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.
c2R wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 09:19
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.
This was (IIRC) quoted at the time as the reason for the collaborative approach. TS / SG were keen to avoid it being seen as an imposition, and having had fingers burned with the AWPR inquiry etc they wanted the shortest practicable planning process with fewest objections.
Collaboration of course also means that if the same people come back in 5 years and say that the traffic levels on 'their' roundabout are high, TS/SG can point to the projections used in the design process and say 'but you chose this'.
That’s all very well for public accountability, but not for taxpayer accountability.
It’s no good certain politicians and newspaper columnists whining on about ‘tax evasion’ when an equivalent sum is just wasted on public services poorly delivered (or badly targeted benefits/overpayments etc).
Money wasted is money wasted. And taxpayers still have to foot the bill - both times.
Burns wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 23:24
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:
Just why propose it like that? I would have just had a straight bridge over the top with slips coming up either side at give ways ect no roundabouts needed! A diamond interchange I suppose that would be called?
Option A won't be chosen, it'll be far too expensive.
A covered section of that length will need full tunnel safety systems, so not just the cost of building it but the ongoing cost of operation and maintenance.
It's a very expensive noise screen.
A shorter covered section just by the station, like option B or D, is more likely.
I really can't see an at-grade roundabout being progressed to the preferred option. There's no logical reason for it. A fully uninterrupted road from Perth to Tore, except a roundabout at a not very significant junction, just because the local community said so.
The schemes will go to a PLI no matter what is chosen, I can't see a reporter recommending lowering the standard of road at one junction out of the whole dualling programme, just because the some locals don't like it.
djw1981 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 09:51
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.
Wasn’t this collaborative process his idea? He’ll have to support it’s outcome.
Glen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 00:47
Option A won't be chosen, it'll be far too expensive.
A covered section of that length will need full tunnel safety systems, so not just the cost of building it but the ongoing cost of operation and maintenance.
It's a very expensive noise screen.
A shorter covered section just by the station, like option B or D, is more likely.
I really can't see an at-grade roundabout being progressed to the preferred option. There's no logical reason for it. A fully uninterrupted road from Perth to Tore, except a roundabout at a not very significant junction, just because the local community said so.
The schemes will go to a PLI no matter what is chosen, I can't see a reporter recommending lowering the standard of road at one junction out of the whole dualling programme, just because the some locals don't like it.
If that's the case then the ideal route might end up being more of a mixture of what's been suggested, especially if it becomes clear that interrupting the 110-odd miles of non-stop road is not in the interests of anyone.
Berk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:15
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.
Yeah, heaven forbid that people don't want what you want. I'm getting sick of "rational argument == wanting what I want", which is what it really boils down to. Or "my values are right, yours are not." You need to learn to accept that different people value different things and that whether something is a rational judgement or not exists entirely within the confines of whether it contributes to or contradicts those values. Considering the general appeal or lack of the nature of your surroundings has a significant impact on quality of life I'm firmly of the opinion the putting them ahead of being able to get somewhere five minutes faster is entirely rational.
Plan E - Omit the junction altogether and provide an underpass only to carry the A822 into Dunkeld/Birnam conurbation? - they would have northbound and southbound access at the B867 junction that would allow all the tourists to flow in but never get out lol
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
Berk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:15
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.
Yeah, heaven forbid that people don't want what you want. I'm getting sick of "rational argument == wanting what I want", which is what it really boils down to. Or "my values are right, yours are not." You need to learn to accept that different people value different things and that whether something is a rational judgement or not exists entirely within the confines of whether it contributes to or contradicts those values. Considering the general appeal or lack of the nature of your surroundings has a significant impact on quality of life I'm firmly of the opinion the putting them ahead of being able to get somewhere five minutes faster is entirely rational.
I'm sure even you appreciate the silliness of a roundabout in the middle of an otherwise free-flowing dual carriageway route
I still want to know how the economics the A9 stack up given the relatively tiny flows using it that could have been safely accommodated with a programme of WS2+1 and removing the more dodgy at grade junctions with rudimentary GSJs. Single carriageway GSJs work in the rest of Europe, but they don't have the overblown drivel that is the DMRB to destroy the landscape with.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
The idea that somebody might ask for a roundabout because they are vindictive is ludicrous. "You can have your fast road but I'll have the final laugh".
More likely they have some-sort of irrational fear of concrete jungles amd Mary told Pete that Shelley told Miriam that that's what's going to be built here.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 13:13
I'm sure even you appreciate the silliness of a roundabout in the middle of an otherwise free-flowing dual carriageway route
I still want to know how the economics the A9 stack up given the relatively tiny flows using it that could have been safely accommodated with a programme of WS2+1 and removing the more dodgy at grade junctions with rudimentary GSJs. Single carriageway GSJs work in the rest of Europe, but they don't have the overblown drivel that is the DMRB to destroy the landscape with.
I don't disagree that such a roundabout wouldn't exactly be great for traffic flow, I just don't like the scornful arrogant dismissal - "what you want is wrong to want" rather than "it simply wouldn't work."
Johnathan404 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 13:23
The idea that somebody might ask for a roundabout because they are vindictive is ludicrous. "You can have your fast road but I'll have the final laugh".
More likely they have some-sort of irrational fear of concrete jungles amd Mary told Pete that Shelley told Miriam that that's what's going to be built here.
Not completely irrational - whilst a fear of turning the whole of Dunkeld into a concrete jungle would be irrational our surroundings are becoming more unpleasant (some people might not care but that's no excuse for ignoring those who do), even though it may be driven by the best intentions and / or lesser evil choices. You may say "this one, sure, might not be a thing of beauty but just that isn't really that bad" but a good chunk of our environment is made up of lots of small things.
But I’m thinking about the accident potential when someone fails to stop at the roundabout (not unlikely for a long, uninterrupted drive) and local residents or kids are hurt or killed.
The boot will be on the other foot then, they will be demanding a GSJ, because “they failed to keep us safe”.
Berk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 16:17
But I’m thinking about the accident potential when someone fails to stop at the roundabout (not unlikely for a long, uninterrupted drive) and local residents or kids are hurt or killed.
The boot will be on the other foot then, they will be demanding a GSJ, because “they failed to keep us safe”.
They'll hit the back of the traffic jam long before they hit the child
Burns wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 23:24
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:
There is quite a steep gradient (19%) from the Dunkeld roundabout, but the road doesn't appear to be in a tunnel past Dunkeld Station, so if they bury the road past the station it would be lower and that problem would disappear.
c2R wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:09
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.
Slightly off topic, but there are significant (£100s of Millions) of tunnels on HS2 which are not required for any engineering reason, but simply there to keep the locals happy. This actually means that there isn't enough money to put a tunnel into Sheffield so it has to use the existing line. I guess many roads/railways get e.g. A3 Hindhead, potentially Stonehenge and post swampy it's the easier option for the Transport Secretary, but it does mean we get fewer roads/railways for the available budget.
