Apparently reducing driver frustration is...

[Kingston Dan]

...a positive cost benefit for road investment (£430 million in the case of the unnecessary A9 dualling). No wonder we prioritise road projects over rail.

Twitter @nigelbagshaw

Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance for A9 dualling places a price tag of £430m on relieving 'driver frustration'. Unreal, bogus, Alice-in-Wonderland thinking in any circumstances, but particular perverse at a time of climate crisis.

https://twitter.com/nigelbagshaw/status/1498634332688117768?s=20&t=xFmbERryZ-EFw9bjjJmXeQ

 

[stuu]

The Scottish government want all their main cities linked by dual carriageways which is a sensible strategic aim. The UK doesn't like strategies, so the numbers have to be fiddled to fit

 

[PG]

...a positive cost benefit for road investment (£430 million in
So the case of the unnecessary A9 dualling). No wonder we prioritise road projects over rail.

Twitter @nigelbagshaw

Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance for A9 dualling places a price tag of £430m on relieving 'driver frustration'.

But if, as those variable message signs remind us, frustration causes accidents then perhaps there is a cost reduction if those accidents are prevented by dint of non frustrated drivers not causing accidents?

 

[ld0595]

...a positive cost benefit for road investment (£430 million in the case of the unnecessary A9 dualling). No wonder we prioritise road projects over rail.

Twitter @nigelbagshaw

https://twitter.com/nigelbagshaw/status/1498634332688117768?s=20&t=xFmbERryZ-EFw9bjjJmXeQ

Driver frustration is a huge safety issue. People can get incredibly irate if they're stuck behind a caravan or lorry doing 40mph for miles on end which is not uncommon in the summer on the A9. Yes you can move some of that traffic to rail but the vast majority will be travelling to places without rail access.

So yes I'd argue it is a positive cost benefit. The safety case always forms part of the BCR (benefit to cost ratio) for schemes like this. The A9 a fairly dangerous road due to the limited overtaking opportunities, volume of traffic and number of right turns. It should have been dualled years ago.

Even the Greens aren't entirely against the A9 dualling due to the safety case.

 

[thejuggler]

Big number sounds impressive/ludicrous However over the time period of the benefit which for a road will be decades its not that much. For ease. £10m a year for 43 years.

In 2019 there were 6 deaths and and 61 serious accidents on the A9, each death costing about £2m.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

40mph? I thought 50 was the new slow, that is quite fast enough. The negative consequences of increasing speed to 70mph (in practice often even more than that) are foreseeable: more danger.

 

[tbtc]

This is a forum for rail enthusiasts, so of course some people are going to argue with any justification given to increase/improve roads

But when it comes to rail projects, I'm often told that we should ignore the weak BCR figures because there are (conveniently unquantifiable) other benefits and we should understand the wider social aspects and take a holistic approach (and various other waffle that essentially just says "I want this old line to re-open, so I'll cobble together any old excuses to try to make the case sound better")

"Driver Frustration" sounds like a strange wording, but if you reframe it as "the mental health of people doing millions of journeys a year" then it seems more serious, given the obvious dangers involved with stressed motorists (I say "millions" - if you look at http://a9road.info they quote "an average 142,000 vehicles using the A9 every day")

If we want to focus on the importance of "safety" on the railways (whether that's protecting the role of Guards or spending so much money on signalling systems) then why are people sneering about safety on roads?

 

[AlterEgo]

People would be quite happy to learn that airports and aircraft are designed to make pilots less frustrated and irate, so I'm not sure I see the problem here either.

You can end up very dead in a car.

 

[ld0595]

40mph? I thought 50 was the new slow, that is quite fast enough. The negative consequences of increasing speed to 70mph (in practice often even more than that) are foreseeable: more danger.

50mph is supposed to be the new slow but it's not uncommon for cars to travel slower than that. There are often tourists who are unfamiliar with the road or people driving campervans/towing caravans for the first time who will happily sit along at 40.

 

[bramling]

...a positive cost benefit for road investment (£430 million in the case of the unnecessary A9 dualling). No wonder we prioritise road projects over rail.

Twitter @nigelbagshaw

https://twitter.com/nigelbagshaw/status/1498634332688117768?s=20&t=xFmbERryZ-EFw9bjjJmXeQ

So money being spent to make life easier and more pleasant for lots of people, as well as making journeys quicker and safer. And this is supposed to be a bad thing?

 

[90019]

40mph? I thought 50 was the new slow, that is quite fast enough. The negative consequences of increasing speed to 70mph (in practice often even more than that) are foreseeable: more danger.

HGV limit on a single carriageway is still 40mph in Scotland, with the exception of the A9 between Perth and Inverness which has a trial* 50mph HGV limit on single carriageway sections.



*It's been a trial since 2014 and, despite a report from Transport Scotland in 2018 that was pretty positive about it, there seems to be no sign of rolling out the increased limit elsewhere.

 

[Lucan]

So money being spent to make life easier and more pleasant for lots of people, as well as making journeys quicker and safer.

But if it encourages people to drive instead of taking the train, or to make longer journeys, there could be more accidents overall.

I lived near the M25 when it first opened, and two of my neighbours promptly took advantage of it to get jobs with far longer commutes than their previous ones. Most road improvement schemes result in more traffic, both on the "improved" part and off it. Road planners seem to assume that people's movements will be the same as they were before the changes they propose.

 

[Bald Rick]

As ever, a little Googling finds an explanation

Section 9 | Transport Scotland

www.transport.gov.scot

Research undertaken on the monetisation of driver frustration for a rural single carriageway A-class trunk road has found that there is a statistically significant value of time uplift relating to: the presence of oncoming traffic, the degree to which travel is below desired speed; and the number of HGVs in the platoon ahead. These relationships were derived from:

• an experimental study which involves road users watching bespoke computer-simulated video clips showing a range of variables, and accompanying questionnaires for road users to rate frustration on a scale; and
• a stated preference (SP) self-completion route choice exercise.

Values of time multipliers are derived from users' willingness to trade route choice options obtained from SP surveys. In most circumstances the value of time multipliers are not transferrable between routes and bespoke value of time multipliers should be applied. Outputs from microsimulation modelling relating to factors which may cause driver frustration by link and vehicle purpose for each time period can be used to apply the value of time outputs thus providing Present Value of Benefits (PVB) related to relieving driver frustration.

By comparing actual total link time and perceived total link time additional time perception can be quantified. Applying standard values of time allows the values to be monetised. It is necessary run and average a minimum of five seed runs of a microsimulation model to provide robust results. The monetisation of driver frustration applies only to drivers and not to passengers.

Caution should be exercised in applying value of time multipliers to reflect travel at below desired speed as the application of travel at below desired should apply to free flow time. Research is ongoing to refine to refine the range of values which are affected.

Until this research is finalised it is recommended to present the monetisation of driver frustration as a sensitivity to the standard TEE analysis.

 

[Kingston Dan]

As ever, a little Googling finds an explanation

Section 9 | Transport Scotland

www.transport.gov.scot

Indeed - but there's not a metric for the equivalent in public transport BCAs. This feels like justification for subsidising road investment at the expense of public transport. What would happen if Transport Scotland suddenly found £430m benefit for doubling/electrifying the Highland mainline with some spurious metric? (BTW I would be in favour of that because we have to stop road investment for climate reasons)

 

[Bletchleyite]

...a positive cost benefit for road investment

It is. Frustrated drivers cause accidents.

 

[Kingston Dan]

It is. Frustrated drivers cause accidents.

Then they shoud lose their licenses. The entitlement of car drivers needs to be broken if we are to deal with climate change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then they shoud lose their licenses. The entitlement of car drivers needs to be broken if we are to deal with climate change.

Meanwhile in the real world...

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Perhaps frustrated drivers could be offered counselling, paid for with public money?

You often see them acting irrationally, following closely where there is no chance to overtake, for example. Leaving a decent gap is much more agreeable and endangers others less.

As a railfan I am not sure about whether new, faster, more railways make sense. But really, there are enough/too many roads already.

Agree with @Kingston Dan about enforcement and punishment.

 

[the sniper]

You often see them acting irrationally, following closely where there is no chance to overtake, for example. Leaving a decent gap is much more agreeable and endangers others less. Really, there are enough/too many roads already.

I imagine you do, in the rear-view mirror.

Are either you or Kingston Dan residents of the Highlands or regular (or even irregular) users of the A9? Presumably neither of you would venture so far by car, for the benefit of all mankind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, Transport Scotland could deal with driver frustration a different way, by implementing the increase to 50mph that lorries have been allowed in England there too. Then put a 50mph limit on the A9 single carriageway parts and cameras everywhere, and with that the need for anyone to overtake is eliminated (other than bicycles and tractors) and frustration is reduced.

This is why reducing single carriageways to 50mph is extremely effective in reducing accidents, as overtaking is one of the most dangerous things a driver does. To be honest I would be in favour of that being a blanket thing, applying the lorry/van 50 (single)-60 (dual)-70 (motorway) to all vehicles, with 70 also being permitted on "motorway style dual carriageways" on a signed, case by case basis.

(I know lorries have a limiter at 56 and coaches at 62, but those are the legal limits)

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I imagine you do, in the rear-view mirror.

Are either you or Kingston Dan residents of the Highlands or regular (or even irregular) users of the A9? Presumably neither of you would venture so far by car, for the benefit of all mankind.

Used to drive a lot in Wales. Retired and given up driving now

 

[lachlan]

Deleted

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed - but there's not a metric for the equivalent in public transport BCAs.

actually there is.

if you read the guidance, you’ll see that the benefit for ‘frustrated drivers’ is largely the perceived improvement in journey time that drivers gain from reduced congestion over and above the actual improvement in journey time.

bus and coach passengers get the same.

And rail passengers do too, through improvements in frequency, which reduces perceived journey time through the concept of Generalised Journey Time. Exactly the same principle, just applied differently.

 

[the sniper]

And rail passengers do too, through improvements in frequency, which reduces perceived journey time through the concept of Generalised Journey Time. Exactly the same principle, just applied differently.

We should surely run less train to save the planet and offer disgruntled passengers counselling for their troubles.

 

[Ediswan]

if you read the guidance, you’ll see that the benefit for ‘frustrated drivers’ is largely the perceived improvement in journey time that drivers gain from reduced congestion over and above the actual improvement in journey time.

Is there where 'taking the scenic route' comes in. You know it will almost certainly take longer, but you expect to arrive less stressed.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there where 'taking the scenic route' comes in. You know it will almost certainly take longer, but you expect to arrive less stressed.

related, yes.

 

[py_megapixel]

I am fine with road improvements as long as they aren't only trying to benefit cars. A high standard of infrastructure for other road users (frankly needs to be higher than almost anything in the UK at the moment) - including, where applicable, bus priority measures - should be introduced with every redesign, resurfacing or expansion of a road. They need to be properly thought out and considered with significance equal to cars, rather than just being box-ticking exercises.

 

[cactustwirly]

To be fair, Transport Scotland could deal with driver frustration a different way, by implementing the increase to 50mph that lorries have been allowed in England there too. Then put a 50mph limit on the A9 single carriageway parts and cameras everywhere, and with that the need for anyone to overtake is eliminated (other than bicycles and tractors) and frustration is reduced.

This is why reducing single carriageways to 50mph is extremely effective in reducing accidents, as overtaking is one of the most dangerous things a driver does. To be honest I would be in favour of that being a blanket thing, applying the lorry/van 50 (single)-60 (dual)-70 (motorway) to all vehicles, with 70 also being permitted on "motorway style dual carriageways" on a signed, case by case basis.

(I know lorries have a limiter at 56 and coaches at 62, but those are the legal limits)

Where are the statistics that show that a 50mph speed limit reduces accidents.

I'm not convinced that reducing the NSL to 50mph achieves anything.

Btw motorways are some of the safest roads and they have a speed limit of 70mph

 

[typefish]

Where are the statistics that show that a 50mph speed limit reduces accidents.

I'm not convinced that reducing the NSL to 50mph achieves anything.

Btw motorways are some of the safest roads and they have a speed limit of 70mph

50mph limits tend to reduce accidents by bunching everyone up with the lorries - that are quite often doing about 56mph anyhow. The idea is that you don't need to overtake and it works quite well, except when the road obviously is suitable for speeds far greater than 60 and you're left feeling like you're wasting your time.

Also, motorways are some of the safest roads and the mean speed of all traffic (which includes HGVs and buses) is about 70mph. Read into that as to how respected the outdated 70mph limit is.

 

[PG]

This is why reducing single carriageways to 50mph is extremely effective in reducing accidents, as overtaking is one of the most dangerous things a driver does.

Agreed, and also has environmental benefits by both reducing the number of acceleration events and reducing the amount of fuel burnt.