark” (!) entrance to the shopping centre.
Back before the global credit crunch, before the collapse of UK interest rates and house prices, before the banks were bailed out by indebting the taxpayer to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds, before unemployment surged and before the UK economy entered a recession, some people might still have thought it was a good idea to further increase Glasgow’s dependence on attracting shoppers for economic growth.
However, the recent global economic catastrophe has clearly demonstrated that the cycle of boom and bust is far from over and that endless consumerism based on credit and debt is simply not sustainable.
It may be hard to believe, but despite this wake-up call, the ruling Labour councillors have every intention of ploughing on with this absurd development.
The popular, social public space of the Royal Concert Hall steps would be replaced by yet another private, commercial space.
Construction on top of Glasgow’s central bus station could result in its closure for up to two years, causing traffic chaos in an already jammed city centre. When construction is complete, Buchanan St Bus Station will be enclosed in a basement, no matter how well-designed – or not – the lighting and ventilation systems are.
Transport Scotland and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport have both objected to the plan to build on the Bus Station, as it will make it less attractive to use, make access and integration with other modes of transport more difficult and potentially create safety hazards. Glasgow’s three biggest bus operators, First, Arriva and Stagecoach have all expressed serious concerns about the potential for congestion chaos during construction, disruption to services and the long-term unsuitability of the new facility which would limit capacity for expected growth in bus travel. In an editorial entitled Chaos on the Buses The Herald newspaper says of the planned ‘integrated transport hub’,
“many believe the end result will be an inferior facility unlikely to attract extra passengers. The dubious objective of all this disruption is to double the size of the Buchanan Galleries, transforming it into one of the largest shopping complexes in Britain at the very moment when the nation’s shopping habits may be changing.”
As a Glasgow MSP, I couldn’t agree more with all these concerns. Fundamentally, Glasgow City Council should be making it more easier and more appealing to make greener choices, not harder. When is it going to stop putting cars first and give priority to climate-friendly bus and rail users, cyclists and pedestrians?
What can we do?
Although these proposals have been given outline planning approval, the Council has not gone out of its way to publicise the plans. Just two members of the public objected to the outline planning application – I’m quite sure a billboard advertising the plans in Buchanan St Bus Station might have generated a few more responses.
I want every single Glaswegian to become aware of what is intended for Buchanan Street Bus Station and the Royal Concert Hall. Detailed planning applications for each separate element of the plans are still to be submitted. There remains no definite timescale for this but it must be within three years of their receiving outline planning permission. In this case the devil isn’t in the detail, it’s in the very principle of what is being planned. But the next stage of the planning process will still provide an opportunity for people to make their voices heard.
Over the coming months, I’ll be doing everything I can to secure the future improvement of Buchanan St Bus Station as an open-air, welcoming public transport hub and of the City’s steps as a public space to meet, eat and people-watch in the heart of the town centre.
NEWS RELEASE – YouGov poll shows 57% oppose extra Forth Road Bridge
Posted on November 9, 2009
Results from a YouGov poll released today (1) indicate that just 34% of Scots support SNP plans for a new road bridge over the Forth, while 57% believe the existing Forth Road Bridge should be repaired. (2) According to the Scottish Government, the new bridge is currently expected to cost up to £2,300m. The Forth Estuary Transport Authority estimate that repairing the existing bridge would cost just £122m – even this much lower cost would only be required if the current dehumidification scheme does not work. (3) Later this month the Scottish Government is expected to publish legislation which would authorise the new bridge if approved.
The poll was carried out at the same time as the Holyrood voting intention figures released on 1 November. (4) The detailed figures show that supporters of all of Scotland’s political parties were opposed to the plans for a new road bridge for the Forth, with both Conservative and Labour voters particularly strongly opposed. (5)
Patrick Harvie MSP said:
“As so often, common sense prevails outside Holyrood, and the massive scare campaign Ministers have run against the existing Forth Road Bridge has clearly failed. Like everyone else, Greens believe we do need a road crossing over the Forth, and fortunately there already is one. There’s still time for Scottish Ministers to listen to public opinion and fix the existing bridge for a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the disruption.
“John Swinney tells us that the Scottish public finances have never been under such pressure. Despite these pressures, he’s preparing to squander billions on a project Scotland simply doesn’t need. If this deeply unpopular bridge is eventually built, the damage to the public finances will be matched only by the damage to the SNP’s reputation, and if they defy the evidence they will jeopardise their own political future.
“Every party’s supporters in this poll preferred repair, not replacement, especially Tory and Labour voters. The pressure is now on the other parties to vote down this legislation when it comes forward.”
Lawrence Marshall, chair of the ForthRight Alliance and a former chair of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, said:
“There’s talk of billions having to be cut from front-line Scottish public services in the coming years, and regionally important infrastructure schemes such as the rail link to Glasgow Airport have been dropped by the Scottish Government due to being ‘unaffordable’. It’s therefore no surprise that the general public does not share the Government’s view that spending a minimum of £2,300 million on an additional road bridge at Queensferry should be the nation’s top priority project for this generation.
“They recognise that the existing bridge can be and is being repaired – at a fraction of the capital cost of a new crossing.
“If Scottish Ministers do not recognise these financial and engineering realities then it’s time for other MSPs to acknowledge the unpopularity of their previous vote to build another bridge and to reverse their decision – taken, if truth be told, in a bit of a panic.
“That way they will also save themselves the task of having to explain to local authorities, health boards and constituents throughout the land why schemes long hoped for in their area are having to be sacrificed to pay for something that’s not needed, is not wanted and will only serve to undermine Scottish Government progress towards meeting commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, tackle road congestion and encourage the use of public transport.”
Duncan McLaren, Chief Executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said:
“The time is coming for Parliament to choose between an unpopular and unnecessary bridge and progress on delivering the ambitious climate change targets MSPs passed less than six months ago. Even the Scottish Government have finally admitted that their plans are for an additional bridge, not a replacement. More road capacity would mean more traffic, more congestion, more pollution and more accidents, just as it always does.
“If Scotland is to both meet its climate targets and support a sustainable economy, Ministers should be investing in better public transport, and helping people make the shift from the car to the bus, the train and the bike, not blowing billions on a bridge. If the present bridge really were irreparable, it would have been irresponsible of Government to have ignored that: but given that the bridge is reparable at a much lower cost and impact, it is both fiscally and environmentally irresponsible to pursue a replacement.”
Notes
1. The poll was commissioned jointly by the Scottish Green Party, the ForthRight Alliance and Friends of the Earth Scotland.
2. YouGov polled 1114 Scottish adults between the 26th and the 28th of October 2009. The question asked was as follows:
As you may know, the Forth Road Bridge is deteriorating, and action will need to be taken to ensure a continued road link across the eastern Firth of Forth. The Scottish Government has proposed building a new bridge at an estimated cost of up to £2,300m which it will pay for using public Scottish funds, but borrow initially from the UK government in order to help spread the cost.
According to a report by the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, the existing Forth Road Bridge could be repaired, rather than replaced, for an estimated cost of up to £122m.
Those in favour of REPLACING the bridge argue that it needs to be widened, to reduce congestion, and that a new windshield should be built to protect travellers. Those in favour of REPAIRING the bridge argue that replacing the bridge altogether would put an unnecessary burden on public funds.
Which ONE of the following statements comes closer to your view?
The Scottish Government should REPAIR the existing bridge: 57%
The Scottish Government should REPLACE the existing bridge: 34%
Don’t know: 10%
3. See: http://www.feta.gov.uk/
4. YouGov surveyed 1114 Scottish adults from 26 October to 28 October 2009.
5. Using the constituency vote from the same poll, the other parties’ supporters views are as follows:
Conservative » Repair: 64%, Replace: 30%, Don’t Know: 6%
Labour » Repair: 59%, Replace: 32%, Don’t Know: 9%
Lib Dem » Repair: 56%, Replace: 37%, Don’t Know: 7%
SNP » Repair: 51%, Replace: 41%, Don’t Know: 9%
Recent updates
Latest tweets