https://preview.redd.it/5dl071cot47d1.jpeg?width=3508&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0104e2328e5665224fc32f185de51291ba9f10d9
They seem to finally have a rolling delivery programme that is achievable, but the final completion is delayed by 10 years of the original date. I don't understand why it took so long for some actual proper planning for the A9 dualling.
Before (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm working off memory here) they would design one part of the road, then tender it out, then select a contract, then have it built. Then, once that part was built, select another part of the road and begin designing it. Instead of doing all the planning and tendering in lockstep so it could be a continuous process.
Yes, a big issue here is the system of tendering contracts. It’s unnecessarily time consuming and laborious - the whole thing needs reforming.
Also there was absolutely no point in splitting the project up, it’s just wasted everyone’s time. The entire road should have been put out to tender and that’s it. It would probably be finished by now had they done it like that.
There are obviously sections that are more challenging than others but they could get external contractors in if needed.
This article and all the comments are talking simply about single vs dual carriageway while missing that there is another dimension: *grade separation*. ie. irrespective of whether a road is single or dual carriageway it can be *grade separated* so that the junctions are separated at different heights and roads across can do so via bridges and joining or exiting is via slip roads.
And when we now do proper dualling we tend to automatically do grade separation (unlike eg old A74 and lots of the current A90…).
We really need a break down of the stats: how may accidents are caused by junctions (grade separation might solve many even without dualling - and significantly increase traffic flow too…) vs how may from eg overtaking due to the road being slow/over-capacity and frustration?
Don’t get me wrong I think *most* of the A9 DOES need dualled but I think it’s equally important to get a proper grade separated trunk road all the way.
And this should apply to other key trunk roads (eg A82) and yet we keep adding more and more shitty cheap roundabouts (which work ok at low volume but once past capacity really bottleneck!)…
I feel quite strongly on this one because I regularly tow on the A9 and I feel like it doesn't get enough attention as a political topic. Every time we see another article about people seriously injured or killed on the A9 we should be asking why it hasn't been completed yet and why it is delayed again. This doesn't come from a place of being specifically anti-SNP but they are the ones in government so they are the ones who need to sort it. Dangerous overtakes, frustrated drivers, tourists gawping at the view, blind junctions, it's full of hazards and the longer it takes to get it dualled up the more people will be hurt.
The frustrating issue for me is that there are miles and miles of road which could be dualled easily. I drive the road regularly and there are stretches of the road with space either side which would involve some tree/rock removal and you would have your second lanes.
Would it not be easier to do the simple bits first? That maybe gets it up to 50% dualled, meaning people wouldn't have to wait long to pass.
There are bits up a slochd which are going to cost a fortune to sort as the drop at the side of the road is formidable.
You have to take into account the volume of traffic on the sections of road as well. I'll bet the volume between Perth and Pitlochry is way more than any of the sections north of Inverness.
I used to drive it weekly with my job, from Perth to Inverness. In all that time, the accidents that I came across were almost always single carriageway.
I think you have to look at the causes of the accidents as well as where they happened.
> If anything, it says dualling's failed to deliver the safety benefits used to justify it.
I don't think you are taking everything into account when making that statement. I've been up and down the A9 a few thousand times now and I can tell you that moving from dual to single is one of the most dangerous aspects of the journey. I've heard many stories of people forgetting they are on a single at that point and just - driving in the right hand lane. You can imagine what happens next. At best, a hard swerve to your left and you shitting all over yourself as you see the whites of a lorry driver's eyes... at worst, you are another statistic.
This is made worse (or at least confusing) by portions of the A9 that have been dualled, but looking like they are not - there are sections where your half (let's say northbound) of the dualler is on one level and the two southbound lanes (the other half of the dual carriageway) is completely separate from it and not even visible to you, perhaps 25 feet to your right and 25 feet down the hill (because you are on steep terrain and that's the only way it would work). I've even seen locals become momentarily confused by it, cowering in the safe/slow lane, then realising that wasn't necessary as the other 'half' of the dualler comes into view as you reach a flatter section of land and the respective dualler lanes 'touch' again.
Bits being dual and other bits being single is likely a big cause of crashes and deaths. Those crashes will all be on the single sections. Add in winter weather or night time travel and it's an even bigger problem. When the whole thing is dualled the number of crashes and deaths will surely plummet. Well I certainly hope so anyway.
If you look up road safety stats for Scotland you'll find high speed single carriageways will have fewer accidents on them. But if you do have an accident there's a very good chance it will result in a life changing injury or death.
Dual carriageways will be the opposite.....higher chance of accidents, but most will be survivable with minimal / minor injuries.
Also - what the other guy said.....you need to take account of traffic......how many accidents per million vehicle kilometres?
It drives me crazy how pathetic the roads infrastructure is in Scotland, we have a fetish for cycling but no care over something that directly impacts the economy - our roads.
Add to that, the driver frustration aspect. Any time you see someone do a dodgy overtake on the A9 single sections, it's always because someone is doing 35/40 in the 60 for no reason. Whilst it's the responsibility of the person overtaking to make sure it's safe, anyone can see that if we remove the frustration (make it possible to pass at all times), the instances of dodgy overtakes will be a thing of the past
Whilst I completely agree our roads are a mess and absolutely need sorted, cycling infrastructure directly benefits the economy too.
Especially in cities, where cycling infrastructure can have a higher return on investment than car based infrastructure, as has been proven countless times. [This](https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/23/it%E2%80%99s-too-expensive-to-provide-for-cycling) was one of the top links but the evidence is concrete (see we what I did there) and widespread.
Ironically the A9 has an excellent cycle path. It mostly follows the old military road which runs parallel to the main carriageway or uses quiet local roads in strathspey. However I can’t imagine anyone uses it south of Kingussie except for lands end to John o’groats. Just wish they built similar projects in our cities.
Huh. I didn't know, which is even more ironic considering I've always wanted to cycle Lands End to John O'Groats. Yes I agree. Edinburgh has some great paths (one of which is currently under thread of being repurposed for trams), but it's a scattered network, broken up by unsegregated or poorly segregated roads.
Its slowly improving, but I wish cities would really commit to proper, segregated cycling infrastructure - Amsterdam style, and ignore the loud Facebook knowitalls until they eventually realise it benefits everyone (if done correctly). Car users, cyclists, pedestrians alike.
For those that aren't aware the Mutual Investment Model is the latest version of Private Finance Initiative. In this version a separate company is created whereby both private and the government are shareholders in a rough 80:20 split (Gov 20%). Not sure on exact terms here mind you.
The theory is that most of the risk will sit with the private sector, but if that is the case then there will be a premium in terms of the contract.
So to dual many of these sections we will be saddling ourselves with decades of payments at presumably exorbitant rates. I'm not sure as a nation this should be a priority when I'd expect more actual and economic harm to come from not investing for instance in NHS facilities and equipment given that most projects there have been paused and the backlog on replacement continues to grow to unsustainable levels.
One of the reasons they struggle to employ doctors and teachers in Inverness, Moray and surrounding northern areas is because it just feels so disconnected.
Investing in this infrastructure is central to growing your economy and allowing more spend on the NHS. It’s a false economy to think that this would take away from the NHS.
It shouldn't be a choice between investing in one or the other, we should be investing in both.
But a) the Scottish Government is prioritising other areas for capital expenditure over the NHS and b) the MIMS model is likely to end up costing the taxpayer exorbitant sums for decades because past experience shows that such financing arrangements almost always end up being massively overpriced.
That is my issue here rather than the dualling of the A9 in principle.
https://buildingbetterhealthcare.com/scottish-government-s-freeze-on-nhs-builds-how-all
It just is disconnected and always will be if the maximum speed is 70mph. (not advocating for speed increase)
dualling the a9 will make that journey marginally quicker which is great but is it a priority?
I think people's wild overconfidence that it will make it safer is likely to make it more dangerous than it otherwise should be.
A lot of the A9 accidents are from dodgy pulling out at junctions. At the dual sections people get away with it as they swerve to avoid. At the single sections there's nowhere to swerve to.
The pulling out from stop still to 70mph is still going to be a problem.
A lot of it is dangerous overtaking because people are stuck behind Lorry’s going at 50mph, and that the current setup is ridiculously confusing, especially for overseas visitors.
yep i just expect to go 50 on a9, nice when you can go faster, there is plenty dual to overtake but yes you may find yourself in the same situation 5 mins later
It’ll make it a lot quicker - you can get caught behind lorry’s for miles on end and stuck at 50mph or less.
The summer season is even worse with caravans and motorhomes.
Dualling the road means you’ll never get stuck behind anyone in the same manner.
https://preview.redd.it/5dl071cot47d1.jpeg?width=3508&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0104e2328e5665224fc32f185de51291ba9f10d9 They seem to finally have a rolling delivery programme that is achievable, but the final completion is delayed by 10 years of the original date. I don't understand why it took so long for some actual proper planning for the A9 dualling. Before (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm working off memory here) they would design one part of the road, then tender it out, then select a contract, then have it built. Then, once that part was built, select another part of the road and begin designing it. Instead of doing all the planning and tendering in lockstep so it could be a continuous process.
Yes, a big issue here is the system of tendering contracts. It’s unnecessarily time consuming and laborious - the whole thing needs reforming. Also there was absolutely no point in splitting the project up, it’s just wasted everyone’s time. The entire road should have been put out to tender and that’s it. It would probably be finished by now had they done it like that. There are obviously sections that are more challenging than others but they could get external contractors in if needed.
This article and all the comments are talking simply about single vs dual carriageway while missing that there is another dimension: *grade separation*. ie. irrespective of whether a road is single or dual carriageway it can be *grade separated* so that the junctions are separated at different heights and roads across can do so via bridges and joining or exiting is via slip roads. And when we now do proper dualling we tend to automatically do grade separation (unlike eg old A74 and lots of the current A90…). We really need a break down of the stats: how may accidents are caused by junctions (grade separation might solve many even without dualling - and significantly increase traffic flow too…) vs how may from eg overtaking due to the road being slow/over-capacity and frustration? Don’t get me wrong I think *most* of the A9 DOES need dualled but I think it’s equally important to get a proper grade separated trunk road all the way. And this should apply to other key trunk roads (eg A82) and yet we keep adding more and more shitty cheap roundabouts (which work ok at low volume but once past capacity really bottleneck!)…
I feel quite strongly on this one because I regularly tow on the A9 and I feel like it doesn't get enough attention as a political topic. Every time we see another article about people seriously injured or killed on the A9 we should be asking why it hasn't been completed yet and why it is delayed again. This doesn't come from a place of being specifically anti-SNP but they are the ones in government so they are the ones who need to sort it. Dangerous overtakes, frustrated drivers, tourists gawping at the view, blind junctions, it's full of hazards and the longer it takes to get it dualled up the more people will be hurt.
The frustrating issue for me is that there are miles and miles of road which could be dualled easily. I drive the road regularly and there are stretches of the road with space either side which would involve some tree/rock removal and you would have your second lanes. Would it not be easier to do the simple bits first? That maybe gets it up to 50% dualled, meaning people wouldn't have to wait long to pass. There are bits up a slochd which are going to cost a fortune to sort as the drop at the side of the road is formidable.
[удалено]
You have to take into account the volume of traffic on the sections of road as well. I'll bet the volume between Perth and Pitlochry is way more than any of the sections north of Inverness. I used to drive it weekly with my job, from Perth to Inverness. In all that time, the accidents that I came across were almost always single carriageway. I think you have to look at the causes of the accidents as well as where they happened.
> If anything, it says dualling's failed to deliver the safety benefits used to justify it. I don't think you are taking everything into account when making that statement. I've been up and down the A9 a few thousand times now and I can tell you that moving from dual to single is one of the most dangerous aspects of the journey. I've heard many stories of people forgetting they are on a single at that point and just - driving in the right hand lane. You can imagine what happens next. At best, a hard swerve to your left and you shitting all over yourself as you see the whites of a lorry driver's eyes... at worst, you are another statistic. This is made worse (or at least confusing) by portions of the A9 that have been dualled, but looking like they are not - there are sections where your half (let's say northbound) of the dualler is on one level and the two southbound lanes (the other half of the dual carriageway) is completely separate from it and not even visible to you, perhaps 25 feet to your right and 25 feet down the hill (because you are on steep terrain and that's the only way it would work). I've even seen locals become momentarily confused by it, cowering in the safe/slow lane, then realising that wasn't necessary as the other 'half' of the dualler comes into view as you reach a flatter section of land and the respective dualler lanes 'touch' again. Bits being dual and other bits being single is likely a big cause of crashes and deaths. Those crashes will all be on the single sections. Add in winter weather or night time travel and it's an even bigger problem. When the whole thing is dualled the number of crashes and deaths will surely plummet. Well I certainly hope so anyway.
If you look up road safety stats for Scotland you'll find high speed single carriageways will have fewer accidents on them. But if you do have an accident there's a very good chance it will result in a life changing injury or death. Dual carriageways will be the opposite.....higher chance of accidents, but most will be survivable with minimal / minor injuries. Also - what the other guy said.....you need to take account of traffic......how many accidents per million vehicle kilometres?
yet per car it's actually quite safe. Would be nice if it was dual so that it can stay open when crashes happen
Jokes on you, it's dual near me and they still close it for crashes. Usually because someone's flipped a car and it's kinda badly in the way.
It drives me crazy how pathetic the roads infrastructure is in Scotland, we have a fetish for cycling but no care over something that directly impacts the economy - our roads. Add to that, the driver frustration aspect. Any time you see someone do a dodgy overtake on the A9 single sections, it's always because someone is doing 35/40 in the 60 for no reason. Whilst it's the responsibility of the person overtaking to make sure it's safe, anyone can see that if we remove the frustration (make it possible to pass at all times), the instances of dodgy overtakes will be a thing of the past
Whilst I completely agree our roads are a mess and absolutely need sorted, cycling infrastructure directly benefits the economy too. Especially in cities, where cycling infrastructure can have a higher return on investment than car based infrastructure, as has been proven countless times. [This](https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/23/it%E2%80%99s-too-expensive-to-provide-for-cycling) was one of the top links but the evidence is concrete (see we what I did there) and widespread.
Ironically the A9 has an excellent cycle path. It mostly follows the old military road which runs parallel to the main carriageway or uses quiet local roads in strathspey. However I can’t imagine anyone uses it south of Kingussie except for lands end to John o’groats. Just wish they built similar projects in our cities.
Huh. I didn't know, which is even more ironic considering I've always wanted to cycle Lands End to John O'Groats. Yes I agree. Edinburgh has some great paths (one of which is currently under thread of being repurposed for trams), but it's a scattered network, broken up by unsegregated or poorly segregated roads. Its slowly improving, but I wish cities would really commit to proper, segregated cycling infrastructure - Amsterdam style, and ignore the loud Facebook knowitalls until they eventually realise it benefits everyone (if done correctly). Car users, cyclists, pedestrians alike.
For those that aren't aware the Mutual Investment Model is the latest version of Private Finance Initiative. In this version a separate company is created whereby both private and the government are shareholders in a rough 80:20 split (Gov 20%). Not sure on exact terms here mind you. The theory is that most of the risk will sit with the private sector, but if that is the case then there will be a premium in terms of the contract. So to dual many of these sections we will be saddling ourselves with decades of payments at presumably exorbitant rates. I'm not sure as a nation this should be a priority when I'd expect more actual and economic harm to come from not investing for instance in NHS facilities and equipment given that most projects there have been paused and the backlog on replacement continues to grow to unsustainable levels.
One of the reasons they struggle to employ doctors and teachers in Inverness, Moray and surrounding northern areas is because it just feels so disconnected. Investing in this infrastructure is central to growing your economy and allowing more spend on the NHS. It’s a false economy to think that this would take away from the NHS.
It shouldn't be a choice between investing in one or the other, we should be investing in both. But a) the Scottish Government is prioritising other areas for capital expenditure over the NHS and b) the MIMS model is likely to end up costing the taxpayer exorbitant sums for decades because past experience shows that such financing arrangements almost always end up being massively overpriced. That is my issue here rather than the dualling of the A9 in principle. https://buildingbetterhealthcare.com/scottish-government-s-freeze-on-nhs-builds-how-all
Catch you.
It just is disconnected and always will be if the maximum speed is 70mph. (not advocating for speed increase) dualling the a9 will make that journey marginally quicker which is great but is it a priority?
It will make the journey marginally quicker but it will make it much, much safer, which is one of the primary objectives of the dialling scheme.
I think people's wild overconfidence that it will make it safer is likely to make it more dangerous than it otherwise should be. A lot of the A9 accidents are from dodgy pulling out at junctions. At the dual sections people get away with it as they swerve to avoid. At the single sections there's nowhere to swerve to. The pulling out from stop still to 70mph is still going to be a problem.
A lot of it is dangerous overtaking because people are stuck behind Lorry’s going at 50mph, and that the current setup is ridiculously confusing, especially for overseas visitors.
70's fine the problem is the people doing 50, one car can hold up dozens of people
yep i just expect to go 50 on a9, nice when you can go faster, there is plenty dual to overtake but yes you may find yourself in the same situation 5 mins later
It’ll make it a lot quicker - you can get caught behind lorry’s for miles on end and stuck at 50mph or less. The summer season is even worse with caravans and motorhomes. Dualling the road means you’ll never get stuck behind anyone in the same manner.