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
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1390
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 »

But surface dualling on an alignment well away from the stones, even though it still technically crosses the WHS area, probably would be ok ...?

Definitely wouldn't cost 1.7 billion.
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 »

Peter Freeman wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 16:44 But surface dualling on an alignment well away from the stones, even though it still technically crosses the WHS area, probably would be ok ...?

Definitely wouldn't cost 1.7 billion.
No, because that means there is an even wider road within the WHS. The tunnel option is the only one that satisfies the objections of the National Trust, archaeology experts, and so on.

Preserving this site so future generations can continue to learn from it and understand how we got to where are today is more important than cutting costs on a dual carriageway that will allow a mode of transport that probably won't even exist as we know it in less than a century's time to travel somewhere 3 minutes quicker.

I don't understand what is so difficult about this point for people to grasp. There are more important things in life than 3 minutes off a road journey on the cheap. Do the job properly or don't bother.
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
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 15:01
Herned wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 14:47
Bryn666 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 13:46 Who defines necessary?
There is no civil engineering/geographical reason to dig a tunnel in that location. The only reason a tunnel has been proposed is to preserve the WHS. But I'm sure you know that anyway
Yes, it's basically a necessary condition to preserve the status of the site as a UNESCO WHS. We've just lost one last month because of "who gives a stuff" developers building utter crap next to one, and we seem content to do the same again.

One was so people could watch football, this is so Londoners can get to Cornwall 3 minutes quicker. Our priorities towards assets of significance are utterly and completely wrong.
Definitely the football stadium? Plenty of other contenders.

Preventing any kind of development of a derelict former dock in a pretty ugly industrial setting isn't exactly helping Liverpool.
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.
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 »

Big L wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 18:22
Bryn666 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 15:01
Herned wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 14:47

There is no civil engineering/geographical reason to dig a tunnel in that location. The only reason a tunnel has been proposed is to preserve the WHS. But I'm sure you know that anyway
Yes, it's basically a necessary condition to preserve the status of the site as a UNESCO WHS. We've just lost one last month because of "who gives a stuff" developers building utter crap next to one, and we seem content to do the same again.

One was so people could watch football, this is so Londoners can get to Cornwall 3 minutes quicker. Our priorities towards assets of significance are utterly and completely wrong.
Definitely the football stadium? Plenty of other contenders.

Preventing any kind of development of a derelict former dock in a pretty ugly industrial setting isn't exactly helping Liverpool.
The stadium proposal was the final nail in the coffin.

Same reasons as why Stonehenge is at risk, development at any cost is not a positive thing either.

We want to do everything on the cheap and nasty in this country, nothing is designed with more than a cursory consideration of the environment it will sit in - as long as those developer receipts come in.

This is no way to run a country. It's why we are saddled with carbon copy housing estates with identical problems, it's why we have the stupidity of a major road still running through a historically significant site in the first place. Anywhere else would have taken the A303 away from there decades ago and had the ancient trackway underneath open for study and preservation.

I'm starting to sound like Helvellyn :lol:
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
marconaf
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 14:42

Re: A3 Guildford tunnel - could it happen?

Post by marconaf »

I’ll restate that I think the road should be able to see Stonehenge, people travelling past it area as much a part of our and its history as it is.

This desire to sanitise the area and pretend it was ever empty of life is absurd, especially when you stand there and can see everything from Larkhilp Garrison to Bsocombe Down!

As it happens, I drove my kids past it yesterday and they were glued to the window on an otherwise mundane trip.

That’s life, that’s history and that’s people interacting with it daily.

Or we can divorce it ever more from reality and make it another expensive experience which is actually nothing of the sort. Given its not particularly exciting in itself, making it part of normal life seems preferable to pretending its some huge wonderful overwhelming thing that must be boxed up.

Meanwhile a road that is desperately needed, goes unbuilt. And just as roads predate Stonehenge, they’ll outlast it I’m sure. Not that the Stonehenge we see is particualrly representative of its historical appearance anyway.
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 18:50...it's why we have the stupidity of a major road still running through a historically significant site in the first place. Anywhere else would have taken the A303 away from there decades ago and had the ancient trackway underneath open for study and preservation.

I'm starting to sound like Helvellyn :lol:
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.
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.
A320Driver
Member
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 19:11
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by A320Driver »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 15:01
Herned wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 14:47
Bryn666 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 13:46 Who defines necessary?
There is no civil engineering/geographical reason to dig a tunnel in that location. The only reason a tunnel has been proposed is to preserve the WHS. But I'm sure you know that anyway
Yes, it's basically a necessary condition to preserve the status of the site as a UNESCO WHS. We've just lost one last month because of "who gives a stuff" developers building utter crap next to one, and we seem content to do the same again.

One was so people could watch football, this is so Londoners can get to Cornwall 3 minutes quicker. Our priorities towards assets of significance are utterly and completely wrong.
Where do you get the figure of ‘3 minutes’ from? I passed through last Thursday at 5.30pm and it definitely wasn’t 3 minutes….more like 20minutes of delay.

If Shapps has been a muppet and not followed due procedure then of course that needs to be looked at. It’s just so sad that we, as a population, have people ready to jump on the tiniest legal loophole, and take the government to court. What other developed country would stand for this? I wonder what the cost to the taxpayer is in legal fees…..?

Hopefully Shapps will complete the necessary work, and re-grant the DCO. If granted, will the original construction date of 2023 stand or would there be a delay?
Formerly ‘guvvaA303’
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: Mon Aug 02, 2021 16:25 Liverpool has just last month lost its WHS status for the waterfront because of poor quality development undermining the heritage aspect. UNESCO can and will threaten to remove the status from Stonehenge if HE and the DfT put through a half-cocked road scheme in the middle of it.
The universal view of the Liverpudlians with whom I've discussed this is "{expletive} UNESCO"

The dockland area was derelict and thoroughly depressing: the Albert Dock area has brought life to the waterfront, and the second phase (including the new Everton stadium) will bring large regeneration benefits.

I'm curious to know how many tourists visit Liverpool for its docks, as opposed to (eg) The Beatles?
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 »

jackal wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 09:35
Presumably you have a paragraph reference for this legally extraordinary claim?
How about paragraphs 276 and 277. I quote...

Indeed, in the present case, there is no issue about whether alternatives for the
western cutting should have been taken into account. As I have said, the issue here is
narrower and case-specific. Was the SST entitled to go no further, in substance, than
the approach set out in paragraph 4.27 of the NPSNN and PR 5.4.71? 277. In my judgment the clear and firm answer to that question is no.

The relevant circumstances of the present case are wholly exceptional. In this case the relative merits
of the alternative tunnel options compared to the western cutting and portals were an
obviously material consideration which the SST was required to assess. It was irrational
not to do so. This was not merely a relevant consideration which the SST could choose
whether or not to take into account
4. I reach this conclusion for a number of reasons,
the cumulative effect of which I judge to be overwhelming.


In other words a simple resubmission will NOT cut the mustard because it would repeat the same mistake whereby the SST ignored the evidence of substantial harm to the WHS.

Its also crystal clear from the submissions made by Stakeholders to both the judge and the wider planning process that a longer tunnel and removal of the western cutting would significantly reduce the harm the new road would do to the WHS. Had the SST actually done the job properly its highly likely that a longer tunnel would be the only way of satisfactorily mitigating the concerns of stakeholders - something which the Judge says MUST be done as part of the process.

The upshot being that while the Judge has not mandated a longer tunnel, this has to be the most likely outcome of a successful resubmission of the scheme.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

That is simply stating that it was irrational not to consider the alternatives. It does not in any way imply or even hint that any of those alternatives were preferable.
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 »

A320Driver wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 19:15

Where do you get the figure of ‘3 minutes’ from? I passed through last Thursday at 5.30pm and it definitely wasn’t 3 minutes….more like 20minutes of delay.

If Shapps has been a muppet and not followed due procedure then of course that needs to be looked at. It’s just so sad that we, as a population, have people ready to jump on the tiniest legal loophole, and take the government to court. What other developed country would stand for this? I wonder what the cost to the taxpayer is in legal fees…..?

Hopefully Shapps will complete the necessary work, and re-grant the DCO. If granted, will the original construction date of 2023 stand or would there be a delay?
I don't see how he can 'complete the necessary work' as you put it without amending the tunnel length / western approach and that is going to cost more money! As such the scheme is only likely to progress if additional funds can be prised out of the Treasury.

With the extra massive Covid created national debit the Treasury will resist this tooth and nail - plus that part of Wiltshire is pretty safe Conservative territory voting wise - in contrast to the Northern constituencies won off Labour in the last election where Boris is keen to prevent a Labour return with lots of promises of 'levelling up' / extra investment.

I fear that in reality all that will happen is Grant Shaps will be forced to conclude that an acceptable scheme (involving more tunnelling) is simply to expensive and the whole thing will be kicked into the long grass once again.
Last edited by Phil on Mon Aug 02, 2021 20:53, edited 2 times in total.
SteveA30
Member
Posts: 6018
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 12:52
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by SteveA30 »

I fear that in reality all that will happen is Grant Shaps will be forced to conclude that an acceptable scheme (involving more tunnelling) is simply too expensive and the whole thing will be kicked into the long grass once again.
That is the British disease though, too expensive, as if that is the only consideration. As the old saying goes, 'if something is worth doing, it's worth doing properly' .....or similar.
Ilminster bypass, Dorchester bypass, various cheapo junction 'improvements', Worthing tunnel, Chichester junctions. Do them properly, it costs, get over it.
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 »

jackal wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 20:28 That is simply stating that it was irrational not to consider the alternatives. It does not in any way imply or even hint that any of those alternatives were preferable.
Yes it does.

Consider this sentence

"In this case the relative merits
of the alternative tunnel options compared to the western cutting and portals were an
obviously material consideration which the SST was required to assess"

Now go and start digging through all the documents submitted by stakeholders including UNESCO, etc where they quite clearly state that a longer tunnel taking the portal outside the WHS would reduce the harm to what they consider acceptable levels .

Only the misguided (or a lawyer) would not be unable to understand the significance of those two statements when put together.

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
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: Mon Aug 02, 2021 20:48
I fear that in reality all that will happen is Grant Shaps will be forced to conclude that an acceptable scheme (involving more tunnelling) is simply too expensive and the whole thing will be kicked into the long grass once again.
That is the British disease though, too expensive, as if that is the only consideration. As the old saying goes, 'if something is worth doing, it's worth doing properly' .....or similar.
Ilminster bypass, Dorchester bypass, various cheapo junction 'improvements', Worthing tunnel, Chichester junctions. Do them properly, it costs, get over it.
Quite

Its not as though there are tens or hundreds of World Heritage sites next to major roads requiring upgrades across the UK is there?

Stonehenge is quite clearly a special case and in a sane country would be treated as such.
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 »

Big L wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 19:07
Bryn666 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 18:50...it's why we have the stupidity of a major road still running through a historically significant site in the first place. Anywhere else would have taken the A303 away from there decades ago and had the ancient trackway underneath open for study and preservation.

I'm starting to sound like Helvellyn :lol:
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.

And as Richard has pointed out, the AADT of the A303 past Stonehenge (26,554) is less than the following other single carriageway bottlenecks on the English road network:

* A57 Mottram Moor (30,246)
* A205 South Circular Road Streatham (28,691)
* A585 Windy Harbour (27,117)
* A30 Carland Cross (26,993)
* A673 Chorley New Road (26,871)

If the road needs doing, do it properly.
A320Driver wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 19:15
Bryn666 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 15:01
Herned wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 14:47

There is no civil engineering/geographical reason to dig a tunnel in that location. The only reason a tunnel has been proposed is to preserve the WHS. But I'm sure you know that anyway
Yes, it's basically a necessary condition to preserve the status of the site as a UNESCO WHS. We've just lost one last month because of "who gives a stuff" developers building utter crap next to one, and we seem content to do the same again.

One was so people could watch football, this is so Londoners can get to Cornwall 3 minutes quicker. Our priorities towards assets of significance are utterly and completely wrong.
Where do you get the figure of ‘3 minutes’ from? I passed through last Thursday at 5.30pm and it definitely wasn’t 3 minutes….more like 20minutes of delay.

If Shapps has been a muppet and not followed due procedure then of course that needs to be looked at. It’s just so sad that we, as a population, have people ready to jump on the tiniest legal loophole, and take the government to court. What other developed country would stand for this? I wonder what the cost to the taxpayer is in legal fees…..?

Hopefully Shapps will complete the necessary work, and re-grant the DCO. If granted, will the original construction date of 2023 stand or would there be a delay?
The Swiss government are unable to construct new motorways through the Alps because local residents don't want the extra HGV traffic and numerous referenda have been held on this subject. That is why they've had to, at huge expense, construct the Gotthard Base Tunnel for motor-rail instead. Or is Switzerland not a developed country?

This thread is the epitome of entitled motorists complaining that their holidays to Cornwall are ruined because a short section of dual carriageway has not been forced past one of the most famous landmarks in Europe.
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
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

Phil wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 20:48
jackal wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 20:28 That is simply stating that it was irrational not to consider the alternatives. It does not in any way imply or even hint that any of those alternatives were preferable.
Yes it does.

Consider this sentence

"In this case the relative merits
of the alternative tunnel options compared to the western cutting and portals were an
obviously material consideration which the SST was required to assess"

Now go and start digging through all the documents submitted by stakeholders including UNESCO, etc where they quite clearly state that a longer tunnel taking the portal outside the WHS would reduce the harm to what they consider acceptable levels .

Only the misguided (or a lawyer) would not be unable to understand the significance of those two statements when put together.

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
Again, we have the plain statement of the judge's position on the one hand (that alternatives are relevant and should have been considered), and your wild extrapolations on the other.

Anyway, I've had enough - think what you like mate.
fras
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by fras »

Just so we all know, how much longer would the tunnel need to be to go under the whole of the WHS at Stonehenge ?
Anybody.........?
User avatar
ForestChav
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11081
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 00:00
Location: Nottingham (Bronx of the Midlands)
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by ForestChav »

So I've been to both Stonehenge and Avebury today, might pop a few pics up in a few days when I've had chance to look at them properly... but

IMO it's clear that both the A4361 and A303 do ruin the sites by passing through/by them. In reality, the A4361 is less of an issue because the stone circle is much bigger at Avebury, and was presumably evolved that way, including both the B4003 and A4361 passing through. And the A4361 is busy, but a lot less so than the A303 is.

The whole time at Stonehenge around the monument you could hear constant traffic noise and no doubt the pollution, the road is an obvious visual scar on the landscape for some distance. Online dualling is clearly not an option, a tunnel will do provided it didn't have any adverse effects on the geology and that a bypass taking it out of the WHS, which extends with ancient artefacts for some distance, didn't compromise that or the journey. I think the tunnel option is probably preferable really. With Avebury you could no doubt bypass the place with a S2 to the NW and not cause any major issues.

Now, if they just installed a travelator for that 2 mile walk between the new car park and the stones...
C, E flat and G go into a bar. The barman says "sorry, we don't serve minors". So E flat walks off, leaving C and G to share an open fifth between them.

Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

fras wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 22:48 Just so we all know, how much longer would the tunnel need to be to go under the whole of the WHS at Stonehenge ?
Anybody.........?
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.
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1390
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 »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 21:09 ... And as Richard has pointed out, the AADT of the A303 past Stonehenge (26,554) is less than the following other single carriageway bottlenecks on the English road network:

* A57 Mottram Moor (30,246)
* A205 South Circular Road Streatham (28,691)
* A585 Windy Harbour (27,117)
* A30 Carland Cross (26,993)
* A673 Chorley New Road (26,871)
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.

So, address your other S2 bottlenecks first. But still, the A303 should eventually be completed, even for the benefit of semi-local journeys that are not end-to-end. But not at this exorbitant cost.
Post Reply