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
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:13
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:08 As pointed out on previous pages, the A303 carries less traffic than the A57 through Mottram Moor so if we were to allocate funds on need, Stonehenge isn't getting the funds.
Some pretty bizarre logic given Mottram Moor has twice as many lanes as the A303 at Stonehenge and is still getting bypassed!

It's right up there with "Twyford Down was awful 'cause it didn't use a tunnel... this scheme is like Twyford Down because... errr... oh".
Mottram has three sets of signals and an AQMA being in the middle of a fairly sizeable urban area. It does not have more lanes, there is a short section of S4 between to signalised junctions - the rest is S2, and it is narrower than the A303 as well.

https://goo.gl/maps/2Z7P3fLBfGuRFTsf9 - A303
https://goo.gl/maps/GViz3mEkbMoL3ZLf8 - A57

The only reason to fix the A303 for me is to remove the atrocious safety record - capacity doesn't come into it because it doesn't warrant it on capacity grounds alone. You could probably reduce the KSIs by reducing the speed limit to 40 and putting in SPECS enforcement, but that doesn't seem like a sensible option when a high ticket project achieves the following goals:

Removes a visually intrusive road from a WHS
Removes the KSI sites - there have been several fatals and the A360 roundabout is a death trap looking at Crashmap
Removes traffic from Winterbourne Stoke and local rat runs

Doing Stonehenge properly will enhance the WHS. Doing it on the cheap will just make Britain look like a nation of car fetishists, more concerned with journey times for Londoners going on holiday than preserving an internationally recognised site of considerable merit.
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
owen b
Member
Posts: 9860
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by owen b »

fras wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 09:51 Clearly the tunnel is proposed because the road passes through the WHS, so it seems to me that the difference between building a standard dual carriageway road, and the tunnel, should be split off, and then "Stonehenge Bonds" issued by English Heritage for the difference. Visitors to Stonehenge would then have an additional fee put on their entrance ticket to pay off the bonds. A hundred years should see the bonds paid off, and if the interest rate is right, the pension funds will invest in them. By this means, the roads budget gets back some of the money so no other road projects would need cancelling or delaying.
A look at the ticket prices shows that the peak ticket is around £22. So add a couple of pounds onto this for the bond payment, and also charge EH and NT members the bond fee. At present they get in free of charge.
Interesting idea but I can't see the numbers adding up. Stonehenge apparently gets 800,000 visitors per year https://www.history.com/topics/british- ... %20marvels. . Charge them all £24 and put all of that into the tunnel fund. That raises £20 million a year. In reality it would be a lot less because not everyone would pay £24 and most of the £24 would not go to the tunnel fund. How much does the Stonehenge road scheme cost over and above the cost of a regular D2 expressway style road? It must be over £1 billion. £20 million would be nice to have but it wouldn't fundamentally change the economics of the road scheme.
Owen
fras
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by fras »

NICK 647063 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:43 I just struggle how we can justify spending 1.7 billion on this section, if you look at the A303 it’s traffic levels vary so much I would love to know how much traffic actually uses the full route, certainly many more deserving routes that need improvements, traffic flows on the A303 are surprisingly low in sections.
That's the point. Without Stonehenge being there, this would be a fairly uncontroversial dualling of the single carriageway road, and also give respite to the residents of Winterborne Stoke. So the extra cost above this should not be borne from the road improvements budget, but by a special financing vehicle. I suggested bonds, but I'm sure others could be considered. Those who want a pristine setting for Stonehenge need to realise they're not entitled to a free lunch. All visitors should pay to visit the site, then the bonds option would run. They could, of course, be issued as undated bonds, so only the interest is payable. Don't forget the "coupon" of the bond is fixed. If interest rate rise, all that happens is the price you'd get for a bond will fall. It's all standard bond stuff really.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:45
jackal wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:13
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:08 As pointed out on previous pages, the A303 carries less traffic than the A57 through Mottram Moor so if we were to allocate funds on need, Stonehenge isn't getting the funds.
Some pretty bizarre logic given Mottram Moor has twice as many lanes as the A303 at Stonehenge and is still getting bypassed!

It's right up there with "Twyford Down was awful 'cause it didn't use a tunnel... this scheme is like Twyford Down because... errr... oh".
Mottram has three sets of signals and an AQMA being in the middle of a fairly sizeable urban area. It does not have more lanes, there is a short section of S4 between to signalised junctions - the rest is S2, and it is narrower than the A303 as well.
The only bit of A57 at Mottram that actually carries more traffic than the A303 at Stonehenge is S4.
The only reason to fix the A303 for me is to remove the atrocious safety record - capacity doesn't come into it because it doesn't warrant it on capacity grounds alone.
Surely you realise 26k AADT is beyond the capacity of an S2?
Doing it on the cheap will just make Britain look like a nation of car fetishists, more concerned with journey times for Londoners going on holiday than preserving an internationally recognised site of considerable merit.
Still you have this weird obsession with Londoners, which apparently includes everyone in Southern England. It sounds a lot like "I'm alright, Jack".
Last edited by jackal on Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:33, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:30
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:45
jackal wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:13
Some pretty bizarre logic given Mottram Moor has twice as many lanes as the A303 at Stonehenge and is still getting bypassed!

It's right up there with "Twyford Down was awful 'cause it didn't use a tunnel... this scheme is like Twyford Down because... errr... oh".
Mottram has three sets of signals and an AQMA being in the middle of a fairly sizeable urban area. It does not have more lanes, there is a short section of S4 between to signalised junctions - the rest is S2, and it is narrower than the A303 as well.
The only bit of A57 at Mottram that actually carries more traffic than the A303 at Stonehenge is S4.
The only reason to fix the A303 for me is to remove the atrocious safety record - capacity doesn't come into it because it doesn't warrant it on capacity grounds alone.
Surely you realise 26k AADT is beyond the capacity of an S2?
Doing it on the cheap will just make Britain look like a nation of car fetishists, more concerned with journey times for Londoners going on holiday than preserving an internationally recognised site of considerable merit.
Still you have this weird obsession with Londoners, which apparently includes everyone in Southern England. It sounds a lot like "I'm alright, Jack".
Where have I said I oppose the A303 being sorted out? I said I want it doing properly because this one has to be done properly.

Other posters are the ones who wants a sub-par road scheme that will set road building back here 500 years. Not me. I want it doing properly.

But I can solve the KSI problem easily with a low speed limit and speed cameras, or just by shutting the road and telling people to divert. That's the alternative to not doing this scheme properly, is that what you want?
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 »

When you fill the thread with palpably false claims (e.g., A303 not over capacity) and strange regional prejudices (it's all just Londoners going on holiday) you can't be surprised to get corrected. You make the case for a long tunnel look a lot sillier than it actually is.
Last edited by jackal on Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:45, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:43 When you fill the thread with palpably false claims (e.g., A303 not over capacity) and strange regional prejudices (it's all just Londoners going on holiday) you can't be surprised to get corrected. You make the case for a long tunnel look a lot sillier than it actually is.
So the A303 does not have a heavily seasonal flow does it not? Or do you dispute the knowledge of those who work in the industry like Richard who know more than you do? If 50% traffic increases in summer isn't people going on holiday, what is it? People emigrating from Vladivostok?

There's nothing worse than SABRE's armchair road experts, the ones who ignore basic things like practical realities and political problems in favour of cracking out gems like "but it's value for money!" as if all that matters is the bottom line on an Excel spreadsheet.

It's this mentality why nothing in this country works properly.

The Millau Viaduct wasn't needed either, they could have dualled the N9 through the Tarn valley, but the French did it properly. With a British architect. That's why all our talent has gone abroad, because of accountant wonks moaning that "oh no, doing things right costs too much, let's do it crap and wonder why everyone hates us instead".
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 »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:44 There's nothing worse than SABRE's armchair road experts
A charming message to your fellow society members.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:58
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:44 There's nothing worse than SABRE's armchair road experts
A charming message to your fellow society members.
I am, and several other people in the industry are, fed up of having to explain to people that the only way to get roads to be politically acceptable to a public that is at best sceptical and at worst outright hates them is to do schemes properly and actually consider factors beyond drivers having faster journeys.

We are not living in Cities Skylines, you can't just zone a plot of land and everyone does what you tell them. Highway engineering is a nuanced and difficult task, ESPECIALLY when it's being routed past a globally significant site like Stonehenge.

If you think this road improvement is so important that it should happen no matter what the wider social costs of doing it are, that's fine, but that just means the road won't happen because this is the real world.

Spending that extra £500m now on the A303 saves spending billions in the future heading off hostile pressure groups, legal challenges, and direct action against contractors.

I don't understand how anyone who wants the A303 completing can be opposed to doing it properly, unless their sole life's motivation is moving the big metal boxes somewhere faster and sod everything else.
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
ChrisH
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3975
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:29

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by ChrisH »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 13:04
I don't understand how anyone who wants the A303 completing can be opposed to doing it properly, unless their sole life's motivation is moving the big metal boxes somewhere faster and sod everything else.
Your argument would be a lot more persuasive if you didn't roll back on obviously untrue statements like "it saves Londoners 3 minutes on their holidays to Cornwall".
User avatar
ravenbluemoon
Committee Member
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:32
Location: Between Mansfield and Göteborg

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by ravenbluemoon »

Afternoon folks,

It has been noted that there has been a lot of axe-grinding, circular arguments and borderline you-bombing going on in this thread recently. Not mentioning names but you know full well who you are... Please can you all take a step back and discuss/debate the subject properly. I don't want to have to engage "Sassy Mod" mode and lock/moderate the thread!

Play nice... :)
Tony Alice (they,them)
~~~~~
Owner of a classic rust heap/money pit, and other unremarkable older vehicles.
Usually found with a head in an old map or road atlas.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Ask me if you want to get involved!

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 05, 2021 11:45 You could probably reduce the KSIs by reducing the speed limit to 40 and putting in SPECS enforcement, but that doesn't seem like a sensible option when a high ticket project achieves the following goals:
Given that even 30 is usually but an aspiration, I'm not sure how that would help.

And I'd love to be a fly on teh wall when the NT/EH and WHS get the notification that the fudge involves adding yellow vulture towers along the WHS-zone
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 16:24
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:45 You could probably reduce the KSIs by reducing the speed limit to 40 and putting in SPECS enforcement, but that doesn't seem like a sensible option when a high ticket project achieves the following goals:
Given that even 30 is usually but an aspiration, I'm not sure how that would help.

And I'd love to be a fly on teh wall when the NT/EH and WHS get the notification that the fudge involves adding yellow vulture towers along the WHS-zone
https://goo.gl/maps/Qe7T4dRu3wxoHSLp6 - it'd be no taller than this sign...

This fatal occurred with a driver doing between 40 and 50, so clearly it does have many periods where higher speeds are prevalent: https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news ... tonehenge/

Just design the longer tunnel, then the A303 becomes safe, the stones become a traffic-free site, and everyone wins...
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
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 »

RichardA35 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:48
fras wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 09:51 Clearly the tunnel is proposed because the road passes through the WHS, so it seems to me that the difference between building a standard dual carriageway road, and the tunnel, should be split off, and then "Stonehenge Bonds" issued by English Heritage for the difference. Visitors to Stonehenge would then have an additional fee put on their entrance ticket to pay off the bonds. A hundred years should see the bonds paid off, and if the interest rate is right, the pension funds will invest in them. By this means, the roads budget gets back some of the money so no other road projects would need cancelling or delaying.
A look at the ticket prices shows that the peak ticket is around £22. So add a couple of pounds onto this for the bond payment, and also charge EH and NT members the bond fee. At present they get in free of charge.
Everyone can get to the stones for free if they know how to and are prepared to sacrifice the convenience of the shuttle bus
https://thirdeyetraveller.com/how-to-vi ... -for-free/
We walked from the car park, to be honest the shuttle bus with a load of unvaccinated little kids perhaps isn't the most appealing thing even though i'm double jabbed. Plus it was a nice enough day...
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.
User avatar
hoagy_ytfc
Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 00:10

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by hoagy_ytfc »

ravenbluemoon wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 13:40 Please can you all take a step back and discuss/debate the subject properly
Define "properly".

If ideas can't be subject to critique, then what's the point of any of this?
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 »

hoagy_ytfc wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 01:39
ravenbluemoon wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 13:40 Please can you all take a step back and discuss/debate the subject properly
Define "properly".

If ideas can't be subject to critique, then what's the point of any of this?
Enough with the in thread meta discussion - "properly" is not about the ideas but the means and method of conveying them - post in accordance with the Posting Guidelines or not at all.
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 05, 2021 16:58 This fatal occurred with a driver doing between 40 and 50, so clearly it does have many periods where higher speeds are prevalent:
That fatal (of a pedestrian, crossing unsafely, where they shouldn't have been) is not directly relevant to the road design.

But I agree with your "just build the damn tunnel, and do it properly"
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by KeithW »

fras wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:10 That's the point. Without Stonehenge being there, this would be a fairly uncontroversial dualling of the single carriageway road, and also give respite to the residents of Winterborne Stoke. So the extra cost above this should not be borne from the road improvements budget, but by a special financing vehicle. I suggested bonds, but I'm sure others could be considered. Those who want a pristine setting for Stonehenge need to realise they're not entitled to a free lunch. All visitors should pay to visit the site, then the bonds option would run. They could, of course, be issued as undated bonds, so only the interest is payable. Don't forget the "coupon" of the bond is fixed. If interest rate rise, all that happens is the price you'd get for a bond will fall. It's all standard bond stuff really.
Well Stonehenge was there several thousand years before the motor road was built so in reality it is the road that is the newcomer. Before anyone raises it I know there was an ancient trackway there in the distant past. The issue here is that it is only since the 1950's that the full importance of the WHS has become appreciated. Until WW1 the area was dominated by a number of military establishments including army barracks and an airfield. Paradoxically it was probably that which preserved it from commercial development. When the military moved out after WW1 the NT stepped in and started buying land as it came on the market.

The road benefits the UK transport system and therefore its is the DfT that should bear the costs of either upgrading or rerouting it. A D2 road could be built almost anywhere but Stonehenge and the WHS cannot be moved, if anything the visual and environmental impact of the road should be reduced just as has been done by removing traffic from the historic centres of cities such as York, Canterbury etc.
User avatar
Mark Hewitt
Member
Posts: 31411
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:54
Location: Chester-le-Street

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Mark Hewitt »

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.
fras
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by fras »

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.
But why, then, does the road have to be buried in a tunnel, it serves no purpose as far as traffic is concerned ? Seems to me that those who want a pristine site with no road visible should pay for it.
Post Reply