Transport Scotland has not given fair weight to what removing the M8 through Glasgow could mean for the city, writes Herald columnist Marissa MacWhirter.

On Wednesday, I hopped along to the community hub at Dundasvale Court to find out what the transport authority envisions for the future of Glasgow.

But based on the three early options presented by Transport Scotland for the permanent fix of the decaying Woodside Viaducts, it would seem it doesn’t envision much of a future at all.

Before me, half a dozen pull-up banners explained in the briefest of terms the M8 Woodside Viaducts and the three potential approaches the transport authority was mulling over: Repair, Replace, and Remove.

The tone, framing, and structure of the presentation reveal Transport Scotland’s institutional preference for keeping the M8 in place, either through repairing it or replacing it with another ghastly and alienating set of viaducts.

The language sets up an assumption that the motorway has to stay put, and the idea of removing it is framed as a disruption. I was taken aback by the imbalance of tone between the first two approaches and the remove option.

In the brochure itself, repairing or replacing is accompanied by sunny renders of the imposing megastructure. Turn the page to see what removing the motorway section might look like, and all you get is a heat map warning about the traffic implications.

Commercial buildings near the Cheonggyecheon Stream in Seoul (Image: AFP via Getty Images)

Descriptions of repairing or replacing the motorway bridge are showered with positive language that makes you think of progress or improvement. Removing it is instantly blunted by repeated emphasis on disruption and congestion.

Transport Scotland’s M8 Woodside Project Manager, Hok-Weng Chau, is at the consultation, and I ask a few times how it was determined that removing the viaducts would cause “significantly increased traffic volumes and longer journey times” through........

© Herald Scotland