A3 Hindhead Tunnel

highwaymana31 · Post by **highwaymana31** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 21:11

I can't find the original thread

For anybody that can make it, there is an exhibition for the scheme next Friday and Saturday 19 and 20.01.2007. Details here:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressre ... eid=142653

I also have a copy of the latest newsletter for the scheme but until I can ascertain whether its for public consumption or not I better not post it here

Watch this space

CJ · Post by CJ » Thu Jan 11, 2007 21:54

Glad to see that this seems to be picking up momentum, but I won't believe it until I see the works on the ground

As for the newsletter, if it's this one on the HA website:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/docume ... sion_2.pdf
then we can probably assume it's for public release

Andy_J · Post by **Andy_J** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 21:54

Im giing, probably Friday. Need to find out whats happening with the BOAT's in the area so I can keep going green-laning!

highwaymana31 · Post by **highwaymana31** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 22:15

CJ wrote:Glad to see that this seems to be picking up momentum, but I won't believe it until I see the works on the ground

As for the newsletter, if it's this one on the HA website:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/docume ... sion_2.pdf
then we can probably assume it's for public release

Thanks for that, its similar, the one I have has a few layout plans as well

cjmillsnun · Post by **cjmillsnun** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 07:18

On the news this morning:-

Clearance work starts today, with the tunneling proper starting in April.

RichardA35 · Post by **RichardA35** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 07:47

cjmillsnun wrote:On the news this morning:-

Clearance work starts today, with the tunneling proper starting in April.

Best to read the newsletter - Tunnel starts March 2008 - there's a lot of work to do to get in a position to start tunnelling such as establishing access to portals (both are appproached by large embankments), site offices etc etc

A303Chris · Post by **A303Chris** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 13:27

I may be answering my own question here, but why the very wide surfaced central reserve on the approach. Is it to allow contraflows to be set up in one bore if maintenance is required or an incident occurs in the other bore.

M4 Cardiff · Post by **M4 Cardiff** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 13:38

Whats more worrying is the car park and office building shown in that rendering. Liiks like provision for future toll booths to me.....

CJ · Post by CJ » Fri Jan 12, 2007 18:34

The tunnel was originally going to be tolled, but further studies and research concluded that tolling would cause too much traffic to divert to other routes and therefore it wasn't viable.

Perhaps the design dates back to when it was a possibility?

sotonsteve · Post by **sotonsteve** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 19:55

I heard that the old A3 around the Devil's Punch Bowl was going to be returned to nature after the scheme. I don't like it when this happens, as local traffic is then forced to take a route it never had to for the past how many hundreds of years.

highwaymana31 · Post by **highwaymana31** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 20:25

sotonsteve wrote:I heard that the old A3 around the Devil's Punch Bowl was going to be returned to nature after the scheme. I don't like it when this happens, as local traffic is then forced to take a route it never had to for the past how many hundreds of years.

And instantly removes a more suitable diversion route in most cases

Andy_J · Post by **Andy_J** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 21:41

But if you keep the old A3 it completely defeats the point of building the tunnel. If traffic was to continue going around the Punchbowl and through Hindhead village centre, then just scrap the tunnel, and do an on line upgrade across the common for 1/4 of the price in 1/4 of the time.

The point of the scheme isnt just to benifit long distance road users, its to benifit locals and nature as well.

Anyway, its all by the by anyway because the national Trust had the Highways Agency over a barrel as NT land cannot have compulsory purchase orders put on it, so the only way was to have a trade off of land, whereby the NT gives up the land for the tunnel portals/approaches in exchange for the old A3 being dug up and the two halfs of the common being reunited.

It seems barmy that the locals, especially in Grayshott are so self obsessed about keeping the old A3 open, for the sake of an extra 2 minutes on their journey.

The arguement about what happens in the event of an incident in the tunnel IMHO is daft too, because you cant justify the expense and effort orf keeping the old road open for a "what if" scenario. The tunnel is twin bore so this gives flexibility with divertions and I dare say the tunnel will be much safer with much fewer accidents than the old road with the sharp bens and traffic lights.

***Ducks for cover for fear of opening a can of worms***

Andy.

cjmillsnun · Post by **cjmillsnun** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 22:50

Spot on, and the residents of Grayshott have missed the point.

Their journey times will be drastically reduced in the morning and evening rush hours. It can take over an hour to get round the bowl sometimes.

A lot less by going through the tunnel and doubling back for a few miles.

samxool · Post by **samxool** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 22:54

i agree, there is no point in keeping the old A3 open as it will defeat the point of the tunnel. Its like the stonehenge tunnel being opened, but keeping the existing A303 open as it is - just in case.
plus the devil's punchbowl will be so much nicer and quieter with the A3 gone. Once you've seen the devil's punchbowl, you'll understand why the A3 needs to be removed.
As an aside, can i take it that thanks to the brilliant idea of of road tolling, that this effectively has killed off the stonehenge tunnel (i remember reading that road tolling means there would be no need for any more major roadbuilding). does this mean that the likes of the hindhead tunnel and M6 cumberland gap are the last of new roads we'll see??

M4 Cardiff · Post by **M4 Cardiff** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 00:37

I'm from Grayshott!!!!

Yes there is serious point in keeeping the old road open.
1) What if there's a prang iin the tunnel??? whats the diversion, B2131 and A286 through Haslemere dont think that's a good idea. Possinly A325 A31, but the junction at Farnham is a joke and they'd need serous amoints of MS3/MS4's south of Petersfield and north of Guildford to do that.\
2) The location of the single dumbbell (that will be hopelessly undercapacityO nearwer Grayshott than Hindhead will increas ratrunners to Grayshott onto roads that cannot cope with the increased traffic levels. The B3002 Headley road can just cope with what its given at the mo, but traffic will divert to the U/C Crossways road, with a steep bend and 2 steep hills, that certainly can't take heavy traffic. ps Its not NIMBYism, we've wanted a bypass for years, theyve just %%%%ed up the jucntion layouts! the inconsiderate $$£%£'s!!!!!!!!!!! and dont get me started on the vindictive National Trust. I used to, I emphasise USED to approve oif them but noit any more considering their heavy handed and arrogant way of dealing with locals. Bunch of %£%$£
3) Why should local traffic have to be mixed in with long distance traffic anyway. Isn't that part of what a bypass is all about????

sotonsteve · Post by **sotonsteve** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 09:58

M4 Cardiff wrote: 3) Why should local traffic have to be mixed in with long distance traffic anyway. Isn't that part of what a bypass is all about????

My point exactly. Down here you hear complaints that the M27 is used for junction hopping. Is it any surprise when speed limits come crashing down and traffic lights sprout up all over the place.

Johnathan404 · Post by **Johnathan404** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:28

sotonsteve wrote:My point exactly. Down here you hear complaints that the M27 is used for junction hopping. Is it any surprise when speed limits come crashing down and traffic lights sprout up all over the place.

...and when it's the signed route from Wickham to Fareham...

Andy_J · Post by **Andy_J** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:37

Local traffic wont be mixed with long distance traffic as all the "local" traffic that wold be going along the old A3 if it was kept open is heading for the A3 anyway, to go to Guildford/M25/London etc. The local traffic moves across the A3 from Grayshott/Beacon Hill - Haslemere. Its purley selfish on behalf of the locals up there not wanting to drive an extra 2 minutes.

Crossways road TBH is probably mare capable of handling traffic than the narrow obstacle course that is the high street in Grayshott, and therefore keeping traffic out of Grayshott centre. If it was such a problem why didnt the locals campaign to have Crossways Road closed at the old A3 end? How many HGV's are heading for Headley anyway???

I say it again, if the old A3 was to be kept open, it should have been upgraded on line, on the cheap and it would have been done by now.

sotonsteve · Post by **sotonsteve** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:50

Andy_J wrote:I say it again, if the old A3 was to be kept open, it should have been upgraded on line, on the cheap and it would have been done by now.

And that would have been a botch job on the trunk network.

PeterA5145 · Post by **PeterA5145** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:56

sotonsteve wrote:
Andy_J wrote:I say it again, if the old A3 was to be kept open, it should have been upgraded on line, on the cheap and it would have been done by now.
And that would have been a botch job on the trunk network.

It might have been environmentally insensitive, but it could potentially have produced a road of equal standard to the tunnel for a lot less cost. It could also have been NSL throughout whereas I imagine the tunnels will be 50.