Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

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

User avatar
Halmyre
Member
Posts: 1997
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 07:47
Location: Fifeshire

Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by Halmyre » Thu Sep 24, 2020 08:08

I thought it best to start a new thread for this - merge it back to the existing RaBT thread if preferable.

Transport Scotland has put up the options for alternative routes into west Argyll:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/publicat ... mhfb6q4BPA

Herned
Member
Posts: 920
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by Herned » Thu Sep 24, 2020 09:13

Some of those are quite ambitious. Odd that they talk about crossing Loch Long etc. but seem completely averse to tunnelling though

Uncle Buck
Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 23:33

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by Uncle Buck » Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:32

Crikey! Am I reading it correctly that options 5-11 involve bridges and tunnels

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6543
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by jackal » Thu Sep 24, 2020 15:56

Feels 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.

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.

Herned
Member
Posts: 920
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by Herned » Thu Sep 24, 2020 16:21

jackal wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 15:56
Feels 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.
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 lunatic

User avatar
Halmyre
Member
Posts: 1997
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 07:47
Location: Fifeshire

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by Halmyre » Thu Sep 24, 2020 17:07

It's going to be 1.

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.

User avatar
M4 Cardiff
Member
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 15:12
Location: Leamington Spa

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by M4 Cardiff » Thu Sep 24, 2020 18:18

Option 1b, going through the forestry area on the west of Glen Croe is probably the best option, unless Option 1a includes rockfall sheds on the new build, so any landslip can simply go over the top.
Driving thrombosis caused this accident......a clot behind the wheel.

User avatar
orudge
SABRE Developer
Posts: 6527
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 12:23
Location: Banchory
Contact:

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by orudge » Thu Sep 24, 2020 18:26

I seem to remember that one of the very early proposals for an Aberdeen bypass was an eastern bypass across the harbour - unsurprisingly it didn’t get progressed further!

Somehow I can’t see the government building/upgrading 50-60km of new roads coupled with new fixed crossings, but you never know.

C83
Member
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 15:56

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by C83 » Thu Sep 24, 2020 23:34

Herned wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 09:13
Some of those are quite ambitious. Odd that they talk about crossing Loch Long etc. but seem completely averse to tunnelling though
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.

Al__S
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:56

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by Al__S » Fri Sep 25, 2020 06:50

C83 wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 23:34
Herned wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 09:13
Some of those are quite ambitious. Odd that they talk about crossing Loch Long etc. but seem completely averse to tunnelling though
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

Herned
Member
Posts: 920
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by Herned » Fri Sep 25, 2020 08:24

C83 wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 23:34

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.
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

Al__S
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:56

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by Al__S » Fri Sep 25, 2020 17:37

Herned wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 08:24
C83 wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 23:34

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.
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
I 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)

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31909
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by Bryn666 » Fri Sep 25, 2020 18:20

Al__S wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 17:37
Herned wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 08:24
C83 wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 23:34

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.
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
I 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)
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.

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.
Bryn
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/

Herned
Member
Posts: 920
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by Herned » Fri Sep 25, 2020 21:18

Al__S wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 17:37
I 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)
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 it

djw1981
Member
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 00:07
Location: Falkirk

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by djw1981 » Sat Sep 26, 2020 18:52

Herned wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 08:24
C83 wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 23:34

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.
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
A tunnel is much less of a good PR opportunity though - less chance for drone shots and videos?

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.

haggishunter
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 01:24

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by haggishunter » Mon Sep 28, 2020 00:29

So which options are the Boris Bridge links? :lol:

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.

haggishunter
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 01:24

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by haggishunter » Sat Oct 03, 2020 20:17

So the Boris Bridge to NI was back on the BBC Scotland news page as top story this morning, does that favour option 7, 9 or 11? :shock:

cb a1
Member
Posts: 5211
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 07:30

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by cb a1 » Thu Nov 26, 2020 20:15

Update on the Public Consultation now published.
Education makes the wise slightly wiser, but it makes the fool vastly more dangerous. N. Taleb
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

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6543
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by jackal » Mon Mar 29, 2021 15:41

Route Corridor 1, improving the A83 through Glen Croe, has been selected. There are now five options for the improvement:

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

mehere
Member
Posts: 1145
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 08:12
Location: west yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)

Post by mehere » Tue Mar 30, 2021 09:56

The tunnel options are described as more negative , and having more C02 emmisions .
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 .

Post Reply