I've been thinking a bit about this recently, seeing some of the arguments for and against, and it's really not a black and white issue.
I should say that I think the cost of it could be spent much much better elsewhere. But. We put ghost bikes up because 9 cyclists have died on Scotland's roads so far this year - in 2010 on the A9 I think 13 motorists and motorcyclists died. Now is it 'possible' that dual carriageway all the way would actually have prevented many of those deaths?
It's suggested that speed plays a factor in the deaths, but more likely, is inappropriate overtaking. Clearly targeting this poor driving so that it doesn't happen would be the most cost effective action, but practically how can it be done? (yes, enforcement, but how do you catch the people doing it in the first place without having police cars every 5 miles?) Whereas, if there is dual carriageway... There's no overtaking that involves crossing to the other side of the road. That's a simple fact. Yes, people might go faster, but you've removed one potential cause of conflict immediately.
It's kind of like us asking for segregated facilities, it's removing a potential source of conflict, so dual carriageways do that for single carriageways. Certainly at present the little sections of dual carriageway 'encourage' people to get past before it ends the number of ridiculous overtakes I've suffered while driving that road is legion) and yes yes yes yes I do agree that stamping out bad behaviour is much more preferable to having to spend loads of cash on infrastructure. But again, as a simple statement, would dual carriageway all the way lead to fewer deaths? And if the answer is yes, does that make dualling the road a good thing? I guess what value is a life?
I have heard as well that money should be spent on the rail link instead, which I'd agree with, thoguh for some different reasons - it's been suggested that dualling will lead to small towns being bypassed, but they already are for the most part anyway, and people still drive in, and if the final destination is Inverness (or further, I'm usually going to Ullapool) then on the train they'll sit till that destination, whereas driving they may (should) want to take a break and will therefore stop in one of these small towns.
I guess one benefit would be if more freight could be carried on a better rail network so there are fewer lorries on the road.
This is all a bit rambling. Really in short I think that dualling will save lives; that if we could change behaviour that would be better (certainly in the long run as it will be reflected elsewhere than just on the A9); that's it's costing a ridiculous amount of money; and that many people both pro and anti get a little blinded to the shades of grey.
Erm.
Discuss.
posts
