A9 dualling failure laid bare as shovel ready sections unfunded in what is called the 'utter disregard and disrespect' to victims
Explosive evidence in Holyrood on the A9 dualling fiasco shed new light on how the SNP’s biggest infrastructure project careered off the tracks, leaving the number of victims of “Scotland’s killer road” to grow and grow.
The chances of successfully completing the dualling of the A9 under the conditions set by the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland by 2025 grew more and more remote until it became completely untenable.
There was a failure to provide reliable funding for even those sections which were considered shovel-ready – but it remains a mystery why the funding did not come through.
And the recently cancelled Tomatin to Moy section may come back as more costly after Scottish ministers deemed the only bid too expensive to proceed.
- Roadworks set to begin to make A9 Munlochy junction right-turn ban permanent
- Fiona Hyslop announced as the transport minister as the portfolio is raised to a cabinet level brief under Mairi MacAllan
- Scottish Government highlights completed central belt projects to explain A9 dualling delay amid criticism
A9 dualling campaigner Laura Hansler submitted calls for a revised timetable and detailed plan to dual each section and to create a memorial to more than 330 people who have lost their lives on the road since the 1970s.
Evidence was taken at the petitions committee mostly from Ms Hansler; Grahame Barn, the chief executive of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA); and Lawrence Shackman, the director of major projects at Transport Scotland.
Ms Hansler launched a scathing attack on the current state of the road, the dualling programme and revealed the life-changing impact on road crash victims and their families.
She said: “Giving the A9 its infamous title of Scotland's Killer Road. The A9 is a main arterial road through Scotland often referred to as Scotland's Spine, and yet it appears to be treated like some country back road, why, when nearly 33,500 vehicles use it each day?”
She spoke about the impact crashes have on people: “Short term there is the loss of earnings, longer term, the loss of careers and the subsequent pressure to secure suitable benefits support.
"The loss of a home through lack of earnings or a house that subsequently becomes unsuitable and unsafe for those with life-changing injuries.
“For the loved ones left behind, unable to process, the unfathomable burden of grief. We simply cannot allow this wholly unacceptable state of affairs to continue.
“Yes, it is a betrayal of the Highlands but mostly it is a complete and utter disregard and disrespect to those who have lost their lives, and their loved ones left behind.”
So what caused that “betrayal”? The reasons given by CECA Scotland’s Mr Barn boiled down to the SNP’s willingness to fund the scheme and the type of contract used for procurement.
Transport Scotland is still using a contract that the rest of the UK abandoned in 1993, leading the committee chairman to point out that George Bush senior, Boris Yeltsin, and John Major were leaders and Jurassic Park was the top movie that year.
Addressing Mr Barn, who earlier stated that Transport Scotland was considered the worst client to work for in the UK, said: “Your submission, rather suggests that dinosaurs still rule the earth at Transport Scotland when it comes to the way in which contracts are awarded?”
Mr Barn was unequivocal: “The standard Transport Scotland contact is unattractive to contractors – all the risk of the financial risk lies with the contractor. And all those risks are things such as, but not only these, ground conditions, weather, utilities and third party consultations, which can all add time.
“And when you're on a fixed price contract with time penalties at the end of it then that risk is all laying with the contractor. It is our contention that if you can use these other contracts they're much fairer.”
Inverness and Nairn MSP Fergus Ewing, a fierce critic of the failure to meet the A9 dualling, asked Mr Barn whether it was fair to say that “there was nothing, apart from an unwillingness to devote sufficient funding, to prevent the Scottish Government from progressing those four sections?”
Mr Barn replied: “That would be a fair view in my opinion.”
