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.
Moderator: Site Management Team
Transport Scotland has put up the options for alternative routes into west Argyll:
https://www.transport.gov.scot/publicat ... mhfb6q4BPA
That said, I expect most demand is from Glasgow direction, in which case something more along the lines of 7 or 11 would make most sense? The likes of 4, 6, 8 and 10 seem more like 'Argyll bypasses' than Argyll accesses.
Connecting the mainland to the Isle of Bute (and making it a through route no less!) as per 8 or 9 would bring about a dramatic change in life on the island and seems like it should be its own consultation rather than jumbling it together with access to Kintyre.
Isn't it partly so they can say that they have considered all alternatives as and when they narrow down the choices and avoid objections? I can't remember which scheme it was (possibly part of the A9), where one of the options was a 20 mile tunnel in a straight line, even though it was completely lunaticjackal wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 15:56Feels a bit like pinning a tale on a donkey without an understanding of the objectives, benefits and costs. A couple of miles of online improvement at Tarbet has essentially nothing in common with a new 35 mile route between West Kilbride and Lochgilphead with several major bridges.
2 and 3 involve driving new sections of road through exactly the same sort of landscape that's causing the problem in the first place; never mind the environmental considerations.
Everything else involves building either tunnels or bridges and hence is a non-starter.
Somehow I can’t see the government building/upgrading 50-60km of new roads coupled with new fixed crossings, but you never know.
Indeed, no base tunnel under Ben Ime from Arrochar, but lots of routes with about 4 bridges and tunnels required? Plus some that link further up Loch Lomond so would require A82 improvements.
Oh all would need something done outside the identified corridors to avoid funneling strategic traffic through town centres
They talk about fixed links and the need to consider shipping, which rules out tunneling. Which seems odd, given the geology should be good for tunneling, and avoids both the shipping and aesthetic issues
Single carriageway tunnels are usually a sharp inhalation issue in this country - but a three lane wide bore could function as two lanes with central buffer for emergencies as is done in mainland Europe.Al__S wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 17:37
The first thing is getting people to accept that rural places like Scotland will be reliant on road links and having them collapse every time it rains is not a good policy. This is a world of difference to building a new road in a city centre that will just shift a queue 200 metres.
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
Where they mention crossing the sea lochs, they talk about span and minimum clearance and crossing over... all of which sounds like they have bridges in mind. Although I guess it could be read to mean that they are pointing out the difficulties of bridges and that a tunnel would be a better solution, so it's not as clear cut as how I first read itAl__S wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 17:37I don't see how it rules out tunnels? Indeed, for the various crossings that some of the wilder ideas that would need tunnels would be more shipping friendly than bridges (which would need to clear 60m to accommodate all Royal Navy vessels, or 80m if they're to allow visiting US Navy vessels and the largest cruise liners access). "Fixed link" simply means anything other than a ferry (and I think rules out opening bridges)
A tunnel is much less of a good PR opportunity though - less chance for drone shots and videos?Herned wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 08:24They talk about fixed links and the need to consider shipping, which rules out tunneling. Which seems odd, given the geology should be good for tunneling, and avoids both the shipping and aesthetic issues
TBH Given the 'green' agenda, it would be good to see the next stage report on how much is the additional cost of making such a corridor also be rail ready - eg double decking bridges etc, especially if starting a new road from Greenock or similar.
The trouble with option 1 or 1b, is that the A83 has also been closed by slides the otherside of the R&BT and for 1b the forestry track area has been affected by debris flows as well - was that not the reason the idea of a split dual carriageway either side of the glen was ruled out?
While 2 or 3 do go through similar terrain, the tech and understanding exists now to not cut the road through in a way to create a repeat of the existing situation and there is security in redundancy. Option 3 I think misses the area in Glen Kinglass that has had problems, though is a longer loop off the A82, but either 2 or 3 would be very advantageous to have in place before starting the on-line upgrade of Tarbet to Inverarnan on the A82.
I think at least one of the more extravagant options will go forward for further appraisal, it would be a completely transformational for a huge tract of Western Scotland.
We tend to demand impossible standards of proof from our opponents but accept any old rubbish to support our beliefs.
The human paradox that is common sense
The Backfire Effect
Brown Possible Route Option (Debris Flow Shelter)
Yellow Possible Route Option (Predominantly Viaduct on North-East Slope)
Green Possible Route Option (South-West Slopes of the Valley)
Purple Possible Route Option (Open Road and Shorter Tunnel in Base of Valley)
Pink Possible Route Option (Predominantly Tunnel)
https://www.transport.gov.scot/publicat ... uoWp3fBf0I
Yet a fear years ago the English ( Then ' Highways Agency ) built the Devil's Punchbowl project ( can't recall the road number ), and extra Emissions in an area equally as scenic , further , the upcoming ' Stonehenge ' project does not view a Tunnel as something that has do many negative impacts .
For example if part of the tunnel was built and ' concrete walls for a ' box type construction :, then the soil spoil could be used to hide this .
Also re ' spoil ' how about extending this project and use the spoil to widen stretches to S3 or sections of ' D2 ' along a greater distance .
The A83 is often a challenge to overtake safely on . Building any improvements on the back of this project , could only be a good thing.
I recall it taking , when doing my IT work in that region of Scotland, there was a shortcut using the Tarbert ferry.
That seemed to cut a good hour off the journey to Campbell town .
Also what is the plan for the ' old road ', is this to be dug out and landscaped ?.
Imho the green option is great until one reads the damage to be done to.woodland etc, they only are it seems, trying to push this , because they own much of the land , and ' it suits the land owners ' .
Finally what happened to the document that they did showing a totally new route to that area , well away from the current road? .
And daft as it may sound but what figures have they produced showing how many journeys with special loads or generally , run all the way from Campbelltown ?.
Point being , would s direct 'large ' Ferry to wherever is most ' central ' for the route users to get to where they are going .
It appears most of the options are no better than what they have now , but the green seems to be the worst , as it destroys woodlands , for which is more environmentally damaging , than hiding an ugly trunk road inside a tunnel .