Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

[JonH]

Having driven the A303 to Devon from Basingstoke this weekend, I have only one comment. Get the f*** on with it. And not only at this section, get the whole lot duelled down to the A30. I even did the Larkhill swerve on the way out as - at 1pm on a working day - the road was gridlocked in both directions.

I solved the problem on the way home back taking a large detour via the M5/M4 - a substantial extra distance but far easier and less stressful to drive.

I can only assume the people in English Heritage/National Trust etc. opposing the plans have no cause to ever use the road.

[tompatt]

They’ve all been rejected though, for various reasons.

Anything within a few miles of Stonehenge risks disturbing archaeological content. The A36-based diversion is too far.

The (almost) online tunnel is about the only one that’s managed to pass favour.

Even then its had fairly robust opposition from people fearing it could destroy undiscovered archaeological evidence of the site. I would say its moot anyway as I think it will be binned and car users will have to put up with hideous bottlenecking traffic ad infinitum. Fair play to PAC for calling out the Government and requesting commitment to the project.

[Berk]

They’ve all been rejected though, for various reasons.

Anything within a few miles of Stonehenge risks disturbing archaeological content. The A36-based diversion is too far.

The (almost) online tunnel is about the only one that’s managed to pass favour.

Even then its had fairly robust opposition from people fearing it could destroy undiscovered archaeological evidence of the site. I would say its moot anyway as I think it will be binned and car users will have to put up with hideous bottlenecking traffic ad infinitum. Fair play to PAC for calling out the Government and requesting commitment to the project.

Even I’d we agree that the PAC are supposed to scrutinise project delivery and government funding, I think they are being unduly negative. They recently said the Euston connection to HS2 should be cancelled for similar reasons - forcing everyone to change on to Crossrail services to enter central London.

The only aspect which I find concerning is due to the lack of a replacement for PFI funding. In theory government could provide direct funding, and seek to borrow those funds on the market, that’s essentially the same as the way PFI works, just without a private sector partner.

[Berk]

They’ve all been rejected though, for various reasons. Anything within a few miles of Stonehenge risks disturbing archaeological content. The A36-based diversion is too far. The (almost) online tunnel is about the only one that’s managed to pass favour.

I'd very much agree with this statement. The A36 diversion has been talked about many times and no-one has ever managed to establish a suitable route without causing a whole set of new issues.

It is certainly possible that the A303 Stonehenge tunnel could be pulled at the next spending review. The examination however, is well underway and that is not likely to be stopped. A reviewed scheme with some amendments is likely to be agreed upon by April 2020. Whether this is then taken forward is another matter but, at just under £2billion this is small fry when compared to HS2

It’s also absurd when you remember that cheaper iterations of this scheme have been cancelled for being “too expensive”.

Remember too, if Stonehenge is cancelled, the people of Winterbourne Stoke don’t get a bypass either. I don’t think that’s remotely fair.

[Jim606]

I can only assume the people in English Heritage/National Trust etc. opposing the plans have no cause to ever use the road.

To be fair they have been holding out for the 'best deal'. They are the 'custodians' of the landscape / monuments and it's their job to protect them for the nation. There is also a long term plan to link the north/south parts of the World Heritage Site (WHS) back together and a tunnelled road is essential for this to happen. However, critics would say; how can they be 'custodians' when they're agreeing to drive a large road across the WHS? This is why the whole thing has taken so long. Now, critics would also add that the NT wants to develop a visitor centre of its own at Countess Barns. The EH visitor cent. is big 'cash cow' and I guess the NT are thinking along the same lines? The money however, from popular visitor facilities helps fund other repairs / maintenance works elsewhere and both organisations are 'charities' so, they're not being nefarious in all their actions. There is some logic.

The current plan is the 'best to date', but there is still the issue of the long approach western portal cutting to deal with. I noticed reading thru' the examination submissions that the National Farmers Union wanted to see the (proposed bridleway) along line of the A360 retained to save agricultural land / ease of access. Green bridge no. 4 was moved eastwards after the last consultation & extended, but it still doesn't cover all the issues. I suggested moving green bridge (or the capacity of) into the WHS where it could better utilised. These are the sort of issues the examination is currently looking at & an amended plan will emerge. I think the only thing stopping the scheme now is the money, not unless the protest movement set up camp?

[Richardf]

Can't see a problem with a diversion of the A303, via Salisbury itself or The Plain to the north. Going via Salisbury would help Salisbury as well as the A303 and might have a higher BCR than the tunnel at stonehenge.

[RichardA35]

Can't see a problem with a diversion of the A303, via Salisbury itself or The Plain to the north. Going via Salisbury would help Salisbury as well as the A303 and might have a higher BCR than the tunnel at stonehenge.

Via Salisbury is still a lot of "C" as it is a longer route and the "B" is much diminished as the A303 journey time savings disappear.
Also the trunk route issue through Salisbury is along the A36 axis which would not be helped by an A303 route just skirting Old Sarum but would require robust intervention from Wiltshire to address the A354/A30 and more local traffic routes. Crossing the water meadows on the south side of the city drew almost as much protest as the Stonehenge proposals last time it was tried.

[tompatt]

They’ve all been rejected though, for various reasons.

Anything within a few miles of Stonehenge risks disturbing archaeological content. The A36-based diversion is too far.

The (almost) online tunnel is about the only one that’s managed to pass favour.

Even then its had fairly robust opposition from people fearing it could destroy undiscovered archaeological evidence of the site. I would say its moot anyway as I think it will be binned and car users will have to put up with hideous bottlenecking traffic ad infinitum. Fair play to PAC for calling out the Government and requesting commitment to the project.

Even I’d we agree that the PAC are supposed to scrutinise project delivery and government funding, I think they are being unduly negative. They recently said the Euston connection to HS2 should be cancelled for similar reasons - forcing everyone to change on to Crossrail services to enter central London.

The only aspect which I find concerning is due to the lack of a replacement for PFI funding. In theory government could provide direct funding, and seek to borrow those funds on the market, that’s essentially the same as the way PFI works, just without a private sector partner.

I'd say that's a pretty big aspect. Funding has got to be secured and that's what PAC are concerned about!

IF they're being negative, they are negative with good reason, there is rather a lot up in the air currently. Hopefully the spend review will take place and commitment will be given to spades in the ground on this scheme.

[Glom]

So what is the state of things at the moment? CBRD last update was some government review back in April.

That section is really annoying for everyone involved.

[jackal]

It's being examined by the Planning Inspectorate and the procurement process is underway. If approved construction will start 2021.

https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... tonehenge/
https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news ... ge-tunnel/

[Glom]

Well that's okay news so okay.

[Scratchwood]

It does seem that for many parties, leaving an "eyesore" and noisy road in place seems to be a far more preferable situation than removing it completely from view and restoring the open view around Stonehenge, because the excavation might cause some minor damage (debatable in itself).

I suppose in a similar way we have main roads like the A(4)361 going right though the middle of Avebury (which I found quite weird when visiting the site last year for the first time, having walked there) as any bypass to remove the traffic would never get agreement on environmental grounds, despite the existing road probably being more "environmentally" damaging.

[SteveA30]

Saw these yesterday Aug 21, on the south side of the A303, between A360 and the old A344 junction. Is this anything to do with a possible tunnel?

[Big Nick]

I saw those diggers setting up on Monday. On my way south they were unloading into the field, on the way back they were in those enclosures.

They do look like borers for taking deep ground sample cores. These can be studied to tell the diggers what to expect at what depths when digging.

[Berk]

It’ll be interesting to see this time next year. A decision should come out round about Easter time, so in a year’s time these guys might be doing it for real.

[tompatt]

Looks as though the long awaited spending review will be "fastracked" next month. So we might know one way or another before too long

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ms-pledges

My concern is that, on an election footing, road building isn't "sexy" enough for Johnson. I think it will be an exercise in headline grabbing and we'll be disappointed,

[Herned]

My concern is that, on an election footing, road building isn't "sexy" enough for Johnson. I think it will be an exercise in headline grabbing and we'll be disappointed,

There's quite a few Tory/Lib Dem marginal seats in the South West, I would imagine a potential election would make the scheme more likely to go ahead, the approach seems to be to throw money at any problem

[tompatt]

My concern is that, on an election footing, road building isn't "sexy" enough for Johnson. I think it will be an exercise in headline grabbing and we'll be disappointed,

There's quite a few Tory/Lib Dem marginal seats in the South West, I would imagine a potential election would make the scheme more likely to go ahead, the approach seems to be to throw money at any problem

Well there were, the Libs haven't recovered down here from the hiding they took in 2015. Even Yeovil, Paddy Ashdowns old constituency, is now a safe Tory seat. In fact you can drive the A303/A30 to Lands End without leaving a Tory constituency.

There are about 5 seats they could potentially lose (St Ives and North Devon to the Liberals. Camborne, Plymouth Moorview and Truro). Exeter and Plymouth Sutton are relatively safe Labour.

[Herned]

Well there were, the Libs haven't recovered down here from the hiding they took in 2015. Even Yeovil, Paddy Ashdowns old constituency, is now a safe Tory seat. In fact you can drive the A303/A30 to Lands End without leaving a Tory constituency.

Fair point. Swing seats would be better then, especially if the Brexit Party is still a factor at any election.... I think the point stands that going ahead now for electoral reasons is most likely though

[Jim606]

https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Trea ... nding/5141

Treasury promises 2019 answer on delayed Stonehenge and Lower Thames funding 09/09/2019 By Dominic Browne Highways Magazine

The Treasury has promised a funding announcement on the A303 Stonehenge and the Lower Thames Crossing works by the end of the year, after failing on its pledge to give an answer in the Spending Round. Government officials had previously said that last week's spending update would allocate a budget to the multi-billion pounds schemes, which so far have only been granted development funding.

However Sajid Javid's announcement gave no further commitment to the sector on where the money would come from following a Treasury ban on PFIs, which were due to help pay for all of the Stonehenge and part of the Lower Thames and works. The Government will consider the business cases for the A303 and Lower Thames Crossing alongside final decisions in the Road Investment Strategy 2 (RIS 2), which will be published in late 2019, a Treasury spokeswoman told Highways.

The funding for these projects sits outside the RIS 2 funding block, the Government has previously said.

Senior figures including MPs and Highways England chief executive Jim O'Sullivan have warned that the as yet unfunded schemes are at risk of missing their delivery schedules if some funding security is not announced soon.

The Stonehenge Tunnel is due to open in 2026 and the Lower Thames Crossing in 2027.

Mr O'Sullivan told the Public Accounts Committee that Highways England needs confirmation of public funding by the end of 2019 if these deadlines are to be kept. The Treasury pointed out that week’s Spending Round was a fast tracked event to set departmental budgets for the year and said a full three-year Spending Review will now happen in 2020. It also confirmed that the Government is maintaining the ban on the use of PFI or PF2.

A Department for Transport (DfT) spokesperson said: 'This Government is committed to investing in the transformative A303 Stonehenge and Lower Thames Crossing projects. Development work is continuing as planned.' The DfT said business cases are being considered this year and funding arrangements will be considered in due course.The Government was also due to have considered alternatives to the PFI model in time to inform this Spending Round. No alternative has been announced as yet.