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
User avatar
Barkstar
Member
Posts: 2602
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 16:32

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Barkstar »

marconaf wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:46 I agree that the amount of this scheme is excesive, not lesst that 2/3 of the cost is purely to remove the road from the scene, something I disagree with.
This ↑ and the rest of the quote.

£1.7 billion is an inordinate amount of money and you can be sure it'll end up being much more than that. Also it is a unique situation driven by very different criteria to any usual road upgrade. Not all the cost should be from the roads budget.

If HE are forced to pay for it in total how many schemes that directly affect peoples lives every day will be sidelined or never get done? And I'm not talking about the drivers being delayed more the people who have to live with a problem and will effectively be being told rocks are more important.

Stonehenge is already an overpriced sanitised experience and the completion of this plan will only give the guardians more of a whip hand. I accept that the way I'd like to visit the stones in no longer possible - though I wouldn't put it passed EH/NT to eventually offer 'special visits' at a very special price - and that is disappointing. Yes they need protecting but how this will all probably pan out leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Phil »

Barkstar wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:45
Stonehenge is already an overpriced sanitised experience and the completion of this plan will only give the guardians more of a whip hand. I accept that the way I'd like to visit the stones in no longer possible - though I wouldn't put it passed EH/NT to eventually offer 'special visits' at a very special price - and that is disappointing. Yes they need protecting but how this will all probably pan out leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
Nobody is forcing you to pay - you just have to be smart about it.

(1) There is no charge to visit the Stones - the things English Heritage charge for is the Car Park, Shuttle bus and visitors centre. You can avoid these by doing what the builders did - namely WALK (or cycle) from the likes of Amesbury for example.

(2) EH DOES allow close up access to the monument (without charge) several times a year - the Summer and Winter Solstices being the most prominent. Access is restricted generally because, given the visitor numbers, the grass around the monument would be completely worn away plus you can bet there would be plenty of idiots wishing to deface the stones.

More generally the thing about Stonehenge is not the Stones themselves (they are after all fairly crude compared to say the remains of a Medieval Abbey) its actually what the represent about the past. Thats to say the skill of the builders working with basic tools, the communal effort involved in getting the things to Salisbury Plain, an extensive knowledge a large chunk of the UK (many of the Stones came from Pembrokeshire), the careful placement so as to align with the Solstices, etc.

Thats why the modern road and (particularly its vehicles) needs to be removed from the landscape - it refocuses Stonehenge as a special place for PEOPLE to gather. Yes todays tourists may superficially have little in common with our ancient ancestors - but when you consider that Stonehenge was clearly a focal point for the inhabitants of the area, having lots people around the site is not as bad as it first seems
SteveA30
Member
Posts: 6016
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 12:52
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by SteveA30 »

The Stonehenge we see dates from 1958 so, not quite as sacrosanct as portrayed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU1f0_jf6AE

Other works were carried out up to the mid 60's

Concrete evidence. I guess it's similar to maintaining castle ruins as ruins.
Attachments
Premix, your pre-history contractor. B reg and looking brand new so, 1964
Premix, your pre-history contractor. B reg and looking brand new so, 1964
Roads and holidays in the west, before motorways.
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Phil »

SteveA30 wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 20:21 The Stonehenge we see dates from 1958 so, not quite as sacrosanct as portrayed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU1f0_jf6AE

Other works were carried out up to the mid 60's

Concrete evidence. I guess it's similar to maintaining castle ruins as ruins.
Indeed.

However Archaeologists today are on the record as saying it would not happen today - the Stones would have been left where they were lying.

Thats because the emphasis has changed to leaving things alone if at all possible. - helped by modern technology like Ground Penetration Radar and magnetic imaging which means we can tell an awful lot without the need to touch anything.

Mind you if things had turned out differently in the Victorian era the whole thing could have been trashed by a new main line railway the LSWR were proposing to break the monopoly the GWR had on Bristol!
SteveA30
Member
Posts: 6016
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 12:52
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by SteveA30 »

I'm sure a Stonehenge Parkway would've been a great success. Parking for 1000 cars, coaches and a Greggs/Subway outlet. :shock:
Roads and holidays in the west, before motorways.
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
marconaf
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 14:42

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by marconaf »

Phil wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 19:43
More generally the thing about Stonehenge is not the Stones themselves (they are after all fairly crude compared to say the remains of a Medieval Abbey) its actually what the represent about the past. Thats to say the skill of the builders working with basic tools, the communal effort involved in getting the things to Salisbury Plain, an extensive knowledge a large chunk of the UK (many of the Stones came from Pembrokeshire), the careful placement so as to align with the Solstices, etc.

Thats why the modern road and (particularly its vehicles) needs to be removed from the landscape - it refocuses Stonehenge as a special place for PEOPLE to gather. Yes todays tourists may superficially have little in common with our ancient ancestors - but when you consider that Stonehenge was clearly a focal point for the inhabitants of the area, having lots people around the site is not as bad as it first seems
That’s exactly why the road should pass within visual range of the stones.

They weren’t built as a isolated thing in the landscape, but connected directly into everything that went on around and past them.

Likewise the interaction with people and them being a focal point with lots of people around.

Doing what you say about appreciating they are more than just lumps of stone, which I agree with, requires being able to see them.

How many more people see them from the A303 than take half a day out to stop at the visitor centre, get the shuttle bus and walk round? 10s as many, 100s?

Each time they see them in passing those people, like I and my kids, think and marvel.

We don’t need a once in a decade or lifetime trip via the gift shop and interpretation centre, which is then soon forgotten - we need daily/weekly/monthly fixes of seeing them. Seeing them on that basis puts them in your life, adds majesty to the day.

That’s what the road does.

Hence why I’d put at least a scenic byway in.

But “get rid of the road” is just the very worst kind of National Trust “preserve it in aspic” tendancy that they do so often and as always, leaves places dead and dying.

When this is done, “everyone” will be happy, but Stonehenge will have disappeared from the day to day landscape and interaction with 10s of 1000s of people.

That seems contrary to its purpose.

Although gift shop takings may rise.

I suppose it depends on one’s priorities.
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Phil »

marconaf wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 21:01

That’s exactly why the road should pass within visual range of the stones.

They weren’t built as a isolated thing in the landscape, but connected directly into everything that went on around and past them.

Our ancestors didn't have motor vehicles! The builders of Stonehenge didn't even have the horse and cart setup from the medieval era! When they needed to get places the WALKED ON FOOT!

People are a part of Stonehenge ever since it was built - transport by anything other than your feet isn't!

So while its true they would have needed a form of 'road' to get them to the Stones, that would have basically taken the form of an nonintrusive footpath / bridleway across the landscape. Very different from the noisy and busy A303...

If people are that interested in the Stones they will make a detour to explore them - its why we have brown tourist signs, mark them on maps / sat-navs, etc.

If however we are talking about a 'that looks nice' reaction as they drive past them on their way to places in a hermetically sealed motor vehicle then there is zero merit in preserving that ability while ruining the Stonehenge site for those that can be bothered to get out of their vehicles and explore it

then you can get exactly the same experience by looking
marconaf
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 14:42

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by marconaf »

Phil wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 21:18
marconaf wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 21:01

That’s exactly why the road should pass within visual range of the stones.

They weren’t built as a isolated thing in the landscape, but connected directly into everything that went on around and past them.

Our ancestors didn't have motor vehicles! The builders of Stonehenge didn't even have the horse and cart setup from the medieval era! When they needed to get places the WALKED ON FOOT!

People are a part of Stonehenge ever since it was built - transport by anything other than your feet isn't!

So while its true they would have needed a form of 'road' to get them to the Stones, that would have basically taken the form of an nonintrusive footpath / bridleway across the landscape. Very different from the noisy and busy A303...
But people do travel in vehicles, and always will.

We don’t just walk around a very small local area anymore.

Those are objective facts.

So Stonehenge has to be seen in the light that it was built to be seen by the people around and passing. There is ample evidence that there were roads or at least routes, there before it was. Indeed that’s how it got there and those routes were intrinsic to the communities around.

Having walked and cycled the area, the minor roads are clearly very old and represent the classic “point to point” network we had before vehicles allowed us to be less efficient by travelling further to get from A to B but then focus our resources on making those routes faster at the expense of less directness.

So Stonehenge was built on and around various routes, and those routes have evolved to give us the A303, doing local, medium and long distance travel just as has passed down that axis for 1000s of years.

So for the entirety of Stonehenge’s life it has been passed by passers-by, as was surely part of its purpose.

Now we’re going to remove that in the name of turning back the clock to a mythical view when it sat there all on its tod and the only ones who will see it are the modern equivalent of the annointed few.

That isn’t progress, it’s a retrograde step, and I think it does Stonehenge a disservice.


I get that a D2 with HGVs at 60mph, 100m away is something of an escalation from a handful of wagons a day and a dozen wanderers, but this “get rid of the road” drive seems wrong and indeed, counter-productive to me. Retaining a S2 option to allow people to pass the stones within visual range will likely increase those that stop. Which is a point, I wonder how much passing traffic the centre and stones will lose?

I feel the “empty the landscape” drive is perverse, it is not what Stonehenge was built in or for or what has been happening around in for its entire existence.

When the cost of doing this wrong is considered, and the benefit that money could bring elsewhere - then I’d be happy if this gets cancelled.

And as apparantly its only about Londoners getting to their holiday homes 3 minutes quicker (really !?! how daft), they can continue to appreciate the stones both to and from their getaway just as I do when I pass. At least the queuing gives one plenty of time!

Plus finally, if the NT etc are so interested in the WHS, why is virtually nothing done to highlight it or even see it. Try walking “the avenue” from the stones, just 2-3 fences, 1 of which is electric! As for the Kings down, out of sight, covered in modern growth, and the cursus, one small info board. They literally do nothing for the wider area other than try to empty it.

How about putting a walking or cycling route from Amesbury in? no, all the resources are on the gift shop, again, the summit of their ambition.
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 »

So, let's review the absolute gold this thread is producing, because it's worthy of an award.

Problem: People cause traffic jams by slowing down and looking at Stonehenge, we must sort out the A303
Solution: Building a D2 in a tunnel means people won't be able to cause traffic jams by slowing down and looking at Stonehenge, it also prevents the WHS from being desecrated by a 120km/h dual carriageway cross-section and associated earthworks
New Problem: Building a D2 in a tunnel means people won't be able to cause traffic jams by slowing down and looking at Stonehenge, also the WHS isn't important because it's just a gift shop

This is why no one takes this place seriously any more.
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
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardA35 »

Topic now unlocked. Please observe the posting guidelines and respect other members
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

The budget statement and spending review seems to have a £3bn gap between what has previously been announced and what was announced as the budget for 2020-25 yesterday. The A303 is very conspicuous by it's absence in the list of major schemes in the same document... am I overly concerned, or has it been quietly disposed of?
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

Apparently they're still committed to the Stonehenge scheme but the delay to it and LTC is a convenient excuse to decrease RIS2 spending. (Note this is an anti-road source that would be fist pumping if it were cancelled.)

http://www.transport-network.co.uk/Nati ... dget/17443
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: Thu Oct 28, 2021 18:37 The budget statement and spending review seems to have a £3bn gap between what has previously been announced and what was announced as the budget for 2020-25 yesterday.
But surely, it has been announced and re-announced so many times, they couldn't get away with announcing it again?
RichardEvans67
Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26
Location: Surrey

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardEvans67 »

by Micro The Maniac » Thu Oct 28, 2021 22:11

But surely, it has been announced and re-announced so many times, they couldn't get away with announcing it again?
I don't really agree. It's not as if this time they decided to stop it. It has basically just been legal issues that held them up. So why not just announce that after some time to consider the legal issues, they are now trying again.
Richardf
Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Richardf »

Best compromise as far as viewing the stones would be to remove the A303 but keep a right of way along its route in the form of a bridleway so that people can walk, cycle or ride a horse past the stones and be able to view them from there, as people did before the motor car came along.

This does not run counter to the goal of restoring the landscape at all as I see it. The A303 follows a very old route across the Plain so returning it to its pre A303 state could be part of that and respect another aspect of the history of the area.

So the sooner the A303 can be removed and this can happen the better. If that has to be the tunnel then so be it.

I personally would rather walk or cycle past the stones with no traffic than get a brief glimpse from a car, which I have done only a very few times.
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

RichardEvans67 wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 08:25
by Micro The Maniac » Thu Oct 28, 2021 22:11

But surely, it has been announced and re-announced so many times, they couldn't get away with announcing it again?
I don't really agree. It's not as if this time they decided to stop it. It has basically just been legal issues that held them up. So why not just announce that after some time to consider the legal issues, they are now trying again.
Because it could itself make legal issues if the government "announced" a scheme that they were presently redetermining under the DCO process. It would be like a judge issuing a press release that x is guilty while the case was ongoing.
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 »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Aug 12, 2021 00:13 So, let's review the absolute gold this thread is producing, because it's worthy of an award.

Problem: People cause traffic jams by slowing down and looking at Stonehenge, we must sort out the A303
No. This is not the problem at all.

Symptom: Traffic is slow past the stones
Cause: It's single carriageway past the stones
Problem: Merging two busy high speed lanes into one, which crawls until it opens up into two lanes again.
Solution: Dual the remaining single-carriageway

Viewpoint: Dualling within the WHS is unacceptable
Alternative: None - no viable route north or south
Mitigation: Bury in a tunnel.
BF2142
Member
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 13:42
Location: Essex

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by BF2142 »

roadtester wrote:
Mark Hewitt wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 08:54 Any idea that visitors to the stones should pay to have the road removed is about the daftest thing I've ever heard. As said above the road is the newcomer to the area so the mitigation of the road should be down to the roads budget, nobody else. To suggest otherwise is the worst kind of car blindness and entitlement.
And before that, a long time ago, the stones were the crashing, shocking, visually intrusive man-made newcomer.

If today's NIMBYs and "put it in a tunnel" crowd had been around then, Stonehenge would never have been built. At the time it would probably have been the biggest man-made intervention in the British landscape of all time, the HS2 of its day.

Today's "you can't have a dual carriageway within sight of the stones" would have been "you can't make that massive clearing in the forest to put up that monstrosity" and we'd have had "What's the point in expending all that effort bringing massive stones from Wales when people are still living in huts on a subsistence diet?" as well - not to mention the howls at the despoliation of the natural landscape involved in quarrying the stones in the first place.

And we'd probably have had "Can't you make it smaller with shorter stones so it doesn't stick out so much?" and from the tunnellers "Can't you put the stones underground? Won't that be OK as long as they're pointing in the right direction?"
This is spot on. Stonehenge has become a rallying point for every vexatious nimby and nostalgist around. It might well be a WHS, so is the Giza plateau - just take a look at how close roads and buildings are to the pyramids and Sphinx.

This country is far too wrapped up about the past sometimes that we're losing sight of the present and definitely not thinking forwards.

Vague, highly-subjective and emotionally-triggering partisan phrases like "visually intrusive" need to be stripped out of the debate.




Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:14
No. This is not the problem at all.

Symptom: Traffic is slow past the stones
Cause: It's single carriageway past the stones
Problem: Merging two busy high speed lanes into one, which crawls until it opens up into two lanes again.
Solution: Dual the remaining single-carriageway

Viewpoint: Dualling within the WHS is unacceptable
Alternative: None - no viable route north or south
Mitigation: Bury in a tunnel.
Bang on, absolutely right
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: Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:41
Micro The Maniac wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:14
No. This is not the problem at all.

Symptom: Traffic is slow past the stones
Cause: It's single carriageway past the stones
Problem: Merging two busy high speed lanes into one, which crawls until it opens up into two lanes again.
Solution: Dual the remaining single-carriageway

Viewpoint: Dualling within the WHS is unacceptable
Alternative: None - no viable route north or south
Mitigation: Bury in a tunnel.
Bang on, absolutely right
Yes, a proper tunnel that takes the road out of the WHS entirely instead of a halfway house that learns nothing from Twyford Down. But whatever.
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
Post Reply