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

[ManomayLR]

No - there would be no new M40. In fact I would be looking at using the Westway as a public transport corridor.

I was talking about hypothetically - they have recently narrowed the current A40 carriageway which is nowhere near HQDC standard, so instead of messing it up again, use it as an LAR and build a new motorway viaduct over it.

Regarding public transport, that's probably a better idea - the M40 plan is purely hypothetical. Guided buses anyone?
If the WestWay were converted to a public transport viaduct, escalators and elevators would need to be frequently installed to get passengers up to the various stations. Or maybe frequent long escalators up to the viaduct and long, sheltered moving walkways between the stations. The existing gantries can be hooked up to electric wires for a tram/trolleybus style system, or as I said, a guided busway.

[roadtester]

And much A40 traffic within the North Circular is also heading to Westfield - again that also doesn't travel most of the Westway and doesn't go as far the Marylebone Road.

Any figures to back up this claim? I don't believe it is remotely true, but I may be mistaken

Any figures to disprove this claim?

It is, after all, the major destination in that area, with 4,500 parking spaces and 27.5 million visitors for the year in 2017.

[ManomayLR]

Not within the M25. The A2/M2 is arguably better than the A20/M20 route until M2 J3, grade-separated from the Kidbrooke Junction all the way till J3 (plus there is a continuous completely GS DC route for 60 miles).

Again, a motorway extension might do some good. It will allow VSL to control traffic towards London, and outbound too, especially when Operation Brock is causing delays on the parallel M20.

[KeithW]

Not within the M25. The A2/M2 is arguably better than the A20/M20 route until M2 J3, grade-separated from the Kidbrooke Junction all the way till J3 (plus there is a continuous completely GS DC route for 60 miles).

Again, a motorway extension might do some good. It will allow VSL to control traffic towards London, and outbound too, especially when Operation Brock is causing delays on the parallel M20.

How on earth can the M40/A40 which runs north west from London to Oxford and Birmingham be considered as running parallel with the M20/A20 which runs SE from Swanley to Folkestone and Dover ?

https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=M40
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=M20

[Berk]

Only because they vaguely occupy a NW-SE axis. Most people are aware there aren’t any direct links between them other than the M25.

Though it does make you wonder what might’ve happened if they’d been planned as a single motorway...

[KeithW]

What should happen is that there should be no lane gain. The road merging on should be a standard merge, with all 3 lanes moving onto the M40. The reason is we can ramp-meter the merge. This means priority is given to M40 traffic, which will be strategically slowed down (VSL will end just after the Marylebone junction and the limit brought from 70 to 50 and then to 30 at the end.) The idea of the blue line is to upgrade the route so traffic does not back up on the A40 itself - people getting from the A406 and M25 to Westfield at least will be faster. Why are we assuming all the M40 traffic is heading for Marylebone? And it's not like the downgrade made it any better. We have to remember that the route was originally a motorway.

You may want to look at a map. The Harrow road (A404) is an important route in its own right carrying traffic in from Rickmansworth, Harrow, Wembley, Harlesden, Kensal Green and Willesden down to Westbourne Green from where it runs parallel and under to the Westway.



For the record I used to live in Harrow on Kenton Road so know the area well.

[KeithW]

Only because they vaguely occupy a NW-SE axis. Most people are aware there aren’t any direct links between them other than the M25.

Though it does make you wonder what might’ve happened if they’d been planned as a single motorway...

The original idea was Westway to Ringway 1 and then along the North Cross Route to Hackney Wick and then down the East Cross Route using the A102 (M) through the Blackwall Tunnel to meet the extended A2(M) and A20(M)
https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/ringw ... ross-route

For some reason the people who lived there thought demolishing their homes to make way for it was a bad idea

[someone]

In an ideal world, we'd all try to remove cars from the network. But we have to face the fact that many people still use them.

But why do they use them? If we address those reasons to take them off the road, the existing network will have enough capacity for the remaining traffic which cannot be replaced.

All over the world the emphasis is on removing city traffic, not enabling more.

And you will never get any support for new road viaducts through the centre of London. Not just because no one will support the extra traffic, but the environment for residents matters now too. The only people who want ugly big concrete skies are those on top of them. Away from this place, people do not want to look out of their windows to see a motorway.

The idea of the blue line is to upgrade the route so traffic does not back up on the A40 itself - people getting from the A406 and M25 to Westfield at least will be faster.

Why does a road have to be a motorway to be upgraded?

Again, a motorway extension might do some good. It will allow VSL to control traffic…

And why does one need to be a motorway to have a variable speed limit?

The A14 was upgraded and bypassed without being a motorway and, after a brief flirtation with the idea, will have a variable speed limit without being one.

New road or not, a motorway classification offers no benefits to London. We do not have tractors crossing the Westway and holding up traffic. But it would prohibit a segment of normal London traffic, and the city does not have the capacity for it to be replaced by more cars.

[Herned]

Any figures to disprove this claim?

It is, after all, the major destination in that area, with 4,500 parking spaces and 27.5 million visitors for the year in 2017.

Not directly, but I don't think it's impossible to get some sort of ballpark figures

The traffic count for Western Avenue just west of Wood Lane is 86k. Then a few assumptions are needed - what would be the right proportion of visitors coming from the A40 - 40% perhaps (40% from northwest, 50% from south and other directions, 10% from the east along the Westway) Turnover of spaces in the car park is also an assumption - let's say the average stay is 2 hours, and each space is occupied on average 10 hours a day. That would mean 9k vehicles per day along the A40 are heading to Westfield, about 20% of the traffic.

Most visitors come by tube/train of course - the parking is very expensive

[Peter Freeman]

This seems to have morphed into another one of those "Complete the Ringways" threads, so …

"Is it time to remove Westway?" - no, leave it alone! Despite the knocking, it works.

I lived in Hounslow in 1969-1971, when the Ringway plans were big news and still a serious possibility. My enthusiastic young self was hugely disappointed when the majority of it didn't happen, but of course it was over-ambitious and over-scaled (esp the Motorway Box).

However, I totally support decent new roads in the capital. Yes, London is a rather special case, particularly the dense historic core, but farther out it should have good road access like any other city. Much as some would wish and believe, private cars are not going away (though, with a bit of luck, most of their pollution will do so). Also, light commercial traffic can't be mode-shifted to rail, active travel, etc; and taxis and buses will always need roads. Sorry about that.

My additions wouldn't include a pointless upgrade to get more traffic more quickly to dead-end Marylebone Road. They would focus on rectifications and extensions to continuous routes, especially the North Circular. Amongst other things, I would -

1. Grade separate Bounds Green. It should have been done properly at the last improvement. I accept that it might be so hard now as to be poor value-for-money.
2. Continue A406 clockwise under the river, to join up with A2/A20 and what there is of A205. This is a glaring omission and would be really useful, despite the plan downstream for LTC. I am aware of stuff (including the wood !) in the way, but come on ...
3. Duplicate Gunnersbury Avenue south of Hanger Lane and GSJ the Gyratory. This has been described as pointless since it crashes into Chiswick Roundabout, but my plan would be to avoid the roundabout, unless you want the M4, by tunnelling under the river. This A406 anti-clockwise extension would surface somewhere(s) in Kew/Richmond, having split underground (a) towards the A316 radial (feeding the M3) or (b) to join what there is of A205. Somewhat similar to the original R2 plan, but on a smaller scale with longer tunnels.

Some brave engineering would be required for such completions, but technology (bridges and especially tunnelling) has come a long way since 1970.

[roadtester]

Any figures to disprove this claim?

It is, after all, the major destination in that area, with 4,500 parking spaces and 27.5 million visitors for the year in 2017.

Not directly, but I don't think it's impossible to get some sort of ballpark figures

The traffic count for Western Avenue just west of Wood Lane is 86k. Then a few assumptions are needed - what would be the right proportion of visitors coming from the A40 - 40% perhaps (40% from northwest, 50% from south and other directions, 10% from the east along the Westway) Turnover of spaces in the car park is also an assumption - let's say the average stay is 2 hours, and each space is occupied on average 10 hours a day. That would mean 9k vehicles per day along the A40 are heading to Westfield, about 20% of the traffic.

Most visitors come by tube/train of course - the parking is very expensive

Actually, I think those numbers/assumptions look pretty reasonable.

Another aspect - not sure whether this is significant or not - is there may be some people going to Westfield in cars who are being dropped off rather than being in cars that are parked there for the duration of their stay.

[thatapanydude]

I do think there is a case for finishing the A40 as outbound London traffic would be relieved as well. Also the night economy would benefit for quick access from the west-end. VSL would stop the surge at Marylebone, though I would keep the HS.

As I have said many times before we should be showing ambition in London to finish off easy parts of the network. Buying off those houses on the A406 should not be that hard as I would imagine market values to be low on those properties which front the A406, which would allow schemes such as free-flowing A406(N) to A40(E).

Red = 50mph standard grade separated, Blue = 70mph motorway standard with VSL. In this scheme I would also build a Thames to Eltham link for the A2 to access the A406.

[KeithW]

This seems to have morphed into another one of those "Complete the Ringways" threads, so …

"Is it time to remove Westway?" - no, leave it alone! Despite the knocking, it works.

Except for the minor issue that it needs major structural refurbishement. TfL have deferred a decision on what to do about it until 2020-2021 but its clearly not going to be cheap to fix and disruption while this is happening is guranteed.

Remedial works needed to make it usable for the future are listed as below and the likelihood is that once work gets underway more issues will be found. The old rule applies - Everything takes longer and costs more. Remember it was the inspection of the tendons that led to the decision to demolish the Huntingdon Viaduct. It may be the Westway is in better condition but I wouldnt bet on it.

APPENDIX D – POTENTIAL ITEMS OF WORK
Background
The Westway and the Marylebone Flyover have suffered from serviceability problems for a number of years. The problems range from structure to structure but the key issues include inadequate water management and waterproofing failures leading to concrete deterioration and carriageway cracking/potholing, expansion joint failures, water damage to bearings, sub standard parapets and the assessed loading being less than required. General refurbishment is now required to bring the structures up to a good state of repair and prevent more costly repairs at a later date.
Potential items of work include:


Inspections, Testing and Investigation
Structural Review of all structures including gantries
Special inspection of post tensioning systems
Survey and investigation of drainage systems
Concrete testing
Completion of bearing inspections
Installation of bearing movement monitoring systems
Bearing movement monitoring

Maintenance and Refurbishment
Refurbishment of all drainage systems including surface and sub surface systems
Deck re-waterproofing
Maintenance and/or replacement of expansion joints including APJ, EMR, Roller Shutter and Cantilever Tooth joints
Painting of metallic elements of parapets
Bearing maintenance and/or replacement
Refurbishment and/or replacement of gantries
Concrete repair

Upgrades and Improvements
Upgrade of the gantries to allow VMS signs if required.
Upgrade of drainage systems to improve ease of maintenance and ensure that all water is managed
Upgrade access into the box structures to improve ease of access and remove water management issues
Upgrade parapet containment levels where identified as necessary by risk assessment

(a) renewal of the waterproofing and carriageway surfacing;
(b) replacement of expansion joints;
(c) repairs to the concrete bridge decks;
(d) renewal or replacement of the drainage system;
(e) targeted concrete repairs to the underside of decks and piers; and
(f) targeted refurbishment and / or replacement of bearings.

[Herned]

Actually, I think those numbers/assumptions look pretty reasonable.

Another aspect - not sure whether this is significant or not - is there may be some people going to Westfield in cars who are being dropped off rather than being in cars that are parked there for the duration of their stay.

The other available statistic is the historical traffic figures. They are mostly consistent with around 80-90k per day (with some weird outliers), and no obvious spike after 2008 when it opened, which is slightly surprising. Of course that might mean people swapped their shopping destinations, although I would have thought Westfield was a far more attractive destination for driving to than Oxford Street!

[Herned]

As I have said many times before we should be showing ambition in London to finish off easy parts of the network. Buying off those houses on the A406 should not be that hard as I would imagine market values to be low on those properties which front the A406, which would allow schemes such as free-flowing A406(N) to A40(E).

The simple fact is that any scheme such as GSJs on the A406 or A40 are likely to cost hundreds of millions each. With that having to come from TfL's budget, there is zero chance of that happening, it would need national government to chip in as well

[RichardA35]

..Remedial works needed to make it usable for the future are listed as below and the likelihood is that once work gets underway more issues will be found.

This statement is not actually supported by the list below which, on reading the full document, is really a checklist scope for the consultant to focus his price, investigations and report.
Yes it is likely that some or all of the items will need attention to a larger or lesser degree, but at the time of the letting of the contract to the consultant, this was a shopping list of services identifying the "kitchen sink" approach of all possibilities.
It is up to the consultant to assess and determine the exact condition of the structure, the extent of any defects and propose refurbishment with a repair strategy and programme agreed to conform to the Client's budget.
For instance, there may be some items where a "do nothing" approach is the right answer and others where a full strip out and refurbishment is needed.

APPENDIX D – POTENTIAL ITEMS OF WORK
Background
The Westway and the Marylebone Flyover have suffered from serviceability problems for a number of years. The problems range from structure to structure but the key issues include inadequate water management and waterproofing failures leading to concrete deterioration and carriageway cracking/potholing, expansion joint failures, water damage to bearings, sub standard parapets and the assessed loading being less than required. General refurbishment is now required to bring the structures up to a good state of repair and prevent more costly repairs at a later date.
Potential items of work include:


Inspections, Testing and Investigation
Structural Review of all structures including gantries
Special inspection of post tensioning systems
Survey and investigation of drainage systems
Concrete testing
Completion of bearing inspections
Installation of bearing movement monitoring systems
Bearing movement monitoring

Maintenance and Refurbishment
Refurbishment of all drainage systems including surface and sub surface systems
Deck re-waterproofing
Maintenance and/or replacement of expansion joints including APJ, EMR, Roller Shutter and Cantilever Tooth joints
Painting of metallic elements of parapets
Bearing maintenance and/or replacement
Refurbishment and/or replacement of gantries
Concrete repair

Upgrades and Improvements
Upgrade of the gantries to allow VMS signs if required.
Upgrade of drainage systems to improve ease of maintenance and ensure that all water is managed
Upgrade access into the box structures to improve ease of access and remove water management issues
Upgrade parapet containment levels where identified as necessary by risk assessment

(a) renewal of the waterproofing and carriageway surfacing;
(b) replacement of expansion joints;
(c) repairs to the concrete bridge decks;
(d) renewal or replacement of the drainage system;
(e) targeted concrete repairs to the underside of decks and piers; and
(f) targeted refurbishment and / or replacement of bearings.

[ManomayLR]

Red = 50mph standard grade separated, Blue = 70mph motorway standard with VSL. In this scheme I would also build a Thames to Eltham link for the A2 to access the A406.

Now we're talking! (regarding the "improving the major roads approach" at least...)
By motorway standard, I presume you're saying it would be a motorway or at least something like the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon (with hidden M).
The few things I would improve are:

• If we're upgrading the A40 and A406 to fully GSJ, that would anyway involve removing the houses on either side or barricading them off.
• If we take the next step and add motorway regulations, the road can go back to Highways England who can add MS4 variable message signs (gantry mounted), lane control with VSL (advisory or mandatory if needed), amd it would all work out.
• Especially on the A406, I don't see much non motorway traffic, and the traffic that is there is little enough to use alternative routes. M406 will suit the upgraded route.
• That's why I placed so much emphasis on extending the M40 if we were to on a viaduct above the existing road so it can be used as an LAR.
• The A2 from the previous A102M to the M25 is almost motorway standard, the M2 has an important sounding number but is woefully short so let's do another extension, again with lane control, gantry mounted MS4s, VSL advisory or mandatory if needed etc.
• When the M1 is extended, the Stirling Corner Link should also be resurrected (as well as other junctions onto the M1 South) in order for traffic from North London to travel southwards without having to go north to the M25 and turn back.
• The M1-M406 link should be a free flowing GSJ with all movements catered for. If the M1 flows towards the A40, traffic from the M406 would want to get on to it to cut corners and ease congestion on the Hanger Lane Gyratory. Equally, they would want to get on the M1 for journeys northwards or towards the M25.
• The fully GSJ extension from M23 to Croydon should be a finish off of the M23. Build it to motorway standard with VSL.

[ManomayLR]

As I have said many times before we should be showing ambition in London to finish off easy parts of the network. Buying off those houses on the A406 should not be that hard as I would imagine market values to be low on those properties which front the A406, which would allow schemes such as free-flowing A406(N) to A40(E).

The simple fact is that any scheme such as GSJs on the A406 or A40 are likely to cost hundreds of millions each. With that having to come from TfL's budget, there is zero chance of that happening, it would need national government to chip in as well

All the more reason to push that bit further and upgrade the section to motorway - the road would fall into HE's hands and the government and they can do more with it eg VSL, MIDAS, lane control all managed from a new London based Regional Control Centre.

[KeithW]

As I have said many times before we should be showing ambition in London to finish off easy parts of the network. Buying off those houses on the A406 should not be that hard as I would imagine market values to be low on those properties which front the A406, which would allow schemes such as free-flowing A406(N) to A40(E).

Red = 50mph standard grade separated, Blue = 70mph motorway standard with VSL. In this scheme I would also build a Thames to Eltham link for the A2 to access the A406.

Not as cheap as you think I suspect.
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/prope ... road-nw10/

BTW that section of the A406 is already D3 widening to D4 at the A40 junction. The main issue with getting free flow onto the A40 is the Hanger Lane Gyratory. Lots of people have talked about replacing it but shied away when they costed it.

South of Hanger Lane the A406 reverts from a D3 HQDC into an S4 suburban road. A little farther on then becomes an S2 with a 40 mph limit and speed cameras.

The A2/A102 already runs through the Blackwall Tunnel where you can pick up the fabled East Cross Route and zoom up the A12 to the North Circular at Redbridge or you can use the Dartford Crossing and take the A13 to the terminus of the North Circular. I wont tell you about my rat run that takes you up to the A127

[KeithW]

Red = 50mph standard grade separated, Blue = 70mph motorway standard with VSL. In this scheme I would also build a Thames to Eltham link for the A2 to access the A406.

Now we're talking! (regarding the "improving the major roads approach" at least...)
By motorway standard, I presume you're saying it would be a motorway or at least something like the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon (with hidden M).
The few things I would improve are:

• If we're upgrading the A40 and A406 to fully GSJ, that would anyway involve removing the houses on either side or barricading them off.

That isnt the half of it. Without those side roads you virtually cut Neasden off from road access as it has the Brent Reservoir to the north, railways on the east and west side with Gladstone Park and another railway to the south not to mention all the businesses in the Staples Corner area and the A5 to the east. Thats a mighty complex problem you have there partner. You better have a few billion to spare and lots of political clout.