Just saw this article in the Courier about the new roundabout. Anyone know of any safety measures to be put in place for the fans? At the current state, it isn't too great, crossing the northbound carriageway is tricky with the timing, but the southbound is easy, but at the same time it isn't what one would regard as "safe", or will it (crossings) be scrapped entirely and we be made to go down the path down the side of the distillery?

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/alternative-to-a9-needed-during-works-on-roundabout-182311/

That's a very good question. I would be extremely surprised if pedestrians / cyclists have been taken into consideration in these plans. My guess is they will divert / encourage folk to divert down the path you mentioned above and thence under the Kessock Bridge.  

Don't see why it wouldn't be unexpected for there to be pavements on the underpass section of the roundabout, however that will all depend on whether there is a plan for traffic lights or not, otherwise as said the cycle path would likely divert to the steps and ultimately the road under the bridge. I'm assuming there will be a public council consultation session on this matter in due course?

Looking at the roads & distances, its likely that the new routing by the time you were to walk under and round will be not that different to walking down and under the bridge.

Much like now, if the council were to be questioned on the matter they would say that crossing the carrigeway is not condoned and that there is an alternative (safe) route in place which many choose not to use.

Public exhibitions were held last June on the proposals which are now progressing through the Stage 3 detailed design stage in advance of progressing draft orders.

Further information is available at the link below

https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/exhibition-materials-june-2019-a9a82-longman-junction-improvement-scheme/

Jacobs in preparing the scheme to date make reference to further discussions regarding Non-motorised User (NMU) provision which is a couched reference to the potential for provision of an underpass for aiding access to the Stadium.

It is incumbant on the club and public in general to make representations to TS during the current consultation stage as to the specific requirement for this (on the basis of pedestrian safety avoiding the need for specific crossing point on the merge and demerge). The greater the level of representation will provide basis for inclusion within the final Stage 3 design and during the RSA1/2 assessment.

Perhaps this is something the Supporters Trust could discuss with the club to ensure that fan's travel issues are raised during the consultation process? 

I hope that Dougal signs on soon as I know he has dealt with "roundabout problems" in the past.

 

1 hour ago, Fraz said:

Perhaps this is something the Supporters Trust could discuss with the club to ensure that fan's travel issues are raised during the consultation process? 

Yes. I agree that we should take this up with the club.  This is not just about the final design but about arrangements during what will be a very lengthy construction period. Thanks too to Jack and Tree for posting informative links.  Concern has been expressed before about the lack of any traffic control to assist people crossing the roundabout, but as pointed out above, the official line is that there is a safe walking route under the bridge and my guess is that this something which will be emphasised.

The "official" route could do with much better signage but there is also something else which would help. Creating a decent walk way from the West side of the ground going along the back of the car park to meet the pavement just before the bridge would both shorten the route a bit and also remove the need for walkers to cross in front of cars exiting the car park. This would therefore address another concern which has been raised recently. 

The design of the roundabout / interchange is very similar to that of the AWPR / Westhill junction and there are provisions for pedestrian and cyclist movements around that junction. Almost certain that there will be infrastructure in place to cater for NMUs.

As Tree says if you are at all concerned make sure you register a comment at the appropriate time i.e. at the next consultation stage.

DD/RIG

The consultation period closed on 9th August so time is quite important. Representation may have been made by others already however.

TS may view the positive benefit in having a NMU underpass in any event and the road flow modelling may indicate that this is beneficial during match days to avoid significant negative impact though signalised crossings.

The AWPR/A944 Interchange has been pre-ducted during the construction to allow restrospective installation of traffic lights when the Aberdeen Stadium is completed by ACC. The design parameters for the interchange are however flawed as the frequency of accidents and demerge tail backs show. In theory everyone is getting a bus to the new AFC stadium (ahem) so footway capacity through the slips is of less concern!

Is there not a further consultation stage to come on the "final" plans? I can't remember.

Not routinely though if issues are identified during the Stage 3 Assessment there may be a further public consultation (generally when base information from Stage 2 is found to be flawed and to prevent contestable aspects if the project goes to PLI). As an affected party, ongoing consultation with the club is likely particularly in this instance as the temporary measures to allow construction are likely to have an effect on game traffic and pedestrian flows

On 8/30/2019 at 3:31 PM, RiG said:

The design of the roundabout / interchange is very similar to that of the AWPR / Westhill junction and there are provisions for pedestrian and cyclist movements around that junction. Almost certain that there will be infrastructure in place to cater for NMUs.

As Tree says if you are at all concerned make sure you register a comment at the appropriate time i.e. at the next consultation stage.

There is provision for cyclists and pedestrians on the westhill junction of the awpr and to which on numerous occasions there have been near misses as cars lorries etc have not seen the pedestrian crossings due to the high speeds involved on the underopasses and gone shooting through the red lights. The placement and design, if similar to that of the awpr would be a worry.