The court case against the construction of the 5 mile extension to the Glasgow M74 motorway has collapsed. After years of campaigning, this is the sad result. The motorway will now be constructed right through the south side of Glasgow, splitting communities apart and add further to congestion, greenhouse gases and pollition of a city already plighted by bad road planning. It's a defeat, ultimately, at the same time, the construction of the M74 was delayed thanks to the campaign, so for now, I don't have to cycle underneath 6 lanes of Motorway. But it will come, and this is not a reason to celebrate.
Interestingly, during the campaign, many people came to stalls to tell us we were treehugging nutters. I never quite understood this - obviously, the Motorway extension seems to be what those in favour labelled a "missing link". Yes, it is missing. But the initial plan, to build two motorways right through the city, west north, and now south, was wrong. You can't undo the first implementation (the M8, splitting city centre and west end, city centre and north Glasgow). But to continue with a mistake, just for the sake of symmetry, I just don't get. I also don't see any real benefits of putting in the 5 miles between Rutherglen and the Kingston Bridge, as you cannot access the motorway from the south (which actually would be useful to me). The only benefit is that of through traffic from England being able to continue on Motorways, and this may alleviate some traffic on Glasgow roads, especially heavy traffic. However, already it is possible to make these links with not much of a detour, so the benefit is tiny. On the downside, as the public enquiry into the plans brought out, the disadvantages outweight the benefits big time. More pollution, the upheaval of dormant chromium, having a motorway on stilts right at the doorstep of many Glasgow south and south eastern suburbs. I don't even dare to imagine the construction traffic, noise and disruption.

So why did the court case collapse? Well, the lawyers pointed out to the main underwriter of the appeal, Friends of the Earth, that on each point of the case, the Scottish Executive used discretionery decisions, which they have a right to. So although the decision to go ahead with the motorway went against a public enquiry, it seemed rightful and the court case was likely to get lost. If lost, Friends of the Earth would have had to pay not just their own legal fees, but also those of the Scottish Executive, which clearly weren't going to be low. What would have been worse though is that this case would have presented a precedence for any community campaign challenging the Scottish Executive and would have put a lid on similar initiatives and campaigns. That was the final straw. I would call it legal blackmail.

The only hope now is that the SCottish Executive think again. And stop being influenced by corporate agents. In another world...