Next time you’re stuck behind slow-moving traffic on the A9, do not clench your teeth, do not swear, and do not, for heaven’s sake, attempt a risky overtaking manoeuvre. Instead, use the extra time in your car constructively by trying to work out what the dualling of the A9 is actually trying to achieve, by which I mean who is it for? Give the matter some thought as you drive along; then, once you’ve pulled over into a safe place, email me right away and tell me your conclusions, I’d like to know.

Here’s my theory. The dualling is no longer really about the communities along the road and the people who live there. That’s what we were told it was about when the SNP first committed to the project in 2007; they said it was about connecting the communities faster and better. But in the 17 years since that promise was made, the scheme has ground on and on (slowly and expensively) not because of the local people but because of other groups who have an interest in carrying on to the bitter end.

The first of them is government ministers. We now know, thanks to newly released cabinet papers, that John Swinney, good on him, expressed doubts about the A9 project way back in 2008. Speaking to Alex Salmond and the rest of the cabinet, he said engineering difficulties and problems in acquiring land meant the project might never be completed. But despite this, the SNP’s next manifesto repeated their promise: we are fully committed to dualling the A9.

The phrase to describe this kind of behaviour is commitment bias, in other words the tendency to stick to something because you’ve said you’ll do it even when it’s not working out, and it’s a pretty common mistake in government. We saw it, for example, with the Tories’ commitment to the Rwanda migration scheme – they stayed true to it even when the risks and costs and negative outcomes were clear – and we’re seeing something similar with the A9. I guess the Scottish word for it would be thrawn.

What makes things worse is another psychological problem to which ministers are prone, which is the so-called sunk cost fallacy. This is the phenomenon whereby a politician will stick to a project that’s not cost-effective any more because they’ve already invested a lot of money in it. Instead of sitting back and thinking ‘is this still needed or relevant or effective?’, they’ll spend even more money in the hope it’ll come right in the end. They also know that giving up would risk the accusation they’ve wasted taxpayers’ money.

This is definitely something we’ve seen with the A9, big time. We learned this week that the cost to upgrade the six-mile stretch from Tomatin to Moy is now expected to reach £308million after originally being costed at £197m. With the same kind of pressures likely to affect the rest of the project, and 77 miles of the wretched road still to be dualled, this creates significant doubt that the total cost will stay within the original estimate of £3bn. Have a little chuckle to yourself at the idea that it will actually cost that much when you’re stuck on the road behind slow-moving traffic.

Read more

Let’s be honest about Alex Salmond: what made him also destroyed him

The Scots who love Badenoch and Jenrick

The second interested group that’s shoring up the A9 project is a particular type of driver: the type who cannot bear the thought of any delay, gets frustrated and angry, and takes risks. Interestingly, a survey published this week by the motoring charity Iam Roadsmart suggested that this kind of driver is more likely to be Generation Z or Millennials: 17 to 25-year-olds make up 38% of dangerous driving endorsements despite being just 7% of licence holders. And it’s this kind of person we are pandering to; instead of telling them to change their habits, we’re telling them that we will change the road instead and make it less frustrating for them.

The problem is that, by making this promise, we’re failing to tell the truth to the frustrated Generation Z or Millennials, as well as the third interested group: the people who still believe the A9 dualling will make a difference. No one really thinks the journey times will get significantly faster (do they?) but there’s still a narrative that the journeys will become more reliable because there’s two carriageways instead of one. I suggest anyone who believes this should be taken forthwith to pretty much any dual carriageway in the country. We should be sceptical as well about the safety arguments: accidents happen because of human error and humans will still be around in the future when the A9 is dualled.

(Image: John Swinney)

We also know, don’t we, that roads beget cars. I remember being shown round the new Queensferry crossing before it opened in 2017 and being told how it would ease congestion. Instead, what actually happened is millions of extra car journeys were made in the area after it opened because that’s the way it is with infrastructure which promises to make things easier: in the long run, it actually makes things worse

I appreciate all of this takes me dangerously close to agreeing with the Scottish Greens, which is never a good sign, but the point is that it is not too late, even now, to back out. The A9 will not be finished in 2035 (it will take a lot longer). And it will not cost £3bn (it will cost a lot more). The benefits will also be relatively small and will fade quickly. So accept that it should be scrapped. Accept that your trip up the A9 is going to take a wee bit longer. And chill.