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
C83
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 15:56

Re: A9 dualling

Post by C83 »

jackal wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 08:19 I'm far from convinced that the roundabout is off the table. 3 of the 4 latest designs (May 2019) had the roundabout, including 2 of the 3 'additional' options: https://www.transport.gov.scot/publicat ... -dualling/

It's neither here nor there that GSJs were demanded at an earlier stage. It's a very common thing for design parameters to change in the face of community engagement - that's rather the point.

My interpretation is that what they want to lose from the dreaded "community's option" is the 1.5km cut and cover tunnel - none of the additional options featured this huge cost element. The DMRB stage 2 will probably come back showing that this option is not cost effective.

A side effect of that is that the GSJ may well be back on the table, as it couldn't be built with the tunnel. But I think it's getting things backwards to say that Transport Scotland or the govt are desperate for the GSJ - the tunnel is the real sticking point.
From the perspective of the through traffic capacity and journey time, is leaving the road as it currently is better, worse or similar to any option with an at grade roundabout? If there isn't enough money to do everything, leaving the difficult bit and accepting that average speed will be 40-50mph for a couple of miles is a fairly pragmatic choice.
B9127
Member
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 20:45
Location: Angus Scotland

Re: A9 dualling

Post by B9127 »

Again I say the Tay Crossing to Ballinluig section with only one structure would be an easy quick build and create a decent overtaking opportunity after the Dunkeld bottleneck which will be there for a considerable time .(10 year+ ?)
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
DJMS
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 05:55

Re: A9 dualling

Post by DJMS »

Mikehannah wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:55 Tomatin is a logical choice, it has no major obstacles(eg rivers) is mostly non developed land so their should be little problem with the compulsory purchase process and it links two existing sections.

I admit I would prefer to see a section developed in one of the longer contra flow “drags” but it is a good choice .

I will hope this is not the last section but I will be surprised if ground is broken on another!! There is no reason why the other remaining sections at “ made orders “ stage should not be progressed but I doubt they will be .
I'm quite happy to see Tomatin to Moy go ahead, even if it isn't the busiest section on the road. Driving north it always started to feel like a drag when the road reduced to S2 for the last time after Slochd and when driving south from Inverness it felt like the D2 ended too soon, despite that being one of the longer existing sections.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A9 dualling

Post by jackal »

B9127 wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 13:10 Again I say the Tay Crossing to Ballinluig section with only one structure would be an easy quick build and create a decent overtaking opportunity after the Dunkeld bottleneck which will be there for a considerable time .(10 year+ ?)
Yes, but do you really want the atrocious 'interim roundabout' there for a decade plus? Or possibly forever as there will certainly be locals that won't want to give it up?



The two Dalwhinnie sections may be more expensive but they at least do the job somewhat well.
B9127
Member
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 20:45
Location: Angus Scotland

Re: A9 dualling

Post by B9127 »

At least the circle would allow easy diversion of traffic through Dunkeld in the event of an accident between Tay Crossing and the main Dunkeld Junction - that would maybe focus the locals attention
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
C83
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 15:56

Re: A9 dualling

Post by C83 »

jackal wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 14:44
B9127 wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 13:10 Again I say the Tay Crossing to Ballinluig section with only one structure would be an easy quick build and create a decent overtaking opportunity after the Dunkeld bottleneck which will be there for a considerable time .(10 year+ ?)
Yes, but do you really want the atrocious 'interim roundabout' there for a decade plus? Or possibly forever as there will certainly be locals that won't want to give it up?
The two Dalwhinnie sections may be more expensive but they at least do the job somewhat well.
What is the point of the 'interim roundabout', as in the visualisation it has no other accesses? If it's to allow traffic from a LILO to double back, are the volumes such that it can't be removed and the traffic just continues south to the Dunkeld junction to turn around?
clc
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 22:34

Re: A9 dualling

Post by clc »

The Transport Secretary was questioned about A9 dualling during a Holyrood committee meeting yesterday and he confirmed it was still on target for completion by 2025. Watch from 11.06: https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeti ... ch-10-2021
User avatar
HandShandy
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 16:51
Location: Paisley, Scotland
Contact:

Re: A9 dualling

Post by HandShandy »

C83 wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 22:12 What is the point of the 'interim roundabout', as in the visualisation it has no other accesses? If it's to allow traffic from a LILO to double back, are the volumes such that it can't be removed and the traffic just continues south to the Dunkeld junction to turn around?
According to the Non-technical summary document for the scheme, I quote directly:

"A9 Southern Tie-in Interim Roundabout (ch620) consisting of an at-grade roundabout providing a transition from single to dual carriageway pending
construction of Dalguise Junction as part of Project 02 (Pass of Birnam toTay Crossing) and providing a safe turning facility from the Dunkeld to
Rotmell (C502) Road Junction travelling northbound;"
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
IAN
Member
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 19:07

Re: A9 dualling

Post by IAN »

clc wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 23:17 The Transport Secretary was questioned about A9 dualling during a Holyrood committee meeting yesterday and he confirmed it was still on target for completion by 2025. Watch from 11.06: https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeti ... ch-10-2021
It's a shame that he wasn't asked how the target can possibly be achieved when the funds have not been allocated. He was also asked about funding for the A96 at 11.13 and predictably did not give a clear answer.
AKA M5 Driver
NREGMINI
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2020 01:25

Re: A9 dualling

Post by NREGMINI »

Surely it all depends on the result of the upcoming election. If the SNP is in coalition with the greens, the road programme will be curtailed almost everywhere. If they have a clear majority or are in coalition with some other party, the work will continue. At any rate, I doubt that it can be completed by the end of 2025, but maybe 2028.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A9 dualling

Post by jackal »

Zero chance it's done by 2028. We know spending up to 2026 is only £328m when it would need £2bn-£3bn to complete.

But yes, it is all about the election - it will be definitely on schedule for 2025, honest, until the day after the election.
clc
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 22:34

Re: A9 dualling

Post by clc »

If A9 dualling is being justified on safety grounds then would it not be logical to prioritise schemes which reduce the overall number of dual to single carriageway transitions ie. schemes which join up existing dualled sections as Luncarty – Birnam and Tomatin – Moy do? Makes me think Pitlochry-Killecrankie will be next.
haggishunter
Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 01:24

Re: A9 dualling

Post by haggishunter »

jackal wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:21

No junction would make access to Dunkeld from the A9 north very circuitous and would sever the A822!
On this point, wouldn't it be possible to get the A822 over / under the A9 even with the tunnel if there was no junction there?
User avatar
A72
Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 17:21
Location: Newtown St Boswells, Scottish Borders

Re: A9 dualling

Post by A72 »

haggishunter wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 23:51
jackal wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:21

No junction would make access to Dunkeld from the A9 north very circuitous and would sever the A822!
On this point, wouldn't it be possible to get the A822 over / under the A9 even with the tunnel if there was no junction there?
It would probably upset the locals.
The 7-Zone Challenge
A roads: 71/71
B roads: 181/181
Total: 252/252

Completed: 04/11/20.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A9 dualling

Post by jackal »

And to get to Dunkeld or the A822 from the North you'd have to drive through the tunnel to the next junction and then back through Birnam and Little Dunkeld.

The solution might be an LAR of some sort.
User avatar
Euan
Member
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 07:59
Location: North Ayrshire

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Euan »

clc wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 22:01 If A9 dualling is being justified on safety grounds then would it not be logical to prioritise schemes which reduce the overall number of dual to single carriageway transitions ie. schemes which join up existing dualled sections as Luncarty – Birnam and Tomatin – Moy do? Makes me think Pitlochry-Killecrankie will be next.
The Luncarty and Moy schemes would indeed reduce the number of transitions between S2 and D2 along the A9, but an additional two transitions have emerged as a result of the dualling at Kincraig. That is good news if there was more of a desire to reduce the length of continuous S2 stretches rather than reducing the transitions given the previously very lengthy S2 stretch from Glentruim to Slochd. It would make sense to complete the two Dalwhinnie schemes at the same time on the basis of reducing the transitions.
E-roads, M-roads, A-roads, N-roads, B-roads, R-roads, C-roads, L-roads, U-roads, footpaths
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17456
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Truvelo »

I would say the length of continuous S2 sections is more of a concern than the amount of transitions as long sections without dedicated overtaking facilities results in long platoons of traffic collecting behind slower vehicles. I would also prioritise the busier southern and northern sections and leave the quieter middle section between Calvine and Dalwhinnie until last.

Although the Dunkeld-Birnam stretch is still to be finalised due to the issues with the tunnel and at-grade roundabout, this is one section I would like to see completed early on. I remember once trying to turn right out of the A923. There were several cars in front of me waiting to pull out which took forever due to waiting for a suitable gap in the traffic. In the end I turned left onto the A9 and did a U turn at the station and the car in front of me at the A923 was still there. I imagine that staggered crossroads sees a fair amount of collisions as well.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Mikehannah
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 23:14

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Mikehannah »

At the risk of angering the moderators.
I think the result of the May elections might surprise some.
I am in no doubt the SNP will still be the largest party but I think they will be well short of a majority.
It is up to the other parties to step up and not allow the greens to hijack much needed infrastructure development
User avatar
Norfolktolancashire
Member
Posts: 1185
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:34
Location: Cornwall

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Norfolktolancashire »

Truvelo wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 20:15 I would say the length of continuous S2 sections is more of a concern than the amount of transitions as long sections without dedicated overtaking facilities results in long platoons of traffic collecting behind slower vehicles. I would also prioritise the busier southern and northern sections and leave the quieter middle section between Calvine and Dalwhinnie until last.

Although the Dunkeld-Birnam stretch is still to be finalised due to the issues with the tunnel and at-grade roundabout, this is one section I would like to see completed early on. I remember once trying to turn right out of the A923. There were several cars in front of me waiting to pull out which took forever due to waiting for a suitable gap in the traffic. In the end I turned left onto the A9 and did a U turn at the station and the car in front of me at the A923 was still there. I imagine that staggered crossroads sees a fair amount of collisions as well.
I agree that reducing the length of continuous S2 with new sections of D2 would be better in the short run, after all it could be decades until the whole stretch is fully D2.

Regarding the roundabout proposal at Dunkeld, there will be a strong demand for roadside development including cafes, fuel stations, Travelodges, etc. if it was built. It has happened on many such solitary roundabouts on major routes. That wouldn't go down well with most of the local population.

If the cut and cover tunnel is rejected, then a 50mph section on the D2 would reduce the road noise and pollution issues for the nearby residents.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A9 dualling

Post by jackal »

Norfolktolancashire wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 21:06If the cut and cover tunnel is rejected, then a 50mph section on the D2 would reduce the road noise and pollution issues for the nearby residents.
But isn't there a risk this would increase journey times compared to the status quo ante? It's currently NSL and not congested most of the time.
Post Reply