Appendix G: Summarised email responses
This appendix features a summary of the emails that were sent to the A83 mailbox.
Email 1
Engineering company reached out to promote services in precasting.
Email 2
Respondent focused on the MTS and suggested that single track traffic management would be unacceptable during the construction period, particularly during months when tourism is most intense. Respondent then expressed concerns related to HGVs as well as cyclists using the MTS.
Respondent emphasised that due to delays caused by the single-track traffic management on the MTS, accident rates will likely increase due to some road users trying to make up for lost time. Furthermore, respondent mentioned that emergency vehicles could struggle to get through the single-track traffic management promptly.
Respondent then stated that they want a dual track along the OMR.
Respondent suggests that in terms of traffic flow, the OMR entrance should take priority, particularly when it becomes the primary route during the construction period. Also, the respondent stated that the OMR entrance junction should adjusted to make HGV turning easier.
Respondent then focussed on the flow shelter and suggested that due to the likelihood of boulder jumping the catch pits, more thought must be given to repairing the concrete shelter which could experience damage.
Respondent expressed concern with regard to cyclists. Due to the two opposing lanes separated by double lines in the flow shelter, cars cannot overtake, and the alternatives such as verges for cyclists could be problematic. Respondent mentioned that prohibiting cycling in the flow shelter would be one idea.
Email 3
Respondent suggested that there was a lack of focus on cycling and asked whether cyclists would have to share road space with cars on both the MTS and LTS. Respondent noted that a previous response to this question stated that it was too expensive to construct cycle infrastructure and then asked whether this was still the case,
Email 4
Respondent asked to receive proposals for project. Respondent stated that they would like to know more about the construction methodology in relation to the stability of the hill side.
Email 5
Respondent suggested that the project will be well received once finished. However, respondent asked why it had taken longer than expected and had been more expensive than expected. Respondent stated that land slip hazards will become more common in Scotland, so the country cannot afford such timescales and spending. Respondent criticised catch pits and the long-lasting use of them along the Rest and Be Thankful. Respondent then went on to ask how debris will be cleared from the planned catch pits and expressed belief that the construction period will take a long time.
Email 6
Respondent could not access link to consultation materials.
Email 7
Respondent focused on catchpit behind flow shelter which from their perspective made no sense due to the purpose of the flow shelter. Respondent went on to emphasise consequences related to road closures and cost. Respondent stated that more consultation should take place.
Email 8
Respondent emphasised that the flow shelter is negative in terms of its visual impact on the landscape and will lead to significant costs due to the gap between the hill and the flow shelter receiving so much flow debris.
Respondent then asked why alternatives such as culverts or letting the debris flow go over the top of the flow shelter hadn't been prioritised.
Respondent provided their own solution which revolved around a retaining wall which would, from their perspective, be maintenance free, be a more stable solution, and be less visually intrusive.
Respondent posed that removing livestock from the hillside and replacing them with woodland could be positive and reduce the likelihood of debris flow.
Respondent finished with the suggestion that in the case the project goes ahead, it should be sympathetic to the landscape visually.
Email 9
Respondent asked to receive Stage Reports for project, specifically parts of the report which focus on Place Principle and the needs of local people.
Email 10
Respondent stated that the LTS should be a tunnel. Respondent then asked whether the flow shelter is structurally strong enough to withstand rock fall, and then asked whether it would cover all points of the road which have been impacted by debris flow.
Respondent then asked for clarification over the construction period timescale.
Respondent stated that the MTS should be dual laned as far as possible.
Respondent then suggested several recommendations for the car park such as more parking spaces, spaces for touring coaches, a regular visit from a traffic warden, and a bus stop close by.