A1 dualling - Scotland

[RJDG14]

If it was dualled then I think it would make more sense in the case of the A75 for most of the dualling to be online, with a standard similar to that of the old A74. It doesn't get enough traffic to merit being any higher standard than that.

[nowster]

One possibility could be alternating S2+1.

[Owain]

One possibility could be alternating S2+1.

The A75 does have quite a few long stretches of S2+1, some of which look very recent, and which do quite a good job. The only problem, with regard to disembarked traffic from Cairnryan, is that the first one is rather a long way from the port.

The A77 is worse than the A75. Not only does it have fewer such overtaking opportunities, but it passes through several urban areas.

[thatapanydude]

In my opinion I would build a dual carriageway link road from Dumfries to Lockerbie, there by negating the need for an online upgrade to the A75. The M74 from Gretna heads NNW towards Glasgow anyway so it’s not much of a detour.

I actually mentioned this a few years back, with a picture, which I’ll try and find.

Here was my post from last year.
“Here is my idea of providing a continuous dual-carriageway (6.5 miles) link from Dumfries to Gretna and Lockerbie via a link to the A74(M) just south of Lockerbie. Whilst this would add an additional 3 miles from a typical journey from Gretna to Dumfries, the extra savings provided by a dual-carriageway would offset the extra distance, furthermore my link would improve safety and improve access to Dumfries from the A74(M). The A75 would also be dulled from Collin to the junction with the A75(M).

I would call the road A75(M) so the A75 can be left as the route for traffic to Annan.

Circles represent possibile junctions, though the ones with the B-roads aren't critical since it is unlikely they will be used by strategic traffic.”

[KeithW]

In my opinion I would build a dual carriageway link road from Dumfries to Lockerbie, there by negating the need for an online upgrade to the A75. The M74 from Gretna heads NNW towards Glasgow anyway so it’s not much of a detour.

The bulk of the strategic traffic on the A75 is travelling to Cairnryan to catch the ferry in my experience. Traffic heading to Strathclyde already uses the A709 or A77 and AADF on the A709 is around 10k which makes it hard to justify dualling it. The real problem area for the A75 is west of Dumfries. The distance to Glasgow is irrelevant to traffic coming up the M6 or across the A66.

[djw1981]

There is a significant amount of commuting from Dumfries to the Greater Glasgow / North Lanarkshire area, and a smaller amount the other way. They would probably be the main beneficiaries from a dualing in the A701 / A709 corridors.

[DaStreetsweep]

The thing with the A75 is that it strikes me as the main route from Northern Ireland to England - so why would Scotland feel it should pay to improve it?

Pretty obvious really. Northern Ireland, Scotland and England are all part of the UK. All parts of the UK build infrastructure that is of benefit to the UK as a whole. I could equally argue that the northern section of the M6 is mainly used by traffic to and from Scotland and therefore question why it should have been built, if at all, using English taxpayers' money.

I don't think it's in anyone's interest to start going down that particular road, if you'll forgive the pun.

Agree 1 million percent!

[Mark Hewitt]

The thing with the A75 is that it strikes me as the main route from Northern Ireland to England - so why would Scotland feel it should pay to improve it?

Even if both weren’t part of the UK that doesn’t matter. The country benefits from good connections be that internally or leading and and out of the country.

The same as you might argue that the UK shouldn’t build the M20 or HS1 because it goes to France. All these connections benefit the UK.

[Ruperts Trooper]

The thing with the A75 is that it strikes me as the main route from Northern Ireland to England - so why would Scotland feel it should pay to improve it?

Even if both weren’t part of the UK that doesn’t matter. The country benefits from good connections be that internally or leading and and out of the country.

The same as you might argue that the UK shouldn’t build the M20 or HS1 because it goes to France. All these connections benefit the UK.

Political attitudes may change if/when we leave the EU.

[exiled]

The thing with the A75 is that it strikes me as the main route from Northern Ireland to England - so why would Scotland feel it should pay to improve it?

Even if both weren’t part of the UK that doesn’t matter. The country benefits from good connections be that internally or leading and and out of the country.

The same as you might argue that the UK shouldn’t build the M20 or HS1 because it goes to France. All these connections benefit the UK.

This is why countries like the US, Canada, Spain, Australia all have centralised pots for certain bits of national infrastructure. What is important nationally as a link might not be at the next level of government. The narrow point is as it would come out of Scottish funds, there is no narrow economic benefit for Scotland, it won't get built.

Matching EU or UK funds, now you are talking. A nice bit of collaboration.

[Mark Hewitt]

The thing with the A75 is that it strikes me as the main route from Northern Ireland to England - so why would Scotland feel it should pay to improve it?

Even if both weren’t part of the UK that doesn’t matter. The country benefits from good connections be that internally or leading and and out of the country.

The same as you might argue that the UK shouldn’t build the M20 or HS1 because it goes to France. All these connections benefit the UK.

Political attitudes may change if/when we leave the EU.

Not really. In or out of the EU isn’t really relevant. All countries need good connections to other countries.

[Ruperts Trooper]

Even if both weren’t part of the UK that doesn’t matter. The country benefits from good connections be that internally or leading and and out of the country.

The same as you might argue that the UK shouldn’t build the M20 or HS1 because it goes to France. All these connections benefit the UK.

Political attitudes may change if/when we leave the EU.

Not really. In or out of the EU isn’t really relevant. All countries need good connections to other countries.

The EU funds improvements on cross-border routes - that won't happen for road links between Ireland and France once we leave the EU, so no matched funding so harder to get UK politicians to agree on funding.

[KeithW]

This is why countries like the US, Canada, Spain, Australia all have centralised pots for certain bits of national infrastructure. What is important nationally as a link might not be at the next level of government. The narrow point is as it would come out of Scottish funds, there is no narrow economic benefit for Scotland, it won't get built.

Matching EU or UK funds, now you are talking. A nice bit of collaboration.

Thats not really true of the USA. The Interstate System was created in the 1950's as part of US Strategic defence plan. This was a reaction to the realisation in WW2 that while many individual states had good roads many others did not. Route 66 from Chicago to LA was of highly variable quality being HQDC in some states and rural S2 dirt roads in others. US 40 (the National Road) in Ohio was very like the pre war A1. An S2 road that went through every community along the way. Interstate I-70 was basically an offline upgrade running alongside it.

The designation of national route numbers was done in Washington but all they did was allocate the number to existing roads. The Dept of Defence was concerned that in time of war knocking out a few road and rail road bridges could bring the US Transport system to a halt. The enabling act was the 1956 National Interstate and Defense Highways Act. Even there although most of the Highways received federal funding to build them they are maintained by the State Highway Authorities, in Ohio this was ODOT.

When it comes to railways with the exception of the Amtrak East Coast Corridor and some State commuter systems the track is run by and for commercial operators.

[exiled]

This is why countries like the US, Canada, Spain, Australia all have centralised pots for certain bits of national infrastructure. What is important nationally as a link might not be at the next level of government. The narrow point is as it would come out of Scottish funds, there is no narrow economic benefit for Scotland, it won't get built.

Matching EU or UK funds, now you are talking. A nice bit of collaboration.

Thats not really true of the USA. The Interstate System was created in the 1950's as part of US Strategic defence plan. This was a reaction to the realisation in WW2 that while many individual states had good roads many others did not. Route 66 from Chicago to LA was of highly variable quality being HQDC in some states and rural S2 dirt roads in others. US 40 (the National Road) in Ohio was very like the pre war A1. An S2 road that went through every community along the way. Interstate I-70 was basically an offline upgrade running alongside it.

The designation of national route numbers was done in Washington but all they did was allocate the number to existing roads. The Dept of Defence was concerned that in time of war knocking out a few road and rail road bridges could bring the US Transport system to a halt. The enabling act was the 1956 National Interstate and Defense Highways Act. Even there although most of the Highways received federal funding to build them they are maintained by the State Highway Authorities, in Ohio this was ODOT.

When it comes to railways with the exception of the Amtrak East Coast Corridor and some State commuter systems the track is run by and for commercial operators.

That confirms that the bit about a centralised pot to fund, and there being co funding. The Interstate network is unusual in that there is a specific standard, elsewhere they can vary, but these bits of national infrastructure need the central pot to get built. Dualling the A75 may be important for NI, and the UK as a whole.

It is not going to happen with the current funding system because economically it is not to Scotland.

[KeithW]

That confirms that the bit about a centralised pot to fund, and there being co funding. The Interstate network is unusual in that there is a specific standard, elsewhere they can vary, but these bits of national infrastructure need the central pot to get built. Dualling the A75 may be important for NI, and the UK as a whole.

It is not going to happen with the current funding system because economically it is not to Scotland.

Actually all it show is that over 60 years ago at the height of the cold war the USA spent a bundle on building roads that could be used in case of all out war that would probably be fought with nuclear weapons. You could equally cite the building of the M1, M6, M20, M3, M4, M5. M7 and A74(M)/M74 as Britain having a central pot. That no longer happens because the governments of Scotland and Wales wanted to take charge of their bit and in Scotland at least if its not on the Forth Clyde Axis or the A9 it seems that it will get pretty low priority. You need to take this up with Holyrood and Stormont. Given the low level of traffic on the A75 I doubt anyone is going to rush to fund it soon. The AADF from Dumfries to Larne is around 8k of which less than 2k are HGV's and LGV's. That is less than the A15 and I dont expect to see that dualled any time soon either.

<edited to remove garbled text>

[exiled]

That confirms that the bit about a centralised pot to fund, and there being co funding. The Interstate network is unusual in that there is a specific standard, elsewhere they can vary, but these bits of national infrastructure need the central pot to get built. Dualling the A75 may be important for NI, and the UK as a whole.

It is not going to happen with the current funding system because economically it is not to Scotland.

Actually all it show is that over 60 years ago at the height of the cold war the USA spent a bundle on building roads that could be used in case of all out war that would probably be fought with nuclear weapons. You could equally cite the building of the M1, M6, M20, M3, M4, M5. M7 and A74(M)/M74 as Britain having a central pot. That no longer happens because the governments of Scotland and Wales wanted to take charge of their bit and in Scotland at least if its not on the Forth Clyde Axis or the A9 it seems that it . Given tawill get pretty low priority. You need to take this up with Holyrood and Stormont. Given the low level of traffic on the A75 I doubt anyone is going to rush to fund it soon. The AADF from Dumfries to Larne is around 8k of which less than 2k are HGV's and LGV's. That is aless than the A15 and I dont expect to see that dualled any time soon either.

Prior to devolution it was a centralised pot as it was all directed by ultimately by Westminster. So whilst the Scottish Office was incharge of the roads in Scotland it was still in the same UK cabinet and responsible to the Commons.

Now the Scottish Government is responsible to the Scottish Parliament. It is going to have different priorities. Things get funded if the funding can be justified, justification can be odd as political priorities often come into it. The way infrastructure is funded in the UK, there is little justification for Scotland funding this or the A1 at the moment.

[KeithW]

Prior to devolution it was a centralised pot as it was all directed by ultimately by Westminster. So whilst the Scottish Office was incharge of the roads in Scotland it was still in the same UK cabinet and responsible to the Commons.

Now the Scottish Government is responsible to the Scottish Parliament. It is going to have different priorities. Things get funded if the funding can be justified, justification can be odd as political priorities often come into it. The way infrastructure is funded in the UK, there is little justification for Scotland funding this or the A1 at the moment.

But we have devolved Governments and they wanted it that way, special pleading just wont hack it. Highway spending always had to be justified and there was a political aspect to it. The simple reality is the A75 carries less than 8k of traffic between Dumfries and Cairnryan and only around 2k of that is strategic. We are taking about 95 miles of road here and if we assume that 80 miles would need to be ugraded and assume an optimistic £10 to £12 million pounds per mile you are looking at a cost of £800 million to £1 billion or thereabouts which is about the entire annual Scottish Government road budget. The distance is about the same as the A9 dualling which is budgeted for £3 billion but the terrain is less extreme so lets say £1.5 to £2 billion and we all know how long that process has taken.

The irony here is that had it NOT been devolved an upgrade would have probably been more likely as the current Secretary of State for Scotland is the MP for Dumfries and Galloway, Alister Jack. I would love to see the A75 upgraded, Galloway is one of my favourite regions and the drive from my house to Stranraer via the A66/M6/A75 is only 200 miles which on a good day I can do in 4 hours.

[exiled]

Prior to devolution it was a centralised pot as it was all directed by ultimately by Westminster. So whilst the Scottish Office was incharge of the roads in Scotland it was still in the same UK cabinet and responsible to the Commons.

Now the Scottish Government is responsible to the Scottish Parliament. It is going to have different priorities. Things get funded if the funding can be justified, justification can be odd as political priorities often come into it. The way infrastructure is funded in the UK, there is little justification for Scotland funding this or the A1 at the moment.

But we have devolved Governments and they wanted it that way, special pleading just wont hack it. Highway spending always had to be justified and there was a political aspect to it. The simple reality is the A75 carries less than 8k of traffic between Dumfries and Cairnryan and only around 2k of that is strategic. We are taking about 95 miles of road here and if we assume that 80 miles would need to be ugraded and assume an optimistic £10 to £12 million pounds per mile you are looking at a cost of £800 million to £1 billion or thereabouts which is about the entire annual Scottish Government road budget. The distance is about the same as the A9 dualling which is budgeted for £3 billion but the terrain is less extreme so lets say £1.5 to £2 billion and we all know how long that process has taken.

The irony here is that had it NOT been devolved an upgrade would have probably been more likely as the current Secretary of State for Scotland is the MP for Dumfries and Galloway, Alister Jack. I would love to see the A75 upgraded, Galloway is one of my favourite regions and the drive from my house to Stranraer via the A66/M6/A75 is only 200 miles which on a good day I can do in 4 hours.

We have only had devolution for the last twenty years. The issue is partly devolution, the Scottish Government is not going to spend money on infrastructure that does not pass its benefit tests for Scotland a) does it benefit the area economically, b) does it benefit Scotland economically, c) does it benefit the SNP politically.

The point is most federal and confederal systems have a central pot of money that can be dipped into for infrastructure of a pan UK level that would otherwise be built by Scotland.

France has it with infrastructure 'Etat 50%, Region 40%, Departement 10%' on investment signs.

Without UK or NI money the A75 will not be dualled because of all the above, NI and the UK gov want it, fine. They pay, up front or in a shadow toll using ANPR.

I am a unionist by conviction, but if I was Cabinet Secretary for Transport, the A75 would be way down my priority list. Fastlink would be higher, the Dundee north relief road higher. Making the signs all bilingual would be higher.

[Altnabreac]

Prior to devolution it was a centralised pot as it was all directed by ultimately by Westminster. So whilst the Scottish Office was incharge of the roads in Scotland it was still in the same UK cabinet and responsible to the Commons.

Now the Scottish Government is responsible to the Scottish Parliament. It is going to have different priorities. Things get funded if the funding can be justified, justification can be odd as political priorities often come into it. The way infrastructure is funded in the UK, there is little justification for Scotland funding this or the A1 at the moment.

But we have devolved Governments and they wanted it that way, special pleading just wont hack it. Highway spending always had to be justified and there was a political aspect to it. The simple reality is the A75 carries less than 8k of traffic between Dumfries and Cairnryan and only around 2k of that is strategic. We are taking about 95 miles of road here and if we assume that 80 miles would need to be ugraded and assume an optimistic £10 to £12 million pounds per mile you are looking at a cost of £800 million to £1 billion or thereabouts which is about the entire annual Scottish Government road budget. The distance is about the same as the A9 dualling which is budgeted for £3 billion but the terrain is less extreme so lets say £1.5 to £2 billion and we all know how long that process has taken.

The irony here is that had it NOT been devolved an upgrade would have probably been more likely as the current Secretary of State for Scotland is the MP for Dumfries and Galloway, Alister Jack. I would love to see the A75 upgraded, Galloway is one of my favourite regions and the drive from my house to Stranraer via the A66/M6/A75 is only 200 miles which on a good day I can do in 4 hours.

We have only had devolution for the last twenty years. The issue is partly devolution, the Scottish Government is not going to spend money on infrastructure that does not pass its benefit tests for Scotland a) does it benefit the area economically, b) does it benefit Scotland economically, c) does it benefit the SNP politically.

The point is most federal and confederal systems have a central pot of money that can be dipped into for infrastructure of a pan UK level that would otherwise be built by Scotland.

France has it with infrastructure 'Etat 50%, Region 40%, Departement 10%' on investment signs.

Without UK or NI money the A75 will not be dualled because of all the above, NI and the UK gov want it, fine. They pay, up front or in a shadow toll using ANPR.

I am a unionist by conviction, but if I was Cabinet Secretary for Transport, the A75 would be way down my priority list. Fastlink would be higher, the Dundee north relief road higher. Making the signs all bilingual would be higher.

Agreed on the general point here although I think that investment in Springholm and Crocketford bypasses on the A75 will be forthcoming because investment in those would pass the a, b, c tests above.

Apart from that any strategic investment in access to Galloway will be focussed on the A77 corridor which has a much stronger benefit to Scotland and is also in more need of upgrading than the A75 anyway as it has more unbypassed settlements and a generally poorer existing condition.

[DaStreetsweep]

Re last point, still no sign of Springholm and Crocketford bypasses on A75 - Covid will likely get the blame.

Looks like dualling of A1 in Northumberland will happen, albeit with a slight delay.

With only 16 miles or so to dual up north, be nice if we could schedule, even within the next 5-10 years, a plan to sort a third of that. Houndwood to Ayton would be fairly unproblematic and issue free.