A9
The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3565, in the name of John Swinney, on the A9 from Perth to Inverness. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the unacceptable level of death and injury caused by road traffic accidents on the A9 from Perth to Inverness; recognises that the design of the A9, particularly the frequent switching between single and dual carriageway, contributes to this level of danger; welcomes improvements made to the road design to improve safety, particularly measures already agreed at the Bankfoot and Ballinluig junctions, but recognises that, until the A9 from Perth to Inverness is re-constructed as a dual carriageway with safe junctions, it will continue to present road safety dangers to the local community and the significant number of visitors to the area.
One of the privileges of party leadership is that party leaders get many occasions to speak in Parliament. Some people may think that it is a disadvantage if they are on the receiving end and listening to those speeches. However, this is the first occasion since the Parliament was established on which I have had the opportunity to raise an issue under members' business. I take great pride in doing so in relation to a matter that is of significant interest in my North Tayside constituency. I express my thanks to the Parliamentary Bureau for making the debate possible and to the SNP's business manager, Fiona Hyslop, for arguing the case for the debate.
Earlier today, I was surprised to hear that the Government was making an announcement about road improvements on the A9. I thought, "My goodness! One members' business debate and the Government has caved in already." However, the Executive was announcing road improvements at Helmsdale, which is slightly north of my constituency. Nonetheless, I am sure that those improvements will be welcomed by members who represent the Highlands and Islands.
The purpose of the debate is to express concern over the safety record of the A9—the principal route from Perth to Inverness and the Highlands—and to welcome the improvements to that road that the Government has made and is committed to making. I shall also discuss the perpetual shifting between single and dual carriageway that I believe is a design weakness of the road. I shall argue for the reconstruction of the A9 as a dual carriageway and, most important, for the creation of safe junctions for motorists in our communities.
On the issue of dualling the A9, I welcome unreservedly the improvements that have been made by the Government to a number of key junctions in my constituency where there are design weaknesses. I am sure that others, especially my colleague, Mr Ewing, who represents the neighbouring constituency of Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, will comment on the safety of the road north of the boundary at Drumochter. I welcome especially the improvements to which the Government has committed itself at the unsafe junctions at Ballinluig and Bankfoot. I also welcome the minor works that have been carried out at junctions such as Kindallachan. However, the improvement work at Kindallachan was undertaken in the light of a fatality at what many of us consider to be a minor junction on the A9.
Does Mr Swinney agree that the problem at Kindallachan will get worse if plans go ahead for the construction of 35 to 40 houses? It is a dangerous junction, and the hamlet that is there at the moment is potentially going to become bigger.
The same issue will arise in many different areas along the A9. One of the unsurprising aspects of the community that I have the privilege to represent is the fact that many people want to live there. There is an expansion of housing development in Perthshire, and the situation will get worse. The point about the dangers at junctions such as Kindallachan is well made.
Having welcomed the Government's improvements, I wish to make the case for why the entire A9 between Perth and Inverness should become a dual carriageway. I will make three particular points. The first is on the accident rate. Since 1979, 215 people have been killed on the A9 between Perth and Inverness, and there have been a further 419 other serious incidents. When I questioned the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning on the subject on 14 November, Mr Macdonald replied:
"If Mr Swinney were to check the accident rates on the A9, he would find that they were very far from the extreme end of the range. In fact, the rates are very close to the average for trunk roads of its type in Scotland."—[Official Report, 14 November 2002; c 15404.]
Statistically, that is undeniable, but does that make it in any way acceptable for 215 people to lose their lives on the A9 if it is statistically consistent with "roads of its type"? That does not mean that it is justifiable or acceptable, and it is no defence of the current state of the road.
Secondly, there is the matter of switching between single and dual carriageway. In my constituency, between the Inveralmond boundary with the neighbouring constituency, which is represented by my colleague, the member for Perth, Roseanna Cunningham, and the boundary with Mr Ewing's constituency at Drumochter—which is a distance of about 55 miles—the road switches between single and dual carriageway five times. I drive that road frequently, and there are occasions when I have to pinch myself before I can decide whether I am on a single or a dual carriageway.
I will share with Parliament the comments of a family whose lives have been blighted by the problem of switching between single and dual carriageway. Mr and Mrs Steven Strang of Perth lost their son in an accident at Aviemore about six years ago. Mr Strang told his story to one of our local newspapers, The Courier and Advertiser. He explained that his son, along with his girlfriend, was killed in a head-on collision with a car that was driving on the wrong side of the dual carriageway. As the newspaper reports, Mr Strang said that a party from France had
"‘travelled up from Brittany but it wasn't until they got to Perthshire that the road started to get confusing.
‘All the way up to Dunkeld it was motorway or dual carriageway and then it was changing from single to dual carriageway and back again, over and over.
‘The driver was tired, he was a foreigner and he was confused by the road.'"
The article continues:
"Mr Strang said, ‘I feel strongly that something needs to be done with that road.
‘One of the shortfalls with it is the fact that it changes so many times from single carriageway to dual carriageway and back. It's an element of danger the road has.'"
That gives a vivid personal illustration of the agony that too many people suffer as a result of the way in which the A9 is constructed.
The third argument for making the road a dual carriageway relates to the strategic link between Perth and Inverness. Inverness is an expanding city, with a much larger population than it had in the 1970s and where economic activity is much higher now than it was then. The A9 road is the principal tourist route between the central belt and the north. In addition, many people—I add that they are very welcome—now come off a ferry at Rosyth and turn left on to the M90 to head for the Highlands, only to meet a confusing situation when they reach Perth.
Is Mr Swinney aware that tourists ask people like me, "Where is the A9?" when they are on it already?
I am not at all surprised by that question.
We have to understand the significance of the road to the economic spine of Scotland, and as a link to the Highlands and Islands and other areas in the north.
I re-emphasise those three points: the accident rate; the switching between single and dual carriageway; and the impact that a more effective strategic route between Perth and Inverness would have on the economy of Scotland, particularly on that of the Highlands and Islands.
There has been growing support for the call to make the entire A9 between Perth and Inverness a dual carriageway. On 18 November, along with my colleague, the member of the Westminster Parliament for North Tayside, Pete Wishart, and under the chairmanship of Norman McCandlish, chairman of Mid-Atholl, Strathtay and Grandtully community council, who was instrumental in leading the campaign for junction improvements at Ballinluig, I attended a meeting that drew together a substantial number of members of the local community, including representatives of Perth and Kinross Council, Tayside police, the fire service, the Scottish Ambulance Service and community councils—a cross-section of opinion—to make the case for the A9. If I had time, I would read out supportive comments that members of the accident and emergency services made at that debate.
The conclusion of that discussion in Pitlochry town hall was that we should represent our community's views directly to the Scottish Parliament. I welcome the opportunity to do that in front of the minister. I also welcome the vigorous campaign that The Courier and Advertiser has waged in support of improvements to the A9. The newspaper played a key role in influencing and leading public opinion in the campaign to improve the Ballinluig junctions.
I ask the minister not to commit himself to immediate action to dual the A9, but to give a commitment to examine the case for doing so and to consider including the measure in the Government's programme in the short, medium and long term. I ask him to recognise that a patchwork of solutions, however welcome—as I said earlier, I welcome unreservedly the measures that have been taken—is not enough to give security to the local and visiting populations alike. Is he prepared to meet a delegation from my constituency representing the shades of opinion that have come together to argue for the dualling of the A9? That group would like to make its case directly to him, so that he may respond positively to its concerns about the risks that local people must take on a daily basis and to which we expose many of those who visit our community and whom we welcome.
I know the A9 intimately, because I travel up and down it each week. I am well aware of the road's problems.
When most people think of the A9, they think of the trunk road from Perth to Inverness. In fact, the A9 continues beyond Inverness. It serves Ross and Cromarty and the eastern coast of Caithness and Sutherland, terminating at Wick—as everyone knows. When we suggest improvements to the A9, we should consider the entire length of the road, rather than one section in isolation.
I accept that improvements to the A9 are urgently required and acknowledge the fact that the Executive has implemented traffic control measures in key problem areas. Those measures are contributing significantly to the reduction of traffic accidents and—more important—to the safety of the travelling public.
However, much more is required. The distinction between dual and single carriageway about which we have heard must be easily identified and regularly repeated, to ensure that motorists are constantly aware of the type of carriageway on which they are travelling. We need clear and unambiguous signing and an extension of the intermediate short sections of dual carriageway, which have become dangerous racetracks as motorists attempt to overtake on no more than 200m or 300m of dual carriageway. I refer, of course, to the two sections at Crubenmore and the northern entrance to Pitlochry.
As I said, the A9 extends beyond Inverness. Unfortunately, the road contributes its fair share to our road accident statistics. The A9 is still substandard in the Ord of Caithness and the Berriedale braes. Appropriate funding has not been allocated to it in those areas, despite substantial campaigns that to my certain knowledge extend back over a quarter of a century.
The notorious Kessock junction, just north of the toll-free Kessock bridge, has been classified as particularly dangerous and as a distinct impediment to the free and safe flow of traffic.
Although I am willing to support any campaign to improve road safety, I realise that making the A9 a dual carriageway along its entire length would require many millions of pounds. Much smaller sums, sensibly applied, could make a tremendous difference and ensure that we were able to travel in comfort and safety on this strategic road that serves our Highland communities.
I congratulate John Swinney on securing the debate. I am sure that he had a huge amount of difficulty persuading his business manager to accept his motion for debate tonight. I agree with much of the motion. The number of accidents on the A9 is unacceptable, but that is the case on many of our other roads.
The design of the A9 contributes to the number of accidents, because frustration builds up, which leads drivers to take unacceptable risks, putting themselves and others in danger. For me, that is the crucial point. When we debate the A9 it is important that we do not absolve drivers of responsibility. A lot can be done to improve the road, but drivers have to take responsibility for ensuring their safety and the safety of others using it. We need to educate drivers to pull in when they are travelling slowly and we need to impress that responsibility on all who use the road.
The motion calls for the dualling of the A9 between Inverness and Perth. I am sure that everyone agrees that that would make a considerable difference, but it would not necessarily affect dangerous driving. The Government could consider other measures, such as the use of crawler lanes, more lay-bys, better signage, realignment of bends and the simple option of cutting back trees. That would not cost the vast amount of money that dualling would require, but it could make a substantial difference to safety.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have a lot of time and I have a lot to say.
Any Government would have to identify vast amounts of money to make the decision to dual the A9. Indeed, it would have to make decisions about which other transport projects or policy areas it would have to shelve to ensure that that finance was available.
I welcome the announcements that the minister has already made about the A9. We heard about the Ballinluig junction, which although not in my constituency affects a lot of my constituents. I also welcome the consultation that was launched today on the A9 north. That is really important, because the road up there is very much worse than the A9 between Inverness and Perth. In fact it makes that stretch of road look like a runway rather than a trunk road.
I want to flag up the issue of the A82, which I see as more of a priority than the A9. Councils in the Highlands have said that that road must be their top priority. I know that I am taking licence by mentioning it here, but when I travel on that road I see the evidence of cars being pulled out of ditches. When I spoke to members of the Lochaber chamber of commerce, they told me that large vehicles had difficulty passing each other when they were on certain parts of the road and that some carried spare wing mirrors because of the problem of having their wing mirrors knocked out. I ask the minister to give some priority to the A82 when he is considering the motion. It is an important road that serves the west of the Highlands.
I shall allow a little licence, but not too much please.
I commend John Swinney for his motion and for securing the debate. It follows on from a motion that I lodged on A9 dualling back in March of this year. I also congratulate The Courier and Advertiser on the way in which it has highlighted the campaign and drawn it to the public's attention. It has sought to bring together public opinion on this matter and I think that it has done a tremendous job so far and that it will continue to do so.
I speak from personal experience of the dangers of the A9. I was involved in a head-on accident 12 years ago on a single carriageway section of the A9 just north of Carrbridge. It was a serious accident; both cars were destroyed and I suffered multiple fractures, which resulted in a long period on crutches. The other driver suffered similar injuries. I do not complain, because I was fortunate to survive. Many others have not been so fortunate.
At the meeting in Pitlochry to which John Swinney referred, we heard testimony from Steve Strang, who lost his son in a car accident, which was caused by a French driver. No one who was there could fail to have been moved by the courage of that man in standing up in a public meeting of that nature and recounting what had happened. We owe it to people like Mr Strang to ensure that such accidents are minimised in the future, even if they cannot be eliminated totally.
When the A9 was constructed in its present form in the 1970s, it was designed to cope with the traffic volumes of the time. Since then, although there has been at least a fourfold increase in traffic on the A9, the road has not had the necessary programme of upgrading.
The design of the A9, which switches from single carriageway to dual carriageway and back again, causes particular problems. The fact that it is easy for drivers to get confused about which type of road they are on might have been a factor in my accident. The situation is bad enough for locals, who know the road, but it is courting disaster when we have visitors to the area, particularly those from overseas. The road was designed with sweeping curves, which limit visibility and cut down on overtaking opportunities. That causes driver frustration and leads to accidents. The simple fact is that the road was not designed to cope with modern traffic levels.
Tayside police, who are at the sharp end of dealing with the aftermath of accidents on the A9, are clear about what needs to be done. They have identified three specific problems: driver frustration, confusion and tiredness. They believe that a fully dualled road is necessary to eliminate driver frustration and confusion. We need improved junctions, which should be grade separated where necessary, and proper rest areas to combat driver fatigue. The fact that the current lay-bys are unsafe because they are too close to the busy road was tragically demonstrated only recently.
All that will cost a great deal of money. Previous Conservative Governments spent huge sums on the A9 and I am proud of our record. In the 1980s and 1990s, we dualled the Perth to Stirling stretch, completed the dualled Killiecrankie bypass and carried out many improvements further north, such as the Kessock bridge, which is in John Farquhar Munro's constituency. We also completed major road projects in other parts of Scotland.
However, any trunk road needs continuous improvement to cope with growing traffic levels. When Labour came to power in 1997, it imposed a moratorium on new road construction and improvements. Even under the Scottish Executive, road spending falls far short of what it was under the Conservatives.
Although dualling the A9 will be expensive and will take many years, if we do not make the commitment to do it, accidents will continue to happen and lives will continue to be lost. I do not want anyone to have to go through what I went through on the A9. I am even more concerned that no one else should lose a daughter or a son or a family member on the A9. I urge the minister to listen seriously to the debate and to take the steps that are necessary to ensure that the A9 is a safe road and one that the people of Perthshire, Inverness-shire and beyond deserve.
Without a hint of ingratiation, I offer entirely sincere congratulations to my parliamentary colleague John Swinney on securing the debate. The constituencies of North Tayside and Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber are contiguous. Although the boundary at Drumochter pass is marked on the south by a hill that is called the sow of Atholl and on the north by a hill that is called the boar—that is, B-O-A-R—of Badenoch, I assure members that neither name has any bearing on the character of the representatives of those constituencies.
Without rehearsing them, I fully endorse John Swinney's arguments about safety and strategic importance. I agree with Rhoda Grant that many other roads, such as the A82, desperately require upgrading. I agree, too, with John Farquhar Munro that we need to look at the northern part of the A9.
I urge the minister to examine carefully the detailed operation of the freight facilities grant scheme from 1997. Although the scheme has an admirable aim of taking lorries off the road, it is not working out well in practice. Some recipients of grants are treated much more equally than others—for example, Forth Ports plc at Rosyth received £11 million for taking only 2.4 million lorry miles off the road. I hope that the minister will give close scrutiny to that situation.
Does Mr Ewing accept that freight facilities grant awards have taken 1.5 million lorry miles off Highland roads?
I accept that and I welcome it. However, Safeways receives about £1 for every mile forgone, whereas the ratio for Forth Ports is about £4 for every mile forgone. That does not seem to be equal.
The main issue, which two members have raised, is how we afford the necessary improvements to dual status for which we are arguing. I would like to suggest one method of allowing us to do that. Thanks to The Scotsman and Mr Fraser Nelson's work, it has emerged that the Office for National Statistics has miscalculated the information on which the submission to the European Commission for objective 1 aid was based. As a result, we lost out on objective 1 status when we should have qualified. No doubt the statistics must be completely recompiled and resubmitted, but it appears that we should have had objective 1 status.
Will the member accept an intervention?
Hang on a second.
The SNP's position is that we must move heaven and earth to get back that objective 1 status. That is not necessarily because we are losing out now, but because we will almost certainly lose out following 2006, when we move from objective 1 transitional relief to possibly zero.
If, on the other hand, our existing aid was reclassified as objective 1, we would automatically qualify for transitional relief, which would entitle us to perhaps between £200 million and £250 million. That would help fund an upgrade of the A9. The A830 is receiving money from that fund, so why should not the A9 also receive funding?
The SNP will move heaven and earth, strain every sinew, go every mile and visit every commissioner to get the money back. I just hope that Peter Peacock—who has said that trying to do so is not even an option—will be overruled by the First Minister, when I question the First Minister tomorrow.
There will be another crack at that subject tomorrow.
I will follow Mr Swinney rather than Mr Ewing. I congratulate Mr Swinney on obtaining tonight's important debate on the A9.
It is important that the minister take on board the strong feeling about the A9. The deaths and serious accidents that have occurred on the A9 are a matter of cross-party concern. I welcome the improvements that have been and will be made, such as the £370,000 that is being spent at the Bankfoot junction and the £4.2 million that it is proposed will be spent at the Ballinluig junction.
I absolutely endorse Mr Swinney's points about the dangers involved in the fact that the A9 switches from single to dual carriageway. I also echo Mr Fraser's points about the volume of traffic on the road. It is amazing at Kindallachan, where one can go off the existing A9 up the broad road that is the old A9—it almost looks wider than the current one. Walking up that wide road, one almost feels that it is high noon.
On the subject of the width of the road, like me, perhaps Mr Raffan has noticed that there is an awful lot of surplus land between the fences on either side of the existing single carriageway stretches. My point is not a pedantic one about fencing but that perhaps sufficient land was bought at the time of the road's construction to expand the single carriageway into dual carriageway. Will Mr Raffan comment on that?
I am not a minister, so I am not the one to comment. I am sure that the minister will be able to enlighten us and that he will comment on that important point.
As far as the A9 not being a particularly dangerous road is concerned, then we have a lot of dangerous roads that are a serious problem which we really ought to address. I am not sure that statistical measures are other than rather rough and rather crude, given the fact that roads are starred on the number of deaths and serious accidents per billion kilometres. However, the European road assessment programme, which graded more than 800 British roads, found that two thirds of deaths on major roads outside built-up areas occur on single carriageways. It also found that 25 to 30 per cent of fatalities on major roads occur at junctions, and that the safest roads are those with split-level or grade-separated junctions and separate carriageways.
I endorse Mr Swinney's point about the need for a review. As a result of a written question, I found out that the last estimate—which came from the old Scottish Office—for the cost of dualling the whole stretch of the road from Perth to Inverness was £281 million. That was at 1994 prices. We need to know what we are talking about, we need up-to-date estimates and we need to look at phased improvements and a phased increase in dualling.
Let me end on this point. As some members know, I once represented another part of the UK in another place, when I was an MP for north Wales. At that time, I saw the dualling of the A55, which is a not dissimilar road to the A9. The A55 goes across north Wales between Chester and Holyhead and is a major tourist and freight route, but there are no communities on that road that are the size of Perth or Inverness. I will leave that with the minister. He need not come back to me. I know Wales well, so I know that the road connections between the north and south are not great, but the A55 road is infinitely better than anything that we have between Perth and Inverness. The A55 is the standard that he should set himself.
I hope that we will receive a positive response from the minister this time rather than that inadequate answer he gave to an oral question a fortnight ago, when he said that the A9 was no more dangerous than other stretches of road. One death is one death too many. One serious accident is one accident too many. I look to the Executive for action. We want up-to-date estimates, a plan for phased improvements and a look at the possibility of phased dualling over a limited number of years.
I start by congratulating John Swinney on achieving this members' business debate. I do not only say that in the spirit of courtesy that normally dominates members' business debates but because, as leader of the Opposition and as leader of the SNP, John Swinney has never lost sight of the needs and concerns of his constituents, the people who elected him to the Scottish Parliament and, previously, to Westminster. Many people were grateful for the fact that Bill Walker was knocked off the political agenda as a result of John Swinney's victories.
For many years, I have listened to John Swinney advocating issues in connection with the A9, sometimes at far less civilised hours than the time at which we are conducting tonight's debate, and he has had to listen to me mentioning the A96 and the A95, which are also important routes in the north of Scotland. We share the general concern that the key routes to the north are often ignored. That certainly seems to be the perception of our constituents. That concern has emerged from Westminster in the past, and is now emerging from the Scottish Executive under the alliance between Liberal Democrats and the Labour party.
We must ensure that there is the same urgency about issues of the north as there is about issues of the south. I remind the minister and the Parliament that the north of Scotland's contribution to the economy is extremely significant. Transport and communications fit into that contribution because of inward investment into the area and the contribution to the gross domestic product made by the products that emerge from the area.
The A9 is a key link to my area of Moray, although I tend to turn off at Aviemore and go via Grantown-on-Spey or Carrbridge on my way home to Lossiemouth. The road still frightens many people. Those of us who use it regularly know where we can sensibly overtake and we also know where it is just plain stupid to try to overtake. Other people using the road do not have the same knowledge. Lorry drivers who use the A9 regularly find the switches from dualling to single carriageways very confusing. Regulations require many of them to drive at only 40 mph and that leads to what they call platooning on the A9. That is when many accidents occur.
As John Swinney said, it is not only tourists that do not know the road. The SNP regularly holds conferences in Inverness and pours millions of pounds into the economy. Members will recall that the wife of one of our national executive members was killed en route to our conference in Inverness several years ago, exactly at a spot where the dual carriageway changed to single carriageway. We know the pain that can be caused to many families.
I echo the logical requests that John Swinney has made during the debate. He has used very measured and persuasive arguments. All I ask of the minister is that he proves to the Parliament that the north-south link is every bit as significant as the east-west link.
I am grateful to John Swinney for raising the debate and for giving members from the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere an opportunity to discuss the issue.
Whenever I have surgeries and conduct surveys in Strathspey, Badenoch and Inverness, the main concern is always roads. As a member of the Health and Community Care Committee, I tend to think that people are concerned about health and education, but in the Highlands the main issue is undoubtedly roads.
Someone mentioned that Inverness is the fastest growing city in the United Kingdom. Planning permission has been given for another 10,000 houses and the part of the proposed national park that contains Badenoch and Strathspey has planning permission for over 700 homes.
When they look at the old A9, people can be forgiven for thinking that the current A9 is actually quite good. When one drives through Kincraig, one can see the advantages of the new A9. When the Conservatives were doing the upgrade of the A9, the emphasis was not on dual carriageways; it was mainly on bypassing villages such as Dunkeld and Pitlochry that were chock-a-block with traffic. Perhaps more emphasis should have been placed on the future and on dualling the A9.
I will answer a question that I think Keith Raffan asked. A year or two ago, I met Gordon Campbell, an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, who said that sufficient land had been purchased on both sides of the A9 to allow it to be dualled without the purchase of additional land.
I will quote from a letter that I received from Mr Fraser in Inverness. He has surveyed the full length of the A9 and he says that, starting from Inverness,
"It can be seen that for the initial 16 miles there is 10.6 miles of dual carriageway"
and in the 47 miles north from Perth, there are 13.4 miles of dual carriageway. However, if we remove the 0.75 miles of overtaking opportunities at Crubenmore, overtaking is impossible for 44 miles in the middle of the A9. We should emphasise that today.
I support the A9 upgrade, but we should not consider it in isolation. I hope that the minister will progress other incentives, such as those to get freight off the road. Now that we have three Tesco supermarkets in Inverness, the road seems to carry a convoy of Tesco lorries whenever I travel up and down it.
I ask the minister to encourage and provide more incentives for public transport. I am probably the greatest fan of Great North Eastern Railway travel. Not only is railway travel cheaper, but GNER considers customer safety and makes rail travel more attractive. When the minister considers future franchises, I ask him to look towards GNER. It is undoubtedly an incentive to take traffic off the road.
I thank John Swinney for the opportunity to debate this important topic. I have an emotional attachment to the A9, as we used to travel every year from Cupar to Achmelvich in west Sutherland, which was a 12 to 14-hour journey using the A9. In those days, one could measure the disasters on the A9 simply by looking in the yard of the garage at Calvine. Only in recent times has that ceased to be the measure of the carnage on the A9 for me.
Even today, the A9 is an important road. The absence of an Aberdeen bypass means that—paradoxically, because of the greater length—it is quicker for me to travel cross-country to join the A9 from Whitehills outside Banff to go down to Edinburgh than it is to travel the A90 via Aberdeen.
I will develop that point by reference to an experience that I had 10 days ago. I was in the control room of Scottish and Southern Energy in Peterhead. The company had problems in delivering an electricity supply to its customers, because of flooding in the Keith area. It had to take a 1MW generator from its depot in Inverness to Keith. The police forbade its travelling along the coastal road, so it had to travel down the A9 to Perth, from Perth to Dundee, from Dundee to Aberdeen and from Aberdeen to Keith. Instead of the journey of one hour and 54 minutes for the 55.5 miles from Inverness to Keith, the generator took a journey of seven hours and 24 minutes and covered 247.4 miles.
In the sparsely enroaded area north of the central belt, the A9 plays an important relief role when other connections are unavailable. That brings us to the nub of an aspect of the argument. The A9 is an important regional road that has national implications for safety when other roads are blocked and for economic development, because alternatives are few.
I ask the minister to consider whether our evaluation of roads investment is too narrow, as it is based simply on cost. Roads are costs. Does not an alternative way of considering the matter exist? We should see roads as investment. To do so would allow communities such as Inverness to realise their potential. I ask the minister to think not of the cost of upgrading the A9, but of the cost of not upgrading it. Think not of the cost to the economy, think of the cost in lives. Let us make the first phase of the campaign to join the duals. Let us then have the whole thing.
My interest in the A9 might not be obvious to every member. I was born and brought up in Aberfeldy, which is only 10 miles or so from the junction at Ballinluig about which we have heard so much. I continue to travel frequently to the area, as my mother still lives there. I remember the opening of the improvement to the old A9 at Kindallachan. Stewart Stevenson mentioned the garage at Calvine and I also remember seeing the wrecks there.
I cut my driving teeth on the old A9. I remember one summer, when I was a student, driving one of Fisher's laundry vans from Aberfeldy to Aviemore. That memory is relevant, as I am not sure that the journey was all that slower then than it is today. The A9 has improved significantly since around 1979, when it was completed, but traffic has increased proportionately.
I think that journey times are returning to what they were in the past, particularly because of the large amount of commercial traffic that is now on the road. Although we have managed to attract some traffic back to rail, we have not been very successful in that respect. We do not see many freight trains on the line from Perth to Inverness. I suspect that a lot less freight is carried on that line now than was the case when the improvement to the A9 was made.
I welcome the scheduled improvements to the junction at Ballinluig, although I am conscious that it has taken a protracted campaign and some very nasty accidents to get us to this stage. My family knows of people who were killed in accidents at that nasty junction.
Many members mentioned the switches from dual to single carriageway. Those of us who know the A75 in the south-west of Scotland might find it ironic that what my constituents would see as an improvement on that road are, in the context of the A9, seen as a mixed blessing. Some of the stretches of dual carriageway are ridiculously short, which make one wonder why they are there at all.
Members have mentioned driver error, which is a factor. However, we need to plan roads that are forgiving of driver error and that do not make driver error worse.
I add my voice to the case for improvement. Keith Raffan mentioned the effect that the dualling of the A55 has had on north Wales. Various studies have shown the economic benefit that that road has brought to the economy of north Wales. I am sure that dualling the A9 would have a similar effect on the economies of north Tayside and the Highlands and that dualling the A75 would have a beneficial effect on the economy of south-west Scotland.
I am glad, if a little surprised, that the leader of the SNP has used a members' business debate to introduce this subject. I am grateful that he has offered the Parliament the opportunity to debate the A9, as that gives me an opportunity to set out clearly what ministers see as the priorities on that major strategic route.
We have heard about unacceptable levels of death and injury on the A9. As Keith Raffan and other members said, any deaths or injuries that result from road traffic accidents anywhere on the Scottish road network are unacceptable. That is why I reconvened the A9 road safety group in April this year. I believe that there are things that we can do to improve safety on the A9.
Complacency is as unacceptable as alarmism, but it is important that we get the facts into perspective. The facts are clear and this afternoon I made the most recent figures available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. I am happy to share that information with members, as I know that we will return to the issue again.
Let me summarise the information. The rate of injury accidents on single-carriageway sections of the A9 is, in fact, half the Scottish average accident rate for single-carriageway trunk roads and less than the Scottish average for dual carriageways across the network. The whole A9 route between Perth and Inverness has a lower accident rate than the average for either single or dual carriageways across Scotland as a whole. Therefore, the facts show that the A9 is far from the worst road, as I said in the chamber a couple of weeks ago.
Accident rates in Scotland as a whole are too high and must be reduced. That is why we are vigorously pursuing a road safety strategy and have adopted within that a tough target of cutting deaths and serious injuries on Scotland's roads by 40 per cent by 2010. Road deaths have been lower in each of the past three years than at any time since records began, so progress has been made. However, there is a good deal still to do, not least on the A9.
The minister started by saying that the A9 is a major strategic route, which it is. Can he tell members the estimated increase in traffic volumes on the A9 over the next five and 10 years? That will give us a truer indication of what we face if action is not taken.
Keith Raffan is right to say that accident rates are only part of the picture and that traffic volumes are another part. I shall come to the latter issue later in my speech. I will deal first with the safety issue, because it is central.
As I have mentioned, I recently reconvened the A9 road safety group to review the measures that are already in place and to consider what more can be done. The group includes Tayside police, Northern constabulary, Perth and Kinross Council, Highland Council, Executive officials and BEAR Scotland Ltd, which is the trunk road operating company. The group has access to the technical expertise of the former Transport Research Laboratory. In April, I chaired the group's first meeting, to show the importance that ministers attach to the group's work. I expect to meet the group again when its work is nearing completion.
The safety group will commission Highland Council, working with Perth and Kinross Council and BEAR, to examine several safety issues on the A9 and to provide short, medium and long-term proposals to improve safety for all users. Those proposals might include: the use of average-speed cameras as a route speed-enforcement measure; additional variable message signs to enhance driver information, which is particularly essential in the summer months when many strangers drive on the A9; and a review of the provision of rest areas, including refreshment facilities. It has been mentioned that driver fatigue is a key issue on the A9, so a review of the provision of rest areas is essential. The proposals might also include: improved overtaking opportunities, which might include dualling particular stretches or building climbing lanes, to which members referred; and measures to improve drivers' awareness of junctions and accesses by improving visibility and signage, not just for daytime driving, but for night-time driving.
We will continue to introduce measures for cost-effective, targeted improvements to the A9 that will help in maintaining and improving safety. We will consider each of the road safety group's proposals on its merits.
Will the minister give greater detail of the time scales within which the road safety group will report and the frequency of the reporting? In addition, what priority will the minister's department give to the group's suggestions over the next five years?
I expect the road safety group to set its own agenda and timetable, but through Executive officials it has direct access to ministers. The group is commissioning work that I expect to be brought forward over the next few months. That will be welcome. We will also continue to conduct our examination of the A9 and other roads across the network to identify where improvements can be made.
I expect the road safety group's approach to reflect the Executive's strategy, which is one of smart, targeted improvements to bring the biggest benefits for road safety and the driving experience, not only on the A9, but across the network. For example, there is the improvement at Ballinluig—which John Swinney welcomed in April this year—where a stretch of dual carriageway that is too dangerous to use because of the junction alignment will be brought back into full use by a £4 million junction improvement.
Another improvement is the one at Helmsdale—where I was this morning—towards the northern end of the A9, where we committed £4 million to road improvements earlier this year. Today I invited the Helmsdale community to comment on options for a further single-carriageway upgrade, costing perhaps a further £4 million, which will again bring significant improvements. Another improvement is the one at Bankfoot, at the southern end of the A9, where there will be a new junction on a single-carriageway stretch of the A9.
In Helmsdale, as in Ballinluig, we are listening to and consulting the community. We will act in concert with the community as far as we can to identify priorities for the route as a whole. Our approach will continue to be to make targeted improvements, not grandiose gestures.
Constructing a dual carriageway will be the right thing to do where it demonstrates effective and cost-effective benefits. Already, as has been mentioned, a quarter of the A9 between Perth and Inverness is dual carriageway. Traffic flows are important and, while we are examining the prospects, it is a good idea to state the current situation. Between Inverness and Drumochter, there is an average flow of around 7,500 to 8,000 vehicles per day. At Dunkeld, average flows are around 12,000 vehicles per day. Closer to Perth, flows exceed 15,000 vehicles per day. I believe that that information was given to Murdo Fraser in a written answer this week.
The whole of the existing road is within the maximum capacity as determined by the current design and construction standards for rural roads. A high-standard single carriageway—and the stretches on the A9 are generally good—provides for a maximum traffic flow of 22,000 vehicles per day. The northern half of the Perth to Inverness route is not even at 50 per cent capacity. There is certainly a case for examining the creation of enhanced overtaking opportunities, but there appears to be no case for wholesale dualling of the full length of the route, certainly not in the foreseeable future.
The point has been made that having a mix of single and dual carriageways is incompatible with road safety. I do not accept that point. I noticed that Murdo Fraser criticised the mix of single and dual carriageways on the route and then claimed for his party the credit for short, isolated stretches of dual carriageway, such as that at Killiecrankie. The important thing is to emphasise to drivers the difference between single and dual carriageways. As John Farquhar Munro said, signage would help in that regard. We have already put in place 60mph repeater signs, to warn people when they are entering a single-carriageway area, and proper warnings on the road surface. We would expect the road safety group to examine such issues.
Rhoda Grant alluded to the priority that councils in the Highlands and Islands give to the A82 route. That is an important point. It is our policy to support transport partnerships, to encourage their formation and to help them to identify priorities. The work of the Highlands and Islands transport partnership has allowed us to identify the A830 and the A9 at Helmsdale as key priorities. We have responded to what HITRANS said on those matters.
Even if a case for complete dualling of the route could be made, it would need to compete for funding with other priorities across our transport network, including the rail links to airports and the increased support for lifeline services, never mind the other roads priorities.
Stewart Stevenson talked about the economic benefits and I assure him that economic benefit is part of our consideration. All transport projects are appraised for economic benefit as well as for cost.
Keith Raffan's figure of £281 million for the cost of dualling the A9 from Perth to Inverness was correct, but that was the 1994 figure and did not include VAT. The best estimate now suggests that, including inflation, increased standards, for example for sustainable drainage, and VAT, the cost would be somewhere between £450 million and £500 million. That is a cool £0.5 billion, which is quite a significant sum. To achieve a £500 million saving in our roads budget, we would have to cancel the three towns bypass in Ayrshire, agreed schemes on the A1, A75 and A77, the new Kincardine bridge and eastern link road, two junctions on the A90 between Perth and Dundee, the Fochabers bypass, the new junction at Ballinluig, upgrades at Helmsdale, and the M74 northern extension and the M77 to Kilmarnock.
If we did not want to cancel those commitments, we would have to raise the money from somewhere else, but from where? Stewart Stevenson mentioned the peripheral route to Aberdeen, which is close to my constituency. Cancelling that, as well as the planned upgrading of the A8 and A80 to motorway status, would save something like half a billion pounds, although those projects have not yet been costed. We will not do that. Instead, we will continue with our policy of targeted improvements across the network, including the targeted improvements on the A9.
I expect to consider further route improvements soon, to discuss them with the road safety group and to include in our roads programme those schemes that can deliver the greatest benefits in the places in which they are needed most.
Meeting closed at 18:00.