Medium and Long Term Solution update

FH informed the group that the meeting would now cover the design and assessment work being progressed on the permanent solution and the next steps for the medium term solution. FH passed over to GR who provided this update and then opened the floor to questions.

GR acknowledged the progress to date, noting preferred route announced on 2 June 2023 with public exhibitions held thereafter. GR informed the group that the public exhibitions held in June went well with over 200 people attending the in-person events and over 3,600 views of the virtual exhibition room. GR then passed to technical advisors Atkins WSP Joint Venture to present the work to date.

IA presented an update on the permanent solution, an overview of the preferred route summary, plan drawings, the scheme assessment process and what happens next. A copy of the slides can be found in Annex 2.

FH stated that as work progresses there will be further updates and thanked IA for the update. FH highlighted that it was important that the MTS and LTS worked in parallel and that it was reassuring in relation to the timescales, and that consultation with stakeholders and the public, and statutory consents will be a factor as we move forward.

FH invited questions from the Taskforce members.

• RC asked what the timeline for the temporary medium term solution would be?

IA confirmed that it is intended that phase one will commence before the end of 2023 and phases two and three would be dependent on the consenting linked to seasonal environmental surveys. He added that they would be working to complete these as quickly as possible.

GR informed the group that they are working as quickly as they can with phase one works expected to commence later this year and phase two and three likely to start next year, dependant on consents, with potentially six to 12 months of construction.

• RC asked what is the timeline for long term solution once the medium term solution is in place?

GR noted that with draft Orders expected to be published by the end of next year, and with a fair wind and no objections, the contract could be awarded end 2026/early 2027 based on indicative timescales.

• RC asked if SG money is being spent on temporary solution why is there a need for the permanent solution?

FH responded to say that people and businesses would want the optimal solution.

IA confirmed that the medium term solution is a proportionate response until the long-term solution is in place to resolve the issue. He added that the medium term solution will still require one-way traffic.

FH added that the steepest gradient on the OMR will be one-way.

• JS said that it was encouraging to have the project progress through the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) assessment process. He added that he would be keen to see the A82 Tarbet to Inverarnan preferred route taken forward. JS asked if there will be a return to service plan in place for the A82/A83/OMR and also what provision is in place for active travel, noting there is good opportunity to improve active travel in this area?

GR informed the group that work on the A82 is progressing through the DMRB assessment process but noted the importance of ensuring that the construction of the A82 and A83 schemes do not occur at the same time. GR confirmed that the ongoing development work will look at what happens if the OMR is out of commission as they need to minimise disruption through construction, however, noted the likely diversion is as per the current diversion via the A82/A85. He also added that active travel is a big part of the project considerations and is being considered as part of the ongoing design and development work.

RG added that the WHCAR (walking, horse riding, cycling assessment report) assessment was completed which identifies a number of potential opportunities. This has been supplemented with recent camera user surveys in the past week to give a better understanding of who is using the various existing routes.

FH asked if there were any questions from those online?

• JB thanked officials for facilitating a hybrid option for the meeting, informed the group that she was thankful of the discussion and asked regarding the medium term solution phase one, two and three being completed in six to 12 months, and is there capital set aside for this?
• JB also asked regarding the timeline, if the worst case is five years, is that from now or procurement and how long will the build take?

GR confirmed that the medium term solution phase one is targeted to commence later this year with construction taking approximately eight weeks. He added that it is anticipated that phases two and three could commence sometime next year, with construction estimated between six and twelve months.

GR added that taking a worst case approach from the indicative timeline presented, five years would be from when the preferred route was announced in June this year, however, it was noted that consideration was being given to accelerate the programme as far as possible. Construction would be approximately three to four years depending on weather.

IA stated that the DMRB Stage 3 assessment will be complete by the end of next year. He added that the statutory process will need to consider any objections and if they need to be addressed, they could take up to one to two years. IA highlighted that the preferred route could take up to three to four for construction however highly dependent on weather conditions, with three years as best-case scenario.

FH informed the group that the First Minister was clear during his visit to Argyll and Bute at the beginning of the week that the funding is committed.

• JB noted First Minister said he would ensure the funding is committed. However, noting there could be a change in government before construction of the scheme, can something be done to ensure future governments commit to this.

FH confirmed that the project would move into procurement as quickly as possible and noted the importance of highlighting the need for this scheme to all parties. FH stated that was a helpful question from JB.

• JB asked what financial year the capital bid is being programmed in - in 2027?

FH responded to say that in terms of major projects capital spend will be over a number of years and is referenced within STPR2 and the Programme for Government, as well as First Minister’s Policy Prospectus.

• FM asked in relation to the preferred route, will there be analysis of the comments submitted and how and when they will be responded to, is there a time limit? He added that there are businesses potentially looking to relocate out the area, they want to see this project happened as soon as possible, and what is the construction impact?

• FM also asked about convoy working on the OMR as the issue of convoy does put people off, can it be minimised?

• JG supported FM’s comments and questions and noted businesses are going to fold if 10 months of the year traffic are diverted on to the OMR during construction. If that’s the case other alternatives could provide two way traffic for the medium term solution.

GR responded to say that there is a Public Exhibition Summary Report being prepared which summarises feedback received and will be published in due course. Where feedback has asked specific questions, individual responses will hopefully be issued in the coming weeks. He added that the majority of feedback was positive, with much of the theme being “just get on with it”. He stated that they want to minimise the disruption during construction as much as possible. GR noted that the contractor will also aim to do this; however, it is difficult to say at this time how long traffic will be diverted on the OMR. It is being considered now and will also be considered at the procurement stage, as well as including incentives for the contractor to minimise disruption.

IA informed the group that they are looking at ways to reduce the overall programme to refine the works.

GR confirmed that when there is no risk, technology can be considered to help one-way operation on the OMR instead of the convoy, for example bus gate type alternatives or monitored traffic lights.

• FM highlighted that communication is critical as BBC Radio were broadcasting announcements on the A83 saying it was closed when in fact the OMR was in operation. FM also highlighted the need to engage with SEPA and Nature Scot.

GR confirmed that they have been speaking with consultees such as SEPA and NatureScot regularly throughout the project.

FH asked the group what their next steps are, she added that in relation to communications they would be best placed to inform how it’s done, building confidence with businesses.

FH asked what is the change in position on two-way?

GRoss highlighted that communication has been a common theme during these Taskforce meetings. He noted that Western Ferries do provide an alternative to the road but noted the OMR will be better once improved. He highlighted Western Ferries are there as an alternative to help divert people away from the OMR. He did note concerns with additional costs for using the ferries and could hauliers be compensated for using the ferry. Is this something that could be considered for when construction of the long term solution commences, a form of compensating scheme for hauliers to use the ferries?

FH stated we need to work with the freight industry and inform them of what’s happening and asked the group how we make this the best it can be, what are the planned contingencies and communications with Western Ferries regarding alternatives. FH added that during particular periods there was a need to work with freight services and to know who the key stakeholders are, informing them and planning ahead to support effective delivery.

• MB highlighted to the group that small to medium businesses put out weekly bulletins. He added that it would be helpful to get more information on the timescales as some might have to close or move to accommodate the works; well-established businesses are frustrated. Communication is key and the more advance warning they can receive, the better.

• RC highlighted that social media is flooded with misinformation, noting the A83 Facebook page and asked if there’s anything we can do to stop it, can Transport Scotland intervene in anyway?

ER informed members that they have a stakeholder list of some 200 people and send updates on the works with the information also going to Traffic Scotland.

FH asked the group how they think they can be proactive and get the messages across to help correct misinformation from the A83 Facebook.

• FM stated that the level of information needs to be more detailed, it should state the delay and how long the delay will be, what is happening, it would ideally mention the convoy working and most of all get the message across that it is safe for road users.

FH confirmed that communication is key and that we need to work together on this. FH suggested that TS comms would consider this and also a communication plan. She added that we want to become the main source of truth.

• MC suggested informing people much earlier in their journey, for example including signage on the M74 informing travellers of the situation on the A83.

FH noted that for a major project such as this we need an engagement plan.

• GRoss noted that BEAR Scotland has done a good job regarding communications on the A83, adding they have got better and better over the years and were proactive in terms of ferries. He added that communications are good but it could be better but highlighted it’s difficult to get the right people to look at the right information.

FH brought the meeting to a close and informed the group that the minutes will be circulated.

FH added that the next meeting will be held in January and a date will be confirmed in advance. FH asked the group if they would prefer the next meeting to be in person or virtual, it was agreed it should be an in person meeting with the option to join virtually if possible.

FH thanked everyone for attending and wished them a safe journey home.