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
jim
Member
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2002 18:42

Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jim »

Dear All
I was recently looking at the Transport 2000 web site in which they favour a bored tunnel at stonehenge, rather than the cut and cover option currently proposed. Unfortunately a single carriageway one to my mind is crazy! Safety issues are a real problem withthesetunnels.
Anyway is a dual bored tunnel possible at this nationally important site? Well there are some examples of dual bored tunnels around, A27 Brighton & A20 Folkstone both of which are fairly short at about 500metres. I believe the proposed A3 Hindhead tunnel is to be a little longer possibily over 1km?
I know that say a 2 to 3 km tunnel at Stonehange is possible but the questions I would like to ask are.
1. Does the Government want to spend the money?
2. Are road protesters going to block the current plans anyway?
3. Is the curent route to the south of the stones the best option?
4. Could a bored tunnel levy a charge?
5. Any other ideas?
Jim
mnb20
Member
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2002 12:46
Location: Southampton

Post by mnb20 »

jim: << Unfortunately a single carriageway one to my mind is crazy! Safety issues are a real problem with these tunnels. >>

Particularly if it's in the middle of a dual carraigeway, which it would be.

A single tunnel with one lane each way but a crash barrier between them would solve most of the safety issues - apart from those caused by congestion, which would be no worse than the current situation.

<< Anyway is a dual bored tunnel possible at this nationally important site? Well there are some examples of dual bored tunnels around, A27 Brighton & A20 Folkstone both of which are fairly short at about 500metres. I believe the proposed A3 Hindhead tunnel is to be a little longer possibily over 1km? >>

I assume you don't mean is it technically possible, which of course it is (I suppose there could be factors like the type of rock, but I haven't heard any suggestion that near Stonehenge is a particularly difficult place to make a tunnel).

The A3 project would cost about ?107 million. Obviously not all of this is for the tunnel - there's another 3km of road, and three junctions, and some minor changes to local roads nearby. Call it ?80m for the tunnel. The cost of digging the tunnel won't scale linearly with length, though, so it's difficult to predict from that how much it would cost to dig a 2km tunnel. Probably less than twice that, though.

<< 2. Are road protesters going to block the current plans anyway?>>

I'm sure you'll get some to any high profile road building project - and they don't come much higher profile than this. But my guess is that there will be less here - where there should be a long term environmental benefit - than at many other schemes, and even less if a bored tunnel is used.

<< 3. Is the curent route to the south of the stones the best option?>>

It's the shortest route between the existing dualled sections that they want to join. It looks from the OS map like you'd have to go quite a long way out of the way to find a better route in terms of environmental damage, though it's difficult to tell.

<< 4. Could a bored tunnel levy a charge? >>

I'd have thought so. Because a high proportion of the traffic on that route is holiday traffic, you could probably charge a lot more than you could on the A3.

For the proposed A3 tunnel they decided that it wouldn't be feasible to charge as if it was cheap enough not to drive traffic, much of which is local-ish, onto other roads it wouldn't raise enough money. The document:

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/area/0 ... /index.htm

is the summary of the study, and is quite interesting.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11155
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Post by c2R »

http://www.stonehengemasterplan.org/Future/Future6.htm
That's all I can find - and you've probably read it already...
It's unlikely a single carriageway option would be considered - the HA would likely rather a "do-nothing" response than such a waste of money.
I think the cut-and-cover dual carriageway tunnel isa good compromise solution. It should keep everyone but the extremists happy...
Chris.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
mnb20
Member
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2002 12:46
Location: Southampton

Post by mnb20 »

The argument against the cut and cover option is that it disturbs a number of archaeological sites. Personally, while I can sympathise with that view, and I think it's important that they are carefully investigated and as much as possible recorded about them, I can see no reason not to put a road through once we have learnt as much as we can from them.
jim
Member
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2002 18:42

Post by jim »

Thanks for the feedback. I feel I know more about the implications of the Stonehenge scheme. Perhaps a combination of cut and cover tunnel with a short bored section nearest the stones would be less controversal option & that a small charge could be levved for the extra costs / environmental benefits.
The use of bored tunnels (in general road projects - rather than just for river crossings) does seem to be increasing. Isn't there a recent example at Ramsgate?
Cheers Jim
Guy-Barry
Banned
Posts: 4822
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2001 10:32
Location: Bath

Post by Guy-Barry »

Have a look here- Simon (A6(M)) gives an account of the new route of the A299 and the A253. I notice that this hasn't been incorporated into Roads by 10 yet, so can I call on Paul to do the honours?
Guy
jim
Member
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2002 18:42

Post by jim »

So the government has agreed to a bored tunnel after all. One interesting point is they have allowed it to be 100 metres longer than the orginal 'cut and cover option'. However, even at 2.1km, it is still the shortest of all the proposals, the longest being 3miles. I don't know why a combination of a bored tunnel for the central section nearest the stones and cut and cover to extend the schemes range at each end can not be used??? This could well be another site for future protests? Here is the link from response from the save Stonehenge Campaign about the A303
http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/
Reading the various papers at work, some people argue that the lastest Highways Agency proposal is the best offer on the table. Others however, like the National Trust (as the owners of the Stonehenge site) may disagree and push for the longer option.
What do people think?
Jim
t1(M)
Member
Posts: 7281
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 23:15
Location: kingston-upon-thames

Post by t1(M) »

Adam (on the "sculptures" thread)
<<What a good idea - they could save money building a tunnel on the A303, dualling it anyway and having Stonehenge as the centrepiece of a roundabout!>>
Aha!, the mystery of Stonehenge is solved - it was to have been a roundabout with flyover, but they stopped after the stilts had been built.
Unfinished business since c2000 -that's BC of course!
jim
Member
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2002 18:42

Post by jim »

<TABLE width="90%" border=0> [tr] [td]Tuesday July 8, 08:52 PM [/td] <TD align=right>[/td][/tr][/table] <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="90%" border=0> [tr] <TD vAlign=top> <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right border=0> [tr] [td] <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=142 bgColor=#9999cc border=0> [tr] [td] <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0> <TR bgColor=#ccccff> [td]Yahoo! News[/td][/tr] <TR bgColor=#ffffff> [td] <TABLE cellSpacing=4 cellPadding=0 border=0> <TR vAlign=top> [td]?[/td] [td]More Oddly Enough articles[/td][/tr] <TR vAlign=top> [td]?[/td] [td]Click to enlarge photo </CENTER>[/td][/tr][/table] Stonehenge is a massive fertility symbol, according to Canadian researchers who believe they have finally cracked the mystery of the ancient monument. In the arrangement of the stones, the researchers say they have spotted the original design: female genitalia. The theory is laid out in a paper entitled "Stonehenge: a view from medicine" in the July issue of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. "To the builders of the henge, the most critical events in life were birth and death," Anthony Perks, a retired professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the University of British Columbia, wrote in the paper.
I still think we need a longer tunnel. Sorry about the pun.
Jim[/td][/tr][/table]
User avatar
highwaymana31
Member
Posts: 3783
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:27
Location: Keeping clear of idiots

Post by highwaymana31 »

I see from the HA website that the date for the public enquiry has now been set
Glenn
<H1>A303 STONEHENGE - HIGHWAYS AGENCY ANNOUNCES PUBLIC INQUIRY</H1> A public inquiry into plans to dual the A303 at Stonehenge is programmed to start on 17 February 2004, the Highways Agency announced today.
The inquiry will be held before an independent inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, and will hear objections to the published plans.
The 12.4 km long scheme includes the building of a 2.1km twin bore tunnel, a bypass around Winterbourne Stoke and a flyover at the Countess Roundabout at Amesbury.
Highways Agency Project Sponsor Chris Jones said:
"Detailed plans for the scheme were published in June and the three month public consultation period has now ended. A number of objections and representations have now been received in response to the published proposals, as well as letters supporting the scheme. Over the coming months, the Highways Agency will be working with the objectors and where possible will address their concerns. Where this is not possible, objectors will have the opportunity to present their case at a public inquiry."
Details of the location of the public inquiry will be published at a later date. <H2>Notes to Editors:</H2>
  1. The Draft Orders, environmental statement and a non-technical summary of the scheme were published on 5 June 2003. The non-technical summary is available from the Highways Agency, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6HA.
  2. The cost of the proposed scheme is estimated at approx ?192m.
  3. The project contractors are Balfour Beatty Costain joint venture with designers Halcrow-Gifford.
  4. The A303 Improvement has been deemed an 'Exceptional environmental scheme' in 1998.
  5. The preferred route was announced in 1999. Public consultations took place in 1993, 1995,1999 and in June 2003 following publication of Draft Orders.
  6. Following a review of the scheme Secretary of State for Transport Alistair Darling and Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State for the Department of Media, Culture and Sport announced in December 2002 that the A303 would be placed in a 2.1km bored tunnel.
  7. There will be a pre-Inquiry meeting on 17 November 2003.
  8. An independent planning inspector will hear the objections and recommend to the Secretary of State whether work should go ahead. If they agree to proceed, work could start in 2005 with traffic removed from the core of the Stonehenge site by 2008.
  9. The Stonehenge Project to reunite the landscape and provide a world-class visitor centre and facilities is being developed in partnership with English Heritage and the National Trust.
  10. Information about roadworks throughout the region is available from the Highways Agency information line on 08457 50 40 30 or online in the Current Roadworks Information Bulletin. </OL>
Mr Brown, 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JCwW_1rswyo
jim
Member
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2002 18:42

Post by jim »

My theory on this subject is that the Highways Agency will built a slightly longer tunnel say 2.5km as opposed to the 2.1km now on offer. I beleive the Public Inquiry will conclude with such a recommendation, thus placating the protesters.
Personally I would build a longer tunnel even still (say 3.5km to cover all the the World heritage Site), if they can do on continental Europe why carn't we do it hear. We make such a 'song and dance' about bored tunnels.
Jim
t1(M)
Member
Posts: 7281
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 23:15
Location: kingston-upon-thames

Post by t1(M) »

MPA
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 00:00

Post by MPA »

The Guardian article is somewhat misleading in that it doesn't indicate how much of the existing 303 is already dualled - anyone without an atlas would think the Govt was trying to do Basingstoke to Exeter in one go (which would admittedly be a bargain at that price).
Surely there are adverse environmental consequences from stonking great bottlenecks every holiday weekend?!
Martyn
MPA
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 00:00

Post by MPA »

(And, massively off-topic, why won't MSN give me this wonderful nickname I keep registering for!)
User avatar
biffvernon
Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2002 21:36
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

It's not just Stonehenge that has problems. The less wellknown but tremendously important Thornborough Henges are under real threat from those (Tarmac) who would build roads and tunnels and anything else that need gravel.Info from:
http://www.friendsofthornborough.org/
Biff
A21Will
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 21:05

Post by A21Will »

The important reason for not disturbing the archaeology by putting in a cut and cover tunnel is that once destroyed you cannot put it back. The feeling with archaeology now is that you should not dig it at all unless it will be destroyed. Although you could dig it and record it, we would then have a finite amount of knowledge about it. If left alone, the sites will be left for investigation in the future when we may have techniques not dreamed of yet.
t1(M)
Member
Posts: 7281
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 23:15
Location: kingston-upon-thames

Post by t1(M) »

Two letters appeared in the Guardian here(see under "Paper & Stones"). Methinks Ms Darby has rather missed the point (and the boat) in asking why approval was given for the A303and A344 to run so close to the stones. The A303 appears not only on my map of Roman Britain, but on Ian Hindle's map of prehistoric routes!
Perhaps we could ask why the A1 is so close to the Angel of the North!
User avatar
biffvernon
Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2002 21:36
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

T1(M)<on Ian Hindle's map of prehistoric routes>
Which map is that or is it Paul Hindle?
And who allowed the A1 so close to the Devils Arrows at Boroughbridge ? These stones are much bigger than those at the Stonehenge though less fanous. Some archaeologist have suggested they are the first road signs, pointing the way to the ritual landscape of the Thornborough Henges.
Biff
t1(M)
Member
Posts: 7281
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 23:15
Location: kingston-upon-thames

Post by t1(M) »

Yes, I meant Paul Hindle, in "Roads & Tracks for Historians"
User avatar
A325Ham
Member
Posts: 524
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:36
Location: Hampshire/Surrey Border

Post by A325Ham »

Two questions:
Does anyone beleive that the A303/A30 will be dualled totally between the m3 and the m5? I heard that parts will be dualled but there will always be parts where dualling will never be environmentally possible.
I know there is a lot of support to swap the A30 and A303 numbering around to make it more logical. Why was the A303 chosen as the preferred road number?
Post Reply