A9 dualling

[roadtester]

All of those stopping options are great for people in the know because they are locals, regular repeat visitors/tourists, or road geeks who do their research. But most normal tourists or infrequent visitors are going to be seriously inconvenienced by the absence of pit stop opportunities on the road itself.

I'm sure someone will come up with a counter-example, but I can't think of another stretch of near motorway quality road of the length of the improved A9 that does without proper services in Europe.

[A9NWIL]

All of those stopping options are great for people in the know because they are locals, regular repeat visitors/tourists, or road geeks who do their research. But most normal tourists or infrequent visitors are going to be seriously inconvenienced by the absence of pit stop opportunities on the road itself.

I'm sure someone will come up with a counter-example, but I can't think of another stretch of near motorway quality road of the length of the improved A9 that does without proper services in Europe.

As they are improving it to near motorway standard they should go the whole hog and inprove it to full motorway standard! As D2M style that is.
Then slap on special road status that also allows farm vehicles to start with, with the idea of sorting out an LAR in the future to convert it into the M9.
So when the Sterling to Perth section gets central reservation gaps closed, hard shoulders added and LAR built there too, so the whole thing could become the M9.

I guess the section Inverness to Thurso won't become motorway unfortunately, even though that would be nice!

Imagine if you could drive motorways almost entirely from Lands end to Johnograts!
So the A30 becomes the M30 to the M5, then you use the M6, then A74 (M)&M74, then M73, M80 and lastly an extended M9 all the way past Inverness.

[orudge]

Realistically though that's not going to happen, as much as some would like to see the M9 reach Perth. As we have a variety of topics about fantasy motorways, including fantasy Scottish motorways, perhaps we should try to keep this thread about what's happening on the ground in reality.

[A9NWIL]

Realistically though that's not going to happen, as much as some would like to see the M9 reach Perth. As we have a variety of topics about fantasy motorways, including fantasy Scottish motorways, perhaps we should try to keep this thread about what's happening on the ground in reality.

Well it would just be nice if the road was built to motorway standard anyway even if not a motorway yet, that gives scope for the future, just saying. They are already wanting a fully grade separated D2 from Perth to Inverness, so building the extra hard shoulders wouldnt be too hard. At difficult places the hardshoulder could disappear for short stretches as on any motorway.
Then applying special road status so that only classes 1, 2 and 4 can use it wouldnt be too hard either, no need for a full LAR if farm vehicles can use the road. All that would be needed is a pathway for pedestrians, animals and cyclists in a few locations.

Of course as discussed already the biggest thing is lack of proper services, only 2 are really needed, as long as you can get to both from both sides of the carriageway. That way you only need to do a third of the road before coming to a services. Newtonmore and Killiecrankie seem the best rough spots for services.

As for future LARs if the A9 ever becomes a motorway, there is many roads that run close to the A9 they could be tidied up to become better LARs for the A9, so it could in theory become a motorway. Getting a good fully grade seperated motorway standard D2M would be a big improvement and likely attract more people to visit and even live at locations nearby.

[Altnabreac]

Realistically though that's not going to happen, as much as some would like to see the M9 reach Perth. As we have a variety of topics about fantasy motorways, including fantasy Scottish motorways, perhaps we should try to keep this thread about what's happening on the ground in reality.

Well it would just be nice if the road was built to motorway standard anyway even if not a motorway yet, that gives scope for the future, just saying. They are already wanting a fully grade separated D2 from Perth to Inverness, so building the extra hard shoulders wouldnt be too hard. At difficult places the hardshoulder could disappear for short stretches as on any motorway.
Then applying special road status so that only classes 1, 2 and 4 can use it wouldnt be too hard either, no need for a full LAR if farm vehicles can use the road. All that would be needed is a pathway for pedestrians, animals and cyclists in a few locations.

Of course as discussed already the biggest thing is lack of proper services, only 2 are really needed, as long as you can get to both from both sides of the carriageway. That way you only need to do a third of the road before coming to a services. Newtonmore and Killiecrankie seem the best rough spots for services.

As for future LARs if the A9 ever becomes a motorway, there is many roads that run close to the A9 they could be tidied up to become better LARs for the A9, so it could in theory become a motorway. Getting a good fully grade seperated motorway standard D2M would be a big improvement and likely attract more people to visit and even live at locations nearby.

With a relatively low AADT I see very little additional benefit from D2 with gap closures and GSJs to D2M

Your costs go up by at least 50% (more in the challenging sections and much more on structures where you have to rebuild the existing carriageway).

But what extra capacity do you get? None pretty much. You're proposing to allow tractors so the only traffic you are really banning is a few fast long distance cyclists (leisure cyclists will be on route 7 so only hardcore LE-JOGers will be on the A9).

The hard shoulder gives you slightly better flow during breakdowns and roadworks but no huge benefit in everyday capacity.

D2M really seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I really can't see what benefit it provides?

[A9NWIL]

With a relatively low AADT I see very little additional benefit from D2 with gap closures and GSJs to D2M

Your costs go up by at least 50% (more in the challenging sections and much more on structures where you have to rebuild the existing carriageway).

But what extra capacity do you get? None pretty much. You're proposing to allow tractors so the only traffic you are really banning is a few fast long distance cyclists (leisure cyclists will be on route 7 so only hardcore LE-JOGers will be on the A9).

The hard shoulder gives you slightly better flow during breakdowns and roadworks but no huge benefit in everyday capacity.

D2M really seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I really can't see what benefit it provides?

I did say hard shoulders could be left off difficult sections, so that's a huge saving.

As for special road status that allows tractors only above motorway traffic, it also means services can't dig up the street either, so only roadworks would be for road maintenance.

Regarding numbers using the road, I'm sure there would be an increase when it's done, as people would be attracted by the improved route.

[IAN]

Considering more and more English motorways are being converted to ALR it appears that it's perfectly acceptable to classify a long distance road as motorway/special road without having hard shoulders as long as there are sufficient laybys.

Ian (M5 Driver)

[Osthagen]

But if we're classifying it as motorway, there'll be money spent on putting up the blue signs.

I believe that motorways require a certain lane width (unsure on what that is) which the A9 may or may not have.

Also, I believe it to be the case that the long-distance motorways have to provide services at around every 20 miles.

Also, what number do you give it? Numbering it as M9 would be unwise for obvious reasons.

In an ideal world, either:

-The M9 between Edinburgh & Stirling would be M84.
-M80 would be agglomerate the M9 & A9, creating a Glasgow-Perth motorway.
-M9 would be the M9-M90-A9 to Inverness.
-M90 is an upgraded Perth-Aberdeen A90.

OR:

-The '74/M73/M80/M9/A9 from Gretna to Inverness becomes a hyperextended M6.

In the second scenario, the rest of the M9, M80 and what have you can probably remain as they are. However, personally I'd extend the M1 north up the A1, across the Cheviots to Edinburgh & up the '90 to Aberdeen.

[A9NWIL]

But if we're classifying it as motorway, there'll be money spent on putting up the blue signs.

I believe that motorways require a certain lane width (unsure on what that is) which the A9 may or may not have.

Also, I believe it to be the case that the long-distance motorways have to provide services at around every 20 miles.

Also, what number do you give it? Numbering it as M9 would be unwise for obvious reasons.

In an ideal world, either:

-The M9 between Edinburgh & Stirling would be M84.
-M80 would be agglomerate the M9 & A9, creating a Glasgow-Perth motorway.
-M9 would be the M9-M90-A9 to Inverness.
-M90 is an upgraded Perth-Aberdeen A90.

OR:

-The '74/M73/M80/M9/A9 from Gretna to Inverness becomes a hyperextended M6.

In the second scenario, the rest of the M9, M80 and what have you can probably remain as they are. However, personally I'd extend the M1 north up the A1, across the Cheviots to Edinburgh & up the '90 to Aberdeen.

I like both your ideas, in the second though give the M8 the number M7 and M9 the number M8. The new M9 could be an upgraded A90 between Perth and Aberdeen.
The 1 zone would extend to cover Edinburgh Queensferry and Fife.
The 6 Zone would extend between the extended M1 and M6 up to the M7.
The 5 Zone would extend into Scotland for the first time to the west of an extended M6 up to the M7 line.
The 7 Zone would run from the M7 to the M8.
The 8 Zone from the M8 to the M1 from the M8 to Perth and M6 from Perth to Inverness.
The 9 Zone would run from the Tay river line in the south up till the M9 crosses it then covering Perth and east of the M1 and M6 going north from there.

[Osthagen]

But if we're classifying it as motorway, there'll be money spent on putting up the blue signs.

I believe that motorways require a certain lane width (unsure on what that is) which the A9 may or may not have.

Also, I believe it to be the case that the long-distance motorways have to provide services at around every 20 miles.

Also, what number do you give it? Numbering it as M9 would be unwise for obvious reasons.

In an ideal world, either:

-The M9 between Edinburgh & Stirling would be M84.
-M80 would be agglomerate the M9 & A9, creating a Glasgow-Perth motorway.
-M9 would be the M9-M90-A9 to Inverness.
-M90 is an upgraded Perth-Aberdeen A90.

OR:

-The '74/M73/M80/M9/A9 from Gretna to Inverness becomes a hyperextended M6.

In the second scenario, the rest of the M9, M80 and what have you can probably remain as they are. However, personally I'd extend the M1 north up the A1, across the Cheviots to Edinburgh & up the '90 to Aberdeen.

I like both your ideas, in the second though give the M8 the number M7 and M9 the number M8. The new M9 could be an upgraded A90 between Perth and Aberdeen.
The 1 zone would extend to cover Edinburgh Queensferry and Fife.
The 6 Zone would extend between the extended M1 and M6 up to the M7.
The 5 Zone would extend into Scotland for the first time to the west of an extended M6 up to the M7 line.
The 7 Zone would run from the M7 to the M8.
The 8 Zone from the M8 to the M1 from the M8 to Perth and M6 from Perth to Inverness.
The 9 Zone would run from the Tay river line in the south up till the M9 crosses it then covering Perth and east of the M1 and M6 going north from there.

My way of doing things would have the M7 run from Carlisle to the M1 north of Jedburgh.

M8 would remain mostly as it is & M9 would either stay as M9 or become the M84, depending on which of my aforementioned systems we choose to go with.

If we extend the '5' Motorway Zone into Scotland, wouldn't roads like M77 require a M5x number?

[orudge]

Could I suggest again that the fantasy discussion moves to this topic please, and keep this topic for actual discussion of the A9 dualling?

[Bryn666]

All of those stopping options are great for people in the know because they are locals, regular repeat visitors/tourists, or road geeks who do their research. But most normal tourists or infrequent visitors are going to be seriously inconvenienced by the absence of pit stop opportunities on the road itself.

I'm sure someone will come up with a counter-example, but I can't think of another stretch of near motorway quality road of the length of the improved A9 that does without proper services in Europe.

Some time ago I suggested a bespoke sign for the aid of hapless types who might end up needing Bear Grylls. It's on my home computer but I'll dig it out tonight.

[Duncan macknight]

To get back on topic a bit, has Pass of Birnam to Tay crossing gone to a PLI as speaking to engineers that's one of the more difficult sections in terms of human impacts i.e. The A9 is literally running past properties there. Also on the Tay Crossing to Ballinluig section I imagine a big wall will need to be built or major landscaping to stop landslides?

[Altnabreac]

To get back on topic a bit, has Pass of Birnam to Tay crossing gone to a PLI as speaking to engineers that's one of the more difficult sections in terms of human impacts i.e. The A9 is literally running past properties there. Also on the Tay Crossing to Ballinluig section I imagine a big wall will need to be built or major landscaping to stop landslides?

Pass of Birnam - Tay Crossing isn't even at DMRB Stage 3 yet. It was one of the sections identified to be progressed in advance but as you say the neighbour issues there are greater than elsewhere so it has rather fallen behind other sections.

Tay Crossing - Ballinluig also got held up as locals at Dowally and Guay requested a complete rethink but then got a nasty shock when the only alternative route was a big viaduct section in the hills behind the villages that they disliked even more. It is now in stage 3.

There are no draft orders published for any of the 9 sections north of Birnam:
A9 Pass of Birnam to Tay Crossing
A9 Tay Crossing to Ballinluig
A9 Pitlochry to Killiecrankie
A9 Killiecrankie to Glen Garry
A9 Glen Garry to Dalwhinnie
A9 Dalwhinnie to Crubenmore
A9 Crubenmore to Kincraig
A9 Dalraddy to Slochd
A9 Tomatin to Moy

Until we get draft orders it's hard to tell how many will end up at PLIs. I suspect most of them probably will get objections. Maybe Glen Garry to Dalwhinnie and Dalwhinnie to Crubenmore are the most likely sections to not need a PLI?

[A9NWIL]

Could I suggest again that the fantasy discussion moves to this topic please, and keep this topic for actual discussion of the A9 dualling?

Done: search.php?author_id=10804&sr=posts

[GrahameCase]

Right, who can point me in the direction of images or notes of how the widening will be carried out at Slochd - especially on the viaduct section over deep ravine ? Curiosity has the better of me

[Duncan macknight]

Right, who can point me in the direction of images or notes of how the widening will be carried out at Slochd - especially on the viaduct section over deep ravine ? Curiosity has the better of me

The general plan is widening to the southbound side from the dual carriageway terminus, extending the embankment and building a southbound viaduct. Northbound is easier physically but there are a number of features i.e. Old road alignment and railway line that occupy most of the space. A lilo junction may be incorporated into the Slochd junction but final designs have yet to be confirmed. Rough plans are available here https://www.transport.gov.scot/projects ... to-slochd/

[GrahameCase]

Thank You Duncan

[Duncan macknight]

Thank You Duncan

No probs Grahame! Anyone got a progress report on kincraig dualling?

[Nwallace]

What's annoying is they consider the NCN7 route a constraint rather than part of the A9.
If it was treated as part of the A9 then rather than being a constraint that gets in the way, it would simply be a separate carriageway needing built alongside.
I've seen little said in favour of the part over drummochter, probably because it's a horrid wee path that's usually covered in loose gravel and rubbish thrown from the road that bumps along in what ever space was the cheapest including a horrible wee narrow track that basically sits on the kerb at the summit. A perfect example of a poor use of funds that no one wants to use unless they can avoid it.