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.
A320Driver wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 22:29
Surely if the government wanted to bin the scheme, then surely all Shapps needed to do was refuse DCO consent? Instead he has chosen to defer the decision; maybe it is the case that this archaeological find is quite significant and further work needs to be done. Although it does beg the question as to what the archaeologists have been doing for the last 30 years....
The pro short tunnel archaeological bodies have been placed in a tricky position by this second delay. Do they now say they regret that the gouging of a dual carriageway across the World Heritage landscape against UNESCO’s wishes has been delayed? Their reactions so far suggest they don’t quite know what to say! Highways England:“We are confident that the proposed scheme presents the best solution for tackling a longstanding bottleneck”. So no reaction to the actual delay, just sullen stonewalling. If they’re confident it’s the best scheme what do they think the delay is about?! (Yet again, their PR Department looks out of its depth). Historic England – no response so far, Why? They’re a leading proponent. English Heritage – no response so far, Why? They’re a leading proponent. The National Trust:“we are working closely with our partners to help inform and challenge Highways England to deliver a scheme that protects the special qualities of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and finally addresses the major harm the existing A303 does to this extraordinary place.” So still supporting the destruction when even the Government appears to be balking at it!
The extreme discomfiture of all four bodies is plain to see. But that’s on their public faces, what about all the archaeologists they employ, surely some (or most?) of those are appalled by the scheme? Yet none of them say anything. Strange, isn’t it?
What exactly could be altered to make the scheme go-ahead?
I reckon the eastern tunnel portal and associated ground works could be moved further onto the line of the existing A303, the current plan takes a big chunk out of the WHS.
The tunnel itself could be moved further south by about 50m
Further coverages i.e. an extra green bridge for the western tunnel approach cutting
A320Driver wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 22:29
Surely if the government wanted to bin the scheme, then surely all Shapps needed to do was refuse DCO consent?
Maybe it's politically embarrassing to refuse consent when the PM and the Chancellor have both mentioned the scheme this year?
Jim606 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 18:46 The National Trust:“we are working closely with our partners to help inform and challenge Highways England to deliver a scheme that protects the special qualities of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and finally addresses the major harm the existing A303 does to this extraordinary place.” So still supporting the destruction when even the Government appears to be balking at it!
Surely the current A303 is currently causing significantly more damage than the proposed tunnel will?
Jim606 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 18:46 The National Trust:“we are working closely with our partners to help inform and challenge Highways England to deliver a scheme that protects the special qualities of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and finally addresses the major harm the existing A303 does to this extraordinary place.” So still supporting the destruction when even the Government appears to be balking at it!
Surely the current A303 is currently causing significantly more damage than the proposed tunnel will?
Yes, there are a lot of people who want to see the current surface road removed. But, what to do exactly, is the problem. Highways England vaguely looked at a southern bypass in the current plans. But, this would caused its own problems carving up attractive countryside south of the World Heritage Site (WHS). It would have also have added some 6miles to the whole A303 route, thus negating any time savings. Finally, I don't know just how much support it actually had without its own series of tunnels / green bridges / mitigation measures etc. which no-one really looked into in any detail? Therefore, it was decided to try and drive a single tunnel across the WHS as the 'best fit' solution. However, as mentioned above, this is not without its own challenges. What we have on the table still isn't right. The proposed eastern tunnel portal and associated works carve a large chunk out of the WHS near to where the latest archeological findings have been discovered. Why not site this portal along the line of the current road? The western approach cutting scars the landscape and whilst Highways England & the NT have added a extra long green bridge, it still isn't enough in my opinion. An extra one could be added along the line of the proposed A360 bridleway, by transferring one of the ones planned for the Winterbourne Stoke bypass into the WHS. Finally again, although underground, the whole tunnel is still to near the stone circle at less than 200m away. It could be slewed another 50m south?
Overall this project is interesting because it represents a real stumbling block to further road expansion. Perhaps, the A303 at Stonehenge will be 'kicked into the long grass', as others have stated or solutions will be found? I guess 'as usual' it's all down to political will and money
My question is about the surface of the restricted byway following the existing A303.
A grass surface is pretty useless for road bikes. If I were heading that way, and faced a grass byway, I'd be inclined to cycle through the tunnel. Legal or not!
I know that they want to make the area around stonehenge more attractive, but the traffic and associated noise will already be gone. Instead of grassing over, a lot of cycleways already use green tarmac. That would greatly reduce the visual impact of the road, without compromising its utility for road cyclists.
solocle wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 18:42
My question is about the surface of the restricted byway following the existing A303.
A grass surface is pretty useless for road bikes. If I were heading that way, and faced a grass byway, I'd be inclined to cycle through the tunnel. Legal or not! I know that they want to make the area around stonehenge more attractive, but the traffic and associated noise will already be gone. Instead of grassing over, a lot of cycleways already use green tarmac. That would greatly reduce the visual impact of the road, without compromising its utility for road cyclists.
On Infrastructure-planning-inspectorate.gov.uk there is a Environment Assessment / Highways England doc., providing some details of the proposed surfacing of any downgraded A303. Looks like it will be a standard 'shared-use' 3m wide with some sort of hard weathering surface.
3m metre shared path doesn't seem like nearly enough. Especially with no markings or signs allowed.
Better off with two separate surfaces one for pedestrians, one for cyclists and some grass for horsies.
Can imagine cycling to the stone will become quite a popular thing to do on a nice summers day, it will end up in the current situation as with cars at the moment, but bicycles instead.
jervi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 19:56
3m metre shared path doesn't seem like nearly enough. Especially with no markings or signs allowed.
Better off with two separate surfaces one for pedestrians, one for cyclists and some grass for horsies.
Can imagine cycling to the stone will become quite a popular thing to do on a nice summers day, it will end up in the current situation as with cars at the moment, but bicycles instead.
I agree on the width. The road there is getting on for 8m wide - 2m for pedestrians, 3m for horses, 3m for cyclists would be an easy allocation.
Regarding the general upgrade to an expressway, I think it would make sense generally to construct a new D2 for the S2 sections, while constructing an S2 LAR for the D2 sections.
The primary concern I'd have with the LAR is it being as convenient as the existing route, not climbing over steep hills or going around the villages, while the A303(M) cuts a gentle straight path through the countryside.
solocle wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 20:52
The primary concern I'd have with the LAR is it being as convenient as the existing route, not climbing over steep hills or going around the villages, while the A303(M) cuts a gentle straight path through the countryside.
If the A303 were dualled to the north of Chicklade, there would be no point bringing it back down the hill to link to the short dual carriageway section as that goes immediately back up the hill. Also it is extremely unlikely anyone would propose building a road to the north of the A303 from the end of the Mere bypass, unless they had shares in an earthworks company! It's extremely steep, the present A303 runs along the bottom of the escarpment
jervi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 19:56
3m metre shared path doesn't seem like nearly enough. Especially with no markings or signs allowed.
Better off with two separate surfaces one for pedestrians, one for cyclists and some grass for horsies.
Can imagine cycling to the stone will become quite a popular thing to do on a nice summers day, it will end up in the current situation as with cars at the moment, but bicycles instead.
Yes, I couldn't agree more, a 3m wide path just isn't enough. The problem is Highways England, English Heritage (EH) & the National Trust (NT) etc. are just going on a Sustrans/UK standard of 3m for 'shared-use' in this case which is likely to include equestrians; as well and walkers & cyclists! They want to make it deliberately narrow to help maintain the landscape, which is a laudable aim, however these are the same people who want to create a x4 lane highway running across the WHS whose design still isn't right. Yet, here they are fiddling around with minor issues such as this in order to placate themselves. EH & the NT have always wanted people to explore the wider landscape and a bicycle would be a great way to do it. They could establish a bike hire business at the Visitor Centre and help create a series of circular rides for people to enjoy. However, when EH first developed the new Visitor Centre they used carriages pulled by land rovers which proved to be totally impractical and created a turning circle at the stones which was too small. Small buses had to be brought in later and a larger turning circle and extended facilities created to handle larger numbers. For all the brainpower involved at these organisations, sometimes they don't really think their plans through very well.
Don't forget what is now the A303 itself is older than the stones themselves so removing all traces of a road here would be erasing the ancient Harroway. This is also one of the major problems with an online upgrade as there's archaeology interest in the road too.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Interesting reference to the A303 Stonehenge in this HE press release about archelogical finds on the A1(M) at Scotch Corner.
It states:
In the south west, Highways England is carrying out a huge amount of work in advance of the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down scheme near Stonehenge, involving more detailed investigations than for any other road scheme in the country.
Geophysical and archaeological surveys have been undertaken of the ground that would be disturbed by the scheme both within and outside the World Heritage Site, including the location for the new Longbarrow Junction and the whole of the Winterbourne Stoke northern bypass route.
Survey work has uncovered some interesting but not unexpected finds, including quantities of worked flint and pieces of pottery and a vessel containing a cremation burial dating back as far as 4,000 - 5,000 years. Outside the construction footprint of the scheme – which includes a two-mile tunnel, a further 50 metres away from the Stonehenge monument – a small hengiform monument and bones from a crouched burial, and a further cremation burial have been found.
Meticulous planning for the proposed route has seen ground penetrating radar used as part of a comprehensive geophysical survey strategy, to Historic England standards, and the company has now started the procurement process for the archaeological mitigation work to take place ahead of construction, subject to a Development Consent Order being granted.
Given the procurement process has started they must be pretty confident of getting consent especially as Boris has said we will build a tunnel under Stonehenge and his build, build build mantra. I do believe this and Sparkford are being held up as the Government want all the smallest problems resolved before the obvious challenges from the Environmental Groups. I do wonder if the A75 through the Massif Central and the Millau Viaduct would have ever been built if the French had the same slow planning process we do.
HE can't start all schemes at once for budgetary reasons, especially not the £1bn+ schemes dumped on them when PFI was abandoned. The apparently slow planning process is a facade for the harsh financial reality.
Though Highways England says the two-mile tunnel will remove the sight and sound of traffic passing the site, some environmentalists and archaeologists have voiced their opposition to the plan due to its potential impact on the area.
The latest delay to the scheme was raised with the Government in the House of Lords by Lord Dobbs. Lord Dobbs, author of House of Cards and a local resident, highlighted the decades of wrangling over the project and the rising costs, which he said now topped more than £2billion.
Pressing roads minister Baroness Vere of Norbiton, the Tory peer said: 'Does she agree that it seems any tunnel could be finished much before 2030 by which semi-autonomous electric vehicles will be commonplace and perhaps even compulsory, making traffic passed Stonehenge less intrusive, less polluting and easier to manage? So, may I ask, because of these advances in vehicle technology, whether it's just possible that by the time any tunnel might be completed it could already be on the verge of becoming a hugely expensive white elephant?'
Lady Vere pointed out that self-driving vehicles 'do still need road space and therefore further road enhancements will be necessary'. However, she could not say how long it would take for the tunnel to be built.
It's complete nonsense to suggest it's not worth building the tunnel because autonomous vehicles will, in and of themselves negate the business case for their construction.
Even without the pollution, there would still be traffic noise, a lack of NMU provision, and a capacity bottleneck caused by the single carriageway sections and lack of NMU provision.
Also, low standard single carriageway routes are unlikely to be the sort that autonomous vehicles will be aimed at, particularly freight.
c2R wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 20:24
It's complete nonsense to suggest it's not worth building the tunnel because autonomous vehicles will, in and of themselves negate the business case for their construction.
Even without the pollution, there would still be traffic noise, a lack of NMU provision, and a capacity bottleneck caused by the single carriageway sections and lack of NMU provision.
Also, low standard single carriageway routes are unlikely to be the sort that autonomous vehicles will be aimed at, particularly freight.
An all of which assumes that autonomous vehicles will be the transport panacea that their advocates claim. I very much doubt it.
c2R wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 20:24
It's complete nonsense to suggest it's not worth building the tunnel because autonomous vehicles will, in and of themselves negate the business case for their construction.
Even without the pollution, there would still be traffic noise, a lack of NMU provision, and a capacity bottleneck caused by the single carriageway sections and lack of NMU provision.
Also, low standard single carriageway routes are unlikely to be the sort that autonomous vehicles will be aimed at, particularly freight.
An all of which assumes that autonomous vehicles will be the transport panacea that their advocates claim. I very much doubt it.
Quite, with AVs, we could see:
1) longer distance commuting - since you can sleep/work in the car so current limits on time/fatigue wouldn’t apply.
2) masses of short “relocation” runs by empty vehicles going to new demands or if no demand exists, going to a car park that some algorithm judges to be best located to pick up the next demand.
AVs are lilely to see, in my view, a surge of road usage. Linked to that is people wont be having to drive in congestion but can use that time for watching tv, working etc so will be more tolerant of it.
For Stonehenge, I’m hoping the scheme gets binned. I passed through a month or so back and as ever loved seeing the stones as a feature of the journey.
The idea of trying to create a landscape devoid of the human history of transport past these stones seems as daft as it would be to suggest restoring the landscape to before some weirdos dragged a load of stones over from Wales for some random reason. (Cue Eddie Izard sketch on the stones...)
marconaf wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 23:50
For Stonehenge, I’m hoping the scheme gets binned. I passed through a month or so back and as ever loved seeing the stones as a feature of the journey.
All very well for the odd occasional journey. But for those of us who do it very regularly:
* We've seen them before.
* Seeing the stones from the car is one thing, but seeing all the cars from the stones is another.
* Something about keeping an eye on the road (re: Witney bypass thread)
Move or bury the road. If you want to visit the stones, go ahead and get out of your car and look at them properly. There isn't much to see, mind.
marconaf wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 23:50
For Stonehenge, I’m hoping the scheme gets binned. I passed through a month or so back and as ever loved seeing the stones as a feature of the journey.
All very well for the odd occasional journey. But for those of us who do it very regularly:
* We've seen them before.
* Seeing the stones from the car is one thing, but seeing all the cars from the stones is another.
* Something about keeping an eye on the road (re: Witney bypass thread)
Move or bury the road. If you want to visit the stones, go ahead and get out of your car and look at them properly. There isn't much to see, mind.
If you’ve seen them before and got bored of them then bully for you
The stones and the people at them have seen passers by for millenia. They are both part of the same landscape. Seeking to hide either part is selective, and in this case hides something from people - unless they go out of their way.
So an unexpected roundabout smacked badly in a dual carriageway is the same as seeing the Stones (or any view for that matter?), which although they came after the route, can hardly be described as recent or badly located! On those grounds we’ll presumably be covering the view of the Angel of the North?
