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
DavidBrown
Member
Posts: 8398
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 00:35

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by DavidBrown »

I take it those saying the whole thing is a ridiculous waste of money use the A303 on a regular basis? There's some absolute waffle being put on here, to put it VERY mildly, to the point where I'm really quite angry at some peoples' opinions.

"It'll only save 3 minutes off a journey" - try passing Stonehenge 30+ times a year and tell me how many times getting past the stones and Winterbourne Stoke has only cost you 3 minutes. I reckon if I'm passing by at about 2am, that stands to reason. Otherwise, no, it's a LOT more.

"It'll only benefit holidaymakers to Cornwall" - OK, would you care to remember that some of us actually live in the south west? And that many businesses rely on the A303 as much as the M4/M5? Oh, and that holidaymakers are kind of important to our economy? Or should we all just abandon Devon and Cornwall and move to London instead? No need for the tunnel then...

"If the delay is 20 minutes, use the M4/M5" - err, OK? You seen the state of the M5 with holiday traffic? If there's a delay on the A303, there's a damn good chance there'll be one on the M5 too.

Yes, the scheme isn't perfect and the way it's been handled by the government is appalling. But if you're going to put in a rational argument, at least use some common sense and not just spout out any old crap.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 03:18 And what's more, there is an alternative: M4 + M5, which is the way I would go. If the Stonehenge delay is really 20 minutes, even Google Maps might recommend the motorway.
I had to go to Bristol the other day, it's 40 miles away up the M5. No trains available because all the seats were booked. It took 2 hours. How much of that traffic would have used the A303 if it were fully dualled?

It is very common, even in the depths of winter, for the queues for the end of the dual carriageway to tail back to the Countess roundabout, easily adding 20 minutes to journeys. Those of us who regularly use the road know that only too well
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardA35 »

Herned wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 08:31...It is very common, even in the depths of winter, for the queues for the end of the dual carriageway to tail back to the Countess roundabout, easily adding 20 minutes to journeys. Those of us who regularly use the road know that only too well
Those of us who regularly use the road know to go via Larkhill.
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Peter Freeman »

Herned wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 08:31
Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 03:18 And what's more, there is an alternative: M4 + M5, which is the way I would go. If the Stonehenge delay is really 20 minutes, even Google Maps might recommend the motorway.
I had to go to Bristol the other day, it's 40 miles away up the M5. No trains available because all the seats were booked. It took 2 hours. How much of that traffic would have used the A303 if it were fully dualled?
So you're somewhere around Bridgwater? And you averaged 20mph? In a car on the M5?

For curiosity, I often look at UK traffic densities (in the form of red/orange/green speeds on google maps), as I do for more practical reasons here in Melbourne. To my surprise, I don't often see significant stretches of rural trunk motorway mainlines that are red, or even orange, except for roadworks, accidents, etc, and certain well-known hot-spots. This actually reflects my driving experience in the UK too. At UK morning peak today, the M5 all around Bristol and South-West is green. I find it hard to see how 40 miles could take two hours. Perhaps it was the non-motorway sections? Please explain.

(This is a serious question - not doubting you. I simply can't understand it.)
Last edited by Peter Freeman on Tue Aug 03, 2021 09:47, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
solocle
Member
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by solocle »

Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 09:09
Herned wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 08:31
Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 03:18 And what's more, there is an alternative: M4 + M5, which is the way I would go. If the Stonehenge delay is really 20 minutes, even Google Maps might recommend the motorway.
I had to go to Bristol the other day, it's 40 miles away up the M5. No trains available because all the seats were booked. It took 2 hours. How much of that traffic would have used the A303 if it were fully dualled?
So you're somewhere around Bridgwater? And you averaged 20mph? In a car on the M5?

For curiosity, I often look at UK traffic densities (in the form of red/orange/green speeds on google maps), as I do for more practical reasons here in Melbourne. To my surprise, I don't often see significant stretches of rural trunk motorway mainlines that are red, or even orange, except for roadworks, accidents, etc, and certain well-known hot-spots. This actually reflects my driving experience in the UK too. At UK morning peak today, the M5 all around Bristol and South-West is green. I find it had to see how 40 miles could take two hours. Perhaps it was the non-motorway sections? Please explain.

(This is a serious question - not doubting you. I simply can't understand it.)
Well, I did do M5 Taunton to Bridgewater a couple of weeks ago, and 20 mph average sounds about right!

If you want to see traffic speeds on trunk roads, Highways England have you covered. (Live traffic -> What is the traffic speed)
User avatar
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7517
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Big L »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 21:09
Big L wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 19:07 Stonehenge tunnel is bad because all it would do is shave 3 minutes off a journey. But the lack of one is stupid because it should have been built years ago.
OK.
Rather than trying to be a smart-alec, how about addressing the actual issue - the A303 should never have got to a point where two dual carriageways point directly at a site as significant as Stonehenge with no sensible plan to resolve the issue that doesn't trash our most culturally significant site…..
But that’s where we are, and it’s no use trying to argue that doing a thing is useless because (1) it won’t do much and (2) it should have been done decades ago.

If there’s minimal benefit now (and I don’t believe that to be true) when roads are much busier, what would the benefit have been before?
Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 09:09 So you're somewhere around Bridgwater? And you averaged 20mph? In a car on the M5?
This was on 23 July. The M5 traffic was bad southbound, but north was OK when I had checked it in the morning. By the time I set off M5 south had turned to red and black on Google Maps for virtually the entire distance from the M4 to Exeter. The knock on effect was that all the junctions northbound were then gridlocked, and it was stop start and never above 30mph, so I bailed out at J22 and took the A38, as recommended by Google Maps, and what I would have done anyway. That was nose to tail southbound for comfortably half the route, which I have never seen before, with again the same effect of locking up junctions, so e.g. the traffic lights at Sidcot for the A371 and at Churchill took 10+ minutes each.

By the time I went home, it was a lot better southbound, but still nothing like normal, but north was stationary or very slow for a big chunk of the distance.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 »

Herned wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 09:27
Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 09:09 So you're somewhere around Bridgwater? And you averaged 20mph? In a car on the M5?
This was on 23 July. The M5 traffic was bad southbound, but north was OK when I had checked it in the morning. By the time I set off M5 south had turned to red and black on Google Maps for virtually the entire distance from the M4 to Exeter. The knock on effect was that all the junctions northbound were then gridlocked, and it was stop start and never above 30mph, so I bailed out at J22 and took the A38, as recommended by Google Maps, and what I would have done anyway. That was nose to tail southbound for comfortably half the route, which I have never seen before, with again the same effect of locking up junctions, so e.g. the traffic lights at Sidcot for the A371 and at Churchill took 10+ minutes each.

By the time I went home, it was a lot better southbound, but still nothing like normal, but north was stationary or very slow for a big chunk of the distance.
It has occurred to people that using summer 2020 and 2021 as evidence for doing things is going to be a shaky foundation at best - last summer there was barely any traffic and this summer everyone has had their holidays in the UK, right?
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Peter Freeman »

OK, so your experience on that day was not normal. **** happens. That can't be used as evidence for or against M4 versus A303. At the times I've looked (using Google Maps - thanks, Solocle, for the Highways England map link by the way), there's only ever been a few minutes difference in London-Exeter travel time. While the M4 and M5 are usually free-flowing, the A303 always shows lots of yellow and orange stretches.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 09:31 It has occurred to people that using summer 2020 and 2021 as evidence for doing things is going to be a shaky foundation at best - last summer there was barely any traffic and this summer everyone has had their holidays in the UK, right?
No worse than claiming the Stonehenge improvements only save 3 minutes and only benefit Londoners, right?
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Herned wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 23:01 The WHS runs from the Countess roundabout to the A360, about 5.5km in a straight line. The tunnel plan is for 2.8km, so twice the length and then some.
It also extends north/south by quite a way, as previously shown
stonehenge 50pc.png
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 09:42 OK, so your experience on that day was not normal. **** happens. That can't be used as evidence for or against M4 versus A303.
Didn't say it could. However the fact is that the UK road (and infrastructure generally), is behind most of our neighbours, and one of the fundamental problems is the lack of alternative routes and a proper network. The A303 is also the only sensible route for anyone east/south of Ilminster, which is a fair chunk of the country
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

RichardA35 wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 08:45 Those of us who regularly use the road know to go via Larkhill.
True, and I do sometimes go via Shrewton to the A36 and then across to Mere when it's really bad. But that shouldn't be necessary on a strategic route
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:05
Herned wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 23:01 The WHS runs from the Countess roundabout to the A360, about 5.5km in a straight line. The tunnel plan is for 2.8km, so twice the length and then some.
It also extends north/south by quite a way, as previously shown
stonehenge 50pc.png
Which is why the tunnel should have had the longer western end as people said would be the least worst option. By refusing to entertain it on cost grounds any goodwill from WHS advocates has been wasted.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Barkstar
Member
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 16:32

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Barkstar »

I wrote this several months back and I still stand by it:
I'm a bit indifferent to the supposition the bypass will possibly eradicate important archaeology. Archaeology can be very academic, no amount of further digging is going to give us the big answers the general public seek - how and why was it built. I'm sure if that period of pre-history is your thing it is fascinating but as a mere curious outsider I just think an inordinate amount of time over centuries has been spent pondering these questions and getting very excited about a few small spots of different coloured of soil after digging up a whole field.

It's not that I'm uninterested in the past and what we can learn, and I don't think we should just plough up anything that gets in the way of 'progress; but with Stonehenge there is a degree of 'so what' - regardless of the A303 problem
I do find it perplexing that the opinion of a single judge can bring an entire project to a stop on what is a technicality - though the actual objection may not have been. I'd be happier if it was a decision made by a panel of judges. That at least would lessen any suspicion of bias. Unfortunately Stonehenge's unique situation, figuratively and literally, has brought together an unholy alliance in opposition to pretty much any scheme and who are, it would seem, well funded.

As for a solution I can't be the only one to find the idea of spending at least £1.7 billion on such a project appalling. And while isolating the stones will be in some ways beneficial you can also bet it will ensure anyone who wants to see them will have to pay and pay dear.

As for UNESCO actually I don't really care what they think. It is preposterous that Liverpool be expected to stand still. What may be considered a reasonable expectation for a WHS that is in an isolated situation cannot apply to a living breathing city. If they are going to be that blind and self-righteous then their opinion counts for little in my book.
User avatar
skiddaw05
Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 21:33
Location: Norwich

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by skiddaw05 »

It's probably been said before but this cost might mean it never gets built

So if things stay as they are for ever, ie no action is taken at all, is there still a risk that it will lose its WHS status due to the continued intrusion of the road?
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Peter Freeman »

^
Barkstar, I can't quite endorse your first two (self-quoting) paragraphs above, but I'm sure you represent many people's views on academic archeology.

However, I do fully agree with the rest of your blasphemy. Is Liverpool at all worse off for UNESCO's unrealistic peevishness? No. Would Stonehenge and the complete WHS lose any of its visitor attraction/fascination or ongoing academic interest/research if its status was withdrawn? No. And should a single judge from the unelected legal profession have such excessive influence on important decisions around society and everyday life. No.
User avatar
Jim606
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:11

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Jim606 »

Make the tunnel longer - the objectors cease objecting and the SST has quite clearly demonstrated they have properly assessed the situation because a solution has been found! If all the SST does is simply read the objections again and put in a paragraph effectively saying "sod you I know best" then that is not in any way the 'meaningful assessment' procedure the Judge has said the SST must undertake. The issue of the western portal is too significant to be dismissed that lightly - if it was then the whole case would never have come to court in the first place! Naturally there is the possibility of a middle ground being reached with a slightly longer tunnel / extra green bridges / etc on one side and an acceptance of slightly more harm from Stakeholders on the other being the outcome of the legally required assessment
As I keep saying, an extra green bridge along the line of a decommissioned A360 Longbarrow Roundabout might suffice? To be fair HE and the NT did agree to an extra 110m grass covered canopy over the western portal cutting. Although after the initial consultation HE would have known they would have to give ground, so to speak. The profile of the cutting walls have also been made less obtrusive and to be fair the HE/NT have done a lot of work behind the scenes.

However, as mentioned by many others, the scheme still isn't 'good enough'.

I also suggested during the consultation that a P&R be built at Solstice Park and a new drop-off point built near Kings Barrow Ridge. At my own estimation about 3% of the traffic crossing the WHS site is Stonehenge visitor related. If you are coming from London /SE England you have to traverses the WHS and back again as the Visitor Centre is to the west of the stones. So, a small number of the daily 26,000 vehicles are using this road when, with the help of better planning they actually don't need to.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

Letter from DfT requesting info and with some details of the redetermination process for the A38 Derby Junctions scheme:

https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... letter.pdf

I imagine it will be similar for Stonehenge as the procedural failings in the two cases were similar (SoS made determination on basis of inadequate information).
BF2142
Member
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 13:42
Location: Essex

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by BF2142 »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:31
BF2142 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:09 We have institutionalised nostalgia through the legal system and all levels of government. This country's obsession with the past is becoming a real problem now.
I'd agree with you if we were talking about a derelict building like this monstrosity in Blackburn that people claimed needed preserving (but no one wanted to pay for) when we completed the A6078: https://goo.gl/maps/CuBC6zH8wpjxpWxL9 but we are talking about Stonehenge here.

A country that is happy to desecrate a site like this so drivers can get to Cornwall 3 minutes quicker is not a forwards thinking country.
Nothing about building the A303 in a tunnel comes even close to desecrating SH. Demolishing it would be but this, no.
Post Reply