Council leader asks for local views on year-round express bus from East Kilbride to Glasgow
East Kilbride currently has no express bus service to the city centre while other near-by towns such as Hamilton and Strathaven do.
There's a case for an all-year-round express bus from East Kilbride to Glasgow – says Lanarkshire Labour's Joe Fagan and he wants to know your views.
The East Kilbride councillor and Scottish Parliamentary candidate is asking the community to get in touch to let him know their views after mixed reports about the express service provided as a rail replacement service during electrification works.
Road works and rush hour traffic meant some passengers paid expensive fares for a slow service but outwith peak times other passengers reported speedy, comfortable services right into the city centre.
East Kilbride currently has no express bus service to the city centre while other near-by towns such as Hamilton and Strathaven do.
Fagan, council leader for South Lanarkshire, said: 'There is a compelling case for a more appropriately priced express bus service between East Kilbride and Glasgow City Centre, if an operator is prepared to take it up.
"The rail replacement service isn't perfect – it takes too long at rush hour and it is pricier than normal bus services – but outwith peak times it delivered people into the city centre quickly. Other nearby towns have express services into the city centre but East Kilbride, the largest town in the area, does not. There could be real demand for a more affordable express service.
'There are benefits to having an electrified rail line but the Scottish Government dropped the ball when they declined to double-track the whole line. What East Kilbride is getting out of the upgrade is an improvement – but not a transformation. We have already lost out on Crossrail and on double-tracking.
"The rail line will get better but it will still just be an end-to-end service. If we want more people taking public transport into the city, instead of the car, then we need to give them more options. Let's test the case for an express bus service."
He added: 'This isn't just about connecting East Kilbride to Glasgow but also making it easier for people to come here from Glasgow to enjoy our town's restaurants, bars, conservation village and, in time, a new town centre.
'I want to see bus services across the whole town improved, with London or Manchester-style regulation of the bus network, but I also want us to explore specific changes deliverable in a much shorter timeframe. An express service from the bus station to George Square or Ingram Street could be just what we need to supplement the newly upgraded rail line and move us closer to metro-level transport for the town.'
*Don't miss the latest headlines from around Lanarkshire. Sign up to our newsletters here.
And did you know Lanarkshire Live is on Facebook? Head on over and give us a like and share!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Too low, now too high': Rachel Reeves' winter fuel U-turn reignites fairness debate
As the government hikes the winter fuel payment threshold to £35,000, many Independent readers say the means test was too low last year – and is now far too high. The sudden shift has sparked frustration, confusion and claims of political opportunism. Many readers criticised the move as politically motivated, coming just days before a crucial spending review and following electoral losses and pressure from Reform UK. Several argued the new threshold is too high, with one pointing out that a £35k salary should not warrant government support, especially when many working-age families and the unemployed receive far less help. Others echoed the IFS and Resolution Foundation's concerns that the policy is poorly targeted and administratively messy, potentially creating unfair outcomes for households just above the income line. Some welcomed the return of payments for lower-income pensioners but questioned why the government scrapped them in the first place without a clear plan. Pensioners themselves weighed in too – some said they managed perfectly without the payments and felt younger families in poverty needed the support more. One commented: 'We are mortgage-free and have enough – give it to those who really need it.' The overall feeling from our community was that the government had acted too late and without transparency. The move was described as a 'headless chicken' reaction, lacking clarity on implementation, repayment, and future policy direction. Here's what you had to say: I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Not a U-turn, just a high threshold It's not a U-turn. They brought in the concept of means testing the WFA and now they've raised the limit. A U-turn would be going back to universal WFA. Personally, I think they've set it far too high. I know plenty of families that would love to be earning £35k and getting guaranteed pay rises every year, plus money towards their fuel bill. KrakenUK Means test still not right Means test was too low before and is too high now – and should be based on household income. We're both pensioners with a joint income of close to £50k, no dependent kids, no mortgage. Added to this, we've got the protection of the triple lock. There is no way we need this money, whereas many young families do. WokeUp 4,000 lives at risk The enduring problem is that the government's own estimate said that 4,000 people would die of the cold if this policy was introduced. The excess deaths figures will not be published for another year and, in any case, are now very complicated. The question for me is: would I ever vote for people who were prepared to allow 4,000 old people to die because they don't understand economics? MrBishi We manage, give it to those who need it I've always said the same. We are mortgage-free, I'm on a state pension and get a small private pension. My wife, who is younger, still works part-time and gets around £600 per month. We manage perfectly. We know a lot of younger people who work and struggle with rents, children to keep, etc. Give it to them. Some pensioners out there are just plain greedy and want every penny piece they can grab. Ian Why should wealthy pensioners get it? I barely earn £35K as a 45-year-old professional in the NHS and certainly won't get that kind of money for a pension. Why should so many get a £300 handout when they've more than likely paid their mortgage and don't have to spend money on children, etc., any more? OnlyFishLeft Social care funding was the original point I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Help paying the gas bill on £35k? Thirty-five grand coming in a year and you get help paying your gas bill? Truly outrageous. This suggests a person needs £35k a year, minimum, to live. So how about getting disabled people and the unemployed up to that rate then? Because they are far, far below. BigDogSmallBrain A compromise, but poorly communicated This sounds a more sensible compromise rather than going back to the old universal payment, but the government should have made this announcement last year so people would have been prepared for it, and it wouldn't have looked so much as if they were frightened of Farage. ruthmayjellings What if one earns over the limit? I suppose we will have to wait for the detail, but what happens if a couple claim the WFA (one per household) through the non-earning spouse, while the other has income over £35,000? That's not very clear. SteveHill Why not last year? Last year there was no money so they cut WFA and they can blame it on the Tories. This year the economy is in an even worse mess and they reinstate it, against all logic, and then they put the level far too high. No details as to how it will be paid for, how it will be recouped, nor how they will ID those who can get it and those who will have to pay it back. And if they suddenly found a system, why did they not use it last year? And I do not suppose the shellacking they got in May has anything at all to do with it, has it? Headless chickens, the lot of them — especially Reeves and Starmer. ListenVeryCarefully
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Sadiq Khan urges Rachel Reeves to give more cash to London in spending review
Sir Sadiq Khan has urged Rachel Reeves to give London more funding in this week's spending review, suggesting she is not willing to give the capital any money for transport projects. The London mayor has fought for support for several transport requests, as well as the power to introduce a tourist levy. He has also called for a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. But sources close to Sir Sadiq now say it would be 'unacceptable' if London is not given the required money to carry out the projects. In a rare attack on the Labour government, they warned the chancellor now to return to the 'anti-London agenda' pursued by Conservative governments. A City Hall source told The Independent: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.' The source said a 'return to the damaging anti-London approach of the last government would harm London's vital public services and jobs and growth across the country'. They added that the way to support the rest of the UK is not to level down London, adding that 'when London does well, the whole country does well'. Concerns in City Hall are centred on the fear London will not receive any of the £113 billion in infrastructure spending unlocked by the chancellor 's changes to her fiscal rules. The mayor's main priorities ahead of the spending review included the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) being extended to Thamesmead and the extension of the Bakerloo underground line. Ms Reeves has openly discussed prioritising spending outside of London and the south east in her spending review, altering the Treasury's investment rulebook to free up cash for the North and Midlands. The chancellor has already unveiled more than £15 billion of spending pledges for mayoral authorities in Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, along with a renewed tram network in South Yorkshire and a new mass transit systems in West Yorkshire. And she has said Britain 'cannot rely on a handful of places forging ahead of the rest of the country'. The investment drive comes after Ms Reeves promised to review the government's Green Book, which is used to judge the costs and benefits of projects, to 'provide objective, transparent advice on public investment across the country, including outside London and the south east'. The Treasury was asked to comment. The row between City Hall and Ms Reeves comes as every Whitehall department has signed off on the spending review plans bar the Home Office, which is locked in last-minute negotiations over its budget. While the chancellor is expected to announce above-inflation increases in the policing budget when she sets out her spending plans for the next three years on Wednesday, she is also set to push through a squeeze on other areas of the Home Office's budget. Downing Street has now become involved in the talks as they come down to the wire. Last week, Ms Reeves acknowledged she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, in a sign of the behind-the-scenes wrangling over her spending review. The Department of Health is set to be the biggest winner, with the NHS expected to receive a boost of up to £30 billion at the expense of other public services. Meanwhile, day-to-day funding for schools is expected to increase by £4.5 billion by 2028-9 compared with the 2025-6 core budget, which was published in the spring statement. Elsewhere, the Government has committed to spend 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3 per cent over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Winter fuel U-turn should have come a long time ago, Reeves told
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said on Monday that nine million pensioners will be in receipt of the payment this year after a cut was announced in the first weeks of the Labour Government last summer. The initial decision was met with heavy backlash and forced the Scottish Government to delay the implementation of its own devolved benefit. John Swinney's administration later announced a similar payment for pensioners which would be tapered and see those on the highest incomes receiving £100, compared to £305.10 for those on the least. Monday's announcement will result in cash being sent to the devolved administration at Holyrood, and Scottish Labour has urged the Government to increase its payments. But Scotland's Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said the decision was 'a betrayal' of pensioners. 'I welcome any extension of eligibility by the UK Government, but this is a U-turn the Chancellor should have made a long time ago,' she said. 'But there is still no detail about how the Chancellor intends to go about that. Unfortunately, it still sounds as if many pensioners will miss out.' Ms Somerville added that the Scottish Government had not been consulted on the decision and urged UK ministers to 'ensure the Scottish Government is fully appraised of the proposed changes as soon as possible'. 'The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week to urge the UK Government to share its plans with us as quickly as possible, so that we can understand any implications for our own programmes and, crucially, our budget,' she said. Scottish Labour MSP Paul O'Kane said: 'The winter fuel payment is a devolved payment in Scotland and Scottish Labour has long been clear that we want to see it reinstated for the majority of pensioners up here – but despite their loud spin, the SNP voted against our attempts to do so. 'The SNP must not go ahead with plans that would rob poorer pensioners in order to fund payments for millionaires. 'The SNP must re-examine their own proposals in light of this game-changing announcement, ensure payments reach those most in need, and give a cast-iron guarantee that no struggling Scottish pensioners will be left out of pocket under their plans.' The Scottish Government's plans were initially to provide a universal payment to pensioners, but the proposals were scuppered by the Chancellor's announcement of the cut last summer, forcing ministers to create a different system for this winter.
