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
A9Craig
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 00:54
Location: Inverness

Re: A9 dualling

Post by A9Craig »

B9127 wrote: Sun May 12, 2019 14:00 As Dalraddy to Slochd has an estimated construction period of 4.5 years and it took Luncarty to Pass of Birnam 2 years from made orders to construction start that must take the 2025 completion date for the whole project to somewhere around 2026/27 - am I correct?
From the Draft Orders published last year, construction time for Dalraddy to Slochd is estimated at 48 months. Construction would therefore have to commence by late 2021 to meet the 2025 target. If we get Made Orders by this time next year that leaves 18 months for procurement etc. Doable, but is anyone going to complain if this slips into 2026 and the rest of the A9 is done?

Dalraddy Slochd Timescale.png
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Berk »

You need to put this into context. As already explained, Pass of Birnam-Tay Crossing will likely take a lot longer to be fully resolved.

I would therefore suggest the 2025 completion date is revised to 2030, to be more realistic.
Last edited by Berk on Sun May 12, 2019 22:03, edited 1 time in total.
A9Craig
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 00:54
Location: Inverness

Re: A9 dualling

Post by A9Craig »

Berk wrote: Sun May 12, 2019 19:43 As already explained, Pass of Budnam-Tay Crossing will likely take a lot longer to be fully resolved.
Condescending, factually incorrect and conjectural. Not bad for one single sentence.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Berk »

No, it was being neutral. The roundabout option has to be dropped, both officially, and by the community as well.

Otherwise objections will be raised, and might influence the reporter’s report.

Besides, 2030 was referring to all schemes being on track or completed, not simply this one.
Altnabreac
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:50

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Altnabreac »

Altnabreac wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 11:58
More DPEA updates:
Dalwhinnie to Crubenmore the remaining landowner objections are withdrawn so the hearing session on 11 June won't take place. SSE remain as a statutory objector but negotiations ongoing with 12 June hearing session date set if agreement can't be reached.
SSE have withdrawn their objection so there will not be any hearing sessions as there are no statutory objectors remaining.

The only extant objection is from Transform Scotland so the reporter will only be dealing with the general principle of the scheme rather than any specifics. Hopefully can be transformed into Made Orders fairly quickly now.
A9Dan
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 22:07

Re: A9 dualling

Post by A9Dan »

Altnabreac wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 11:39

More DPEA updates:
Dalwhinnie to Crubenmore the remaining landowner objections are withdrawn so the hearing session on 11 June won't take place. SSE remain as a statutory objector but negotiations ongoing with 12 June hearing session date set if agreement can't be reached.

SSE have withdrawn their objection so there will not be any hearing sessions as there are no statutory objectors remaining.

The only extant objection is from Transform Scotland so the reporter will only be dealing with the general principle of the scheme rather than any specifics. Hopefully can be transformed into Made Orders fairly quickly now.
The reporter has now confirmed that the inquiry has been cancelled and the planned site inspection has now also been cancelled. TS will submit the amended CPO by 31 May and I doubt it will take long after that for the report to be issued so hopefully we will see Made Orders for this and Glen Garry to Dalwhinnie in the summer followed by a single procurement for both schemes.
A9Dan
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 22:07

Re: A9 dualling

Post by A9Dan »

https://www.transport.gov.scot/publicat ... -dualling/

Relocating Dunkeld & Birnam station has been eliminated and three options for the whole route will now go forward (along with the community chosen route). All three options are broadly similar, including GJSs for Birnam/Muthly and Dalguise and LILO at the Heritage.

Whole Route option 1 would lower the A9 into a 150 underpass near the station and include an at-grade roundabout at Dunkeld.

Whole Route option 2 keeps the A9 at-grade and includes a GSJ and Dukeld.

Whole Route option 3 is similar to option 2 but replaces the GSJ at Dunkeld with a roundabout.

It was not possible to accommodate a GSJ into option 1 with an underbridge due to safety issues in relation to the realigned A822/A923. A overbridge would have required high retaining walls next to residential properties.

For option 3, a roundabout has been included due to the high amount of public support and reduced construction complexity, landscape and visual impacts and reduced impacts on residential properties.

So unfortunately it seems that the roundabout is looking quite likely now.
B9127
Member
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 20:45
Location: Angus Scotland

Re: A9 dualling

Post by B9127 »

It might be cheaper to relocate Dunkeld
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
Nwallace
Member
Posts: 4239
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 22:42
Location: Dundee

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Nwallace »

Anyone else note that only the tunnel option mentioned the cost?
User avatar
Euan
Member
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 07:59
Location: North Ayrshire

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Euan »

So, essentially the choice is between a tunnel, a GS junction or neither, but not both.
E-roads, M-roads, A-roads, N-roads, B-roads, R-roads, C-roads, L-roads, U-roads, footpaths
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Berk »

Perhaps this is the one enquiry that will be more contentious than the rest??
A9Dan
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 22:07

Re: A9 dualling

Post by A9Dan »

Euan wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 22:51 So, essentially the choice is between a tunnel, a GS junction or neither, but not both.
Yes although there is also a choice between a 1.5 km tunnel or a 150 m underpass.

The four options for the whole route are:

Community Route: 1.5 km tunnel at station with roundabout at Dunkeld.

Whole Route Option 1: 150 m underpass at station with roundabout at Dunkeld.

Whole Route Option 2: At-grade at station with GSJ at Dunkeld.

Whole Route Option 3: At-grade at station with roundabout at Dunkeld.

I think that Option 1 would be quite likely since this is closest to what the community wanted without spending a fortune on a long tunnel.
Berk wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 22:56 Perhaps this is the one enquiry that will be more contentious than the rest??
Which is why I fear TS may end up having to go for the roundabout. There is significant local opposition to a GSJ, risking an objection getting upheld at the PLI. Even the scheme made it through the PLI, there would then be the possibility of an AWPR style legal challenge delaying the scheme for years.
haggishunter
Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 01:24

Re: A9 dualling

Post by haggishunter »

I can see Option 1 getting some responses of too much disruption during construction for the end result vs the carpark in the industrial estate and station entry on the Birnam side of the A9. Where as a 300 or 400m tunnel option might have got wider support with more people accepting the disruption would be worth it in the end. Think we are going to have to live with the roundabout here, it's been a recurring theme since the earliest days of planning this scheme.
Ronnie
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 16:36

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Ronnie »

Has anyone done any research into why the local community wants a horrible big roundabout cluttering up the place?
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: A9 dualling

Post by KeithW »

haggishunter wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 11:35 I can see Option 1 getting some responses of too much disruption during construction for the end result vs the carpark in the industrial estate and station entry on the Birnam side of the A9. Where as a 300 or 400m tunnel option might have got wider support with more people accepting the disruption would be worth it in the end. Think we are going to have to live with the roundabout here, it's been a recurring theme since the earliest days of planning this scheme.
Option 1 was actually the community option, the reason they wanted a 1.5 km tunnel seems to have been that it would provide access to the station and reduce traffic noise, having lived 100 metres from the A174 Parkway which is a D2 road in a cutting I can understand that.
https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/44 ... -10-18.pdf

A 400 m tunnel would involved all the setup and most of the excavation costs and 30% of the cover costs without return the same sound reduction benefits and if I lived in Dunkeld and someone wanted to build an at grade road that close to where I live you would find me protesting long and loudly. Better 1 years disruption than 40 years of traffic roaring past at grade level.
https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/44 ... alling.pdf

The roundabout option is a bit of an oddity for the community as if A9 traffic rises, as seems likely, they might find getting onto it a little difficult due to the relatively low percentage of turning traffic. This is what happened when the A11 was dualled, they ended up having to signalise the roundabout.
haggishunter
Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 01:24

Re: A9 dualling

Post by haggishunter »

KeithW wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 13:54
Option 1 was actually the community option, the reason they wanted a 1.5 km tunnel seems to have been that it would provide access to the station and reduce traffic noise, having lived 100 metres from the A174 Parkway which is a D2 road in a cutting I can understand that.
https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/44 ... -10-18.pdf
Option 1 is a 150m underpass with the carpark taking up the full covered area. So while it reconnects station road with the station and a new carpark plus better access, it doesn't deliver anything like the amenity and sound reduction benefits of even a few hundred meters of tunnel would, yet still has the most disruptive element of the tunnel building project included (piling next to the station and adjoining properties and lowering the nearby stream and ruling out a grade separated junction).

Would there be any scope for keeping the existing A9 corridor for one carriageway (possibly Northbound) and building a new alignment perhaps some distance away for the other direction?
if I lived in Dunkeld and someone wanted to build an at grade road that close to where I live you would find me protesting long and loudly. Better 1 years disruption than 40 years of traffic roaring past at grade level.
The A9 is already there and has been for decades. So I'd imagine most of the people who live near the A9, moved in after the existing A9 was built.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Berk »

Ronnie wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 12:49 Has anyone done any research into why the local community wants a horrible big roundabout cluttering up the place?
Look at the map: the proximity of the town and station and local roads to the A9.

Perhaps as a placebo/trade-off to having a GSJ and slips so close to town.
Ronnie
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 16:36

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Ronnie »

I don’t need to look at a map I live in Perth.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Berk »

Fair enough. But the bottom line is the locals are only concerned with their town, and their access between local roads, the station, and the A9.

By insisting on a community option, it's pretty plain they couldn’t give two hoots about long-distance and strategic users of the A9.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A9 dualling

Post by Berk »

There might even be an argument for diverting the route of the A923 away from Dunkeld to the next nearest junction on the A9, if it could remove one of the conflicts/needs for a roundabout.
Post Reply