CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Scottish Budget 2020/21

(81 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    Stunning analysis.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

  3. chdot
    Admin

  4. DdF
    Member

    @neddie Re the small number of cars on parts of the A9, does anyone recall the analyses (a good number of years ago) which 'justified' the dualling policy?

    I don't have any links, but I have a vague memory that even though the analysis used some fairly dubious factors (e.g. a monetary value for reduced motorist frustration??) the outcome was still pretty poor value for money. But the political decision was nonetheless taken.

    As I say, this is from memory; links to the material would be more reliable!

    Another factor in the analysis presumably was reducing crashes - the A9 used to be called Scotland's killer road - but that has been hugely reduced by the average speed cameras, so the official dualling cost/benefit must be further reduced by that.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  5. neddie
    Member

    @DfF

    Sorry I don't have any links, but from what I remember no "Business Case" was ever produced for dualling the A9, or if it was, it was kept hidden. Undoubtedly because there is no business case...

    I also remember some Twitter interactions of people asking the transport minister to show the business case, without success.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  6. PS
    Member

    A9 Dualling - Case for Investment

    Happy reading.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  7. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I still can't see where they're planning to fit the four lanes between Birnam Hill and Birnam village.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  8. neddie
    Member

    Skip straight to page 78.

    Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) is 0.78.

    Or 1.12 if you add some other figures we made up down the pub.

    So it is costing more than any benefits ever expected over 60 years!

    Posted 4 years ago #
  9. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    The purpose of the project is surely to demonstrate that the Scottish Government cares about more than the Central Belt whilst allowing Central Belt hill walkers better access to the Munros?

    It's tarmacadam bread and concrete circuses.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  10. slowcoach
    Member

    re A9 Case for Investment - it also assumes that dualling the remaining single carriageway sections will prevent 6 deaths per year from crashes, which is more than have been lost per year since the speed cameras were installed.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  11. chdot
    Admin

    Exactly.

    Change in circumstances should mean reexamination.

    News was reporting yesterday that investment in flood prevention (England
    and Wales) is based on 8 to 1 ‘benefit’.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  12. CycleAlex
    Member

    “will provide a significant benefit (£430m) to road users by reducing conditions related to frustrated driving environments” Right. Might as well just add an extra field to the appraisal:
    Will this gain a large number of votes? If so, add £100 to the Cost/Benefit analysis.

    Does anyone know how much of the project it’s feasible/possible to cancel? I’d imagine quite a lot of contracts have been handed out by now.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  13. Morningsider
    Member

    The project is being delivered in 11 phases. Most are at a fairly early stage of development. Yes, it would probably cost a bit to cancel the project - but probably not that great an amount.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  14. jonty
    Member

    There's quite a few outstanding objections - RSPB over Inch Marches, Cairngorm NP over the cycle path, RSPB over the Inch Marshes and Dunkeld community over...everything - so that's a few sections buried in enquiries at the moment, I think.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  15. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Dunkeld will only be appeased when the autoroute is sent from Bankfoot to Rumbling Bridge over the Obney Hills via Glen Garr on a stilt/tunnel combo.

    Both Nether and Upper Obney will be obliterated, but you can't stand in the way of regress.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  16. neddie
    Member

    Change in circumstances should mean reexamination.

    Some data analyst typey could probably provide a readjusted CBR figure, compensating for the average-speed-camera reduction in crashes, based on the data already contained in the report...

    Posted 4 years ago #
  17. Stickman
    Member

    Budget deal reached with the Greens. Amongst other things, free bus travel for under-18s and an additional £15m for active travel projects.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51644373

    Posted 4 years ago #
  18. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    So only people between the ages of 19 and 59 will pay bus fares regardless of income.

    Would it not make more sense to make it free and recover the cost from taxation on wealth and income?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  19. EdinburghCycleCam
    Member

    @IWRATS - I'm trying to find the link, but apparently free public transport doesn't generally help; numbers of people using it increase, but it tends to be people who would normally walk or cycle. People who normally drive continue to do so.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  20. chdot
    Admin

    “People who normally drive continue to do so.”

    Except that most under 19s won’t drive.

    Is it for ALL buses ALL day?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  21. EdinburghCycleCam
    Member

    @chdot - Yep, my point was more about it not necessarily being a good thing to make buses free for everyone.

    I've failed at finding the link (I think I saw it on twitter) I'm afraid. It's possible I imagined it.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  22. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Not the case in Dunkerque;

    https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/environnement/a-dunkerque-l-incroyable-succes-des-transports-publics-gratuits_676087

    la fréquentation des bus a ainsi augmenté de 85,5% sur un an et, parmi les nouveaux usagers, 48% prenaient auparavant la voiture pour se déplacer.

    Bus use up 85% of whom 48% had previously driven.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  23. steveo
    Member

    Up road tax/fuel duty to pay for it, I've said it before if the value proposition of the car vs bus was very different more people would take the bus.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  24. acsimpson
    Member

    @Steveo, I definitely agree. Just look at the cost of taking a family on holiday by train/bus compared to driving.

    It doesn't even have to be financial. Remove the option to drive across town and suddenly the bus looks more attractive.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  25. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @acsimpson

    Yup, I'm for simple prohibition of cross-town traffic.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  26. steveo
    Member

    No sure on across town, but into town yeah there is precious little need.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  27. steveo
    Member

    according to this a 1% raise on fuel duty would generate £200m not sure what percentage rise would be needed to nationalise the UK's bus services but I bet it wouldn't be that much. Chuck a few quid on VED and you'd be golden.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  28. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @steveo

    I was thinking cross as in across the centre. Baberton to Leith freestyle driving.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  29. steveo
    Member

    Tricky to get to/from Leith is a bit tricky without going through town.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  30. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Hovercraft.

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin