Feedback on the long-term solution and medium-term solution schemes

Overview

The feedback form posed questions to determine the views of respondents on the proposals put forward as part of the engagement activity. All responses have been analysed, with the results presented in this Section.

The responses to each of the four questions have been coded, following the process described in Section 3. This allowed the identification of recurring themes amongst the responses. The most frequently recurring themes are presented through tables within this report, while full frequency tables are included in Appendix H.

Most frequently received comments

Graph 1 shows the 10 most frequent comments received during the feedback period. While this graph does represent the 10 most frequent comments received, 12 comments are included due to two sets of comments receiving the same number.

Breakdown of comments

The breakdown of comments below represents all of the comments received. While it would have been preferable to break the comments down into comments relevant to MTS and LTS, there was significant crossover among the comments received and in general there was much more focus on the proposed LTS scheme.

Cycling

A total number of 38 comments were received about cycling. Of those 38 comments, 20 related to concern for cyclists, while 18 related to the provision of a cycle lane.

Among the 20 comments related to concern for cyclists, the most common were those calling for more consideration for cyclists.

Tunnel or bridge

Eight comments were received noting a preference for constructing a tunnel or bridge as opposed to the DFS.

Opportunities

A total number of 209 comments were received in relation to project opportunities. The breakdown of comments relating to different opportunities are shown in Graph 2 below.

Among the 28 comments related to the car park layout, the most common were comments suggesting improvements to the car park layout.

Among the 27 comments related to food and drink offerings, most common were comments supportive of more food and drink offerings at the car park, and comments supportive of the food van which currently serves the car park.

Among the 26 comments related to toilets, the most common were those specifying support for the provision of toilets at the car park.

Among the 20 comments related to modifications to the OMR, the most common were comments specifying support for the OMR becoming two-way, and comments suggesting that the OMR could represent the LTS, as opposed to the DFS, providing it was modified to provide two-way traffic.

Among the 17 comments related to visitor information points, the most common were those calling for the provision of a visitor centre.

Among the 16 comments related to sustainable travel options, the most common were those calling for the provision of electric vehicle charging points and bike racks within the car park.

Among the 12 comments related to tree planting and removal, the most common were those specifying support for tree planting to mitigate the risk of debris flow.

Among the 12 comments related to green roofing, all were supportive of planting a green roof on the DFS.

Among the 10 comments related to social spaces, the most common were those calling for the provision of picnic areas, seating areas and rain shelters.

Among the 10 comments related to public transport, the most common were those suggesting ways to better serve local buses, intercity buses and tour buses within the car park.

Among the nine comments related to road technology, the most common were those suggesting ways to improve the traffic management system along the OMR.

Among the seven comments related to transport links, the most common were those specifying support for improved connection with the ferry terminal in Campbeltown.

Among the seven comments related to walking paths, the most common were those specifying support for walking paths being better connected with the car park.

Among the four comments related to emergency and recovery vehicles, all raised concern over consideration for emergency and recovery vehicles.

Among the two comments related to access to the DFS roof, both asked whether the DFS roof would be made available for public access.

Among the two comments related to solar-powered lights, both called for the use of solar-powered lights.

Environmental concerns

A total number of 14 comments were received in relation to environmental concerns. Of those 14 comments, six related to landslides, three related to light pollution, three related to flooding, and two related to climate change.

Among the six comments related to landslides, the most common were those suggesting the DFS does not sufficiently mitigate the risk of debris flow along the A83.

Among the three comments related to light pollution, all were supportive of minimising light pollution from the DFS.

Among the three comments related to flooding, all emphasised the risk of flooding along the A83.

Among the two comments on climate change, both suggested that climate change would worsen conditions along the A83.

Rock outcrop

A total of three comments were received with respect to an existing rock outcrop. Of those three comments, all raised concern over a rock outcrop being removed as part of the proposed scheme.

Debris mitigation

A total of 26 comments were received about debris mitigation. Of those 26 comments, 12 related to the DFS catch pit, 11 related to flow shelter functionality, and three related to debris barriers.

Among the 12 comments related to the catch pit, the most common were those raising concern over the emptying of the catch pit.

Among the 11 comments related to the DFS functionality, the most common were those criticising the functionality of the DFS in the event of debris flow such as whether the debris flow shelter could withstand the force of heavy debris flow.

Among the three comments related to debris barriers, the most common were comments raising concern over the functionality of debris barriers, and comments criticising the visual impact of the debris barriers.

Cost

A total of 21 comments were received about cost. Of those 21 comments, 18 related to project costs, while three related to indirect costs relevant to the project.

Among the 18 comments related to project costs, the most common were comments criticising the project for costing too much, and comments criticising the cost effectiveness of the project.

Among the three comments related to indirect costs relevant to the project, all raised concern over the indirect cost of traffic delays during construction.

Duration

A total of 64 comments were received about the duration of the project. Of those 64 comments, 30 related to the project timescale, 18 related to traffic delays during construction, and 16 related to the use of the OMR during LTS construction.

Among the 30 comments related to project timescale, the most common were comments criticising the amount of time the project had taken to get underway, and comments raising concern over the amount of time the project will take to complete.

Among the 18 comments related to traffic delays during construction, the most common were those raising concern over the amount of time the project will take to complete and how traffic delays would be significant during that time.

Among the 16 comments related to the OMR during construction, the most common were those raising concern over the functionality of the OMR during construction.

Interaction with the landscape

A total of 106 comments were received about interaction with the landscape. It is worth noting that these comments were in response to question 3 which specifically asked about interaction with the landscape, and while some of the comments are not outwardly about such interactions, they represent the responses given. Of those 106 comments, 41 related to calls for the DFS to blend in with the landscape, 23 related to calls for road safety and reliability, 20 related to calls for views of the landscape to be maintained, 11 related to calls for viewpoints, five related to calls for amenities, three related to calls against excessive tourism, two related to calls for maintaining hillside access, and one related to calls for reduced queues. The breakdown of comments relating to interaction with the landscape are shown in Graph 3.

Among the 41 comments related to calls for the DFS to blend in with the landscape, the most common were comments criticising the DFS for visually detracting from the landscape, and comments suggesting ways to help the DFS blend in.

Among the 23 comments related to calls for road safety and reliability, the most common were comments suggesting ways to improve road safety along the A83, and comments emphasising the need for the A83 to be more consistently open.

Among the 20 comments related to calls for views of the landscape to be maintained, the most common were those suggesting that views of the landscape from within the DFS be maintained.

Among the 11 comments related to calls for viewpoints, the most common were those specifying support for the provision of a dedicated viewpoint at the car park.

Among the five comments related to calls for amenities, the most common were those specifying support for the provision of more space for people within the car park.

Among the three comments related to calls against excessive tourism, all raised concern over the way in which tourists interact with the landscape.

Among the two comments related to calls for maintaining hillside access, both suggested that hillside access be maintained for those using the hills for active travel.

The single comment related to calls for reduced queues raised concern over traffic related queuing during construction.