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

[Uncle Buck]

Is it not arguable that the Westway (with the Western Avenue) is a route of national strategic significance because it provides the main route into the country’s largest city from most of the rest of the country? Furthermore, the section of London that it runs into is home to the financial services industry- one of the key parts of the national economy- as well as the headquarters of the government and organisations of national importance like e.g. the BBC, or Shell.

I’m not saying that every city centre access route is of national strategic importance, but if I had to choose one London radial road, other than the M1, which fitted this description, the A40 would be it.

[Patrick Harper]

I think Westway is perceived as significant because of its architecture, but as a route into London I don't think it's more important than the M4. It's only the main way into London from the M40 and M6 corridor.

[someone]

Feel free to prove that the Government forced Ken Livingstone, who was the mayor of London at the time to do it.

• The bill which established the legal designation of a GLA road was first introduced in Parliament on December 2nd, 1988, receiving assent on November 11, 1999. (The Greater London Authority Act 1999)
• The order to reclassify certain trunk roads (including the reclassification of those that were motorways as all-purpose roads) as GLA roads from the date that TfL gained responsibility was made on April 10th, 2000 and laid before Parliament on April 26th, 2000. (The GLA Roads Designation Order 2000)
• Ken Livingstone was elected as mayor on May 4th, 2000
• Transport for London came into being on May 8th, 2000, but did not gain powers as an authority until July 3rd, 2000 (The Greater London Authority Act 1999 (Commencement No. 4 and Adaptation) Order 2000)

Unless a great conspiracy is about to be revealed, it is highly unlikely that the government acted upon the instructions of an independent mayoral candidate and a body yet to be conceived to plan for the transfer of trunk roads over a year in advance, and then to implement this transfer almost a month before elections were first held (Highways Act 1980 as amended). Note that Section 14A of the Act specifically requires that the transfer of trunk roads to take place before the first mayor takes office.

However it is correct that the government did not force Ken Livingstone to do anything. Notwithstanding that he was not yet the mayor, the mayor has no power to transfer a trunk road to being a GLA road. The mayor can only change the status of a highway within Greater London other than a trunk road as a GLA road, so that either TfL or the relevant London Borough or the Common Council will be the highway authority for it.

[WHBM]

Ford at Dagenham employs far fewer people than it it did in the past, all that is left is the engine plant.

There's a lot more than that still there, maybe not manufacturing but the principal import point for Ford vehicles is on the Thames there, you can see the vehicle parks from the A13. There seem a lot of offices and parts warehouses as well.

I did take issue with the Mayor of Newham a while ago who turned up at an event in the borough chauffeured large VW saloon. I pointed out that likely hundreds of his constituents likely worked at Ford in various capacities (I believe that still, with just the engine plant remaining, it is the largest manufacturing employer within London) just over the boundary in Barking & Dagenham borough, and as he had a VW diesel he didn't mind diesels, but why not a Ford with the engine built locally. No answer.

[Chris5156]

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.

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.

That point has already been addressed by another poster, but to make it plain: the decision to detrunk roads in London and hand them to the transport body of a new regional assembly was taken before the GLA and TfL had been set up. It was a political decision taken in Westminster, in line with the then-Government's policy about devolution to English regional assemblies. On the first day the GLA and TfL existed, the legislation was already written and they had already been handed control.

Of course, that says nothing about whether those bodies, or the politicians that control them, have subsequently attempted to hand control of those roads back. They haven't. I assume that is partly because no politician or public body likes to see its remit and its powers reduced, and partly because there has never been any review of the powers and functions of the GLA.

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.

I think this is losing sight of the point of this discussion. Nobody is claiming that any Mayor, so far, has tried to return the Red Route network to trunk road status. I'm not claiming that. It's a complete straw man. The argument I'm making is simply that I think it was the wrong decision to detrunk these roads in the first place and I think these roads should be returned to trunk road status, and I've set out my reasons for that.

[Glenn A]

I think Westway is perceived as significant because of its architecture, but as a route into London I don't think it's more important than the M4. It's only the main way into London from the M40 and M6 corridor.

The A40 into London has grown in importance since the M40 was extended to Birmingham. Traffic from the North West and the West Midlands often favours this route over the M6/M1/A41. I would say the M4 is probably as important for traffic coming from South Wales, the West Country, Berkshire and Heathrow.

[thatapanydude]

Slight digression but would you agree the A40 is London's most important/strategic road - because its the main route to the North, West, South West of England and Heathrow from C.London.

[KeithW]

I think this is losing sight of the point of this discussion. Nobody is claiming that any Mayor, so far, has tried to return the Red Route network to trunk road status. I'm not claiming that. It's a complete straw man. The argument I'm making is simply that I think it was the wrong decision to detrunk these roads in the first place and I think these roads should be returned to trunk road status, and I've set out my reasons for that.

You had better try persuading the GLA and Mayor of London of that then and of of course the Secretary of State for Transport wont be very keen either. Do recall when considering this that the present government is rather keen on moving stuff out of London.

[Glenn A]

Slight digression but would you agree the A40 is London's most important/strategic road - because its the main route to the North, West, South West of England and Heathrow from C.London.

Surely the A4/M4 for Heathrow, but the A40 has grown massively in importance since the M40 extension opened, reducing the importance of the A41, which I always considered the most important road out of London in the eighties as it met the M1 and was the recommended route to use for Northern England, most of the Midlands, Scotland and North Wales. I suppose the A1 was always an alternative for North East England, eastern Scotland, and parts of Yorkshire, but the A41 was by far the most important road out of London then. Nowadays, the A40, apart from being the principal route to Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, is now the preferred route out of London over the A41 for traffic to the West Midlands, the North West, Scotland and North Wales.

[Bryn666]

Surely even before the M40 was extended it was still quicker to go to Oxford and then north towards the A34/A41 than to take the A41 all the way - bearing in mind Finchley Road is always busy, and the Watford-Tring dual carriageway wasn't opened until around the same time as the M40 extension anyway.

I can't personally see how trekking through Berkhamstead, King's Langley, etc - and that's before you got to Aylesbury which still is not bypassed - was any quicker than just booting up the M40 to Oxford.

Even with lower 80s traffic volumes?

[SouthWest Philip]

I can't personally see how trekking through Berkhamstead, King's Langley, etc - and that's before you got to Aylesbury which still is not bypassed - was any quicker than just booting up the M40 to Oxford.

Even just going to Aylesbury you're more likely to have gone A40/A413 rather than the A41?

[ManomayLR]

I think Westway is perceived as significant because of its architecture, but as a route into London I don't think it's more important than the M4. It's only the main way into London from the M40 and M6 corridor.

Not really. From Birmingham there’s M6 and M1 which was the original London-Birmingham route before M40 was built as a relief route.

[Patrick Harper]

I think Westway is perceived as significant because of its architecture, but as a route into London I don't think it's more important than the M4. It's only the main way into London from the M40 and M6 corridor.

Not really. From Birmingham there’s M6 and M1 which was the original London-Birmingham route before M40 was built as a relief route.

But M1 traffic won't skirt the M25 to reach the M40, they'll go straight down the M1 and then finish the journey via the A41.

[Phil]

Its a fact that many on here don't seem to be able to comprehend that as far as the Westminster Government were (and are) concerned, having control over urban roads in London was (is) a massive pain in the butt! They were (are) congested / overcrowded / half finished - yet any scheme to improve them met with extensive protests, inflated construction / security costs and had real negative political consequences at the ballot box.

Dumping those problems in someone elses lap (the GLA or the devolved Welsh / Scottish / NI administrations) was thus seen a potestative step by the DfT - and one done in the full knowledge that the GLA would NEVER be able to continue the urban road upgrades the 1990s Conservative Government had been able to push through (in the face of strong position from Londoners I hasten to add).

This is why you will never get the DfT taking back any form of responsibility for roads within London. TfL meanwhile is broke - and is building up a massive backlog of Tube works that is going to need funding in the next few decades so is not going to have cash to splash on anything other than basic maintenance of what already exists.

[WHBM]

This is why you will never get the DfT taking back any form of responsibility for roads within London. TfL meanwhile is broke - and is building up a massive backlog of Tube works that is going to need funding in the next few decades so is not going to have cash to splash on anything other than basic maintenance of what already exists.

Government stated aims at present are to have considerable investment in infrastructure etc in the short term, to counter the potential economic downturn after the virus. If you discard the political frippery for a moment I think you will find all major parties think this is a good thing. Those of us within the industry were actually seeing and recommending this way back in March when it kicked off. But there is no appetite to give large funds to TfL to see it all disappear into a black hole.

I'm afraid that TfL have burned their boats with complete inability to manage infrastructure projects, the significant ones of which commonly get a specific major government contribution. Crossrail is of course the key contender but there have been others as well, changing the signals on the Circle Line has had THREE bites at a project, wasting hundreds of millions and several years' progress each time as they misbrief the contenders, change their minds, work with someone for a while, and then give up and start again. These things are big projects but they are not rocket science, they are straightforward infrastructure jobs. We all know from the roads programme that some jobs sail through and others become a real mish-mash. TfL used to work well while Sir Peter Hendy was in charge (under both previous Mayors), but since he went it's gone down the tubes.

[Phil]

This is why you will never get the DfT taking back any form of responsibility for roads within London. TfL meanwhile is broke - and is building up a massive backlog of Tube works that is going to need funding in the next few decades so is not going to have cash to splash on anything other than basic maintenance of what already exists.

Government stated aims at present are to have considerable investment in infrastructure etc in the short term, to counter the potential economic downturn after the virus. If you discard the political frippery for a moment I think you will find all major parties think this is a good thing. Those of us within the industry were actually seeing and recommending this way back in March when it kicked off. But there is no appetite to give large funds to TfL to see it all disappear into a black hole.

I'm afraid that TfL have burned their boats with complete inability to manage infrastructure projects, the significant ones of which commonly get a specific major government contribution. Crossrail is of course the key contender but there have been others as well, changing the signals on the Circle Line has had THREE bites at a project, wasting hundreds of millions and several years' progress each time as they misbrief the contenders, change their minds, work with someone for a while, and then give up and start again. These things are big projects but they are not rocket science, they are straightforward infrastructure jobs. We all know from the roads programme that some jobs sail through and others become a real mish-mash. TfL used to work well while Sir Peter Hendy was in charge (under both previous Mayors), but since he went it's gone down the tubes.

Regardless of TfLs performance with major infrastructure projects there is ZERO chance that Boris and co are going to start funding road building in London! What part of 'politically unacceptable' is so hard to understand? Its been clear for decades that pushing road projects is a vote LOSER within the GLA area and thus no politician is going to do it

If any monies do get spent in London then they are unlikely to go straight to TfL - they are likely to be spent on Network Rail projects which provide benefits to non Londoners too or joint venture ones*

Also there are plenty of non urban, non London projects out there which the Government can splash the cash on - and it has been noted by political observers that spending 'up north' will go down well with all the new Conservative MPs who won in traditional Labour seats.


* For example building Crossrail 2 would under current thinking free up train paths into Waterloo which benefits people from Hampshire and Dorset - not just Londoners

[Phil]

Slight digression but would you agree the A40 is London's most important/strategic road - because its the main route to the North, West, South West of England and Heathrow from C.London.

The A40 is only the 'most important' by virtue of the simple fact that the majority of the English population live north and west of London.

[Truvelo]

Slight digression but would you agree the A40 is London's most important/strategic road - because its the main route to the North, West, South West of England and Heathrow from C.London.

The A40 is only the 'most important' by virtue of the simple fact that the majority of the English population live north and west of London.

That's true but regardless of which direction you're entering London it is also the only route which is fully dualled right into the centre. That may not be of any value to someone who is commuting from Kent or Essex though.

[NICK 647063]

Slight digression but would you agree the A40 is London's most important/strategic road - because its the main route to the North, West, South West of England and Heathrow from C.London.

The A40 isn’t a route I would ever use from central London to Yorkshire, either M1 or A1 then stick with either the A1 or A41, it’s crazy to go around the M25 to then take the A40.

[Chris5156]

Slight digression but would you agree the A40 is London's most important/strategic road - because its the main route to the North, West, South West of England and Heathrow from C.London.

The A40 isn’t a route I would ever use from central London to Yorkshire, either M1 or A1 then stick with either the A1 or A41, it’s crazy to go around the M25 to then take the A40.

Depending on the traffic, it can be faster from the M1 at Leicester to take either M69/A46 or A43 to pick up the M40 and head for Central London that way. It only takes heavy traffic in London and some slow downs on the M1 around a set of roadworks to tip the balance.