Laurencekirk GSJ

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
Halmyre
Member
Posts: 1997
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 07:47
Location: Fifeshire

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Halmyre »

Nwallace wrote:
Halmyre wrote:Not going to be avaialable on line? :confused:
Cid be tae save translatyon costs? Thir's nae point gien the info in Inglis whan the loons an Quines aw spik doric.
Ah, but I'm multilingual - I've moved around a lot (Lanarkshire, Dunbartonshire, Borders, Edinburgh, Fife).
Altnabreac
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:50

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Altnabreac »

Halmyre wrote:Not going to be avaialable on line? :confused:
It just won't be online until the 30th. It says you will be able to view online.
Nwallace
Member
Posts: 4240
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 22:42
Location: Dundee

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Nwallace »

Halmyre wrote:
Nwallace wrote:
Halmyre wrote:Not going to be avaialable on line? :confused:
Cid be tae save translatyon costs? Thir's nae point gien the info in Inglis whan the loons an Quines aw spik doric.
Ah, but I'm multilingual - I've moved around a lot (Lanarkshire, Dunbartonshire, Borders, Edinburgh, Fife).
My Gran is the same, one minute you've got Lallans, next you've got Doric (Well actually Mearns) and the next you're into Midlands Scots.
I'm not sure she actually speaks English at all.
GrahameCase
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 08:59
Location: East Central Scotland

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by GrahameCase »

The 50mph section at Laurencekirk seems to cause the traffic to platoon a little bit actually making it more difficult to cross the carriageway. It’s a bad junction though and desperately needs GSJed


I’m really hoping that the Scottish govt use Laurencekirk as a catalyst for other improvements on the A90.

Close the gaps, close some of the private access roads and create local access roads with proper LILO junctions.

Also there’s a stretch I think south of Laurencekirk where the surface is horrific - I think it’s concrete like the stretch that has just been replaced at Kinross in the M90
——
Roads Geek primarily focused on Scotland
/ owner of a 7 year old laptop that doubles as a top spec gaming pc
User avatar
orudge
Site Manager
Posts: 8262
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 12:23
Location: Banchory
Contact:

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by orudge »

You’ll be thinking of the Brechin bypass, which is indeed concrete. It’s actually arguably one of the highest standard sections of carriageway on the A90 between Dundee and Aberdeen (in terms of having what could almost be considered a hard shoulder, and no gaps in the central reservation). The surface however isn’t great in places, in particular in lane 1, but I think it’s still better than the M90 was. Or indeed part of the M74 as it was until about 10 years ago!

Agreed about the hope for further junction improvements - they are needed. Existing DC sections of the A9 will apparently be improved when the new bits are done, including Stirling to Perth. Perth to Dundee has seen gaps closed - need the same to Stonehaven at least, where possible!
SuperLez
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 21:32

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by SuperLez »

orudge wrote:You’ll be thinking of the Brechin bypass, which is indeed concrete. It’s actually arguably one of the highest standard sections of carriageway on the A90 between Dundee and Aberdeen (in terms of having what could almost be considered a hard shoulder, and no gaps in the central reservation). The surface however isn’t great in places, in particular in lane 1, but I think it’s still better than the M90 was. Or indeed part of the M74 as it was until about 10 years ago!

Agreed about the hope for further junction improvements - they are needed. Existing DC sections of the A9 will apparently be improved when the new bits are done, including Stirling to Perth. Perth to Dundee has seen gaps closed - need the same to Stonehaven at least, where possible!
There have been improvements north of Stoney in recent times - Findon, Duffshill and Banchory Devenick to the north of Charleston. Would the likes of Bourtreebush(Bruntland Rd/Durris) and Muchalls not benefit from some kind of upgrade?
Ye May Gang Far And Fare Waur
GrahameCase
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 08:59
Location: East Central Scotland

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by GrahameCase »

The bridge of muchalls bends would be a +1 for upgrade for me as well but it might be quite a challenging one to resolve as any over or under bridge structures would probably need to be located south of the bends due to topography

Not as simple as closing the gaps
——
Roads Geek primarily focused on Scotland
/ owner of a 7 year old laptop that doubles as a top spec gaming pc
User avatar
novaecosse
Member
Posts: 4722
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 23:35
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by novaecosse »

GrahameCase wrote:The bridge of muchalls bends would be a +1 for upgrade for me as well but it might be quite a challenging one to resolve as any over or under bridge structures would probably need to be located south of the bends due to topography

Not as simple as closing the gaps
The embankment at the Muchalls Bends is slowly collapsing and needs major earthworks.
Hence the temporary barrier.
User avatar
novaecosse
Member
Posts: 4722
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 23:35
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by novaecosse »

orudge wrote:You’ll be thinking of the Brechin bypass, which is indeed concrete. It’s actually arguably one of the highest standard sections of carriageway on the A90 between Dundee and Aberdeen (in terms of having what could almost be considered a hard shoulder, and no gaps in the central reservation). The surface however isn’t great in places, in particular in lane 1, but I think it’s still better than the M90 was. Or indeed part of the M74 as it was until about 10 years ago!

Agreed about the hope for further junction improvements - they are needed. Existing DC sections of the A9 will apparently be improved when the new bits are done, including Stirling to Perth. Perth to Dundee has seen gaps closed - need the same to Stonehaven at least, where possible!
It's a Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement, no joints, only day joints where pours have been completed.
The amount of cracking is unreal, due to thermal movement. Which leads to chunks of concrete spalling off the reinforcement. Not helped by years of road salt corroding the steel (note the rusty stains on the surface)

Hope the thin blacktop overlay on the AWPR keeps it sealed, or they face a similar problem in 10 years time.
SuperLez
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 21:32

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by SuperLez »

GrahameCase wrote:The bridge of muchalls bends would be a +1 for upgrade for me as well but it might be quite a challenging one to resolve as any over or under bridge structures would probably need to be located south of the bends due to topography

Not as simple as closing the gaps
I was actually thinking more about the village itself rather than the bends. The village has a population of only around 500, so a GSJ is clearly out of the question. They could build a link road along the coast to Newtonhill to take advantage of the GSJ there. But this is a low capacity junction and this will become more stressed in the future as the Chapelton of Elsick new town expands. The road itself will not be cheap either, but it would help with bus access to the village. Aberdeen bound passengers have to cross the A90 to access the bus stop with all the danger that this entails.

As far as the bends go, the opening of the AWPR and the reduced traffic levels should mean that there is much less urgency to straighten the bends on the soon to be A92.
Ye May Gang Far And Fare Waur
SuperLez
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 21:32

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by SuperLez »

novaecosse wrote:
GrahameCase wrote:The bridge of muchalls bends would be a +1 for upgrade for me as well but it might be quite a challenging one to resolve as any over or under bridge structures would probably need to be located south of the bends due to topography

Not as simple as closing the gaps
The embankment at the Muchalls Bends is slowly collapsing and needs major earthworks.
Hence the temporary barrier.
I presume that a permanent repair will be undertaken here once the bypass opens?
Ye May Gang Far And Fare Waur
B9127
Member
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 20:45
Location: Angus Scotland

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by B9127 »

https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/upg ... -junction/ Laurencekirk options published today
Motorways travelled 2019 - M90 - M9 - M80 - M8 -M77 - M73 -A74(M) -M6-M42-M40 -A404(M) - M4 - M5 -M50 -M56 much better so far than last year
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8991
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by wrinkly »

User avatar
orudge
Site Manager
Posts: 8262
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 12:23
Location: Banchory
Contact:

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by orudge »

It seems the full details aren't quite available on the Transport Scotland site yet (the exhibition only started a few minutes ago though), but looking at the Courier, option 1 would probably be my preference - it'd be nice to see more full-sized GSJs rather than cheap and cheerful compact GSJs with tight sliproads and short merge areas. Option 2 would still be greatly better than nothing of course!

Option 3 I guess would help to close off the gaps at both ends, and while I don't find it particular offensive, I'm not sure it's my favourite option. It looks like you'd still have basically T-junctions onto and off the A90 except in the case of A937 -> A90 northbound (where a merge lane was added a few years ago), and the opposite movement which does have a decent sliproad.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Bryn666 »

Option 1 wins it for me, although Laurencekirk N would have to be turned into either a LILO or a northbound entry only.

I hope this also means that the B9120 is rerouted to meet the GSJ rather than leaving an at-grade junction in close proximity.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
GrahameCase
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 08:59
Location: East Central Scotland

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by GrahameCase »

Option 1 or 2 and turning the north junction into a LILO
——
Roads Geek primarily focused on Scotland
/ owner of a 7 year old laptop that doubles as a top spec gaming pc
User avatar
orudge
Site Manager
Posts: 8262
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 12:23
Location: Banchory
Contact:

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by orudge »

GrahameCase
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 08:59
Location: East Central Scotland

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by GrahameCase »

My feedback has been submitted, anything that leaves central reserve gaps on this route is just a non starter
——
Roads Geek primarily focused on Scotland
/ owner of a 7 year old laptop that doubles as a top spec gaming pc
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Bryn666 »

Option 1 with sub-option A.

The rest are all sub-par alternatives, and Option 3 would make road safety in Laurencekirk abysmal!
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by jackal »

Option 1 sub option A, option 2 sub option A and option 3 all look fine.

3 would give a different routing for the B road through Laurencekirk than 1 and 2 but offhand I can't say which is better. Volumes of through traffic on it are probably very low anyway.
Post Reply