A9 dualling

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

Post Reply
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

A9 dualling

Post by Conekicker » Fri May 31, 2013 10:26

Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.

User avatar
Mark Hewitt
Member
Posts: 28489
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:54
Location: Chester-le-Street

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Mark Hewitt » Fri May 31, 2013 10:52

80 miles of D2? I thought more of it was dualled than that.
“I’ve been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely.”

User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3080
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: A9 dualling

Post by A303Chris » Fri May 31, 2013 11:29

Mark Hewitt wrote:80 miles of D2? I thought more of it was dualled than that.
Unless they are also including upgrading some of the dual sections to GSJ
The M25 - The road to nowhere

Nwallace
Member
Posts: 3871
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 22:42
Location: Dundee

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Nwallace » Fri May 31, 2013 11:57

80 miles doesn't sound right does it.

So Playing in a cycle mapper with OSM:
Luncary to Pass of Brinham is 9.3km
Birnham to Ballinluig is 16.3km
Pitlochry Bypass is 6.6km
Killiecrankie to the Drumochter race track is 21.8km
Dummochter to Crubenbeg is 20.1km
Crubenbeg to Findhorn 46km
Findhorn to Moy 8.5km

And it's Dual into Inverness from there
~128km of Single carriageway
Which is 80 miles

User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8224
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: A9 dualling

Post by wrinkly » Fri May 31, 2013 12:15

The item appears to be based on this press release.

User avatar
michael769
Member
Posts: 11325
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 20:36
Location: Polbeth, West Lothian
Contact:

Re: A9 dualling

Post by michael769 » Wed Apr 23, 2014 15:04

First of three A9 dualling design contracts awarded

The first of three design contracts for the dualling of the A9 has been awarded.

Joint venture CH2MHill/Fairhurst is expected to design a 26-mile (43km) upgraded stretch of the road between Glengarry and Dalraddy.

The work will start next month, subject to what is known as a mandatory standstill period.

The A9 between Perth and Inverness is to be fully dualled at a cost of £3bn by 2025.

The three design contracts are each worth between £40m and £60m.

Transport Minister Keith Brown said the dualling programme was the most expensive transport project in Scotland's history.

He said: "The appointment of the first design consultancy for this mammoth project marks another significant milestone in this government's commitment to the project - the first government to commit to dual this vital route between Perth and Inverness."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-hig ... s-27125434
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open
Thomas Robert Dewar(1864-1930)
Take the pledge

User avatar
Achmelvic
Member
Posts: 1496
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 21:50
Location: Castleford, Yorkshire

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Achmelvic » Wed Apr 23, 2014 15:54

Good to see some progress being made. Is there any guide to what order the sections will be done? I'm assuming a few at a time to spread the pain over the next 11 years?

User avatar
HandShandy
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 16:51
Location: Paisley, Scotland
Contact:

Re: A9 dualling

Post by HandShandy » Tue Mar 10, 2015 13:41

Time for me to pull my weight as a Sabre member and provide an update here for those that might have missed the Transport Scotland press releases over the last few days seeing as this is the official A9 dualling thread. Keep your eyes peeled for those clickly links I've embedded into the post.

They have considerably updated the page on the Transport Scotland website for the A9 with links now to each section, this can be seen: here

They have also produced a newsletter (made available yesterday) which will be released quarterly if it's anything like the M8 completion, this can be downloaded here: March 2015 Newsletter

The big news yesterday was the unveiling of the Dalwhinnie Junction options which can be viewed here: Link to PDF of Crubenmore to Dalwhinnie section

Not sure what people's thoughts are on here but I think options A or E are the best - It's nice to see that an at-grade roundabout was NOT considered for this section. My initial fear when I heard this news about the unveiling of junction options was: "oh please don't do an A96 and plonk a roundabout in there"

The BBC news article has a great flythrough video of one of the junction options, it's worth checking out. Link to BBC Video

Kincraig to Dalraddy dualling to start this summer as you all know, if anyone makes the A9 journey often (I do it about twice a year, although I'm looking to minimise that as driving on it with the now-switched-on average speed cameras make the trip about as much fun as having teeth pulled) please post updates on any activity.
Explore the history of the trunk roads and motorways of Glasgow and the West of Scotland at Glasgows-Motorways.co.uk
Follow us on twitter: @GlasgowsMways
Check out our Facebook page: Glasgow Motorway Archive

User avatar
rileyrob
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 09:18
Location: Lochaber
Contact:

Re: A9 dualling

Post by rileyrob » Tue Mar 10, 2015 15:26

I can't help thinking that the Dalwhinnie junction should be built to the north of the village, and lined up with the railway bridge. This would remove the A889/86 through traffic, but if A9 north slips were kept at the present junction then the village wouldn't become a complete dead end. I appreciate that there isn't a lot of traffic, and that the road is the old A9, so of a high standard, but it seems the most sensible long term solution. The problem of the close proximity to the aqueduct is obviously an issue though.
Rob.
My mission is to travel every road and visit every town, village and hamlet in the British Isles.
I don't like thinking about how badly I am doing.

http://www.rileyrob.co.uk

User avatar
novaecosse
Member
Posts: 4722
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 23:35
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Re: A9 dualling

Post by novaecosse » Tue Mar 10, 2015 15:56

rileyrob wrote:I can't help thinking that the Dalwhinnie junction should be built to the north of the village, and lined up with the railway bridge. This would remove the A889/86 through traffic, but if A9 north slips were kept at the present junction then the village wouldn't become a complete dead end. I appreciate that there isn't a lot of traffic, and that the road is the old A9, so of a high standard, but it seems the most sensible long term solution. The problem of the close proximity to the aqueduct is obviously an issue though.
I'm going to be hated for saying this... but I don't believe the traffic flows on that section of the A9 justify building Grade Separated Junctions to TD 22/06 when Compact Grade Separated Junctions to TD 40/94 would suffice.

I would insist every junction is a simple diamond, or incorporates a roundabout on the side road capable of allowing a 4-axle rigid, with a snowplough, to do a U-turn.

I bet the Designers haven't even considered Winter Maintenance...

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30121
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Bryn666 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 16:39

What, you wish to diminish the political significance of the A9 by having compact GSJs?

Off to reeduction camp for you.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
RichardA35
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 4496
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: A9 dualling

Post by RichardA35 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 17:35

novaecosse wrote:
rileyrob wrote:I can't help thinking that the Dalwhinnie junction should be built to the north of the village, and lined up with the railway bridge. This would remove the A889/86 through traffic, but if A9 north slips were kept at the present junction then the village wouldn't become a complete dead end. I appreciate that there isn't a lot of traffic, and that the road is the old A9, so of a high standard, but it seems the most sensible long term solution. The problem of the close proximity to the aqueduct is obviously an issue though.
I'm going to be hated for saying this... but I don't believe the traffic flows on that section of the A9 justify building Grade Separated Junctions to TD 22/06 when Compact Grade Separated Junctions to TD 40/94 would suffice.

I would insist every junction is a simple diamond, or incorporates a roundabout on the side road capable of allowing a 4-axle rigid, with a snowplough, to do a U-turn.

I bet the Designers haven't even considered Winter Maintenance...
Ta, I'll feed it to our tender team as a VE proposal, when we get through the PQQ which is due to land in 6 month's time we hear.....

User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 16342
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Truvelo » Tue Mar 10, 2015 19:51

A GSJ, whether compact or not, is going to be far superior to a roundabout or any other at-grade junction that impedes the flow of through traffic. Compact GSJs are fine so long as the merges are a decent length. Having an entry slip end at a give way line or too short a length for vehicles to reach 70mph is a no no.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30121
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Bryn666 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 19:56

The entire A9 brief has been to eliminate cross traffic and remove dangerous overtaking.

I still think that the road really does not warrant full blown D2 and would have delivered much similar casualty savings as a WS2+1 with GSJs.

Politicians wanting a road improved to this standard though is something of a novelty so I'll not exactly bang the drum on it...
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

Nwallace
Member
Posts: 3871
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 22:42
Location: Dundee

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Nwallace » Tue Mar 10, 2015 22:36

Bryn666 wrote: I still think that the road really does not warrant full blown D2 and would have delivered much similar casualty savings as a WS2+1 with GSJs.
Politically that would be a disaster, publicly the major changes are the removal of head on conflicts and removal of turning conflicts. As that is what pretty much everyone views as the cause if the majority of crashes on the road. There were a good few WTF comments when the overtaking lanes went in.
Truvelo wrote:A GSJ, whether compact or not, is going to be far superior to a roundabout or any other at-grade junction that impedes the flow of through traffic. Compact GSJs are fine so long as the merges are a decent length. Having an entry slip end at a give way line or too short a length for vehicles to reach 70mph is a no no.
Thinking of the junctions on the A90 north of Dundee and the A92 East of Dundee?

User avatar
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 7663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Stevie D » Tue Mar 10, 2015 22:44

Truvelo wrote:A GSJ, whether compact or not, is going to be far superior to a roundabout or any other at-grade junction that impedes the flow of through traffic. Compact GSJs are fine so long as the merges are a decent length. Having an entry slip end at a give way line or too short a length for vehicles to reach 70mph is a no no.
To be honest, I would rather have a give way line than a short taper, and that is what the design standards say should be used in CGSJs ... a taper on the diverge and a give way on the merge.

The reason for that is that at a give way, there is an expectation that drivers will slow down and stop if necessary, and wait for a gap in the traffic before pulling out. While this might leave people waiting for a while, on a lightly trafficked road like the A9, it shouldn't be too big a problem. Whereas when you have a taper, drivers start to expect that they will be able to merge, even if the taper is way too short for that to be a safe option, so you have drivers coming out of a tight turn and trying to boot it from 20mph to 60mph in a very short distance while simultaneously hoping that it is safe to merge ... I say "hoping" rather than "checking", because in that situation you have no plan B ... if there is another vehicle heading for the same bit of tarmac that you are then you don't have any wiggle room to get ahead or tuck in behind.

User avatar
James
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 17:54
Location: Gibraltar

Re: A9 dualling

Post by James » Wed Mar 11, 2015 08:37

Bryn666 wrote:The entire A9 brief has been to eliminate cross traffic and remove dangerous overtaking.

I still think that the road really does not warrant full blown D2 and would have delivered much similar casualty savings as a WS2+1 with GSJs.

Politicians wanting a road improved to this standard though is something of a novelty so I'll not exactly bang the drum on it...
Agreed, this may end up being another A1 Alconbory-Peterborough style road, but much better IMHO than the opposite option

User avatar
Mark Hewitt
Member
Posts: 28489
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:54
Location: Chester-le-Street

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Mark Hewitt » Wed Mar 11, 2015 08:43

Maybe once they get the A9 out the way they can start looking at other roads in Scotland, as the focus as been solely on the A9 for so long.
“I’ve been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely.”

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30121
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Bryn666 » Wed Mar 11, 2015 14:13

It's the A96 on the books next isn't it?

Poor old A82 doesn't get a look in.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
rileyrob
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 09:18
Location: Lochaber
Contact:

Re: A9 dualling

Post by rileyrob » Wed Mar 11, 2015 14:39

When you look at the AADT figures for the A82, as I have said before, there is a clear and valid reason why other routes are given priority. Not to mention the fact that the Crianlarich Bypass opened at Christmas, Pulpit Rock is nearing completion, The Gloy Bends are due to start soon and the numerous bridge replacements undertaken over the last 10 years.
Oh, and the whole 'bad' stretch along Loch Lomond from Tarbet to Ardlui is in planning, some of it may already be in the early stages of the design process.

Yes the A82 is a very poor road in places, but If you exclude the two ends, the highest AADT is through Fort William, where it is about 9000, it drops to around 2600 on Rannoch Moor, and 2700 near Fort Augustus. The A9 reaches a low point of about 7000 at Drumochter Summit, the A96 has a low of 6000 west of Keith.
Rob.
My mission is to travel every road and visit every town, village and hamlet in the British Isles.
I don't like thinking about how badly I am doing.

http://www.rileyrob.co.uk

Post Reply