A9 average speed cameras
Discussion
jith said:
The A9 should of course be a 3 lane motorway: this would absolutely guarantee a dramatic decrease in road casualties and RTAs. The only reason it is not is because it is in Scotland.
The A9 doesn't justify being a dual carriageway let alone a 3 lane motorway.It carries hardly any traffic compared with the M8 which is a two lane - and crammed motorways in the southern half of the UK make the A9 traffic seem like a pathetic trickle.
If it ever gets dualled this will only be because it is in Scotland. X Billion to join a distant town that now calls itself a city along a route where there is almost no population is the sort of project that would only get the go ahead by the likes of Holyrood.
Dryce said:
The A9 doesn't justify being a dual carriageway let alone a 3 lane motorway.
It carries hardly any traffic compared with the M8 which is a two lane - and crammed motorways in the southern half of the UK make the A9 traffic seem like a pathetic trickle.
If it ever gets dualled this will only be because it is in Scotland. X Billion to join a distant town that now calls itself a city along a route where there is almost no population is the sort of project that would only get the go ahead by the likes of Holyrood.
The population of the Highlands may be small but over 2.5 million people choose to visit the area each year for holidays and leisure pursuits. Most of them travel by road so I don't think it unreasonable to provide more than a single carriageway to get them there. It carries hardly any traffic compared with the M8 which is a two lane - and crammed motorways in the southern half of the UK make the A9 traffic seem like a pathetic trickle.
If it ever gets dualled this will only be because it is in Scotland. X Billion to join a distant town that now calls itself a city along a route where there is almost no population is the sort of project that would only get the go ahead by the likes of Holyrood.
Dryce said:
jith said:
The A9 should of course be a 3 lane motorway: this would absolutely guarantee a dramatic decrease in road casualties and RTAs. The only reason it is not is because it is in Scotland.
The A9 doesn't justify being a dual carriageway let alone a 3 lane motorway.It carries hardly any traffic compared with the M8 which is a two lane - and crammed motorways in the southern half of the UK make the A9 traffic seem like a pathetic trickle.
If it ever gets dualled this will only be because it is in Scotland. X Billion to join a distant town that now calls itself a city along a route where there is almost no population is the sort of project that would only get the go ahead by the likes of Holyrood.
ks! 
rampantdidact said:
ModernAndy said:
I believe the last one is by the exit going to Dunfermline south (the first of the 2 exits you can take into Dunfermline when heading north) so worth being aware of that as I can see a few people thinking the one just after the bridge will be the last one. Any idea when they're getting turned on? I saw a few people taking it pretty quick after the bridge the other day but I'd imagine the cameras aren't opertational just yet.
I'd imagine the average speed cameras will start operating on the lower levels of tolerance from Autumn. Can anybody confirm?
They have a sign saying they are under testing and the speed limit hasn't been reduced yet so they wont be operational.I'd imagine the average speed cameras will start operating on the lower levels of tolerance from Autumn. Can anybody confirm?
I'd think it would be a week or two minimum before they are turned on, nothing official has been mentioned though.
imagineifyeswill said:
It would carry a lot more traffic if it was a dual carriageway, no major industry wnts to set up in the Highlands without decent infrastruture the A9 being the main drawback.
Don't understand that. Number of vehicles wouldn't increase just because it was a dual carriageway.It would certainly allow faster transit time assuming it was a NSL.
matchmaker said:
What bks!
Sadly such utterances don't change the hard reality.ks! The A9 is far from the busiest road in Scotland or the UK and if it wasn't an emotive subject it wouldn't be under consideration for dualling and we wouldn't have the averaging cameras.
It's a remote road that is unique because of its unbroken length between Perth and Inverness - but there's not much in between - settlements such as Pitlochry, Aviemore and Kingussie are villages.
Journey times on it are reasonable - and more to the point reasonably reliable.
Before wasting money on the A9 then if I was going to improve traffic north of the central belt with major projects I'd be looking at at improving the A96 and A82 and sorting out Aberdeen.
imagineifyeswill said:
It would carry a lot more traffic if it was a dual carriageway, no major industry wnts to set up in the Highlands without decent infrastruture the A9 being the main drawback.
The basic problem isn't the A9 but the fact that the highlands sit right at the end of the UK and there isn't a lot there in the way of supporting industry and people.If you invest in building a major business somewhere that makes things or sells high value services then typically you need an existing ecosystem of other businesses and people with skills. If part of a larger company or multinational it's likely that connections to London, US, and Europe are more important than the road down to Glasgow or Edinburgh.
JM said:
Dualling the A6 Inv-Aberdeen would probably make more commercial sense for some of the oil industry companies in the Inverness area, rather than dualling the A9 to Perth.
You don't need to dual all the A96. There are specific improvements that could improve things disproportionately.
Elgin and Nairn come to mind as particular priorities - both need long term and well sorted bypasses (no half baked 'bypass' like the one that has blighted Elgin so badly for the last three decades).
One thing to note about the A96 is that the section from Fochabers to Inverurie isn't as heavily used. Rather than focusing on dualling it - looking at improving it and cooperating with the those looking to upgrade the railway where the road and railway poetntially interfere.
s2kjock said:
The economy in the north would be massively boosted by dualling all the way to Inverness and then across to Aberdeen. Upgrading rail doesn't work for everything.
I doubt the economy up noprth would get much more than a psychological boost friom the A9 being dualled.In terms of payback it would be a poor investment - and the disruption (real or perceived) from the roadworks would probabably do more net damage to the economy up north than they would get back in a decade or more of any benefits.
But if people want to blame remote geography and lack of population on an otherwise adequate road they are welcome to their delusion.
A more practical way of boosting the area would be to move some Scottish government departments (the whole department not just some clerical jobs) to Inverness such that it would boost the ecosystem around public expenditure - and another strategicv move would be to create a proper university and encourage research money up - aim to eventually spin off and incubate local startups - and create a network of businesses - agani to build an ecosystem.
s2kjock said:
Upgrading rail doesn't work for everything.
Ther are specific problems of interfernce between the road and the railway on the A96 and also on the A9.If you're goimng to spend money on upgrading one mode of transport and here is also the intent to upgrade the other - then it seems like simple common sense to coordinate the projects to deal with both.
Dryce said:
matchmaker said:
What bks!
Sadly such utterances don't change the hard reality.ks! The A9 is far from the busiest road in Scotland or the UK and if it wasn't an emotive subject it wouldn't be under consideration for dualling and we wouldn't have the averaging cameras.
It's a remote road that is unique because of its unbroken length between Perth and Inverness - but there's not much in between - settlements such as Pitlochry, Aviemore and Kingussie are villages.
Journey times on it are reasonable - and more to the point reasonably reliable.
Before wasting money on the A9 then if I was going to improve traffic north of the central belt with major projects I'd be looking at at improving the A96 and A82 and sorting out Aberdeen.
The A9 is, to all intents and purposes a bloody disgrace. The management of it is perpetrated with a totally ill founded view of what is required in the long term to serve the population and the massive number of visitors that populate it's length. Your implications insult these people in the extreme by asserting that they are in some way inferior and have no need of a dualled road or a motorway.
The mentality you display in your post is exactly the same as those who support the highly dubious philosophy of the speed camera regime, that assumes the problems on this road are solved simply by controlling the speed of every vehicle on the road, and doing absolutely nothing about driver education. This same attitude has prospered over the past few years in harmony with the removal of a visible police presence and the steady but relentless decline in driving standards.
The people in the north of Scotland pay exactly the same road tax as those in London or middle England, and even more for fuel. Why should they be subjected to ludicrously dangerous, inferior roads? Despite recent upgrades such as the new M74 section and the road improvements on Loch Lomondside, Scotland's road system has been seriously neglected for years and needs to be massively upgraded now. It does not need the pathetic excuse of speed cameras or lowered speed limits detracting from the real issues of the road system not being fit for purpose.
You cannot expect the north of Scotland to develop and prosper and then build the roads to suit. The roads must come first.
J
jith said:
Ah.. the economist's or politician's monetarist view of roads and transport. I prefer to discuss road safety and people's lives; or rather place a greater emphasis on them rather than how much a particular road costs.
Sadly your logic is flawed - I'm not in the camp that supports the camera regime. And the irony is that it is the same politicians who support the speed cameras who wil probably apply the same warped logic to supporting dualling it.The A9 south of Inverness isn't quite the safety problem that it is made out to be. The problem is simple. It is a very long unbroken stretch of road - so of cuorse the statistics will look worse that shorter sections.
jith said:
The A9 is, to all intents and purposes a bloody disgrace.
Compared with what exactly?Try travelling on the M8 or the M1 or the M25 or the M6.
Or try travelling across some of the areas of the South West of England where there are no direct routes. In Scotland we get the A9 which is relatively fast and reliable. And still some choose to whinge.
jith said:
The people in the north of Scotland pay exactly the same road tax as those in London or middle England, and even more for fuel. Why should they be subjected to ludicrously dangerous, inferior roads?
Except it's not a dangerously inferior road. It's not a congested bit of road. And in terms of square metres of tarmac the VED payers who use it are getting rather more for their money than those in the more densely populated parts of the UK.Inverness and the highlands haven't needed a better A9 to grow in population over the last 10 years.
I'll repeat - as things stand dualling the A9 is an emotional - not a practical issue.
Edited by Dryce on Saturday 1st August 23:16
Edited by Dryce on Saturday 1st August 23:17
s2kjock said:
Would you be more, or less, likely to business in the North of Scotland if you could get there and travel around it reliably, within a consistent time, and with less frustration/stress?
The A9 would have no effect as a car driver. Average point to point journey times are reasonably quick and reliable.You might argue that businesses with HGVs faced with a 40 limit over long stretches would be impacted more. But they don't face a 40 limit but a 50 limit.
Compare the A9 with the M6 in the midlands where journey times over the same sort of distance can easily vary by much more and those on the Perth to Inverness section have nothng to complain about.
To put this into context.
If set off from the central belt to Inverness at 0600 I'm reasonably assured I can make a meeting in Inverness for 1000. If I try the same sort of journey across parts of the Midlands in England then I'd need to stick an extra hour's contingency in.
As for doing business up in that area - well it depends on the types of business. For those in the services rather than good sector the road is likely to be less important than rail and air connections. Travelling by rail to the rest of the UK from Inverness isn't great - a penalty of around half a day extra in travel. Air connections are poor.
As for those in goods and manufacturing? Distance is the fundamental penalty. Not the road.
General observations after a recent trip to Aviemore.
Road was busy, but not too bad.
Still some long queues/convoys but at least the raised limit for HGV's means that the average is now nearer 50 than 40 or less as previous.
Still plenty of bad/poor drivers.
Overtaking still possible.
Foot note: the cameras north of Perth don't cover the dual carriageway sections, but there is a small section of DC that is in a camera 'zone'. The north Pitlochry junction, or is that now classed as an island, similar to Bankfoot?
Road was busy, but not too bad.
Still some long queues/convoys but at least the raised limit for HGV's means that the average is now nearer 50 than 40 or less as previous.
Still plenty of bad/poor drivers.
Overtaking still possible.
Foot note: the cameras north of Perth don't cover the dual carriageway sections, but there is a small section of DC that is in a camera 'zone'. The north Pitlochry junction, or is that now classed as an island, similar to Bankfoot?
Guys,
I have to drive to Inverness next week, I can basically arrive anytime between 6:00 am and Mid-day, What time would you recommend I hit the A9 @ Falkirk to minimize my travel time? I had thought about 3:00am but is the road full of overnight freight then?
TIA
Martin
I have to drive to Inverness next week, I can basically arrive anytime between 6:00 am and Mid-day, What time would you recommend I hit the A9 @ Falkirk to minimize my travel time? I had thought about 3:00am but is the road full of overnight freight then?
TIA
Martin
Edited by martin_b on Wednesday 16th September 12:41
I wouldn't bother leaving that early unless you are really not wanting to see much other traffic, and are happy to get up and go at that time.
The levels of traffic aren't bad now that the holiday season is pretty much over.
Leaving at 6 or 7 will get you there in plenty of time and there wont be much traffic.
I suppose it may depend on what you are driving though if any traffic is an issue.
The levels of traffic aren't bad now that the holiday season is pretty much over.
Leaving at 6 or 7 will get you there in plenty of time and there wont be much traffic.
I suppose it may depend on what you are driving though if any traffic is an issue.
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff