Highland Council says call to end road building is ‘naïve’

@spen, Knoydart people might well agree as part of the reason for living there is the lack of a connection to the road network.

Some of the cycling infrastructure around the major roads in Scotland is utterly awful. There's a path between Dunkeld and Birnam in Perthshire that crosses the A9, and the point at which you have to cross has no central reservation or island, let alone any kind of light controlled crossing. The road is national speed limit at that point, so you take your life in your hands with traffic coming from each direction at about 60 mph, and the sight lines are not all that great either. The path should either go somewhere eles, or those crossing need some real protection.

In that context, Mr Lobban's statement is foolish. He ought to know that people will take his words apart and that "very naive" is reflexive. He would have been far better served by saying that he understands the point others are trying to make, and will seek to ensure that all classes of transport are well provided for, whilst making the necessary safety and efficiency improvements to routes between settlements ... blah blah blah. Yes, it is bland, but as @mikecassie says, we don't really need that much to transform things from the cyclist's perspective. Cycling provision can be made simply by using verge areas better in many cases, and the cost is a decimal point in the noise, given the vast public costs of these projects and the difficulty in keeping to (estimated) budgets.

I'm all for making road improvements in these areas, I live close to Inverurie and thus will be affected when the A96 is finally dualled, it's sorely needed.  I just hope there is a  budget to add cycling infrastructure for these projects, have a cycle lane off to the side of the road.  The extra land would really be minimal and the additional cost for the whole project is nothing, allowing for the usual budget getting blown out of the water as most projects like these are.  They could instead blame the budget creep on the cycle lane   

Another way could be use areas of the old existing road which they are not going to incorporate as the existing road as a cycling, walker accesible area.  That might give a few more miles of safe roads for people who don't drive everywhere.  

Scottish Highlander checking in. I'm a keen cyclist and do substantially more miles on bike per year than I do in a car, but I am all for the A9 and A96 being dualled. Decent cycling infrastructure would be nice as well, but improvements on those two roads alone would be a massive boon for the area. These roads are main arterial routes between the Northern cities and beyond, yet up until only a few years ago the A96 had a single track section! The volume of traffic is substantial because they are the best roads that are available in the area, but guess what? Very few people indeed will want to make the several hundred mile return journeys from say Wick to Perth (en route to Glasgow/Edinburgh and the South) or Inverness to Aberdeen on a bicycle *ever*, let alone several times per week.

I've got to agree with neeb on this one. Having lived and worked in rural Scotland there are still a lot of 'A' Roads that are single track roads with passing places. Distances between amenities can be huge and an improved road makes a tremendous difference to those that live in the more remote parts of the country. I would agree the comments were wrong if Bill Lobban was responsible for say Edinburgh or Glasgow Councils, but he isn't, he's from the Highland Council (there's a clue in the name) and some of those areas are still in despirate need of what urban folk take for granted. I therefore don't think his comments are unreasonable.

I wonder if the people commenting here have ever been to the Highlands... I'm a very keen road cyclist and all in favour of prioritising active and sustainable travel as a general rule, but the comments made by Higland Council are perfectly understandable. People living in England and the central belt of Scotland simply have no idea of the distances involved in travelling in the Highlands relative to the population density and infrequency of habitation and basic services. If the nearest shop is a 60 mile round trip and it's the middle of winter you are not going to be going there by bicycle on a regular basis. Neither are you going to be using public transport because in the best funded public transport system imaginable there isn't going to be a regular service for the use of 3 passengers a day. Car travel is actually necessary in large parts of the Highlands (unlike most other parts of the UK), and Highland Council are being quite reasonable in wishing to protect and continue to invest in absolutely critical infrastructure.

A message for the short-sighted petrol-headed miseriguts, serving as Highland Council convener.  One Bill Lobban, apparently.

You claim to want "vital infrastructure" for the Highlands ... but only for cars, vans, trucks. coaches?  Not for cyclists?

Did it ever occur to either of your brain cells that it's NOT a choice between providing for one OR the other?  That high quality infrastructure could actually provide for ALL ... including safe cycling ... planned, provided for, designed in, and constructed?  

No?  Thought not.  Try activating the neurons connecting your meagre brain-cell count.

I suppose the question would be "When you look forward to 2030, when you have achieved the government's 70% reduction in carbon emmissions targets in your area, what kind of mix of transport do you see?"

The windscreen perspective personified!  Could Mr Lobban not be given some kind of award, for ignoring evidence perhaps, or petrolhead of the year?  With an ironic cheer, or a highland fling thrown in for good measure.