Forget concrete and plant trees to protect Rest and Be Thankful
THE problems of landslides at the Rest and Be Thankful is of long standing, as you point out, and it is getting worse (“Rain sparks seventh landslip in five years on crucial Argyll road”, (The Herald, October 4).
Unfortunately the approach taken has been of little value, and will be an expensive exercise in trying to stop a big problem with piecemeal remedies. What is being done so far is to put in concrete and steel structures over a few yards at each site as it becomes unstable. Concrete culverts, cascades to lessen the flow of water made of concrete and steel, and walls of concrete will not provide lasting protection as the area affected spreads. Risk is present along a length of five or six miles, on both west (towards Inverary) and east (Arrochar) sides of the summit along the A813, and should be addressed accordingly. The cost of concrete structures over several miles will be prohibitive.
Rather than hard (and expensive) concrete barriers, a far better way forward is to plant trees, upslope from the road, which will protect the soil at a much lower cost than the anticipated £2.6m. Trees bind the soil, their foliage checks the force of rainfall before it hits the soil, and the trees reduce run-off by leaf evaporation, They also act to even out run-off over weeks or even months, acting as a temporary reservoir.
Why is there no attempt to try this approach? One hopes there is no cosy liasion between the roads authorities and engineering firms, but it should at least be made plain that the “soft” engineering approach has been considered and studied.
There are questions I ask myself every time I travel by bus on the A83. Far down below in the glen is the old military road, now an emergency relief road. It was built around 1760 to bring British troops quickly from Dumbarton Castle to the west Highlands in case the Stuarts had another try. It has never been closed by landslide in all that time. Were 18th century road builders better than the 20th century ones who built the highly vulnerable A83, I wonder?
Then I look up at the towering hillside above me. Is it conceivable that there is a “big one” still to come, one that will bury not only the road, but the traffic and people on it?
Why is this happening now? In the late 18th century Samuel Johnson visited the west Highlands and reported that most of it was covered in Caledonian forest. This has now disappeared. It supplied not only the needs of sheep farming but British military needs such as Nelson’s navy and First World War trench construction. Our barren and increasingly unstable hillsides and the mighty midge are the consequences. However, there are signs of hope now, I believe, as we have a government in Edinburgh which does not regard the west Highlands as the other side of the moon. YOUR Transport Correspondent has missed the point of HS2 (“Is it worthwhile spending £50bn to save 30 minutes?”, The Herald, October 3).
Much of the British rail network is struggling to accommodate passenger traffic which has doubled in the last decade, and on current trends is expected to double again by 2030.
The north-south trunk lines are congested. Trying to squeeze double the capacity from these lines, which were built in the Victorian era, would involve massive disruption and destroy many houses in the towns and cities which have developed around the railway lines.
A new line will provide the capacity needed for future growth, and, being built to modern standards, will also shorten journey time dramatically.
The route proposed for HS2 roughly follows the Great Central main line, which was a victim of the Beeching axe. Closure of this line was opposed by the inhabitants of Buckinghamshire who are now, paradoxically, objecting vociferously to HS2.
The London press has generally joined the anti-HS2 bandwagon, being more interested in completing London Crossrail (£15bn for just 11 miles of tunnel), then embarking on a second cross-London tunnel (Crossrail 2) and a new London Airport (“Boris Island” costing up to £100bn). A high capacity rail link “up north” from London to Britain’s eight next largest cities has no place in their priorities.
Supporting Scotland in the HS2 plan is essential to avoid us becoming a European rail backwater. Scottish flights are gradually being squeezed out of Heathrow because of runway congestion. Without HS2, the same fate may befall Edinburgh and Glasgow trains from over-congested London rail termini.
If HS2 is not built, the money earmarked by the UK Government will instead be used to fund more local transport projects in the overheated south-east of England. YOU report: “Those taking the train from the west and southwest of Scotland currently have a choice of disembarking at Glasgow Central and walking to Queen’s Street, or travelling to Carstairs to travel on to the east” (“Rail route plans to make travel easier”, The Herald, October 4).
This is incorrect. Frequent direct train services exist from Glasgow Central to Edinburgh.