"Perth Transport Futures"

[jnty]

Severing immediate access to the services is one thing but making the park and ride and ride harder to get to is quite another, from a public policy point of view. Would connecting to a new road by the P&R leave too little distance between slips?

[JammyDodge]

My first thought was 'you've got to be kidding - 5/6 freeflow is plenty!'. But actually you're right. This is such an important junction (essentially the centre of the Scottish trunk road network) that any missing freeflow between the strategic movements is an issue.

Here, then, is my final offer.


M90 A9 B9112 - Copy.jpg


It freeflows all six A9 and M90 movements and still only uses one bridge. The A93 has limited access, with the missing movements via a new junction on the B9112 (see inset).

It's loosely inspired by this junction outside Limerick: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.64119 ... a=!3m1!1e3

Alternatively, for the missing movements you could have an overbridge over the M90 here:

This would still provides ~400m of weaving space, as you could remove the HS heading northbound under the existing overbridge, which would give you a lane gain between the slips
This would do 2 things:
1) Placate the services as they will still have pretty direct access to all directions
2) Serve as access for future development south of the M90, which could look like this:

If needed, a southbound slip onto the M90 could also be added from the new overbridge

[rileyrob]

Going back to the Cross Tay Link Road, I came down the A94 into Scone yesterday, and there are some major roadworks underway. I had assumed that the new road was going to tie into the existing roundabout, but they are actually building a new one about 200m to the north, which seems a bit unnecessary. There is a big sign up saying that the works should be complete and the new road open in Spring 2025, which was another surprise, as I thought that the original plan was for the road to be built in stages, with the bridge being the last part.

I can't see such a major route opening with the B9993 number throughout, but on recent form in Scotland the A9993 could be possible Lets hope P&K either re-route the A94, or pick a nice unused number, as far as we know the A992 number has never been used, or the A927 is defunct, and in the right part of Zone 9.

[orudge]

In the A9 dualling topic I noticed references to A9294 for the new road:

Interestingly the number for this new road appears to be the somewhat lengthy A9294. “A9-to-94”, I guess! It shows up on some council documents too. It’ll become the highest numbered A-road in the UK, beating the other two A9xxx contenders of A9000 and A9119.

I think I may have got it from the visualisation, but it shows up in this PDF too.

[paully]

There is a big sign up saying that the works should be complete and the new road open in Spring 2025, which was another surprise, as I thought that the original plan was for the road to be built in stages, with the bridge being the last part.

The bridge is part of the second phase along with the A9 realignment and new junction, with the final phase connecting the new A9 junction to Bertha Park and the first phase.

Works are well underway at the A9 side as well, I went along the riverside path and works are already underway at the site of the new bridge over the river.

[SouthWest Philip]

I was looking at the Cross Tay Link Road works on Open Streetview and couldn't help but think that the new parclo junction with the A9 is designed the wrong way round. In both directions, the A9 exits are on the on the outside of the trumpet, as it were, with looped on slips. This means that that all the main traffic flows through the roundabouts will cross each other whereas if it had been designed with the tighter loops for the exit slips, the main traffic flows wouldn't conflict with each other. It's rather like the mess on the end of the Aberdeen bypass at Stonehaven. Same designers?

[IanRB]

I was looking at the Cross Tay Link Road works on Open Streetview and couldn't help but think that the new parclo junction with the A9 is designed the wrong way round. In both directions, the A9 exits are on the on the outside of the trumpet, as it were, with looped on slips. This means that that all the main traffic flows through the roundabouts will cross each other whereas if it had been designed with the tighter loops for the exit slips, the main traffic flows wouldn't conflict with each other. It's rather like the mess on the end of the Aberdeen bypass at Stonehaven. Same designers?

I suspect the traffic volumes will be low enough that this won't be an issue.

[FtoE]

The slips also seem very short.

[Bryn666]

I was looking at the Cross Tay Link Road works on Open Streetview and couldn't help but think that the new parclo junction with the A9 is designed the wrong way round. In both directions, the A9 exits are on the on the outside of the trumpet, as it were, with looped on slips. This means that that all the main traffic flows through the roundabouts will cross each other whereas if it had been designed with the tighter loops for the exit slips, the main traffic flows wouldn't conflict with each other. It's rather like the mess on the end of the Aberdeen bypass at Stonehaven. Same designers?

I suspect the traffic volumes will be low enough that this won't be an issue.

It's still pretty poor design though. The bulk of the expense also appears to be the seemingly overblown realignment of the entire A9 for the junction.

[rileyrob]

I've been for a wander around Scone today and looked at progress on the Cross Tay Link Road. The roundabouts are all more or less done and in use, although the pavements haven't been finished. The section west from the A94 to the new Highfield Roundabout looks ready to open, but from there through to the A93 is waiting for the top surface and some other bits. The section from the A93 west to Stormontfield Road is open and in use, and the southern end of Stormontfield Road is currently closed to traffic. I think this is to allow it to be widened as traffic will use it as a shortcut rather than using the A93.
I've put some photos on the wiki: Gallery:Cross Tay Link Road. It was too dark by the time I got to the A94 roundabout.

I also wandered up the Tay on the west bank a couple of weeks ago, and will add those photos when I find them again. Both abutments are done, but there's another year before the road is due to open, so still quite a lot to do. The A9 has been moved onto the new alignment though, and the old road almost completely removed.

[The Deuce]

New Tay crossing to be named Destiny Bridge

A new bridge over the River Tay created as part of the Cross Tay Link Road project will be named Destiny Bridge.

The road between Destiny Bridge at the A94 at Scone will be called New Kingsway.

Schoolchildren across Perth and Kinross were asked to say on their preferred names for the new crossing and connecting road.

Councillors agreed three potential names for the new bridge and crossing in May and gave pupils at primary and secondary schools in Perth and Kinross the chance to pick their favourite.

The three choices were:

1. Coronation Crossing & Destiny Road

2. King's Bridge & Destiny Road

3. Destiny Bridge & New Kingsway

https://www.pkc.gov.uk/article/23642/Ne ... iny-Bridge

[jackal]

Realigning the A9 for a couple of km feels like overkill.

Maybe they could have left it where it is, bridge it and the railway, with the southbound slip roads snuck in between them, similar to the abandoned plan for A55 J16A: https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/fil ... ex-b_0.pdf (The eastbound carriageway of the A55 was to be realigned for a short section, but that wouldn't be needed for the A9 as it's about the same distance from the railway as the A55 would be post-realignment.)

[jnty]

Realigning the A9 for a couple of km feels like overkill.

Maybe they could have left it where it is, bridge it and the railway, with the southbound slip roads snuck in between them, similar to the abandoned plan for A55 J16A: https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/fil ... ex-b_0.pdf (The eastbound carriageway of the A55 was to be realigned for a short section, but that wouldn't be needed for the A9 as it's about the same distance from the railway as the A55 would be post-realignment.)

That relies on there being a T junction in the railway/road gap. The configuration here is the other way around, so it would have to be a compact elevated crossroads. And the bridge road is going to become through route into Perth, so all movements would be fairly busy.

[Bryn666]

The decision to build a parclo instead of a dumbbell means they had to realign the A9. I've no idea why they felt that was a good design choice, but presumably it's from the same engineers that thought Stonehaven was a good idea.

[Chris5156]

The decision to build a parclo instead of a dumbbell

Or a SPUI or DDI

[Bryn666]

The decision to build a parclo instead of a dumbbell

Or a SPUI or DDI

Those too!

[jackal]

Realigning the A9 for a couple of km feels like overkill.

Maybe they could have left it where it is, bridge it and the railway, with the southbound slip roads snuck in between them, similar to the abandoned plan for A55 J16A: https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/fil ... ex-b_0.pdf (The eastbound carriageway of the A55 was to be realigned for a short section, but that wouldn't be needed for the A9 as it's about the same distance from the railway as the A55 would be post-realignment.)

That relies on there being a T junction in the railway/road gap. The configuration here is the other way around, so it would have to be a compact elevated crossroads. And the bridge road is going to become through route into Perth, so all movements would be fairly busy.

Grist for my mill, given a signalised crossroads would have higher capacity than a rbt.

Though really it should just be a merge (eastbound) and diverge (westbound), as there are no conflicts other than a field access and the artificial ones created by folding the slips. Even a signalised merge (for space reasons) would have better throughput than a rbt.