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

[KeithW]

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.

The A1 is a strategic road of national importance, the Westway is not, it is in fact a council road under the control of TfL. The initial plans were drawn up by the London County Council and inherited by the GLC. 25% of the cost was met a government grant. Public reaction in London to the impact of its construction basically killed off the Ringways scheme. Even the he British Road Federation condemned it calling the Westway "one of the insensitive and socially unacceptable examples of motorways."

The simple fact is that the A40 from the end of the M40 into central London is NOT a trunk road having been detrunked in 2000 and responsibility for it passed to TfL. If you claim the pup you have to pay the pupkeep.

The A1(M) in County Durham took strategic traffic OUT of the centres of Darlington and Durham. In fact this happened along the entire A1 from Barnet to Berwick. The one place they tried a central urban motorway, Newcastle, was a disaster that killed off the central motorways scheme. The money was instead used to build the Metro.

In my home town we do have 3 urban trunk roads. The A174 is a southern bypass but the A19 and A66 are elevated roads. However like the M8 in Glasgow they go through former industrial areas zoned as unfit for human inhabitation.

[Chris5156]

The A1 is a strategic road of national importance, the Westway is not, it is in fact a council road under the control of TfL.

I'm well aware of the road's history and its current highway authority. But you haven't given me a reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be a trunk road, you've just stated that it isn't one now.

How about the North Circular? That was a trunk road from the moment trunk roads were first created in the 1930s through to 2000. It was considered a road of national significance for almost 70 years. Were successive governments wrong about that for nearly 70 years? No.

The decision to detrunk it was not because the road was any less significant or played any less of a role in the national economy - it was a political decision about devolution of power in an era when the then-government hoped to devolve power to regional assemblies across the UK. I think that where major roads are concerned, that devolution of power was the wrong decision, and should be reversed.

The simple fact is that the A40 from the end of the M40 into central London is NOT a trunk road having been detrunked in 2000 and responsibility for it passed to TfL. If you claim the pup you have to pay the pupkeep.

I know it's not a trunk road! I'm saying it shouldn't have been detrunked and that change should be reversed. To be clear - I do not claim the pup. I don't want the pup. There is no good reason why the pup cannot be handed back to its previous owner.

In my home town we do have 3 urban trunk roads. The A174 is a southern bypass but the A19 and A66 are elevated roads. However like the M8 in Glasgow they go through former industrial areas zoned as unfit for human inhabitation.

Urban trunk roads? That must be nice! Can you explain why the A66 through Middlesbrough town centre should definitely be trunk but the A406 definitely shouldn't? Why am I paying for your urban relief road but you're not paying for mine?

The M8 in Glasgow is an interesting example to raise. It was created by Glasgow Corporation (and later Strathclyde Regional Authority), and was a non-trunk, local authority road between modern-day junctions 8 and 26. Until, of course, it was adopted as a trunk road, because it was recognised that this local authority road through an urban area was of national and strategic significance!

[WHBM]

The simple fact is that the A40 from the end of the M40 into central London is NOT a trunk road

That's purely a bureaucratic classification. I notice whenever I have used the Westeway it's not for an internal London journey, which some here seem to be pretending is its sole use, but for a longer distance one, such as returning from Gloucestershire.

In my home town we do have 3 urban trunk roads. The A174 is a southern bypass but the A19 and A66 are elevated roads. However like the M8 in Glasgow they go through former industrial areas zoned as unfit for human inhabitation.

As some here know, I was on the design team for the M8 in Glasgow, and I can assure you it did not go through much former industrial area at all (in fact I can only think of one former industrial plant along the whole length east to west, the former Blochairn ironworks, where I had to assist designing what to do with the residual solidified slag in the ground). All the rest was threaded through and between housing areas, such as along old canal alignments, with notable peripheral housing demolition to make it fit, generally of classic Glaswegian 4-storey tenements, and through Charing Cross there was very substantial housing demolition.

[trickstat]

The A1 is a strategic road of national importance, the Westway is not, it is in fact a council road under the control of TfL.

I'm well aware of the road's history and its current highway authority. But you haven't given me a reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be a trunk road, you've just stated that it isn't one now.

How about the North Circular? That was a trunk road from the moment trunk roads were first created in the 1930s through to 2000. It was considered a road of national significance for almost 70 years. Were successive governments wrong about that for nearly 70 years? No.

For the vast majority of that period there was no M25, so the North Circular was far more likely to be used by drivers for journeys that neither started nor ended in Greater London. Why should people in places like Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield pay for an internal orbital road in London while nobody else helps pay for theirs?

[Chris5156]

For the vast majority of that period there was no M25, so the North Circular was far more likely to be used by drivers for journeys that neither started nor ended in Greater London. Why should people in places like Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield pay for an internal orbital road in London while nobody else helps pay for theirs?

I think you have to be very careful how you define a road of strategic or national importance. If your criteria is a road that is heavily used by journeys that do not start or end within the local area, you will lose virtually the whole of the trunk road network.

The majority of journeys on the M6 in Lancashire, for example, will be wholly within Lancashire. The majority of journeys on the A30 in Cornwall will be wholly within Cornwall. The overwhelming majority of journeys on the M60 are within Greater Manchester. But I don't see anyone claiming those roads should be detrunked because only a minority of journeys extend over county boundaries or to another city. It is in the nature of the trunk road network that most journeys are actually local.

The official description of the Strategic Road Network - the trunk roads, to you and me - is that they are roads that are "critical to the UK economy". Descriptions of the SRN usually bang on about it comprising 2% of all roads, but carrying 30% of all traffic and 60% of freight and commercial traffic. Strategic Roads are, therefore, selected for trunking on the basis that they are the busiest, most economically significant roads serving their part of the country, and the ones along which heavy traffic loads are routed. London's Red Route network fits this criteria, and indeed - I've just learned from a bit of Googling - the TfL Red Routes have actually been legally designated as "Strategic Roads" since 2005.

As far as I can see, the mix of local and national traffic is not relevant. Even if it were, roads like the A40 and A406 carry huge volumes of local traffic, but they also carry far more traffic that is starting or ending its journey outside London than other roads in the city do, in exactly the same way as roads like the M60. What actually matters is whether they are critical to the UK economy, and whether they are the roads mostly used to channel through traffic and freight movements in a particular area. I would argue that many of London's Red Routes more than meet those criteria. The only reason they are not trunk is a political/bureaucratic decision that they ought to be devolved, and my argument is that the devolvement of that function to the London Assembly is an experiment that has failed. It should be reversed.

[Gav]

Cars and super highways have their places, but they are not a good choice for megacities.

Really ?

proper integration of multimode transport is the answer and yes motorway style roads do feature. all dependant on the land take of a city and population spread. a decent limited access network of roads will provide a good way to satisfy a significant amount of journeys, ones that other transport means would be a comprimise.

[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.

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.

The cost of physical upgrades would be enormous. Some of the more 'motorway-like' sections could be upgraded to expressways (smart motorways), the South Woodford to Barking Relief Road in particular. Maybe make TfL re-implement motorways on roads with similar restrictions (including most of the 1999 A12 link) as part of the deal, to promote some sort of coherency.

Anything else would basically be dependant on property and land prices taking a big hit for whatever reason.

[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.

The cost of physical upgrades would be enormous. Some of the more 'motorway-like' sections could be upgraded to expressways (smart motorways), the South Woodford to Barking Relief Road in particular. Maybe make TfL re-implement motorways on roads with similar restrictions (including most of the 1999 A12 link) as part of the deal, to promote some sort of coherency.

Anything else would basically be dependant on property and land prices taking a big hit for whatever reason.

The thing is, once ULEZ is extended to the Circular Roads, upgrading both of them (including upgrading the South Circular, it has to happen sometime) as full motorway upgrades to D3ALR, will keep road connections fast, actively managed using speed limits, lane control and message signs, and above all free-flowing.

It will be destructive but it’s not like the current circular roads aren’t congested anyway. It’s just that the congested road won’t be right up against people’s houses. Grade separating will give non motorway traffic some breathing room too.

Once the ULEZ is extended, it would apply to all urban motorway routes within the upgraded Circulars (given a single motorway number maybe M250), meaning only low emissions vehicles would use them. This means fewer vehicles would use them, and fewer emissions too, so D3ALR would likely be adequate.

[Bryn666]

Lots of "I don't use x so why should I pay for it" comments which demonstrate exactly why the UK is in the mess it is.

Take it to its logical conclusion:

I don't have any grandparents and if Silas has any sense he won't make me one either. Why should I pay for elderly people to have perks like free TV licences?

When you start saying "I'll only pay for what I use" you launch an amazing slippery slope of silliness.

[trickstat]

For the vast majority of that period there was no M25, so the North Circular was far more likely to be used by drivers for journeys that neither started nor ended in Greater London. Why should people in places like Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield pay for an internal orbital road in London while nobody else helps pay for theirs?

I think you have to be very careful how you define a road of strategic or national importance. If your criteria is a road that is heavily used by journeys that do not start or end within the local area, you will lose virtually the whole of the trunk road network.

The majority of journeys on the M6 in Lancashire, for example, will be wholly within Lancashire. The majority of journeys on the A30 in Cornwall will be wholly within Cornwall. The overwhelming majority of journeys on the M60 are within Greater Manchester. But I don't see anyone claiming those roads should be detrunked because only a minority of journeys extend over county boundaries or to another city. It is in the nature of the trunk road network that most journeys are actually local.

I don't doubt that is the case, especially at peak periods, but they also regularly form parts of many much longer journeys, particularly for HGVs and people travelling for holidays and leisure. Amongst other things they keep traffic away from places like Preston, Bodmin, Ashton-under-Lyne and Stockport, whether that is relatively local traffic or not. It may not be the majority of use but it is still use that is significant enough to justify their trunk status.

[Gav]

we all pay NI

hate to tell you that folks in other cities use that money you paid in..... its called society, common pool of resources.

[Glenn A]

One should remember outer London has a far higher level of car ownership than inner London and many people who live in outer London also work there and have journeys that would be very inconvenient by public transport. Someone who works at Ford in Dagenham and lives in Woodford has a relatively quick journey by car via the A406 and A13, and the public transport options would be very impractical and time consuming. This is why I have always favoured the North Circular being converted into a D3M and other routes out of London like the A40 beyond the A406 being a D3M as well.

[Patrick Harper]

A new South Circular Road will never happen. It was one of the first sections to be cut from the Ringways project anyway.

Now that I think about it, grade-separating the gaps in the A406 might be feasible if the Brent Cross Shopping Centre is flattened and replaced with residential units. Occupiers of the units that would be removed for the A406 works, could then receive rebates on similar new property at Brent Cross.

[SouthWest Philip]

Now that I think about it, grade-separating the gaps in the A406 might be feasible if the Brent Cross Shopping Centre is flattened and replaced with residential units. Occupiers of the units that would be removed for the A406 works, could then receive rebates on similar new property at Brent Cross.

Why would you need to flatten the shopping centre given that this section of the North Circular is already grade separated?

[Patrick Harper]

Now that I think about it, grade-separating the gaps in the A406 might be feasible if the Brent Cross Shopping Centre is flattened and replaced with residential units. Occupiers of the units that would be removed for the A406 works, could then receive rebates on similar new property at Brent Cross.

Why would you need to flatten the shopping centre given that this section of the North Circular is already grade separated?

I think you misread my comment.

[KeithW]

The A1 is a strategic road of national importance, the Westway is not, it is in fact a council road under the control of TfL.

I'm well aware of the road's history and its current highway authority. But you haven't given me a reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be a trunk road, you've just stated that it isn't one now.

How about the North Circular? That was a trunk road from the moment trunk roads were first created in the 1930s through to 2000. It was considered a road of national significance for almost 70 years. Were successive governments wrong about that for nearly 70 years? No.

The decision to detrunk it was not because the road was any less significant or played any less of a role in the national economy - it was a political decision about devolution of power in an era when the then-government hoped to devolve power to regional assemblies across the UK. I think that where major roads are concerned, that devolution of power was the wrong decision, and should be reversed.

The simple fact is that the A40 from the end of the M40 into central London is NOT a trunk road having been detrunked in 2000 and responsibility for it passed to TfL. If you claim the pup you have to pay the pupkeep.

I know it's not a trunk road! I'm saying it shouldn't have been detrunked and that change should be reversed. To be clear - I do not claim the pup. I don't want the pup. There is no good reason why the pup cannot be handed back to its previous owner.

In my home town we do have 3 urban trunk roads. The A174 is a southern bypass but the A19 and A66 are elevated roads. However like the M8 in Glasgow they go through former industrial areas zoned as unfit for human inhabitation.

Urban trunk roads? That must be nice! Can you explain why the A66 through Middlesbrough town centre should definitely be trunk but the A406 definitely shouldn't? Why am I paying for your urban relief road but you're not paying for mine?

The M8 in Glasgow is an interesting example to raise. It was created by Glasgow Corporation (and later Strathclyde Regional Authority), and was a non-trunk, local authority road between modern-day junctions 8 and 26. Until, of course, it was adopted as a trunk road, because it was recognised that this local authority road through an urban area was of national and strategic significance!

Indeed but the bottom line was that the GLA and TfL wanted control and got it, now they have to live with the problem of maintaining it.

The A66 is strategic because it links the A1(M) to Teessport and its container terminal and the steel and petro chemical industries. Equally to the point the road runs through several local authorities. Specifically Darlington, Stockton, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland. It is a classic example of trunking a road of national importance.

In contrast TfL wanted control of roads inside the M25. The A406 was at best a partial trunk road of North London, again the GLA and TfL got what they wanted when it was detrunked. Sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.

[KeithW]

One should remember outer London has a far higher level of car ownership than inner London and many people who live in outer London also work there and have journeys that would be very inconvenient by public transport. Someone who works at Ford in Dagenham and lives in Woodford has a relatively quick journey by car via the A406 and A13, and the public transport options would be very impractical and time consuming. This is why I have always favoured the North Circular being converted into a D3M and other routes out of London like the A40 beyond the A406 being a D3M as well.

Ford at Dagenham employs far fewer people than it it did in the past, all that is left is the engine plant. Sure do what you like but remember the A13 is only Trunk from Tilbury to Purfleet and the A406 is no longer trunk. The DfT does not automatically get to pay the bill. Remember as well that the first thing TfL did with the motorways they inherited was to downgrade them, no more A102(M) or A40(M)
https://pathetic.org.uk/former/a40m_westway/
https://pathetic.org.uk/former/a102m_east_cross_route/

[Scratchwood]

The A1 is a strategic road of national importance, the Westway is not, it is in fact a council road under the control of TfL.

I'm well aware of the road's history and its current highway authority. But you haven't given me a reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be a trunk road, you've just stated that it isn't one now.

How about the North Circular? That was a trunk road from the moment trunk roads were first created in the 1930s through to 2000. It was considered a road of national significance for almost 70 years. Were successive governments wrong about that for nearly 70 years? No.

The decision to detrunk it was not because the road was any less significant or played any less of a role in the national economy - it was a political decision about devolution of power in an era when the then-government hoped to devolve power to regional assemblies across the UK. I think that where major roads are concerned, that devolution of power was the wrong decision, and should be reversed.

The simple fact is that the A40 from the end of the M40 into central London is NOT a trunk road having been detrunked in 2000 and responsibility for it passed to TfL. If you claim the pup you have to pay the pupkeep.

I know it's not a trunk road! I'm saying it shouldn't have been detrunked and that change should be reversed. To be clear - I do not claim the pup. I don't want the pup. There is no good reason why the pup cannot be handed back to its previous owner.

In my home town we do have 3 urban trunk roads. The A174 is a southern bypass but the A19 and A66 are elevated roads. However like the M8 in Glasgow they go through former industrial areas zoned as unfit for human inhabitation.

Urban trunk roads? That must be nice! Can you explain why the A66 through Middlesbrough town centre should definitely be trunk but the A406 definitely shouldn't? Why am I paying for your urban relief road but you're not paying for mine?

The M8 in Glasgow is an interesting example to raise. It was created by Glasgow Corporation (and later Strathclyde Regional Authority), and was a non-trunk, local authority road between modern-day junctions 8 and 26. Until, of course, it was adopted as a trunk road, because it was recognised that this local authority road through an urban area was of national and strategic significance!

Indeed but the bottom line was that the GLA and TfL wanted control and got it, now they have to live with the problem of maintaining it.

The A66 is strategic because it links the A1(M) to Teessport and its container terminal and the steel and petro chemical industries. Equally to the point the road runs through several local authorities. Specifically Darlington, Stockton, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland. It is a classic example of trunking a road of national importance.

In contrast TfL wanted control of roads inside the M25. The A406 was at best a partial trunk road of North London, again the GLA and TfK got what they wanted when it was detrunked. Sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.

But it wasn't as if the GLA and TfL had existed for several years and then took over the Trunk Road network (akin to TfL after a period of time taking over rail routes and incorporating them into the Overground network), that was something that was decided by the government of the time when the GLA and TfL were created.

[ManomayLR]

When you start saying "I'll only pay for what I use" you launch an amazing slippery slope of silliness.

Well they tried it with the M6toll and see what happened.

[KeithW]

But it wasn't as if the GLA and TfL had existed for several years and then took over the Trunk Road network (akin to TfL after a period of time taking over rail routes and incorporating them into the Overground network), that was something that was decided by the government of the time when the GLA and TfL were created.

Feel free to prove that the Government forced Ken Livingstone, who was the mayor of London at the time to do it. While you are at it indicate any statements since then that subsequent mayors have tried to return these roads to DfT control. Everything I have seen indicates that they want control. It was the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that made Transport for London (TfL) responsible for managing most aspects of London's transport system, including public transport, main roads, and traffic management. Note a referendum was held before it came into force with 72% voting in favour. By definition such changes are big bang events.

As for the Overground the infrastructure is owned by Network Rail, It is in reality a franchise operated by Arriva Rail London.