Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

[Truvelo]

I can imagine this ending up a bigger protest site than Twyford Down. There it was just a chalky escarpment. Stonehenge is a completely different ballgame. I can easily see costs escalate due to extra policing and court fees. If I went into a bookmakers with a wad of cash I would bet on the scheme being scrapped even though I want it to go ahead.

[RJDG14]

I don't understand why they want to go ahead with building a tunnel when it would probably be cheaper and better for the environment just to reroute the A303 at ground level a mile or two away from the site.

[Phil]

I don't understand why they want to go ahead with building a tunnel when it would probably be cheaper and better for the environment just to reroute the A303 at ground level a mile or two away from the site.

OK, the first thing to understand that Stonehenge is not simply the stone circle, its a landscape - the whole area for miles around is littered with archaeology just below the surface. THAT is why a bored tunnel (as opposed to cut and cover) is being dug so that there is minimal disturbance to the surface and first few meters of ground leaving the archaeology intact.

The issue has thus been the length of the tunnel and the site of its portals - some believe it should be longer so as to avoid even more of the hidden archaeology. Tunnels are expensive however so in true British tradition where the BCR is the be all and end of everything, make the tunnel too long and the whole scheme becomes 'unaffordable' to HM Treasury

If it was simply a matter of putting the road a couple of miles away from the stones it would have been done long ago!

[RJDG14]

I don't understand why they want to go ahead with building a tunnel when it would probably be cheaper and better for the environment just to reroute the A303 at ground level a mile or two away from the site.

OK, the first thing to understand that Stonehenge is not simply the stone circle, its a landscape - the whole area for miles around is littered with archaeology just below the surface. THAT is why a bored tunnel (as opposed to cut and cover) is being dug so that there is minimal disturbance to the surface and first few meters of ground leaving the archaeology intact.

The issue has thus been the length of the tunnel and the site of its portals - some believe it should be longer so as to avoid even more of the hidden archaeology. Tunnels are expensive however so in true British tradition where the BCR is the be all and end of everything, make the tunnel too long and the whole scheme becomes 'unaffordable' to HM Treasury

If it was imply a matter of putting the road a couple of miles away from the stones it would have been done long ago!

There do seem to be quite a number of military or MOD bases within only a short radius of Stonehenge, though, and these would have nearly all been built or expanded in the past 100 years - Larkhill is only a mile north.

[Phil]

I should also add that unlike previous decades, current 'best practice' in archaeology is to leave as much in the ground as possible for future generations to study. In recent years things like ground penetrating radar have come along and made non invasive archaeology a real possibility - who knows what technologies and techniques may come along in future to increase our understanding of the past.

[Phil]

I don't understand why they want to go ahead with building a tunnel when it would probably be cheaper and better for the environment just to reroute the A303 at ground level a mile or two away from the site.

OK, the first thing to understand that Stonehenge is not simply the stone circle, its a landscape - the whole area for miles around is littered with archaeology just below the surface. THAT is why a bored tunnel (as opposed to cut and cover) is being dug so that there is minimal disturbance to the surface and first few meters of ground leaving the archaeology intact.

The issue has thus been the length of the tunnel and the site of its portals - some believe it should be longer so as to avoid even more of the hidden archaeology. Tunnels are expensive however so in true British tradition where the BCR is the be all and end of everything, make the tunnel too long and the whole scheme becomes 'unaffordable' to HM Treasury

If it was imply a matter of putting the road a couple of miles away from the stones it would have been done long ago!

There do seem to be quite a number of military or MOD bases within only a short radius of Stonehenge, though, and these would have nearly all been built or expanded in the past 100 years - Larkhill is only a mile north.

Indeed - but actually the military bases are actually a blessing. By using the area for military training it has actually helped preserve sites that would have been damaged by agricultural activity.

[fras]

I can't think a recent or comparable major anti road protest in regards to what might happen at Stonehenge? I guess things have changed considerably since the 1990s. For anyone who hasn't seen it there was a notable article in the New Civil Engineer magazine about the lessons of Twyford Down & how a better 'consultation' process can reduce protest later on; http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/wp-con ... anning.pdf However, since Grant Shapps overruled the Planning Inspectorates decision, it is right that the protestors can well protest, albeit initially thru' legal channels. What difference this will make I don't know? As for ultimate protest on the ground, then this is a little way off. Would the police literally cordon off the whole area to discourage anyone from setting up camp and try to 'nip the whole thing in the bud' or would the media get involved and 'support' the protests? It is all speculation at this present time. As mentioned earlier, it would make sense to build the Countess flyover and the Winterbourne Stoke bypass first and see what happens next?

But what do you do about the people who are basically professional protesters. I do wonder sometimes where their incomes come from. Whatever is proposed, they will be there protesting.

They have a legal right to be a pain in the backside. Once you take away the right to protest we're into all kinds of sinister territory.

Where they do not have legal rights is to actively disrupt work and put people at risk of harm, which sitting in front of bulldozers and tying each other to trees in felling areas is a form of. They can be arrested and given bail conditions to deal with that.

Perhaps these legal rights to be PITAs need reducing a bit. In all situations like this, my mantra is to always follow the money. Nobody can hold down a job and be on protests seven days a week.

[KeithW]

There do seem to be quite a number of military or MOD bases within only a short radius of Stonehenge, though, and these would have nearly all been built or expanded in the past 100 years - Larkhill is only a mile north.

Indeed it and Stonehenge itself was a major military base for both the RAF and Army during WW1. in fact it is rather ironic that what has preserved Salisbury Plain is that it has been a military firing range since the 1890's. During WW1 no less than 34 battalions were based there , mainly for training before being sent to France. Had it not been requisitioned who knows what could have happened in the days before organisations such as English Heritage and the National Trust existed. Remember that Sutton Hoo was only preserved by an enthusiastic landowner who paid for the archaeological dig that discovered the ship burial in 1939. Had it not been for her efforts it could have become just another housing estate of Woodbridge

All that said there is no realistic option of going just north of the site, apart from the army bases Salisbury Plain itself is of major importance with its own archaeological sites and is the largest remaining section of upland chalk in NW Europe. The troops at Larkhill and Bulford are there because they lie just to the south of Salisbury plain which is one of the few places in the UK on which large scale training can take place, MOD will not give that up and even if they did there would be huge opposition to running a road through it. Contrary to popular belief armoured fighting vehicles do less damage to such sites than a busy farmer, the load is spread by the caterpillar tracks and movement is restricted to marked routes.

Given that the road already exists the least damaging option is the bored tunnel.

[KeithW]

I should also add that unlike previous decades, current 'best practice' in archaeology is to leave as much in the ground as possible for future generations to study. In recent years things like ground penetrating radar have come along and made non invasive archaeology a real possibility - who knows what technologies and techniques may come along in future to increase our understanding of the past.

Indeed and even when digging does take place it is kept to a minimum , often all that is dug are a small number of 1 square metre test pits. I have a good friend who is a retired historian and archaeologist formerly of Durham University, His view on this was practically the only large scale archaeology in recent years happened in the form of rescue digs due to road developments and major city redevelopments such as Coppergate in York which he was involved in at the beginning of his career.
https://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/ ... ng-dig.htm

[Bryn666]

But what do you do about the people who are basically professional protesters. I do wonder sometimes where their incomes come from. Whatever is proposed, they will be there protesting.

They have a legal right to be a pain in the backside. Once you take away the right to protest we're into all kinds of sinister territory.

Where they do not have legal rights is to actively disrupt work and put people at risk of harm, which sitting in front of bulldozers and tying each other to trees in felling areas is a form of. They can be arrested and given bail conditions to deal with that.

Perhaps these legal rights to be PITAs need reducing a bit. In all situations like this, my mantra is to always follow the money. Nobody can hold down a job and be on protests seven days a week.

Sure, let's apply it to people who complain about speed limit reductions all the time too, as they're a royal PITA for councils to deal with.

[KeithW]

Perhaps these legal rights to be PITAs need reducing a bit. In all situations like this, my mantra is to always follow the money. Nobody can hold down a job and be on protests seven days a week.

One of the nicer things about freedom is that you have a legal right to be a PITA, in fact that is a basic requirement of a civilised society, places that lack those freedoms tend to become rather unpleasant. I know plenty of people who have protested and held down a job. The freedom to peaceful protest is in fact a fundamental human right.

There is thankfully no requirement to hold down a job, I spent some time in the USSR when one way the state punished minor dissenters was by assigning them unpleasant or demeaning jobs. If they refused there were classed as a social parasite and imprisoned.

The conversation would typically go along these lines. Comrade Academician X we have assigned you to a new post of recycling technician (bin man) in Tomsk, you start on Monday , here is your ticket for the trans Siberian express. Dress warmly, its -45C there at present. This is what was done to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Vladimir Bukovsky, and Andrei Sakharov,

This was not the worst option, if degradation didnt work you could be declared insane and sent to a State Ayslum.

Vaclav Havel summed up the dilemma best.

We never decided to become dissidents. We have been transformed into them, without quite knowing how, sometimes we have ended up in prison without precisely knowing how. We simply went ahead and did certain things that we felt we ought to do, and that seemed to us decent to do, nothing more nor less.

He was in your terms a PITA.

[SteveA30]

Plenty of people with jobs can protest 7 days a week, between them. They just work out a rota so that all days are covered. The more employees involved, the easier it is to cover all days, every month. Also, a weeks holiday in a protest camp, is another way.

Still, in this case, if they keep on objecting to every scheme, they may just end up with the current A303 remaining. Is that really what they want?

[fras]

They have a legal right to be a pain in the backside. Once you take away the right to protest we're into all kinds of sinister territory.

Where they do not have legal rights is to actively disrupt work and put people at risk of harm, which sitting in front of bulldozers and tying each other to trees in felling areas is a form of. They can be arrested and given bail conditions to deal with that.

Perhaps these legal rights to be PITAs need reducing a bit. In all situations like this, my mantra is to always follow the money. Nobody can hold down a job and be on protests seven days a week.

Sure, let's apply it to people who complain about speed limit reductions all the time too, as they're a royal PITA for councils to deal with.

As far as I know, they don't camp out and then try to tear down apparatus or climb trees and other shenanigans. I can see you are a 20's plenty man !

[Bryn666]

Perhaps these legal rights to be PITAs need reducing a bit. In all situations like this, my mantra is to always follow the money. Nobody can hold down a job and be on protests seven days a week.

Sure, let's apply it to people who complain about speed limit reductions all the time too, as they're a royal PITA for councils to deal with.

As far as I know, they don't camp out and then try to tear down apparatus or climb trees and other shenanigans. I can see you are a 20's plenty man !

No, just a believer in if it's good for the goose... you want the right to protest to be curtailed, fine, let's extend it to anything highways related. And I mean anything.

[Big L]

SMT note:
A little calmer please, things are getting a wee bit personal.

[fras]

Sure, let's apply it to people who complain about speed limit reductions all the time too, as they're a royal PITA for councils to deal with.

As far as I know, they don't camp out and then try to tear down apparatus or climb trees and other shenanigans. I can see you are a 20's plenty man !

No, just a believer in if it's good for the goose... you want the right to protest to be curtailed, fine, let's extend it to anything highways related. And I mean anything.

Thinking about it, I might have been in a protest group before the route of HS2 Phase 2a was announced, because our village lies to the east of Crewe, and there was a strong likelihood the line would have passed nearby. In the end they went for a tunnel under Crewe.

[Micro The Maniac]

Indeed it and Stonehenge itself was a major military base for both the RAF and Army during WW1. in fact it is rather ironic that what has preserved Salisbury Plain is that it has been a military firing range since the 1890's.

Agreed... and equally from a natural history viewpoint too. Salisbury Plain is a Special Protection Area because it is home to some endangered species, and the fact that the public are kept out is one of the reasons why.

[A303Chris]

Interesting press release from Highways England yesterday asking local businesses to get involved in the construction, stating a start date of late Spring 2021.

Obviously the HE is not worried about the legal challenge

[jackal]

As mentioned above, there isn't even a legal challenge yet - and it's unclear what basis there could be for one.

[fras]

I see that professional protester "Swampy" now in his 50s I think, is protesting at a the HS2 worksite in the Colne Valley somewhere near Denham Green or South Harefield. Presumably he won't be able to be in two places at once !