A9 dualling

[Euan]

These videos just show the four options which were shortlisted by the co-creative process earlier in the year. The decision was then made to select option A (1.5 km tunnel and a roundabout) so I'm not quite sure why the others have been uploaded.

As frustrating as a roundabout would be, I think orudge is right in that it will be very difficult politically to overrule the roundabout decision considering that one reason for setting up the co-creative process in the first place was that the locals were not happy with having a GSJ at that location (this was previously consulted on) and wanted a roundabout instead.

The joke will be on them when they have to put up with a continual stream of traffic from the A9 blocking the roundabout in both directions. The other option would of course be to signalise it but that wouldnt be good for long distance traffic!
I predict that in 10 years from the date of completion they would have re-engineered it as a GSJ, with the A9 either above or below the roundabout.

The proposed roundabout looks just wide enough for the A9 to theoretically be rebuilt above it if it was decided sometime down the line that the junction would be better off grade-separated. I wonder if the roundabout has been designed to be compatible in the event of such a change.

[Euan]

It looks from the visualisation that Dunkeld and Birnam station will receive significantly more parking provisions which will be placed above the road tunnel for the proposed on-line options. In particular for route A, there will also be a large area of what looks like empty grassland which could be used for all kinds of recreational activity. It's really quite clever the way the tunnel has been proposed to free up some calm spare land, with the additional advantage of blocking out the sound coming from the A9 inside the tunnel. Route A seems like the most likely outcome, especially with 45% of first preference votes from the co-creative process.

[Halmyre]

These videos just show the four options which were shortlisted by the co-creative process earlier in the year. The decision was then made to select option A (1.5 km tunnel and a roundabout) so I'm not quite sure why the others have been uploaded.

As frustrating as a roundabout would be, I think orudge is right in that it will be very difficult politically to overrule the roundabout decision considering that one reason for setting up the co-creative process in the first place was that the locals were not happy with having a GSJ at that location (this was previously consulted on) and wanted a roundabout instead.

I'm all for local involvement in projects but:

Population of Dunkeld and Birnam - c.1,300 people

A9 traffic flow between Perth and Birnam - c.25,000 vehicles per day

Pitlochry at twice the population makes do with two access junctions...

[A9NWIL]

These videos just show the four options which were shortlisted by the co-creative process earlier in the year. The decision was then made to select option A (1.5 km tunnel and a roundabout) so I'm not quite sure why the others have been uploaded.

As frustrating as a roundabout would be, I think orudge is right in that it will be very difficult politically to overrule the roundabout decision considering that one reason for setting up the co-creative process in the first place was that the locals were not happy with having a GSJ at that location (this was previously consulted on) and wanted a roundabout instead.

The joke will be on them when they have to put up with a continual stream of traffic from the A9 blocking the roundabout in both directions. The other option would of course be to signalise it but that wouldnt be good for long distance traffic!
I predict that in 10 years from the date of completion they would have re-engineered it as a GSJ, with the A9 either above or below the roundabout.

The proposed roundabout looks just wide enough for the A9 to theoretically be rebuilt above it if it was decided sometime down the line that the junction would be better off grade-separated. I wonder if the roundabout has been designed to be compatible in the event of such a change.

Yes I noticed in the videos the roundabout is quite big and there is enough space to the sides of the A9 on the approach to the roundabout.
It will certainly be easier than the Perth A9 roundabouts, one needing M90 access likely both ways along with a 90 degree turn on the A9 itself and the other at a 90 degree turn as well.
I hope one day you can drive from the start of the M9 on the M8 all the way along the M9 then A9 to north of Inverness completely freeflow on D2/D2M. Of course the quicker way would be up the M90 from there, but both should be fully freeflow on motorway (M9 or M90) and D2 A9.

[Burns]

Does all of Dunkeld want a roundabout or is it just one vocal numbnut? What justifiable reason is there for the locals not wanting grade separation? Are they just vindictive delay merchants that take pleasure in forcing people to slow to a stop and waste fuel in 1st gear just so that they can smugly go round the roundabout in front of you?

[Berk]

Like I say, the thinking is probably along the lines of “I’ve always turned right here, and I’m damned if I’ll have to drive on another ¾-mile in the wrong direction, come off, turn around and come back again”...

But hey folks, that’s how grade separation works. Not every location is a feasible junction site, for a whole host of reasons. Some people are just so set in their ways, that being unable to turn left or right in the place they always have will get their blood boiling.

[Herned]

Has anyone pointed out to the local residents how much more noise there would be because of a roundabout? All those HGVs braking and accelerating will make quite a racket

[B9127]

Wait until the first artic tips over on the circle there will be a clamour for a GSJ - they are really proposing another Broxden - can any of this stupidity be over ruled ?

[Euan]

Does all of Dunkeld want a roundabout or is it just one vocal numbnut? What justifiable reason is there for the locals not wanting grade separation? Are they just vindictive delay merchants that take pleasure in forcing people to slow to a stop and waste fuel in 1st gear just so that they can smugly go round the roundabout in front of you?

A GSJ would have involved a dumbbell interchange, or at least some variant of one that would have had two roundabouts. One of the roundabouts would have been built in Dunkeld and may well have had some vocal objectors. It was to be something like this:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/39 ... nction.pdf

[c2R]

Hopefully the "will of the people" will be overturned and allow for some common sense to prevail here - a roundabout is terrible, both from a long distance strategic perspective as well as from a local perspective - a GSJ would provide separation for NMUs and local users from, as has been pointed out above, pretty much a constant stream of traffic which hasn't seen a roundabout for many miles.

Whatever made Transport Scotland decide to include that in the list of options to vote on? Madness...

[Bryn666]

Does all of Dunkeld want a roundabout or is it just one vocal numbnut? What justifiable reason is there for the locals not wanting grade separation? Are they just vindictive delay merchants that take pleasure in forcing people to slow to a stop and waste fuel in 1st gear just so that they can smugly go round the roundabout in front of you?

A GSJ would have involved a dumbbell interchange, or at least some variant of one that would have had two roundabouts. One of the roundabouts would have been built in Dunkeld and may well have had some vocal objectors. It was to be something like this:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/39 ... nction.pdf

That design is vastly superior to an at-grade roundabout which will just become a collision hotspot as drivers, southbound at least, will have been on continuous free-flow dual carriageway all the way from Tore (assuming Longman is GSJed too) and thus probably on autopilot.

Setting oneself up for a huge fall here, Transport Scotland. Local whinging does not override strategic road safety concerns.

[djw1981]

MSP for Perthshire North is John Swinney (Deputy FM) sitting on a small 3,000 majority. This may or may not be affecting the decision making process in terms of not wanting to hand the Tories a scalp come 2021.

[Duncan macknight]

I don’t see why they don’t build this section to slightly lower standards. I mean it’s been done before on the road network so why can’t it be done here. An at grade junction could be plonked in there while they figure out what to do. Also is it really necessary to have effectively mile long sliproads at the junctions where a shorter one would do the job fine. I know we are going for a full 7A dual carriageway here (Ott anyway) but surely there are places where this can’t be achieved. The roundabout will probably be fine for mainline traffic but traffic lights will be installed if the traffic starts queuing into Dunkeld. The tunnel will be a bit of a feature and quite a thing to see constructed.

[A9Dan]

Whatever made Transport Scotland decide to include that in the list of options to vote on? Madness...

TS alone were not responsible for the shortlist, the process was TS and the community working jointly. The options shortlisted would have needed to have been acceptable to community so I don't think it a GSJ at Dunkeld was every going to make it through to the final vote.

[Euan]

Does all of Dunkeld want a roundabout or is it just one vocal numbnut? What justifiable reason is there for the locals not wanting grade separation? Are they just vindictive delay merchants that take pleasure in forcing people to slow to a stop and waste fuel in 1st gear just so that they can smugly go round the roundabout in front of you?

A GSJ would have involved a dumbbell interchange, or at least some variant of one that would have had two roundabouts. One of the roundabouts would have been built in Dunkeld and may well have had some vocal objectors. It was to be something like this:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/39 ... nction.pdf

That design is vastly superior to an at-grade roundabout which will just become a collision hotspot as drivers, southbound at least, will have been on continuous free-flow dual carriageway all the way from Tore (assuming Longman is GSJed too) and thus probably on autopilot.

Setting oneself up for a huge fall here, Transport Scotland. Local whinging does not override strategic road safety concerns.

There seems to be no logic whatsoever as to why some locals would prefer a large roundabout with all of the A9 traffic using it rather a small roundabout carrying a mere fraction of the traffic that is placed ever so slightly nearer to them. If anything an at-grade roundabout on the A9 will be even worse for them, yet they don't realise this.

[c2R]

Whatever made Transport Scotland decide to include that in the list of options to vote on? Madness...

TS alone were not responsible for the shortlist, the process was TS and the community working jointly. The options shortlisted would have needed to have been acceptable to community so I don't think it a GSJ at Dunkeld was every going to make it through to the final vote.

I disagree somewhat that the options shortlisted need to be acceptable to the community for a strategic project. Residents of similar sized villages on the HS2 route aren't being given the option for their own station with direct trains to London, for example.

The options shortlisted should be acceptable to the broader aims of the project - when HE have done this on roads such as the A303, the options have been on things like "shall we go north or south of the village", and would you like the GSJ here, there, or where? Where would you like the NmU and accommodation bridges to go? They tend not to include a selection of community drawn up options, which the community then have a deciding vote upon.

That's like saying that the RIS2 strategy should be entirely decided on the highest amount of respondents, i.e. members of an environmental pressure group who don't want any new roads anywhere, followed by providing the missing link between the M26 and A21 as that was the next most common response....

[Berk]

The whole Dunkeld process is starting to sound a lot like Brexit - folks have made up their minds, and that’s that.

They won’t be swayed by safety, or other rational arguments, let alone about how much it’ll cost to fix the mess in a few years time.

[Halmyre]

Somebody should whisper the magic word in Transport Scotland's shell-like..."Sheriffhall"...

[B9127]

The whole Dunkeld process is starting to sound a lot like Brexit - folks have made up their minds, and that’s that.

They won’t be swayed by safety, or other rational arguments, let alone about how much it’ll cost to fix the mess in a few years time.

Looks more like the AWPR objection - he hasnt moved to Dunkeld has he?

[A9Dan]

Looks more like the AWPR objection

Which is why I don't think TS will be too keen on forcing through a GSJ With a completion date of 2025 and the scheme not even yet at DRMB stage 2, there cannot be too many delays. it is going to take some time just to get through next stages and publish the draft orders. A PLI would then be inevitable which I expect would a considerable time due to a high number of objections to the scheme. By the time they get to publishing made orders, the last thing they want is an AWPR style legal challenge which could drag on for years. It certainly would not look good if the entire route from Perth to Inverness is completed while a 6 mile or so section is still going through the courts.