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

Post Reply
fras
Member
Posts: 2886
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by fras » Thu Dec 02, 2021 17:34

Why not move Stonehenge so it's out of sight of the A303 ? It'd be a lot cheaper than the tunnel, then the A303 can be dualled on the surface witout any comeback.

Just thinking.....

OK, only a joke !!

User avatar
Norfolktolancashire
Member
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:34
Location: Cornwall

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Norfolktolancashire » Thu Dec 02, 2021 18:55

fras wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 17:34
Why not move Stonehenge so it's out of sight of the A303 ? It'd be a lot cheaper than the tunnel, then the A303 can be dualled on the surface witout any comeback.

Just thinking.....

OK, only a joke !!
Between a rock and a hard place :)

User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 12799
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by KeithW » Thu Dec 02, 2021 21:24

fras wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 17:34
Why not move Stonehenge so it's out of sight of the A303 ? It'd be a lot cheaper than the tunnel, then the A303 can be dualled on the surface witout any comeback.

Just thinking.....

OK, only a joke !!
I can see it now Stonehenge Legoland Brighton :)

RichardEvans67
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26
Location: Surrey

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardEvans67 » Sat Dec 11, 2021 12:51

by Jim606 » Wed Dec 01, 2021 17:41

There's been a bit of movement re; the tunnel. As far as I am aware, National Highways have now been given notice to resubmit a proposal/plan by 11th Jan. 2022 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-59487484
Would this mean another year, for the whole DCO process to happen again, or would some parts not have to happen again? Well either way, it's still progress towards it eventually getting built.

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6653
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal » Sat Dec 11, 2021 16:04

RichardEvans67 wrote:
Sat Dec 11, 2021 12:51
by Jim606 » Wed Dec 01, 2021 17:41

There's been a bit of movement re; the tunnel. As far as I am aware, National Highways have now been given notice to resubmit a proposal/plan by 11th Jan. 2022 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-59487484
Would this mean another year, for the whole DCO process to happen again, or would some parts not have to happen again? Well either way, it's still progress towards it eventually getting built.
The process will be essentially the same as that taken for the A38 Derby Junctions, which also had its DCO quashed: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... junctions/

The Stonehenge process for comparison (basically the same but has only got as far as the Statement of Matters stage): https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... tonehenge/

The DCO materials stay as they are. The applicant (NH) sends a response to the SoS's Statement of Matters - typically a point-by-point reply to the issues the SoS raises.

NH's A38 Derby Junctions response was 27 pages: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 021%20.pdf Compare that to the DCO application itself, which is 250 documents, and you'll see it's a pretty small job (but an important one).

Interested parties can then send in their own representations. And the SoS decides.

RichardEvans67
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26
Location: Surrey

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardEvans67 » Wed Jan 19, 2022 14:04

I realised it is past the deadline for National Highways to reply to the statement of matters. So I tried some searching. It seems they did reply, but I can't find any more details.

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/civi ... 4-01-2022/

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6653
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal » Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:18

The NH reply has now been published.

I had a quick look at the alternatives document. Much is as per the original application, including the estimates of £264m for a 1km cut and cover extension and £578m for a 1.6km bored tunnel extension. Both would also create safety risks with the A360 junction (which would be close to the cut and cover portal and would have to be relocated as a compact GSJ for the bore - at 50k AADT the A303 would be far beyond the usual 30k limit for a CGSJ). They dismiss various long offline routes for the obvious environmental and transport reasons.

Likewise not much has changed in the carbon document. The scheme is still a miniscule part of the UK's carbon budget that will decrease to zero with electrification.

The main overall change is they assume construction would start next year with opening in 2029.

https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... of+Matters

User avatar
JonB2028
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 22:36

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by JonB2028 » Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:56

I guess if the SoS determines the scheme can proceed as planned this will end up back in the high court?

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6653
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal » Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:35

It could be challenged but it would be up to the court whether it would hear the challenge - a high bar given they already dismissed all points other than the SoS's failure to consider heritage assets and the alternatives. (I'm assuming he will now read the relevant documents!)

Post Reply