by Andrew Galloway, local democracy reporter
The delay in delivering the Helensburgh to Dumbarton cycle path has been labelled ‘an embarrassment’ to Argyll and Bute Council by a long-serving member.
Ellen Morton was expressing her disappointment at no mention of the path in a draft service plan at last week’s meeting of the authority’s environment, development and infrastructure committee.
Sections of the path have been built between Helensburgh and Cardross, with the project due for completion in 2023.
But Councillor Morton slammed the continued delay and stated that when it first got the go-ahead, Sarah Boyack was the Scottish Parliamentary minister who gave it.
Ms Boyack ceased to be an MSP two years ago, defeated in the 2016 election by Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, and had not held a ministerial post at Holyrood since 2007.
Cllr Morton said: “I am disappointed there is no reference to the path, which is an embarrassment to this council.
“The money for it was allocated by Sarah Boyack. We have now reached 18 years and still have not delivered the project.
“It is becoming more and more difficult for Cllr David Kinniburgh, Cllr Richard Trail and myself to attend Cardross Community Council as we are being slaughtered at every meeting over this.
“We need to get this project focused on. We need to get the senior management team to get fully engaged as opposed to leaving it to junior members of staff who don’t have the clout to drive it forward.”
Pippa Milne, executive director of development and infrastructure, said: “That project is reported on separately and regular updates are given to the area committee.
“It is worth highlighting that the project requires us to acquire land from a number of owners. Having now spent the money awarded by Sarah Boyack, we are now relying on alternative funding for the project.
“It has been protracted to get the route completed but officers are working together to get that addressed.”
Committee chairman Roddy McCuish proposed that a more detailed report was given to the next Helensburgh and Lomond area committee meeting on Thursday, December 20.
He added: “It would help to know if we are going to do this.”
Ms Milne responded that a detailed report was planned for the area committee meeting.
Before we spend more money on cycle tracks I’d like to see a survey of usage of the existing cycle tracks around Helensburgh. In particular identifying those using cycle tracks and those who continue to use the normal roads. I’d also like to see details of the the costs of maintaining Helensburghs cycle tracks.
Why is a survey required? They are there and should be maintained regardless there is enough money spent on meaningless projects surveys throughout A&B and anything that gets people out exercising should not have ti be justified. Obviously Malcolm does not use these paths because if he did he would realise that some parts are not suitable for some bikes. It’s about time these were looked at and money invested in them rather than for example an old bus shelter. I’m sure more people will benefit from the paths.
Don’t argue with the MAMILs Malcolm, in fact it looks like you’re not even allowed to ask a question. Just keep paying for the cycle paths, without wondering whether anyone uses them
Mr Walker seems to think that it is acceptable for the council to spend money on anything they wish without having to justify it. Does that apply to all council spending or only to cycle related projects?
He has chosen to attack me when all I have done is asked a sensible question. I have no objection to cycle tracks and applaud the growth in cycling over the last few years and the health benefits that brings. My issue is with the selfish cyclists who still choose to use the road when a cycle track is available. Alright the track may not be perfect in places but neither is the roadway but I have to make the best of it. The maintenance argument applies to both, why should the cyclist have the right to 100% perfection.
With the current focus on austerity measures I would have thought it was only common sense that the council should need to provide proper justification for all projects. If only 1 in 10 cyclists use cycle tracks then one could conclude that 90% of cyclists don’t want them. All I’m asking is what is what proportion, 90%, 50% or 10%. Surely anyone with a grain of common sense can’t object to that.
.With regards to your comments Mr Brown at what point did I state it is acceptable for the council to spend money on anything?
Secondly I wouldn’t say quote “Obviously Malcolm does not use these paths because if he did he would realise that some parts are not suitable for some bikes” is this really an attack or maybe a question?
Thirdly, just because a cyclist chooses to use the road which he/she is fully entitled to under the Highway Code should they be branded as selfish? Or rather the motorist who continually park on the cycle lane in Sinclair Street.
Again I would like to point out that many areas along the base cycle path is unsuitable for the majority of road/racer bikes with large pot holes at many stages. Would Mr Brown rather cyclist be confined to these tracks and with their present condition could cause very serious accidents and injuries. This would then result in treatment at local surgeries and A&E and so therefore a further drain on the NHS.
Surly anyone with a grain of common sense like Mr Brown likes to say can’t object to that!
Thank you Mr Walker for clarifying your views. There is clearly no point in continuing this discussion.
Likewise