Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This study identified unevenly distributed benefits and harms resulting from the M74 extension, and some of its projected overall benefits (in cycling, walking and road safety) were not observed.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

David Ogilvie, Louise Foley, Amy Nimegeer, Jonathan R Olsen, Richard Mitchell, Hilary Thomson, Fiona Crawford, Richard Prins, Shona Hilton, Andy Jones, David Humphreys, Shannon Sahlqvist & Nanette Mutrie.

David Ogilvie 1,*, Louise Foley 1, Amy Nimegeer 2, Jonathan R Olsen 3, Richard Mitchell 3, Hilary Thomson 2, Fiona Crawford 4,5, Richard Prins 1, Shona Hilton 2, Andy Jones 6, David Humphreys 7, Shannon Sahlqvist 8, Nanette Mutrie 9

1 Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit and Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
2 Medical Research Council/Chief Scientist Office (MRC/CSO) Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
3 Centre for Research on Environment, Society and Health, Institute of Health and Well-being, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
4 NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK
5 Glasgow Centre for Population Health, Glasgow, UK
6 Norwich Medical School and Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
7 Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
8 School of Exercise and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
9 Physical Activity for Health Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.


Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions