Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Locked
mikehindsonevans
Member
Posts: 1241
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:44
Location: Cheshire, but working week time in Cambridge

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by mikehindsonevans » Sat Jul 17, 2021 00:26

Jim606 wrote:
Fri Jul 16, 2021 10:00
The PM in his levelling up speech made reference again to the A303 so despite all the issues - he knows like many others that its a scheme which needs to go ahead.
I agree that the scheme is 'likely' to go-ahead, in fact some preparation work is about to start such as the power and byway diversions. The campaigners always argued 'no tunnel' or a 'much longer tunnel'. It makes me wonder if they have the ability to extract some more concessions if the High Court ruling goes against the DfT? As mentioned earlier in this thread a longer tunnel isn't possible without a lot of extra money and some ventilation shafts. However, as I have always thought the scheme still isn't good enough. Personally, I would ask for two extra green bridges, one along the line of what would become the old A360 near Longbarrow roundabout and another by the eastern portal. Here I would lower the road level down by 10-15m and sink into much more into the landscape hiding it from view.
Fortunately, being based upon chalk, there is no risk that a deeper cutting/tunnel alignment would be more prone to flooding (regularly or intermittent).
Mike Hindson-Evans.
Never argue with a conspiracy theorist.
They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Hdeng16
Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 20:47

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Hdeng16 » Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:48


User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31592
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 » Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:56

Hdeng16 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:48
Back we go.... (again)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-58024139
Another classic example of if HE just designed a proper scheme in the first place they'd have saved millions in legal battles...
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3239
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by A303Chris » Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:59

Hdeng16 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:48
Back we go.... (again)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-58024139
Makes me really annoyed that these eco warriors can stop a much needed road scheme. They want to protect the stones, but are happy for 35,000 vehicles a day to scream past, severely affecting the environment of the surrounding area when they could be under the ground.

This may be controversial but I do sometimes question the neutrality of the judges in these decisions.
The M25 - The road to nowhere

Hdeng16
Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 20:47

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Hdeng16 » Fri Jul 30, 2021 17:03

A303Chris wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:59
Hdeng16 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:48
Back we go.... (again)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-58024139
Makes me really annoyed that these eco warriors can stop a much needed road scheme. They want to protect the stones, but are happy for 35,000 vehicles a day to scream past, severely affecting the environment of the surrounding area when they could be under the ground.

This may be controversial but I do sometimes question the neutrality of the judges in these decisions.
I mostly agree, but as Bryn says, if they did it properly in the first place this wouldn't happen. Just do the job properly, design it properly, approve it properly. If this keeps happening I'll start to wonder if it's deliberate - fire a scheme away as approved - "look at us building infrastructure" etc - knowing it'll never happen.

User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: Lincoln / Haywards Heath

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jervi » Fri Jul 30, 2021 17:45

These eco terrorists...

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31592
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 » Fri Jul 30, 2021 17:46

Hdeng16 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 17:03
A303Chris wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:59
Hdeng16 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:48
Back we go.... (again)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-58024139
Makes me really annoyed that these eco warriors can stop a much needed road scheme. They want to protect the stones, but are happy for 35,000 vehicles a day to scream past, severely affecting the environment of the surrounding area when they could be under the ground.

This may be controversial but I do sometimes question the neutrality of the judges in these decisions.
I mostly agree, but as Bryn says, if they did it properly in the first place this wouldn't happen. Just do the job properly, design it properly, approve it properly. If this keeps happening I'll start to wonder if it's deliberate - fire a scheme away as approved - "look at us building infrastructure" etc - knowing it'll never happen.
I dare say it's the consultancy money-go-round, things being built means they're not being endlessly developed in CAD and that's a lot of people not needed in a design office...
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

Richardf
Member
Posts: 1617
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Richardf » Fri Jul 30, 2021 17:58

Interesting comment about "failure to consider other options", as required by law. They have long been hell bent on the tunnel option despite opposition and alternatives that may or may not be more cost effective/cheaper. Looks like you may now have to happen. Pity it couldn't have been done years ago, saving many years and a load of money!

Goodness knows when it will be now before something is done, if ever. Meanwhile A303 traffic and the site itself will continue to suffer, not to mention the impact on other improvement schemes along the road that are dependent on Stonehenge being sorted out!

Love to know what planet those that say we must reduce road use and traffic rather than building more roads are living on? People and goods need to move around and roads are still the best way of doing that.
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB

fras
Member
Posts: 2735
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by fras » Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:05

I notice these eco-warriors are totally silent on the thousands of building sites building hundreds of thousands of houses everywhere one looks.

Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 898
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Fluid Dynamics » Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:10

This seems to be more about whether due process was followed and the balance of the decision taken by the SOS. I still think a lot of the opposition would have been addressed if the western portal had been moved out of the heritage site to the other side of the A360.

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6444
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal » Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:25

Richardf wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 17:58
Interesting comment about "failure to consider other options", as required by law. They have long been hell bent on the tunnel option despite opposition and alternatives that may or may not be more cost effective/cheaper. Looks like you may now have to happen.
The alternatives that the judge said the SST should have considered are lengthening the bore (at an extra £500m) or adding a cut and cover section (at an extra £250m). More tunnel, not less. Though, to be clear, the judge is not recommending these alternatives - it is just a legal requirement that some alternatives are considered by the SST.
Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:56
Another classic example of if HE just designed a proper scheme in the first place they'd have saved millions in legal battles...
Fluid Dynamics wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:10
I still think a lot of the opposition would have been addressed if the western portal had been moved out of the heritage site to the other side of the A360.
It doesn't matter how the scheme is designed or how long the tunnel is, the same legal requirement on the SST to fully consider heritage assets and alternatives would have been in place, and the DCO would still have been quashed if that was not done (assuming a case was brought).

It looks like it should be a simple matter for SST to redetermine the DCO, this time showing he's fully taken the heritage assets and alternatives into account in his decision letter.

The judgment is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/save ... transport/

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31592
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 » Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:36

jackal wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:25
Richardf wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 17:58
Interesting comment about "failure to consider other options", as required by law. They have long been hell bent on the tunnel option despite opposition and alternatives that may or may not be more cost effective/cheaper. Looks like you may now have to happen.
The alternatives that the judge said the SST should have considered are lengthening the bore (at an extra £500m) or adding a cut and cover section (at an extra £250m). More tunnel, not less. Though, to be clear, the judge is not recommending these alternatives - it is just a legal requirement that some alternatives are considered by the SST.
Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:56
Another classic example of if HE just designed a proper scheme in the first place they'd have saved millions in legal battles...
Fluid Dynamics wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:10
I still think a lot of the opposition would have been addressed if the western portal had been moved out of the heritage site to the other side of the A360.
It doesn't matter how the scheme is designed or how long the tunnel is, the same legal requirement on the SST to fully consider heritage assets and alternatives would have been in place, and the DCO would still have been quashed if that was not done (assuming a case was brought).

It looks like it should be a simple matter for SST to redetermine the DCO, this time showing he's fully taken the heritage assets and alternatives into account in his decision letter.

The judgment is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/save ... transport/
Grant Shapps has not declared an intention to appeal the ruling...
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6444
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal » Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:45

He doesn't need to appeal. From the judge's summary: 'The redetermination of the application is now a matter for the SST'.

User avatar
RichardA35
Site Manager
Posts: 4725
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardA35 » Fri Jul 30, 2021 19:14

A303Chris wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:59
Hdeng16 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 16:48
Back we go.... (again)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-58024139
Makes me really annoyed that these eco warriors can stop a much needed road scheme. They want to protect the stones, but are happy for 35,000 vehicles a day to scream past, severely affecting the environment of the surrounding area when they could be under the ground.

This may be controversial but I do sometimes question the neutrality of the judges in these decisions.
The judges apply the law without fear or favour dependent on what arguments are put before them. The ire should be reserved for the government and DfT managers who managed to get this far spending public money with a fundamental flaw in their process.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31592
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 » Fri Jul 30, 2021 19:33

jackal wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:45
He doesn't need to appeal. From the judge's summary: 'The redetermination of the application is now a matter for the SST'.
And from what I gather, he has no intention to do that. Rather suggests the scheme will go into the bin.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

Phil
Member
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Phil » Fri Jul 30, 2021 19:48

Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 19:33
jackal wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:45
He doesn't need to appeal. From the judge's summary: 'The redetermination of the application is now a matter for the SST'.
And from what I gather, he has no intention to do that. Rather suggests the scheme will go into the bin.
Its the Summer Holidays when politicians and lots of their minions in Whitehall are not around. From what the Judge has said there is a significant amount of work needed before the application can be resubmitted anyway.

Basically nothing of significance will happen until the Party conference season in September - when ministers will want to impress. Given the pro-car stance of the ruling party and Boris's love of flashy projects, I wouldn't write it off happening just yet.

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6444
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal » Fri Jul 30, 2021 20:26

Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 19:33
jackal wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:45
He doesn't need to appeal. From the judge's summary: 'The redetermination of the application is now a matter for the SST'.
And from what I gather, he has no intention to do that. Rather suggests the scheme will go into the bin.
Sure, if that's what he/the govt want to do. I'm just describing the legal situation.

I will add, though, that if he were going ahead he certainly wouldn't say so immediately as that might suggest he had violated the requirement to fully consider heritage, alternatives, etc. I guess this is what's going on with the similar case of the A38 Derby Junctions - a respectful period of 'consideration' before redetermination.
Last edited by jackal on Fri Jul 30, 2021 20:29, edited 1 time in total.

Herned
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned » Fri Jul 30, 2021 20:28

Not amused at all

User avatar
Burns
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3686
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 21:37
Location: Dundee
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Burns » Fri Jul 30, 2021 21:00

The UK not building a road tunnel isn't news. :wink:

M19
Member
Posts: 2151
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2001 05:00
Location: Rothwell, Northants

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by M19 » Fri Jul 30, 2021 23:24

Phil wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 19:48
Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 19:33
jackal wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 18:45
He doesn't need to appeal. From the judge's summary: 'The redetermination of the application is now a matter for the SST'.
And from what I gather, he has no intention to do that. Rather suggests the scheme will go into the bin.
Its the Summer Holidays when politicians and lots of their minions in Whitehall are not around. From what the Judge has said there is a significant amount of work needed before the application can be resubmitted anyway.

Basically nothing of significance will happen until the Party conference season in September - when ministers will want to impress. Given the pro-car stance of the ruling party and Boris's love of flashy projects, I wouldn't write it off happening just yet.
I think it’s less pro car and more pro consultancy and construction industry gravy train. Explains the huge expense of schemes for projects many of which are far from what they should be in design.

SMT edit to fix quoting.
M19

Locked