Is it time to remove the old A40(M) Westway?

[WHBM]

Roll on DfT taking back the Red Routes.

I’ve been advocating this for years. The reasons are many, but for a start, TfL is fundamentally a public transport body and that is plainly not the right fit for the maintenance of London’s major roads.

Not only that, they are a COMMERCIAL body looking to fares income for much of their money. Not for nothing are London fares the highest (sometimes way the highest) of any major metropolitan transport agency round the world.

Now to give such an organisation access to being able to stuff up a principal competitor must seem like manna from heaven to them. Notably in the recent revisions to funding, the very first thing they offered to the DfT was to hike the congestion charge and ULZ charge substantially. Nothing done to Underground/bus fares.

One of the principal justifications for DfT taking it back is that much of the usage of the network is by individuals and organisations based outside London. You only have to look at the names on the commercial vehicles to see this. They have no political say in the Mayor/TfL structure, who can screw them around as much as they like with little political comeback.

We still haven't seen the Long Arm of the Law pick up the highest paid public servants in the country a few years ago (and they were), the top TfL management of Crossrail, for the gross lies in presenting the completion status of the project, until a few months before opening there was a sudden "Emperor Has No Clothes" moment. Any commercial business project doing this for a customer and collecting payments would have been in court pronto. A lot of this was of course authorising DfT funding being passed to TfL as completion targets were reported.

[ChrisH]

Just like the cycleway Tower to Hyde Park has cost £1bn. Looking at the works result I wonder, professionally, how they managed to sink that much.

Roll on DfT taking back the Red Routes.

To be clear the cycleway from Tower Hill to Paddington cost circa £50m. The £1bn was for a 10 year programme of investment across London.

And yes the DfT should take back the red routes.

[ChrisH]

The weekly email to road users from TfL yesterday said that the 30mph speed limit has been put in place to prevent further degradation of the Westway structure ahead of major works in 2021.

There really isn't enough money to fix these major structures like Westway, Brent Cross flyover, Rotherhithe tunnel etc. I don't know what the answer looks like.

[Bryn666]

Move the capital to St David's. Then there is no infrastructure to have to maintain.

[KeithW]

The weekly email to road users from TfL yesterday said that the 30mph speed limit has been put in place to prevent further degradation of the Westway structure ahead of major works in 2021.

There really isn't enough money to fix these major structures like Westway, Brent Cross flyover, Rotherhithe tunnel etc. I don't know what the answer looks like.

A wrecking ball !

[jervi]

I would not support making roads in London into a trunk road. Roads within the M25 shouldn't really be having any significant impact to the national trunk network and I don't see why Highways England's budget should be spent in London when it will only ever benefit those (journeys) in London. However I would very much support TFL to be split into two departments as other have suggested, one to maintain London's primary routes, and the other to maintain and operate the cites public transport, that way roads can have a budget to maintain and invest.

[Chris5156]

I would not support making roads in London into a trunk road. Roads within the M25 shouldn't really be having any significant impact to the national trunk network and I don't see why Highways England's budget should be spent in London when it will only ever benefit those (journeys) in London.

Greater London has a population of almost 9 million, which makes it bigger in terms of population - as a region of the UK - than any of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It simply makes no sense to me that those 9 million people should not be served by the trunk road network.

At present, the service and benefit provided to the rest of the UK by having a national trunk road network is denied to London, where the M25 forms a boundary around the outside and within that all roads must be funded solely by money raised within London, even though - as WHBM rightly points out - a large share of the journeys made on London’s main roads are to or from points outside London, especially those made for commercial purposes.

I accept that journeys within London are better made by public transport or bicycle, given the population density, and that’s fine. But roads like the A40 and A406 within Greater London would unambiguously be a better fit with Highways England’s portfolio even if others like the cross-city routes and Inner Ring Road stay with TfL or the boroughs.

[WHBM]

Just think what it would be like if a comparable approach was taken with railways. No trains to be managed nationally when they are running into London. So coming from Birmingham, Manchester etc the tracks beyond Watford would be paid for and run by TfL, out of their London-generated budget. Where would the priorities be then? And charge everyone coming south of Watford a £15 "congestion charge" each, because ... well, this is the most congested part of the railway.

If there are four tracks, cut down to two, and convert the other two to cycleways.

[jervi]

Just think what it would be like if a comparable approach was taken with railways. No trains to be managed nationally when they are running into London. So coming from Birmingham, Manchester etc the tracks beyond Watford would be paid for and run by TfL, out of their London-generated budget. Where would the priorities be then? And charge everyone coming south of Watford a £15 "congestion charge" each, because ... well, this is the most congested part of the railway.

If there are four tracks, cut down to two, and convert the other two to cycleways.

The difference is, that there is no M25 of the railway world.
Railway stations & lines IN London are critical to the national infrastructure, and even if there was a railway bypass, it would likely still be quicker to go through London (on some lines) so would still be critical to national infrastructure.
So the M1, M2, M23 & M4 all met in the centre of London, they would all be maintained by national highways body (HE), but if it isn't a suitable through route for strategic traffic, why be maintained by the budget that is for strategic traffic?

[ManomayLR]

As I have said God knows how many times, I think the Westway viaduct should be refreshed and connected to an extended viaduct going out towards Greenford, then touching back down onto an upgraded A40 and meeting the current M40. Then the M40 will be extended towards Paddington. (the A3220 will become M41 again, or maybe M400.) The M25, N Circular and M41 would be an M10/M45 of sorts, getting traffic off the urban motorway before it hits local roads in Paddington.

[KeithW]

I would not support making roads in London into a trunk road. Roads within the M25 shouldn't really be having any significant impact to the national trunk network and I don't see why Highways England's budget should be spent in London when it will only ever benefit those (journeys) in London. However I would very much support TFL to be split into two departments as other have suggested, one to maintain London's primary routes, and the other to maintain and operate the cites public transport, that way roads can have a budget to maintain and invest.

Some roads in London are trunk roads because they are radial routes built before the M25 and for the most part go no farther in than the North Circular. Pretty much everything else is down to the local authority and that includes the wesway. See map at
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1-2020.pdf

[KeithW]

As I have said God knows how many times, I think the Westway viaduct should be refreshed and connected to an extended viaduct going out towards Greenford, then touching back down onto an upgraded A40 and meeting the current M40. Then the M40 will be extended towards Paddington. (the A3220 will become M41 again, or maybe M400.) The M25, N Circular and M41 would be an M10/M45 of sorts, getting traffic off the urban motorway before it hits local roads in Paddington.

Yes we know but I as a taxpayer in the North East of England do not want to pay for it any more than taxpayers in London want to pay for the upkeep of Marton Road. If you can persuade Sadiq Khan then go for it.

[doebag]

As I have said God knows how many times, I think the Westway viaduct should be refreshed and connected to an extended viaduct going out towards Greenford, then touching back down onto an upgraded A40 and meeting the current M40. Then the M40 will be extended towards Paddington. (the A3220 will become M41 again, or maybe M400.) The M25, N Circular and M41 would be an M10/M45 of sorts, getting traffic off the urban motorway before it hits local roads in Paddington.

Yes, and the answer is normally, where is the money coming from and where is all that traffic going to go.

[KeithW]

I would not support making roads in London into a trunk road. Roads within the M25 shouldn't really be having any significant impact to the national trunk network and I don't see why Highways England's budget should be spent in London when it will only ever benefit those (journeys) in London.

Greater London has a population of almost 9 million, which makes it bigger in terms of population - as a region of the UK - than any of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It simply makes no sense to me that those 9 million people should not be served by the trunk road network.

At present, the service and benefit provided to the rest of the UK by having a national trunk road network is denied to London, where the M25 forms a boundary around the outside and within that all roads must be funded solely by money raised within London, even though - as WHBM rightly points out - a large share of the journeys made on London’s main roads are to or from points outside London, especially those made for commercial purposes.

I accept that journeys within London are better made by public transport or bicycle, given the population density, and that’s fine. But roads like the A40 and A406 within Greater London would unambiguously be a better fit with Highways England’s portfolio even if others like the cross-city routes and Inner Ring Road stay with TfL or the boroughs.

TfL requested and got control of the roads inside the M25 , the exceptions are the radial motorways and roads that reach into the centre. Persuading people in Consett, Polperro and Wigan that they should be contributing to the upkeep of the Westway and North Circular would be a hard sell.

[Chris5156]

Persuading people in Consett, Polperro and Wigan that they should be contributing to the upkeep of the Westway and North Circular would be a hard sell.

Hmmm

Do you want to explain to me, a resident of a London Borough, why I should contribute to the upkeep of the A1 in County Durham, the A30 in Cornwall or the M6 in Lancashire? Please consider, when you form your answer, that as a resident of a London Borough who owns a car and therefore pays VED, I am paying in to a fund that is ringfenced for Highways England and which directly pays for exactly those roads, none of which is spent in my own part of the country because there are no trunk roads there. That is patently unfair. At least if residents of Polperro were helping pay for the North Circular they’d also still be paying for work on trunk roads in their own county too.

If you designate a road a trunk road, you are by definition acknowledging that it is of national importance and is of sufficient value to the nation as a whole that it should be maintained out of central funds. If you didn’t, local authorities would be maintaining the national motorway network.

[Patrick Harper]

Highways England should probably service the North Circular and the major arterials heading out from it that currently stop (as trunk) near the M25: A40 and A13. I don't think anything else is really justified though, not even the A12 since that is bypassed by the M25 and M11.

[trickstat]

Persuading people in Consett, Polperro and Wigan that they should be contributing to the upkeep of the Westway and North Circular would be a hard sell.

Hmmm

Do you want to explain to me, a resident of a London Borough, why I should contribute to the upkeep of the A1 in County Durham, the A30 in Cornwall or the M6 in Lancashire? Please consider, when you form your answer, that as a resident of a London Borough who owns a car and therefore pays VED, I am paying in to a fund that is ringfenced for Highways England and which directly pays for exactly those roads, none of which is spent in my own part of the country because there are no trunk roads there. That is patently unfair. At least if residents of Polperro were helping pay for the North Circular they’d also still be paying for work on trunk roads in their own county too.

If you designate a road a trunk road, you are by definition acknowledging that it is of national importance and is of sufficient value to the nation as a whole that it should be maintained out of central funds. If you didn’t, local authorities would be maintaining the national motorway network.

Trunk roads do not exist to get from one side of a city of a town to another but to get from one city or town to another (or port or holiday area or whatever). According to the map that Keith posted, I make it that London has 14 trunk routes either coming away from it or around it.

I would have thought a Londoner is probably far more likely to drive on the aforementioned stretches of road than a Cornishman/woman, a Lancastrian or a person from County Durham* is to drive on the Westway, North Circular, A13 etc.

*Is there a word for someone from County Durham?

[Chris Bertram]

Dunelmian?

[trickstat]

Dunelmian?

That appears to be correct and is nothing to do with a shop that sells bedding, curtains etc!

[ManomayLR]

Highways England should probably service the North Circular and the major arterials heading out from it that currently stop (as trunk) near the M25: A40 and A13. I don't think anything else is really justified though, not even the A12 since that is bypassed by the M25 and M11.

Would you think a motorway standard A406 throughout with a free flow Hanger Lane Gyratory is a way to go? Because then I’d be all for linking an M40 extension that way down to Paddington and the M25. With HE managing it they could build the urban motorway to a 70 design speed with VSL/MS4, instead of the usual urban motorway 50.