Glasgow council backs M8 Woodside removal — Glasgow 2026

Key Points

• Glasgow City Council has indicated it favours the option to remove the M8 Woodside viaducts on the north side of the Kingston Bridge rather than repair or replace them.
• Temporary works to the Woodside Viaducts have been in place for several years at a cost of £152 million.
• Transport Scotland is consulting on three options: remove the viaducts (cheapest), repair them, or replace them (both more expensive and longer).
• The council says removal could be “consistent with the Council’s position” and has offered to work with Transport Scotland on feasibility and alternatives.
• Glasgow City Council stated the M8’s construction has damaged city-centre placemaking and created severance between the city centre and communities to the north and west.
• Scottish Greens councillor Christy Mearns is due to raise the issue at a full council meeting and will ask the city convener to write to the new transport secretary urging support for the removal option.

Glasgow City Council (Glasgow Express) May 14, 2026 -As reported by Glasgow City Council in a letter to Transport Scotland, the council has signalled that the option to remove the M8 Woodside viaducts could be “consistent with the Council’s position,” and it has offered to work constructively with Transport Scotland to examine feasibility, alternatives and the investment required to realise “transformational benefits.” The council’s statement follows long-running temporary works on the Woodside Viaducts — the structures that carry the M8 on the north side of the Kingston Bridge — which have already cost £152 million.

Why is Transport Scotland consulting on the Woodside Viaducts and what are the options on the table?

Transport Scotland has launched a consultation to determine a longer-term solution for the Woodside Viaducts, presenting three principal options: remove that stretch of the M8 and reroute traffic via the M74 (the cheapest and quickest option in its appraisal), repair the existing viaducts, or replace them — both of which would be more expensive and take longer than removal.

Why does the council argue removal could be preferable for the city’s urban fabric?

In its letter, the council said it has “long recognised” that the construction of the M8 has detrimentally affected the urban fabric of Glasgow communities, damaging city-centre placemaking and creating severance between the city centre and localities to the north and west.

The council framed removal as an opportunity to address that historic severance and to unlock potential transformational benefits for city neighbourhoods, subject to feasibility and alternative transport arrangements being fully understood.

What has been the financial and operational context of the temporary works to the viaducts?

Temporary stabilisation and safety works to the Woodside Viaducts have been ongoing for several years and Transport Scotland’s interim measures have cost approximately £152 million to date, reflecting the scale of intervention already required while longer-term options are considered.

Will elected politicians in Glasgow formally press the Scottish Government on the removal option?

As reported by Scottish Greens councillor Christy Mearns, she plans to raise the issue at a full council meeting and will ask that the city convener write to the new transport secretary urging support for the ‘remove’ option.

Councillor Mearns has been active on transport and planning issues for the Greens and will seek formal council backing for engaging the transport secretary on the matter.

What are the practical transport implications of rerouting traffic via the M74?

Transport Scotland’s consultation material sets out that rerouting traffic via the M74 is the lowest-cost option in the appraisal because it avoids the engineering, environmental and urban disruption associated with repairing or replacing the Woodside Viaducts; however, it requires detailed modelling to confirm network capacity, journey time impacts, and the local transport changes needed to accommodate displaced traffic.

How have officials described the balance between cost, time and community benefit among the options?

Officials have described the ‘remove’ option as offering the shortest delivery time and lowest capital cost compared with repair or replacement, but they emphasise that removal would also require significant investment in alternative routes, junctions and local streets to manage displaced journeys — meaning the net outcome for communities would depend on the detail of mitigation and reinvestment.

How has the council asked to be involved in next steps with Transport Scotland?

The council’s letter explicitly invited Transport Scotland to work with Glasgow City Council to fully understand the opportunity presented by removal, to assess feasibility, and to identify what alternative infrastructure investment or interventions would be needed to achieve “transformational benefits” for the city.

Why does the Woodside Viaducts decision matter beyond engineering choices?

The viaducts sit at the heart of long-standing debates about how major transport infrastructure interacts with urban life; the council’s position highlights the social and placemaking costs of the M8’s construction — notably severance and damage to the public realm — and frames the choice as one that could reshape connectivity, land use and economic opportunity in areas north and west of the city centre.

What are the next formal decision points in the process?

Transport Scotland’s consultation period will gather responses before ministers set a preferred option and funding decisions follow whichever option is taken forward; locally, Glasgow councillors will debate the matter at a full council meeting where the Greens’ motion will request the convener contact the transport secretary to press for the remove option.

Why have temporary works already cost so much and what does that say about urgency?

The £152 million spent on temporary works reflects protracted activity to maintain the viaducts in a safe condition while a durable strategy is decided.

That sum indicates both the serious condition issues and the urgency of selecting a long-term approach to provide certainty and to avoid further escalation of interim maintenance costs.

What have critics and supporters said about removal versus repair or replacement?

The council letter and councillor action indicate local political support for exploring removal as a means to reconnect neighbourhoods and improve placemaking, while Transport Scotland and technical stakeholders highlight that repair or replacement would likely preserve the motorway function in place and avoid the need for some local transport changes — though at greater financial and time cost.

Explore More Glasgow Council News

Glasgow Council Schools Programme Targets Sectarianism, Glasgow 2026

Glasgow council tax rise: discounts and exemptions explained 2026

What are the unanswered questions that will shape public response?

Key outstanding questions include the capacity of the M74 and surrounding road network to absorb rerouted traffic, the scale and source of funding for alternative investment, the environmental and air-quality impacts of any traffic changes, how public transport and active-travel provision would be improved, and the specific regeneration opportunities unlocked by removing the structure.

Transport Scotland’s consultation is intended to test those and related issues with stakeholders and the public.

Background of the development

The M8 through Glasgow is a product of mid-20th century motorway planning that sought to bring cross-city trunk road capacity into urban centres, but successive generations of planners and communities have criticised the route for cutting through city fabric and creating physical and social barriers.

The Woodside Viaducts in particular carry the M8 north of the Kingston Bridge and have required temporary safety works for several years; Transport Scotland’s current consultation follows engineering assessments and rising interim costs, prompting debate about whether to repair, replace or remove that stretch altogether.

Prediction: how could this affect Glasgow residents, commuters and local communities?

If Transport Scotland and ministers choose the ‘remove’ option and the M8 Woodside viaducts are taken down with traffic re-routed via the M74, residents and commuters could see a reconfigured road network in which through-traffic is taken off the city-centre corridor, potentially reducing severance and opening land for redevelopment — but this outcome would depend on successful investment in alternative transport capacity and local street improvements to manage displaced journeys.

Conversely, choosing repair or replacement would likely keep motorway traffic patterns similar to today while extending the engineering life of the viaducts; that route would reduce near-term uncertainty but may foreclose opportunities for urban reconnection unless paired with significant local interventions.