‘Too Important to Get Wrong’: Calls Grow for Full M8 Woodside Review

Glasgow business leaders are demanding that Transport Scotland publish its completed technical analysis and properly model all three options for the M8 Woodside Viaducts before making what they describe as one of the city’s most important infrastructure decisions in a generation.

Transport Scotland is facing growing pressure to produce a more comprehensive evidence base before deciding the future of Glasgow’s heavily used M8 Woodside Viaducts.

The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce has called for the full technical modelling to be completed and published, arguing that significant questions remain unanswered over the potential consequences of repairing, replacing or removing the structures.

Built in 1971 between Craighall and Charing Cross, the viaducts carry around 150,000 vehicles every day and have relied on temporary structural supports since March 2021.

More than £150 million has already been spent on temporary repairs and propping, underlining the urgency of finding a long-term solution.

Three Options, but Not Three Equal Tests

Transport Scotland has consulted on three broad approaches: repairing the existing structures, replacing them or removing them altogether.

However, documents released by the Scottish Government under Environmental Information Regulations have raised concerns about how those options were assessed.

According to the Chamber, the traffic modelling for removal assumed a straightforward closure of the viaducts without introducing additional public transport capacity or upgrades to surrounding roads.

The released information also indicated that no completed technical report setting out the full modelling analysis was available.

Business leaders argue that this makes it impossible to judge whether removal could work as part of a wider transport package rather than simply as the closure of a major route.

Economic Impact Must Be Fully Understood

The Chamber says the decision extends far beyond local traffic management.

The M8 and M74 corridor forms a critical connection between Glasgow’s industrial and manufacturing base, the wider central belt and major gateways including Glasgow Airport and Greenock Ocean Terminal.

More than 3,000 businesses and approximately 55,000 jobs are linked to the corridor, while large volumes of Scotland’s road freight rely on the M8 and M74.

Any significant reduction in capacity could therefore affect journey reliability, supply chains, freight movements and access to employment across the region.

Questions Over the M74 and Kingston Bridge

The Chamber’s Council of Directors has drawn up ten questions it believes must be answered before it can support any of the available options.

These include whether the M74 could absorb displaced traffic, what impact additional vehicles would have on the neighbouring Kingston Bridge, and how the decision fits into a long-term strategy for the entire M8 corridor.

It also wants Transport Scotland to compare the industrial and economic implications of each option alongside potential regeneration and environmental benefits.

‘This Cannot Be Based on Incomplete Evidence’

Glasgow Chamber of Commerce chief executive Stuart Patrick warned that the consequences of making the wrong decision could be difficult to reverse.

He said the removal option had not been tested alongside investment in alternative transport capacity, meaning decision-makers still lacked a realistic assessment of what a transformed corridor might look like.

Patrick argued that all three options must be tested on an equal basis, supported by completed technical work and a full assessment of Glasgow’s economic needs.

The Chamber has not endorsed repair, replacement or removal.

Instead, it is urging Transport Scotland to pause any final decision until the outstanding analysis has been completed, independently scrutinised and made available to the public.

With the viaducts continuing to rely on temporary support and costs rising, pressure is building for a permanent solution. But business leaders insist that speed must not come at the expense of evidence when the future of one of Glasgow’s most important transport arteries is at stake.