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.
B9127 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 16:51
Does that mean that once the Made Orders and Compulsary Purchase Orders are done that 4 sections are ready to go to tender - and that seems to take about 2 years to contract awarded -s o no further construction before early 2022 ??
There is a 6 week period after Made Orders are published to allow for a legal challenge.
Luncarty to Pass of Birnam did take almost 2 from Made Orders to start of construction but I don't think that was intentional since when the Orders were made construction was said to be starting towards the end of 2017, this later slipped to awarding the contract in the "first half" of 2018 before the contract was finally awarded at the end of August 2018. Kincraig to Dalraddy on the other hand started construction around a year after Made Orders were published so it seem that there was some unexpected holdup in the award of Luncarty to Pass of Birnam.
Just noticed on the news that the Scottish Government are carrying out a Strategic Review of both the A9 and A96 Dualling - anything to worry about? The Green Party are welcoming the review - think I will better get a horse if they are involved
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
B9127 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 18:26
Just noticed on the news that the Scottish Government are carrying out a Strategic Review of both the A9 and A96 Dualling - anything to worry about? The Green Party are welcoming the review - think I will better get a horse if they are involved
The Green Party's argument I believe is that pressing ahead with the schemes would be contrary to the declaration of a climate emergency in Scotland since Wales cancelled the M4 Newport Relief Road when a climate emergency was declared there.
B9127 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 18:26
Just noticed on the news that the Scottish Government are carrying out a Strategic Review of both the A9 and A96 Dualling - anything to worry about? The Green Party are welcoming the review - think I will better get a horse if they are involved
The Green Party's argument I believe is that pressing ahead with the schemes would be contrary to the declaration of a climate emergency in Scotland since Wales cancelled the M4 Newport Relief Road when a climate emergency was declared there.
For clarification our First Minister has already stated (several times) that the Relief Road was cancelled due to the massive cost and the fact that effectively no other trunk road schemes would be possible during construction because of the price tag. Looking back, he's right - without the other trunk schemes in the works, things would have been significantly worse elsewhere, for example the A465 Hirwaun-Dowlais Top may not have been funded. It would have appeared short-sighted for the Welsh Government to cancel a congestion relief scheme due to a 'climate emergency' as I don't think the thousands of vehicles rumbling through M4 J23-J28 at 5mph are doing the environment any good, and Drakeford seems to have noted that and distanced himself from the climate emergency link in this case.
It's unbecoming of the Green movement to twist decisions on road projects to fit their angle, which they refuse to admit is misguided. I believe wholeheartedly in the climate emergency, but dual carriageways aren't going anywhere and not building them won't make a significant dent in the pollution projects from transport, even with induced demand taken into account. Transport Scotland are making a good call.
Transport Scotland's director of roads was asked by the transport spokesman of the Scottish Greens if there was going to be a review of the he A9 and A96 dualling and the response was "All this is up for debate as part of the strategic transport projects review."
The Scottish Greens spokesman later said "So I’m pleased government officials confirmed at committee that these projects may indeed be cancelled after all."
Transport Scotland though said "The Scottish Government is committed to dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness and the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen, underlining its commitment to connecting Scotland’s cities with a high quality transport system that will sustainable generate economic growth."
There does seem to be some contradiction here though, can there really be a commitment to the dualling if it is indeed "up for debate"?
I am becoming increasingly sceptical about the future of these two projects. The targeted completion date for the A9 is 2025, but that is now totally unrealistic as approximately 64 miles of concurrent roadworks would be required from 2022 onwards. There also seems to be a great deal of inertia when it comes to the DPEA issuing a decision. Look at Dalwhinnie to Crubenmore, there is only one remaining objection (non-statutory) from Transform Scotland, yet four months later still no decision notice. This could have been done by one person in one day, as the rebuttal of Transform Scotland’s objection to Glen Garry to Dalwhinnie would be a copy and paste job for this scheme.
The Strategic Transport Projects Review prioritises rail projects above road projects for both Inverness – Perth and Inverness – Aberdeen. If cutbacks in spending are to be made, then the road schemes will likely be ditched first.
It seems to me that Made Orders will not progress until this Strategic Review is complete and on top of this the six Green Msp's are holding the government hostage to their views as they need their support to pass any laws
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
DaStreetsweep wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 00:47
Does that mean this could be the third segment that gets started or is that likely to fall elsewhere?
The relevant notices are effectively the start of the PLI process so this scheme is quite a way down the list, the only two schemes behind it are Crubenmore to Kincraig which is not yet with the DPEA and Pass of Birnam to Tay Crossing which does not even have a preferred route yet. Glen Garry to Dalwhinne completed the PLI process at the end of May but I expect has been held back so that it can be procured together with Dalwhinnie to Crubenmore. Reports have been issued to Scottish Ministers for both Pitlochry to Killiecranke and Tomatin to Moy so both these are now awaiting a decision. There is however some uncertainty now over the future of the entire dualling project so we may well not see any Made Orders for quite some time.
I think everything will be pushed back for a while until they figure out what the future is for the A9 dualling program. Ditto A96. If they do pull the plug, then all that will have been accomplished is Luncarty to Birnam and Kincraig to Dalraddy. Neither of these schemes were really part of the A9 dualling program anyway having been conceived in some shape or form previously.
If/when I see diggers on the ground around Drumochter I'll feel a lot more confident about this. Whatever happens I’m sure Inverness to Hardmuir will go ahead as it is the most needed, and makes the most economic sense, of all the A9/A96 schemes proposed.
It’s not that reporters are making adverse decisions; they’re just not making decisions. Dalwhiinie to Crubenmore is a prime example. PLI cancelled in May. The only remaining objection is the frivolous one from Transform Scotland.
They could have just said this again and be done with it –
“Overall, I have some difficulty with the premise of Transform Scotland’s objection, given the lack of evidence to support the assertions it has made, its generality, and the lack of subsequent engagement with Transport Scotland or the inquiry process. Conversely, I conclude that Transport Scotland has presented a clear and compelling need case for the A9 project as a whole, of which the proposed orders are a component part, and that this is grounded in an earlier holistic but proportionate consideration of the route and multi-modal options”.
Berk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 19:34
When we speak of delay, from where/whom?? Is it the Green faction in the Scottish Parliament, or the allocation from the road budget??
If reporters were making adverse decisions, I could understand it, but TS and the Executive seem to be fully behind the projects.
Since the climate emergency was declared earlier this year, the Greens have been wanting the decision to dual the A9/A96 reviewed. Initially the SNP insisted that they were going ahead regardless but last week the TS director of roads said:
All of it is up for debate as part of the strategic transport projects review (STPR).”
The Scottish Greens spokesman then said:
Greens have repeatedly raised the proposed dualling of the A9 and A96 with the Scottish Government, and while the First Minister has said that all government projects are currently under review, both the Deputy First Minister and Transport Secretary have indicated that the programme will proceed regardless.
“So I’m pleased that government officials confirmed at committee that these projects may indeed be cancelled after all, it’s now time for ministers to match their ‘world leading’ climate rhetoric with actions, consign these major road-building projects to the dustbin, and invest in sustainable transport options for the north and north east instead.”
Confusingly though Transport Scotland later insisted the Scottish Government was still committed to the dualling so there is a lot of uncertainty now.
Sounds like it just needs a major statement to clarify the position.
Pretending that supply chains can be accommodated alongside commuter and tourist traffic on S2 roads isn’t and won’t be sustainable - even if you believe in an imminent climate emergency.
The only way to do that would be to return to 19. or early 20. Century levels of traffic.
And the only way to do that sustainably would be to call for long term population reductions/stagnation. Plan for reduced population growth, basically.
A point that XR, the Greens and others are deafeningly silent on. Even though it would have the most beneficial impact on the environment.
There are some parts of both projects which are more urgent than others. The Nairn and Elgin bypasses on the A96 being a clear example of something that needs doing urgently. But if there were no stretches longer than 10 miles of S2 on the A9, then the worst holdup behind a 50mph vehicle would be 12 minutes until a safe overtaking opportunity, and the difference at the speed limit 2 minutes.
If the dualling is spread over a longer time, some of the money can be diverted to rail improvements, such as electrification, new and longer trains, and railfreight. Or just subsidising buses.
Yes, I would say the project could realistically be constructed and completed over a longer timeframe, even if it’s handy to get all the planning and legals done as quickly as possible.
I think some people reflexively oppose all road projects without considering the ways in which different road projects are required, or not required, to serve various transport needs.
For instance, in an urban area it is reasonable to argue that money should be spent on prioritising active travel or public transport when there are many journeys being made where these are viable options. It serves no one if all new road capacity is used by people to drive a few kilometres to the shops, work or school if walking, cycling or public transport is viable. Adding road capacity to allow people to drive from suburbs or exurbs into traditional urban centres is also often a waste of time, as you could build or improve public transport links instead.
With a road like the A9 or A96 that's a lot harder to argue. Outside of urban areas far fewer journeys are possible by active travel or public transport, regardless of what level of green investment is made. Even in green-friendly Switzerland rural areas will get a bus service which is useful and no more - you may have to wait an hour for the next bus, which is simply not at all suitable for most people who need to go between towns for their daily lives. We should definitely add more rural buses so that people have more of an option not to drive but we can't pretend that all of the drivers on the A9 would just disappear if we did so. It's a similar story with rail freight, as even after the indirect subsidies of road haulage are removed it will still be more efficient to drive a lorry than a train. When the Highland Main Line isn't going to be dualled any time soon, the limited capacity available on it would be better used for passengers as they're more often headed for urban centres where cars are more of a burden than a help.
The A96 is even more complex than that as it is mostly a bypassing job. Today, you can talk about active travel all you like in towns like Elgin but if you've got lorries constantly rumbling down your high street you're not going to want to walk around or cycle. With the best efforts to get the school run crowd out of their cars you'd still have the lorries making the town an unpleasant place to be a non-motorist. As there are no other roads, the only ways to reduce traffic is to either stop it happening at all (i.e. killing jobs and economic opportunities for rural areas) or move them onto a road designed for that purpose. Once you've bypassed a town it's quite reasonable to impose very restrictive traffic management.
Dunragit wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 23:02
It's a similar story with rail freight, as even after the indirect subsidies of road haulage are removed it will still be more efficient to drive a lorry than a train. When the Highland Main Line isn't going to be dualled any time soon, the limited capacity available on it would be better used for passengers as they're more often headed for urban centres where cars are more of a burden than a help.
I suspect many from the green lobby would point out that £3bn initially earmarked for the A9 dualing would have gone a long way to a double track Highland Main Line.
