A residents group in Milngavie, Glasgow has urged East Dunbartonshire Council to put an “immediate pause” to a proposed five-mile cycle lane estimated to cost £5 million, as it has the potential to threaten the “unique aesthetic of the area”, as well as its character, while also raising questions about whether the route is even required to be built in the first place for cyclists.
The cycle lane is planned to be built along the Auchenhowie Road, connecting the A81 in Milngavie to the A803 at Torrance. The road itself is surrounded by acres of woodlands, described as “more than just trees — it’s a finely balanced ecosystem of open grassland and water features”, in a video posted on Facebook by a residents group to raise concerns about the bike lane.
The residents also raised questions about the need for the bike lane, with concerns that no proper assessment of the current use or potential use by cyclists has been undertaken.
Finally, there were also claims that the council’s consultation regarding the bike path, held for a month earlier this year, was not comprehensive and thorough with local residents not being spoken to properly — a claim which the SNP-led East Dunbartonshire Council refutes in a statement shared with road.cc, along with also responding to claims of dealing with the environmental impact.
A Milngavie resident who spoke to Glasgow Live, said: “There are 150 homes along Auchenhowie Road. None of us were approached and neither were the Fairways Association, land management company or the company who own the ground. The consultation has been woeful.”
“We have surveyed thousands of people in the area and no one seems to know about it. It’s completely bonkers. This is going to cost at least £5 million and from our assessment that could easily triple that because they haven’t put any actual costings. We have experts who are familiar with these types of projects and they have raised serious concerns over it.
“Specialist reports into things like bio-diversity that are needed on projects like this haven’t been completed. This is a heritage area so there are parts of the forest that are protected as ancient woodland and they are talking about taking away hundreds of these trees.”
According to the council’s report about the consultation, posters were placed in areas including community centres, Torrance Co-op and Balmore Golf Club, as well as being posted on the council’s social media and website. Over the six drop-in sessions, 144 people attended and 306 were surveyed – 54% of these said they ‘strongly supported’ the plans.
In a letter to councillors, residents slammed the consultation as ‘inadequate’, stating that events had ‘minimal advertising’. The letter reads: “The project threatens the unique aesthetic of the area, particularly the historic tree-lined verges along Auchenhowie Road. The removal of mature trees poses a risk to local wildlife, including protected species such as newts, otters, and possible bats.
“This raises concerns about compliance with regulations and local planning policies aimed at protecting biodiversity and natural heritage.”
Residents said they were concerned the project could be used to ‘pave the way for future housing developments’ and put a strain on local services and the character of the area, pointing to similar projects nearby.
It continues: “Infrastructure developments must align with broader spatial planning to avoid negative impacts on community character and service provision. The proposed changes may worsen existing road safety issues. Junctions and access points are known accident hotspots, with a significant percentage of road traffic accidents occurring near them.
“We are pushing for an immediate pause to this project and call for a re-evaluation of the consultation process. We advocate for an extended public consultation period, a revised survey with better advertising, and a community meeting to ensure broader participation. The wider community’s voice must be considered before proceeding.”
However, locals on social media have shared optimistic opinions about the project. Simon Dick wrote: “There was plenty of consultation months ago — online and presentation stands in Milngavie town hall and Torrance… basically a cycle path along the road, seemed low impact and keeps bikes away from cars on a dodgy road.”
Katie Risk said: “The reality is the earth is burning and we need safer travel routes for bikes and walkers so our reliance on cars reduces. I think the issue here, which is fair, is that the above need for safer cycle walking routes is getting overshadowed by East Dunbartonshire Council’s inept project management… If we had a capable council I think more people would be on board with these ideas.”
Meanwhile, the council has also told road.cc about its public consultation period, held between 5 February and 3 March 2024. It said: “Various methods of communication were used to inform residents – including a press release, social media messaging and on-street advertising – to ensure as many people as possible had the opportunity to comment.”
Ann Davie, Chief Executive of East Dunbartonshire Council, said: “Four drop-in sessions were held across the communities on the route where 144 people attended to view the proposals and discuss further with the team.
“A dedicated webpage was created for the project which was viewed over 2,275 times. In total, 306 people provided a survey response with 66% of respondents supporting the overall aims of the project.
“Considering potential impacts on the wider environment and ecology plays a key role within the design development process and various surveys have helped to identify supporting actions the Council and its contractors will be required to follow to mitigate any potential adverse effects.
“The safety of all road users is paramount within the design development process of the project and a Road Safety Audit is delivered at each key stage of the process.
“With any works which take place on existing road infrastructure, disruption and potential delays are issues which are likely and require careful consideration and management. The Council will work closely with its appointed contractors to plan traffic management in such a way as to minimise disruption to the road network and local travel.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
45 thoughts on “Locals call for “immediate pause” to “completely bonkers” 5-mile cycle lane that will threaten the area’s “unique aesthetic and character”, while raising questions over “need for the bike route””
So the locals’ concerns are
So the locals’ concerns are about biodiversity, road safety and the cost of the proposed project? How about just close the road to motor vehicles then? Low cost, great for biodiversity, and would dramatically improve safety.
Ah yes, the historic natural
Ah yes, the historic natural landscape of an A road, and a fucking golf course.
Apparently they have
Apparently they have extremely rare tree dwelling newts and otters don’t forget!
What have these people done
What have these people done for the local wildlife prior to this? My guess would be nothing but run it over.
bikes wrote:
Well, there’s the aqueduc… er, no…
Sanitatio… hmm…
Roads – that’s it – what about the roads?
mdavidford wrote:
Don’t you go messing with our accident hotspots!
“unique aesthetic of the area
“unique aesthetic of the area” and “The cycle lane is planned to be built along the Auchenhowie Road…. “
Can someone tell me on what planet a cycle lane alongside a road will destroy anything, let alone the unique aesthetic.
Funny how the NIMBYS suddenly discover nature when a cycle route is planned, but they are as quiet as the grave when it’s a new road. They’re getting desperate, their objections are so shallow and quite obviously driven by hatred of cycling, not genuine concerns.
If the description of this
If the description of this path connecting the A81 to the A803, via Torrance is correct, then it’s going along the Auchenhowie road and then the Balmore road – before going up the Torrance road to the A803 Torrance roundabout.
The A807 Balmore road particularly *badly* needs some kind of protection for cyclists. I don’t know what it is about that stretch of road exactly, but it’s horrendous for close passing. Many of well-known bike-video youtuber “Magnatom”‘s ‘greatest hits’ are on that road.
Never ceases to amaze me how
Never ceases to amaze me how much these projects cost, who’s building it? Fat Tony?
It is amazing how many
It is amazing how many consultations people don’t know about until they find out about them.
Sounds like a lovely area –
Sounds like a lovely area – perhaps the road should be closed for environmental reasons, turning it into a footpath and cycleway. For environmental reasons, as they say.
We have experts who are
We have experts who are familiar with these types of projects and they have raised serious concerns over it
=We have paid people to say the scheme is a dreadful mistake, and will bring the terror-cycling menace ever closer to our cars. These are truly unpleasant NIMBYs who should be ignored, especially as they are likely to be Duncan-Smith-Johnson-Truss-the one with the comedy toff accent whose name I’ve forgotten-Tories
wtjs wrote:
Which experts did you ask? “Top people”. But who? “Top. People.”
Is it not Top. Men. ?
Is it not Top. Men. ?
wtjs wrote:
Dammit!
Isn’t the simple solution to
Isn’t the simple solution to this to make the speed limit on the road 20mph (or less). For any schemes where people object to active travel infrastructure, surely the other option would be to reduce the speed limits down to a point where it’s safer for active travel on the existing road. If anything this will benefit the local wildlife far more. Can’t see the locals going for it somehow though, but the backtracking that would happen would be joyous to watch.
The road itself is surrounded
So we can play (1) “Wait until they hear about motor traffic” and (2) “Build it and they will come”.
There is robust research
There is robust research evidence that shows that the most common reason that people in the UK cite for not cycling is fear of injury. Compare the UK to the Netherlands (which has good cycling infrastructure and a legal system that protects cyclists from dangerous drivers) if you want some indication of how many more people would cycle in the UK if it were safe to do so. In the Netherlands the norm is for children to cycle to schools because their parents know it is safe for them to do so; meanwhile in the UK we have an obesity epidemic that includes obese childhood. We also urgently need to reduce our use of fossil fuels to combat climate change. A short period of personal inconvenience is a small price to pay for the greater good; we need to all stop being selfish.
This is what appears in many
Generally agree. This is what appears in many surveys, it’s true. Here’s a good (extensive) summary of research on the subject (now a few years old).
However – although “built next to road” separate infra is not always what is required where it is it is necessary but not sufficient. I think the “not safe” summary overlooks several important motivating factors. (Some of which can be explored in e.g. Sustrans detailed “bike life” surveys in different places – although those also don’t look at all points).
Firstly as the link above notes this subjective safety: “Safety is a problem of danger while subjective safety is a problem of fear: the causes and solutions to the two problems are not necessarily exactly aligned”.
As David Hembrow notes safety can be split into 3 considerations – objective, subjective and “social safety”. The latter: does this activity feel safe from people who might mug me, groups of youths who might threaten or assault me, or sexual predators? Cars offer a certain feeling of “protection” e.g. people feel their cars are relatively secure (from e.g. being stolen) and once inside you can lock the doors. You have your private space there.
There are another couple of social aspects: first is cycling something “social” e.g. can you easily cycle with children or friends? Again this is not just lacking in the UK (because few people do) but deliberately restricted – although the Highway Code is now clearer on the point in general popular opinion and infra design mandates that cyclists travel single-file, not side-by-side like in every other form of transport.
Then being a “cyclist” in the UK is seen as an identity – and not a very positive one. Your are “othering” yourself. It generally doesn’t improve your social status, unlike having a motor vehicle – which is often expected.
(Another rabbit hole but private motor vehicles are now about far more than just their transport function – there is “adult status”, freedom, aspiring to have certain vehicles, being “resilient” e.g. can take other people / things places in emergencies etc.)
Finally – and I suspect maybe the most significant point – many people have access to a car. Cars are relatively good at a broad range of transport tasks. And they are absolutely a “normal” form of transport, with support from excellent infra that goes everywhere, parking etc. Once you have a car you have already paid some “fixed costs” (MOT, insurance). At that point the marginal costs of each journey are not massive despite “artificially expensive fuel” (the fuel duty escalator has remained pretty static for a long time…) e.g. often less than public transport. As Carlton Reid has noted unless we make other transport modes relatively attractive (for some journeys at least) relative to driving “where driving is easy, Brits drive”.
Local resident it wasn’t
Local resident it wasn’t communicated properly to us – read we had letter from council and binned it.
local resident we have surveyed thousands in the area who didn’t know anything – read we spoke to some of the neighbours who also binned their letters. But didn’t speak to those who attended the drop in meetings or the 2000 plus who viewed it in the council website!
local residents we are worried about the bio diversity in the area and the impact the cycle lane may have – Read f#*k quick we need an excuse to try and get it stopped also need to look at the heath and safety card to see if we use that one as well?
It is highly possible that a
It is highly possible that a letter was not sent to residents, unless their property actually fronts onto the scheme. Writing individually to residents for every consultation point across the council’s operations is hugely expensive and not necessarily very effective.
In a lot of contexts, the requirement for consultation is confined to what is likely to get the message out to those directly affected. To that end, the council should have a policy (or set of policies) on what consultation is required. That should be based on the relevant legislation for the subject matter.
In many cases, the consultation will be based on council web site pages (often encompassing consultation softeware to lodge comments), emails and sometimes postal letters to those who have registered to know what is going on for certain subjects (such as highways, planning, etc), maybe a local newspaper – although that is less relevant these days. It is also likely to be recorded in the minutes of the relevant local government committees, either for wards or areas affected and/or subject committes (Highways Committee; maybe the relevant scrutiny committee).
While risking a HHGTTG-esque response, the plans are available… and not quite as locked away as Arthur Dent found them to be. If people find themselves offended by a lack of contact from the council, perhaps they should take an interest in the first place by monitoring the routine democracy output of their local authority and registering for updates from those services by which they feel most affronted. It is usually there to be found; and if it isn’t, then we have a justifiable complaint that it was not publicised.
It’s Milngavie – an area
It’s Milngavie – an area famous or the snobbishness of its residents.
I’m sure that description doesn’t apply to all, but I think it’s fair for many, and no doubt those are the ones complaining the most. They’ll be the sort who look down on everything the council does, because they look down on people who work for the council. Their expectation of consultation is an invitation to a personal meeting delivered on a velvet cushion.
But regardless of whether or not the residents think they should have been more (obviously) directly invited to get involved with the consultation – the fact is the consultation existed and if they and their neighbours were that engaged with the community they’d have known about it.
Besides, their complaints are nonsense. They don’t want their view of the trees that they enjoy from the comfort of their car being blocked by cyclists. They don’t want the disruption – a reasonable thing to not want, but not a reason to scrap the project. And they don’t want money being spent on something that doesn’t directly benefit them.
What percentage of people
What percentage of people complaining here start all their activities with a car journey? Walking the dogs, exercising, shopping, socialising, commuting; everything begins with a car journey and therefore they see only the downsides of a cycle lane. But, who knows, once it’s in maybe some will start using it.
GMBasix wrote:
I had just such a conversation about a Long-Term Health matter with a gov’t official, who informed me that such things pertaining to me were routinely published on their web pages.
Righty-ho then. Every day I’ll check every Gov’t dept page for anything that might have some relevance to me.
Useless bastard, she was.
I’ve ridden many times down
I’ve ridden many times down Auchenhowie Road. Its most notable feature is the cavalcade of twats in fast cars travelling to and from the Rangers training ground.
Me thinks they have more to do with not wanting a cycle lane. God forbid an overpaid football player had to slow down in their Aston Martin
“….cavalcade of twats….”
“….cavalcade of twats….”
I’m stealing that.
If the other 305 respondents
If the other 305 respondents are as hysterical as Katie Risk I wouldn’t take too much notice of their input.
Given the requirement to give cyclists 1.5m when passing what is the point of a cycle lane. Are bicycles travelling so fast that they are being held up by cars? If bicycles are in the locus of the proposed cycle lane cars will have drive around them at 1.5 distance, how would a line on the road closer than 1.5m improve safety?
Harry Fettes wrote:
It may have escaped your notice, but a lot of drivers don’t pay attention to their surroundings and prefer instead to use their phones. Also, even if they do happen to notice cyclists in front of them, there’s a good chance that they’ll try to close-pass them because they either can’t judge distance or believe that cyclists shouldn’t be on the roads at all (probably readers of the Daily Heil or Torygraph).
It’s certainly my experience that more cyclists are held up by queuing drivers, than drivers are held up by cyclists, but the main reason for cycle lanes is to provide a safer environment to encourage people to cycle. Drivers should have learnt to give cyclists and vulnerable road users sufficient space, but it is shocking how unskilled a lot of the drivers actually are, so cycle lanes are needed as the police don’t seem interested in removing the worst drivers from our roads.
I’m hoping it’s not just a £5
I’m hoping it’s not just a £5 million line on a road. Wouldn’t that kind of money get some separation?
Is it still legal to put a crappy line on the road and call it a cycle lane? I was hoping some road design regulations might have been put in place to stop councils or whoever from doing this.
bikes wrote:
Unfortunately I think you can guess the answers. At best we have some guidelines…
Mention this often but I find it interesting and possibly significant – even in NL they do not have *any* mandatory design requirements AFAIK. Instead the way this works (as I understand it…) is there is a national scientific institute for road safety research (SWOV) and national recommended design manuals eg. the CROW cycling design guide. There are then legal regulations on councils and Highway Authorities around safety and the environment. They can do what they want… but if they mess up and they were *not* using the nationally recommended guidance they’ll have a lot of legal justification to do…
It isn’t a line on the road,
It isn’t a line on the road, it is a segregated cycle lane/path. The rationale isn’t that cyclists are being held up; they are being injured and killed. The main reason that more people do not cycle in the UK, is (justifiable) fear of injury. We have an obesity epidemic and a climate emergency. A few months of inconvenience is a small price to pay to build an infrastructure that takes more people out of cars on onto bikes.
I’ll be fascinated that hear
I’ll be fascinated that hear how a cycle lane e is going to “out strain on local services” ….
Looks like like a beautiful
Looks like like a beautiful peaceful area. Such a shame someone cut a whole bunch of trees down and ran a road through it!
I don’t remember anyone
I don’t remember anyone complaining about a football training ground spoiling the heritage area
I’m really concerned about
I’m really concerned about the Possible Bats. Are they relatives of the Probable Bears or the Mightbe Sharks?
Mess with the retired bank managers and accountants of Milngavie at your peril.
Sounds like it’s the Almost
Sounds like it’s the Almost Certainly Nimbys which are the real problem.
(Didn’t They Mightbe Sharks have some hits in the 90s? )
And the Could’ve Been King
And the Could’ve Been King with his Army of Meanwhiles and Never-Weres!
I think the Mightbe Sharks
I think the Mightbe Sharks are related to the conceptual sea creatures in ‘The Raw Shark Texts‘.
brooksby wrote:
I’ve never understood why Rorshach tests always use pictures of squirrels fighting
A bit disingenuous the
A bit disingenuous the comment that there are 150 homes along Auchenhowie Road, there isn’t. The vast majority sit up off the Road, so a cycle lane won’t trouble them.
I wonder those, above, complaining have ever tried cycling on it, not for the faint hearted.
Even when you have considerate drivers, you end up with morons overtaking them and the cyclist whilst driving on the wrong side straight at oncoming traffic..
But hey, speeding and erratic driving is preferred by these nimby clowns.
If your so concerned about
If your so concerned about the ecology why don t you buy cars that don t take up the whole road?
God forbid any rich people
God forbid any rich people should have to take 2-3 seconds longer for their commute while waiting to overtake a cyclist safely.
OldRidgeback wrote:
FTFY 😉
What the protesters mean is –
What the protesters mean is – we need the road space for our cars.
Can someone explain why this
Can someone explain why this is even being proposed (does it end at the big roundabout?) when the Bearsway is right there begging to connect to huge destinations like the asda?