Questions (Comments) & Answers 

We welcome comment on our scheme or questions relating to the Glasgow Subway in general. In an attempt to keep the debate on the Subway topical we will attempt to address all questions within 48 hours. To post a question or comment please use the form on our Contacts page. Questions or comments can be posted anonymously if required.

Comment  John Halliday, SPT 21/3/07– 

For example, use of the Clyde riverbed as a potential transport corridor (the details of which are similar in concept to that used in Sydney, Australia and other uses of immersed tube systems) is interesting although it suffers the same drawbacks as any system close to a waterway - that of single sided catchment.

Response. The advantage of our plan to place the new railway in the river rather than running alongside it overcomes that particular problem. Our route crosses between the north and south bank five times and where we have planned stations we also looked at the integration with other transport schemes and initiatives to promote the value of the location to as many residents and travellers as possible. For example, our new St. Enoch Station is close to the pedestrain suspension bridge joining Carlton Place and the Gorbals with the north bank of the river. Our planned Broomielaw Station (IFSD) is to be located next to the approved pedestrian bridge joining Tradeston to the north bank and similarly the station at Springfield Quay is next to the proposed pedestrain bridge joining Anderston with the south bank. Indeed we see the station at Glasgow Harbour being used by residents who may wish to shop in Govan and this will go some way to joining these two communities. 

Our most adventurous proposal however is at Yoker where we plan to replace the loss making Renfrew Ferry with a fixed pedestrian tunnel complete with travelators and lifts to not only join the two communities on either side of the river but also offer an important Park and Ride scheme for the west of the city.

Q. Sharpashley, Ayrshire 25/3/07– 

I understood that the rock on which Glasgow is built does not lend itself to boring tunnels, so I'm a bit concerned at the cost of the various Clyde crossings that you propose. As there are working shipyards in Govan, surely immersed tube tunnels on the river bed would interfere with the shipping movements?

A. Engineering – The main areas of tunnelling proposed are within the geological Clyde Basin. This is a mainly sand bed stretching either side of the river up until the land starts rising, e.g West George Street on the north side. Many buildings far from the edge of the immediate river still have flooding problems because of the thin silty soil (the old Lewis’ building - now Debenhams, was famous for having pumps in the basement). Similarly, when they built Westergate at the corner of Argyle and Hope Street they had a major problem getting the soil to stabilise so they could put down foundations. In fact when the Subway at Cessnock was hit by a bomb during WWII the repair problems were increased due to the soft sand coming into the tunnel that far away from the river. So the problem with tunnelling in or near the river is not that the ground is too hard, more like it is too soft – that’s one of the reasons for using a prefabricated tunnel section and placing it on the river bed. It is also a reason for bringing the new Subway above ground when the route moves away from that softer soil – as you rightly suggest it doesn’t make sense to bore through heavier rock in these locations. 

Shipbuilding - I have written to BAE at Govan and drawn attention to my proposal – asking for their advice on how much of the river is actually needed to launch a ship. In fact I went down to the launch of HMS Dauntless in January just to check and the ship was launched into the river well away from the north bank. However if that was still a problem then the tunnel at that point could go into the quayside. Another problem location is where the new Subway would pass the Queens Dock going towards Braehead. Again I have asked Clydeport to confirm how deep it would have to go to still allow ships to safely pass overhead into the dock. The advantage of a new train system in both cases would be that modern trains are able to negotiate relatively tight turns and, with a bit of forward planning, can dodge such obstacles.

Q. Sharpashley, Ayrshire 25/3/07– 

The other issue is that I don't think the big out-of-town shopping malls like Braehead etc would welcome a subway station on their doorstep. They all have extensive car parking and I can imagine they would be worried about commuters using them as big park-&-ride sites though I'm sure this could be overcome in time.

A.  Park and Ride - Your views on the parking at Braehead are probably correct. However there is both a stick and carrot plan for encouraging such integration. Firstly the pressure group “Commission for Integrated Transport” is calling for out of town car parks to be taxed (rates) unless their owners can demonstrate they are willing to contribute to more socially acceptable public transport schemes; secondly, the owners could levy a parking charge which is reimbursed against any purchase in the shopping centre therefore forcing long term (over four hours) Park and Ride commuters to contribute to the retailers - even if it is only for a bag of sweets.