A replacement for the Rest and Be Thankful must be agreed, planned, contracted, constructed and opened by May 2026 at the latest.
This is the joint message sent by Argyll and Bute’s council leader,and MSP, to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Islands and Connectivity, Michael Matheson, in response to the publication of an update to the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR2) earlier this month.
The plea marks a very different timescale from that demanded by a cross-party group of councillors and MSPs last year, when Mr Matheson and Nicola Sturgeon were urged to have a permanent solution to be in place by the end of 2023.
This week council leader Robin Currie and constituency MSP Mike Russell wrote to Mr Matheson calling for:
- Planning, construction and opening of the replacement route within the life of the next parliament and at the very latest before May 2026
- Continued (and increased if necessary) mitigation measures currently underway at the site
- More frequent meetings of the A83 Taskforce to focus on driving forward delivery of the replacement route.
Mr Russell said: “The report itself states the case that the A83 is one of only two trunk roads connecting Argyll and Bute to the central belt, that it is absolutely critical for the movement of goods and people and that it plays a vital part in all aspects of life in Argyll and Bute, from economy to education and employment opportunities.
“The pace of the action must match the urgency of the situation and that is why we are calling for the new route to be put in place in the life of the next parliament and no later.”
Cllr Currie added: “Everyone with Argyll and Bute’s interests at heart is agreed that urgent action is needed to ensure our connections to and from the rest of the country are reliable, sustainable and open for business at all times.
“With this joint approach we are calling for three key actions and clear timescales to be put in place which will address this situation once and for all. As we focus on Argyll and Bute’s recovery it is absolutely vital to stay connected.”
In the Arlberg region of west Austria they had a similar problem from start to finish including a small tunnel it took under a year. This road was to a single village Brand
I wonder why the three year delay compared to what they said last year? Do they think it will or should be one if the more ambitious options?
There is a touch of irony about an organisation making demands about the time to undertake a significant infrastructure project when they themselves can’t complete a cycle path within the same timescale.