To upgrade the A96 or not upgrade that is the question

Is it really almost 5 years since 39 members of the public, and 12 'informed individuals' expressed these views:

(Extract from consultant's summary of focus groups held in November 2004 seeking views on possible expansion in A96 Corridor)

"The A96 itself was clearly a major cause of concern and frustration for focus group and conference participants, and proposals to upgrade the A96 to dual carriageway between Inverness and Nairn were met with universal approval. Most felt that upgrading was long overdue and would be required irrespective of any new development."

"Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that everyone had the view that any more development on a significant scale in the corridor would be unacceptable until this issue is addressed. The A96 is regarded as ‘a disaster waiting to happen’ (reference to concerns regarding road safety) although it is recognised that some of the problems arise from irresponsible behaviour and frustration on the part of drivers (e.g. dangerous overtaking, being stuck behind farm vehicles etc)."

"Whilst the dualling of the A96 and the provision of by passes at either end of the corridor seem to be the major local transport issues there was a more general concern that the road network as a whole could not support the increase in traffic and that local roads would need to be improved to handle the additional traffic volume generated by the proposed growth."

[Final Report A96 Corridor Master Plan Community Consultation, the findings of which were summarised in 'Dalcross Smart Growth Master Plan ' including the inclusion of the latter two paragraphs above ]

So what is the situation now?

"Support for developer protocol within the A96 Corridor development framework was
given although no delivery schedule or funding commitment for transport infrastructure has been set. This would require analytical work as well as considering legislative and procurement issues. TS welcomed input from developer interests regarding transport infrastructure requirements and constraints to development sites."

"It was stated that the principle relating to infrastructure must surely be prioritised. Clarification as to whether the principle related to Corridor wide infrastructure or local requirements was sought. A view was expressed that, as the starting point, the A9/A96 link is required before anything else can happen as established through Faber Maunsell modelling.

A contrary view was expressed that the modelling was flawed and that a review of it was welcomed.

It was suggested that the individual applications sitting with THC have accompanying transport assessments which prove they work without the need for the A9/A96 link. These developments, it was argued, could go ahead but may not create the places desired by THC in the Corridor.

It was noted that Transport Scotland had taken a view on the A96 as an urban centre to urban centre route. The A96 should in fact be designed as a local distributor route that allows access to various communities across the Corridor. The road, it was suggested is not needed to allow early phases to commence."

[A96 Growth Corridor Delivery Forum of 23 06 2009 Summary Report]

As APTSec has noted in previous posts, the option that emerged from the A96 Masterplan was 'the Transport Option' just how can they even consider going ahead without the upgrades.