JAM 74

JAM74 event "AN AUDIENCE WITH ALASTAIR GRAY, LOUISE WELSH & JANEY GODLEY"

Saturday 15 October 2005 at 7.30pm at Woodside Halls, 36 Glenfarg Street (just off Maryhill Road), Glasgow

E_flyer (24k image)What are you doing on 15th October? Come to hear top Glasgow authors ALASDAIR GRAY, LOUISE WELSH & JANEY GODLEY - and help raise money to help JAM74 fight back against the daft plan to build yet another motorway through Glasgow.

This is the first of a series of fundraisers for the M74 legal challenge. The event will feature

readings from:

* acclaimed Glaswegian author ALASDAIR GRAY

* award-winning author LOUISE WELSH

* actress, comedienne & writer JANEY GODLEY

Also on sale will be a limited edition range of David Shrigley designed t-shirts

The event is in aid of the JAM74 legal campaign to halt the construction of a new motorway

through the Southside of Glasgow. JAM74 believe city planning should be promoting sustainable and

environmentally friendly design and travel, not just creating more roads to be filled by cars.

To help challenge the Scottish Executive in court, we need your help. Please come along and lend your support to the JAM74 campaign.

6 Comments

Isn't all this anti-road stuff a bit knee jerk?

What's wrong with having a new road? It is rubbish driving through glasgow, loads of congestion it takes ages. If we had a nice big motorway it would help speed things up which would be better for businesses as well as individuals.

I don't see any environmental concerns, I mean what else could we do we can't just say oh no I like fields and big roads don't look nice.

This isn't royston vasey you know.

There are lots of pros to "new road" I've yet to hear a decent argument against.

car fan on October 14, 2005 at 3:46 AM

Ha ha ha. Er, yeah, great argument.

Gus on October 14, 2005 at 2:15 PM

The strongest reason is ecological. You might not have noticed there's been a bit of commotion about global warming, or which 'domestic' traffic emissions are a major contributor. The second reason is democratic a multi-million £ Public Inquiry ruled against the road on social-impact grounds. That this was ignored is a farce.

Jamie on October 14, 2005 at 2:28 PM

"Ha ha ha. Er, yeah, great argument."

What you talking about? My argument is that this protesting is a bit knee jerk. Laugh it up, it's still knee jerk unrealistic idealism.

"JAM74 believe city planning should be promoting sustainable and

environmentally friendly design and travel, not just creating more roads to be filled by cars."

Oh of course, if you build a new road, more people will rush out to buy cars so they can use the new road...duh.. the traffic is there already.

This new road will speed things up, helping the economy of Scotland. It will also provide a lot of work, and stimulate the local economy. There's some good things right there.

If people want to protest the transport policy they should take it to Westminster, attack the disease, not the symptoms.

"The strongest reason is ecological."

Rubbish. The difference in emmisions between cars on this new road and all the cars sitting in traffic jams on the old road will be so miniscule compared with worldwide emmissions this argument becomes irrelevant.

This new road is a solution to a problem that already exists, in an ideal world it wouldn't happen but there you go.

This just stinks of hypocrisy to me, how many people will go to this event in their cars, how many of the writers or commentors here have cars? You want to make a difference? Get rid of your car, then protest to the government about national emmisions and the shit public transport, automatically saying "new road is bad" is weak and intellectually dishonest, reactionary and knee jerk.

You would deprive businesses and locals of badly needed work and better transport links just so you can feel self satisfied about "making a difference" as you drive your car down byres road to get some organic humous for 5 pounds a shot.

"The second reason is democratic a multi-million £ Public Inquiry ruled against the road on social-impact grounds. "

Got a link there?

car fan on October 17, 2005 at 5:12 AM

I don't think you've been following the roads debate Mr Car Fan.

Here's a link to some stuff about the public inquiry, tho I'm not sure what part of this your denying/querying:

"After a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) of over a year, in March 2005 the Scottish Executive announced its decision to go ahead with building the road – despite the results of the inquiry consistently saying this would be a bad thing. As it was conducted by one the Scottish Executive's most senior planners, Richard Hickman, it should be surprising that the Executive is so readily dismissing its results."

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=1814

http://www.transformscotland.org.uk/members/jam74/pli.html

Gus on October 17, 2005 at 4:56 PM

Your point on car use is also simpy wrong, as the Scottish Executive's report states in section (11.85):

"The new road itself is expected to increase vehicle trips in the Glasgow area by a further 1.5-2.5%, and vehicle kilometres (which form the basis for assessing progress towards the target) by about 5%. This major contribution to traffic growth, and the corresponding failure to contribute to traffic reduction, would also be at variance with the executive's policies for a sustainable approach to transport and planning (as set out in NPPG 17 : Transport and Planning), where the intention is to discourage the use of cars, and the use of trunk roads for short local journeys."

Do you kow the % of people in the coomunities affected who own cars?

Jamie on October 17, 2005 at 4:59 PM

Leave a comment