WHILST it is encouraging that you are hosting considerable coverage of transport matters, particularly in relation to the new South Glasgow University Hospital, it is disappointing to see that some commentary is based on historic or misleading information.
Archie Burleigh (Letters, February 17) provides a case in point. As part of a rail lobby group which supports Crossrail and has undertaken more than 60 presentations it is clear from the responses received (wholly positive) that Crossrail is only "extremely limited" to those who refuse to recognise the wider possibilities which the scheme offers, particularly in terms of true cross-country rail travel. Consequently, our group does not refer to "Glasgow" Crossrail but rather Scotland's Crossrail, reflecting the significant enhancements which this relatively simple addition to the overall rail network offers.
Opponents of Crossrail, who we find mostly reside within the Scottish Government, have been dealing with out of date and frankly disconcerting misinformation. Most notably we had to go to the Office of Rail Regulation to establish that the then Transport Minister Keith Brown's belief that the line had structural problems was basically untrue.
The fact is that since Transport Scotland last considered Crossrail in any serious light, railway patronage has increased by almost 40 per cent and the case for another central Glasgow station on the Crossrail line has been reinforced. Indeed, it is a particular concern that, last year, of the 25 biggest stations in the UK by passenger patronage only two recorded a fall in passenger numbers - Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street. That could be a statistical blip (two stations in one city?) or it could just point out what some consider an emerging problem.
That lack of reliable information continues with the reactions to resolving the connectivity problems identified at the new Glasgow hospital. As with Crossrail, solutions now being promoted are being considered in a vacuum with very little thought being given to either the place of the hospital from a locational perspective or indeed its true national (if not international) importance as a centre of excellence in healthcare.
For example, from a map, it may appear that Cardonald Station is best placed to provide a link between the hospital and the rail network. However, in our plan for the rail link to Glasgow Airport we include for the upgrade of Hillington East Station to be fully compliant for disability access and be the "hospital" station. The choice of Hillington East is made on the basis that it is technically closer, less prone to traffic disruption and can justify a circular shuttle connection which not only connects with the hospital but also with Braehead Shopping Centre. Add in a provision that patients with proof of appointments should travel free on the railway and that the 10,000 hospital staff will welcome an easy connection to Braehead and there is justification for taking a wider view on our transport network and how it should not be limited to single-issue solutions.
William Forbes,
RailQwest, 23 Greenlees Park, Cambuslang.
I NOTE with interest Archie Burleigh's letter regarding the interim proposal for Cardonald Station being the new South Glasgow Hospital (SGH) hub with shuttle buses. This has already been taken care of courtesy of McGill's.
McGill's number 17 service will run between the Cardonald station and the SGH every 12 minutes, 6am to 11.30pm, seven days a week from May 11.
Ralph Roberts,
Managing Director, McGill's Bus Service Ltd,
99 Earnhill Road, Larkfield Industrial Estate, Greenock.
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.Â
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.Â
That is invaluable.Â
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