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
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 »

Herned wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 08:40
The point about a mid tunnel vent is that it would be right in the middle of the site and completely undesirable.
Exactly - so its not an option and the ventilation system will be more costly.

The point is a lack of a mid point ventilation power in no way prevents a tunnel being built and (2) ventilation systems for long tunnels without intermediate vent shafts have been around for decades so its hardly some sort of novel thing to purchase let alone something new to design from scratch (both of which could be considered practical engineering probems).

Thus its simply a question of money - End of.
Herned wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 08:40
I don't see how it can be argued that this is being done on the cheap, without the WHS the road could easily be dualled broadly online - the tunnel is entirely to protect the heritage and remove the road from the landscape. I would be interested to see what public opinion thought about spending another £500m to protect a few hundred metres of open field.
Doing it 'on the cheap' is relative

At Twyford Down the cutting was still expensive to build.

However the pass public protests and subsequent seismic shift in the attitudes of the previously supportive middle class conservative supporting public tell a different story. For them it WAS 'done on the cheap' as the significantly more expensive tunnelled option was seen preferable even if it did cost a lot more.

You could also look at situations like Hindhead on the A3 or Southwick on the A27. Contrary to what you might think the National Trust does NOT hold a veto over road schemes - just as with Stonehenge if the SST really really wanted they could have forced through a surface route at a much lower cost in both places.

The A27 tunnel at Southwick is particularly relevant as that simply passes 'under a field' (without any significant arcology, etc) as you put it and a simple cutting would have been a lot cheaper to build and maintain.

The reason they didn't is because the membership of the national trust vastly outweighs the number of political party members put together and as such the membership is a potent political force. If the NT are sidelined and their wishes are disregarded than that vast membership will be mobilised creating a deluge of protests to MPs and a very real threat to the governing party at the Ballot box.

Combine that with the Post Twyford down effects on pro driving the middle classes you have a poisonous brew that Ministers are usually keen to avoid creating. Hence the Southwick and Hindhead improvements were not bought forward until ministers were sure the proposed schemes had the NT onside and they could turn around and say to an increasingly hostile public that the schemes were the best they could be with no expense spared.

So, to turn back to Stonehenge - if you have highly respected international / national bodies turning round saying the scheme still causes great harm to the WHS it kicks some of the legs out from under ministers and paves the way for critics of the scheme to tap into that middle class anti-roads sentiment which was so unwisely released over two decades ago at Twyford Down making things that much harder and potentially significant political implications at the ballot box.

Hence the smart move would NOT be to simply resubmit the scheme as is - but spend more cash and tweak the scheme with a view to getting those hostile organisations on board.

Then when in subsequent years the DfT finally get round to addressing things like Sheffield - Manchester road provision they can then turn round and hold up the Stonehenge scheme as a perfect example of why they can be trusted to do a good job by an increasingly environmentally aware and anti-roads public....

Think of Stonehenge as a long term investment in the ability of UK Governments to engage in road building across sensitive areas in the coming decades where the payback is not simply and improved A303 at Stonehenge itself - but a UK road network without huge gaps / bottlenecks the minute a road encounters sensitive terrain..
fras
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by fras »

I've been looking at the leaflet on the HE proposal. Yes, the east tunnel portal is where the existing dual-carriageway finishes just past Amesbury. Surely one cannot argue the tunnel should start further east, when there is a dual-carriageway road there already ? As for the western end, it would not be too difficult I would think, to extend the tunnel a bit further west to exit near the A360 roundabout, then carry on with the current proposals. The trouble is the maps don't give the vertical alignment like the HS2 1:10000 maps do, so its difficult to assess the feasibility, but the cutting is quite deep looking at the pictures, so it would seem so.
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by JammyDodge »

fras wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 18:46 I've been looking at the leaflet on the HE proposal. Yes, the east tunnel portal is where the existing dual-carriageway finishes just past Amesbury. Surely one cannot argue the tunnel should start further east, when there is a dual-carriageway road there already ? As for the western end, it would not be too difficult I would think, to extend the tunnel a bit further west to exit near the A360 roundabout, then carry on with the current proposals. The trouble is the maps don't give the vertical alignment like the HS2 1:10000 maps do, so its difficult to assess the feasibility, but the cutting is quite deep looking at the pictures, so it would seem so.
Here is a link for the vertical

If a longer bored tunnel was to be reconsidered, HE would need to move the Long barrow junction west around 200m for the portals to be outside the WHS
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
User avatar
solocle
Member
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by solocle »

Phil wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 18:23
Herned wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 08:40
The point about a mid tunnel vent is that it would be right in the middle of the site and completely undesirable.
Exactly - so its not an option and the ventilation system will be more costly.

The point is a lack of a mid point ventilation power in no way prevents a tunnel being built and (2) ventilation systems for long tunnels without intermediate vent shafts have been around for decades so its hardly some sort of novel thing to purchase let alone something new to design from scratch (both of which could be considered practical engineering probems).

Thus its simply a question of money - End of.
Herned wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 08:40
I don't see how it can be argued that this is being done on the cheap, without the WHS the road could easily be dualled broadly online - the tunnel is entirely to protect the heritage and remove the road from the landscape. I would be interested to see what public opinion thought about spending another £500m to protect a few hundred metres of open field.
Doing it 'on the cheap' is relative

At Twyford Down the cutting was still expensive to build.

However the pass public protests and subsequent seismic shift in the attitudes of the previously supportive middle class conservative supporting public tell a different story. For them it WAS 'done on the cheap' as the significantly more expensive tunnelled option was seen preferable even if it did cost a lot more.

You could also look at situations like Hindhead on the A3 or Southwick on the A27. Contrary to what you might think the National Trust does NOT hold a veto over road schemes - just as with Stonehenge if the SST really really wanted they could have forced through a surface route at a much lower cost in both places.

The A27 tunnel at Southwick is particularly relevant as that simply passes 'under a field' (without any significant arcology, etc) as you put it and a simple cutting would have been a lot cheaper to build and maintain.

The reason they didn't is because the membership of the national trust vastly outweighs the number of political party members put together and as such the membership is a potent political force. If the NT are sidelined and their wishes are disregarded than that vast membership will be mobilised creating a deluge of protests to MPs and a very real threat to the governing party at the Ballot box.

Combine that with the Post Twyford down effects on pro driving the middle classes you have a poisonous brew that Ministers are usually keen to avoid creating. Hence the Southwick and Hindhead improvements were not bought forward until ministers were sure the proposed schemes had the NT onside and they could turn around and say to an increasingly hostile public that the schemes were the best they could be with no expense spared.

So, to turn back to Stonehenge - if you have highly respected international / national bodies turning round saying the scheme still causes great harm to the WHS it kicks some of the legs out from under ministers and paves the way for critics of the scheme to tap into that middle class anti-roads sentiment which was so unwisely released over two decades ago at Twyford Down making things that much harder and potentially significant political implications at the ballot box.

Hence the smart move would NOT be to simply resubmit the scheme as is - but spend more cash and tweak the scheme with a view to getting those hostile organisations on board.

Then when in subsequent years the DfT finally get round to addressing things like Sheffield - Manchester road provision they can then turn round and hold up the Stonehenge scheme as a perfect example of why they can be trusted to do a good job by an increasingly environmentally aware and anti-roads public....

Think of Stonehenge as a long term investment in the ability of UK Governments to engage in road building across sensitive areas in the coming decades where the payback is not simply and improved A303 at Stonehenge itself - but a UK road network without huge gaps / bottlenecks the minute a road encounters sensitive terrain..
Exactly - the procedures and legal hoops are there, because they've been put in place by the government. Not this government, but the government.

If this were the era of Henry VIII, you could issue a Royal Decree that "thou shalst demolish ye Stonehenge to constructe mine motorway". Parliament effectively has that power, especially with the government on side.

But to do so would be political suicide, of course. Equally, the government could pass primary legislation to decree that the A303 tunnel shall be built, regardless of the process. But, while lesser in magnitude, it would still be political folly.

Although as for Sheffield-Manchester, an entirely new construction is just going to create induced demand, and probably overload other parts of the network. I'd suggest an investment in trans-pennine rail instead.
fras
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by fras »

JammyDodge wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 19:59
fras wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 18:46 I've been looking at the leaflet on the HE proposal. Yes, the east tunnel portal is where the existing dual-carriageway finishes just past Amesbury. Surely one cannot argue the tunnel should start further east, when there is a dual-carriageway road there already ? As for the western end, it would not be too difficult I would think, to extend the tunnel a bit further west to exit near the A360 roundabout, then carry on with the current proposals. The trouble is the maps don't give the vertical alignment like the HS2 1:10000 maps do, so its difficult to assess the feasibility, but the cutting is quite deep looking at the pictures, so it would seem so.
Here is a link for the vertical

If a longer bored tunnel was to be reconsidered, HE would need to move the Long barrow junction west around 200m for the portals to be outside the WHS
So it's easy-peasy then; extend cut-and-cover tunnel 1E at the west end to replace the cutting. Sorry to sound glib as I'm sure it's not quite as easy as that.
Mind you, according to HE, the tunnel is not dead, and the government now just need to "go through the motions" to satisfy the judgment. Well, maybe !
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 »

Phil wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 18:23 You could also look at situations like Hindhead on the A3 or Southwick on the A27. Contrary to what you might think the National Trust does NOT hold a veto over road schemes - just as with Stonehenge if the SST really really wanted they could have forced through a surface route at a much lower cost in both places.
It can refuse to let any of its land be used as NT owned land may be declared inalienable.
https://users.aber.ac.uk/dip/modules/corgs/lnotes/nat_trust/lnotes/national_trust.htm wrote: The National Trust is a major force in countryside management. In part this is simply because of the very large and uniquely diverse area of land that it owns. The Trust provides employment for many (and work experience opportunities) and as well as the properties that are accessible on payment of an admission charge the Trust also owns very large areas of land that offer freedom to roam. The Trust is the largest landowner in the National Parks and owns very large stretches of some of the most beautiful coastline.

However what really makes the NT worthy of consideration separately from the other countryside conservation, heritage and amenity charities is the unique position of the Trust which has a number of Acts of Parliament which have been passed specifically to aid it in its work. Under the National Trust Act (1907) and the National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Acts 1935 and 1938 their holdings can be declared inalienable which means they cannot be sold, mortgaged or even compulsorily purchased by the government (without a debate in Parliament). It should be emphasised that not all of the land held by the Trust is declared inalienable, this is confined to the most important properties, in the case of the classic large country houses and their surrounding estates it is often the house and gardens that are declared inalienable while the surrounding farmland is not given that status (for reasons described below).
In the case of Hindhead a lot of negotiation resulted in the NT relinquishing the land in return for extensive remediation of the old road and consultation about the detailed design which included extending the tunnel.
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/featur ... ead-common


As for the Southwick Hill tunnel see
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ind ... ill_Tunnel

From the SABRE Wiki: Southwick Hill Tunnel :

The Southwick Hill Tunnel is a twin-bore tunnel opened in on 18th March 1996, forming the final part of the A27 Brighton and Hove Bypass.


It was opened both over-budget and late due to poor weather and difficult ground conditions. The tunnel was built in preference to a cutting due to the area of land above it belonging to the National Trust and a desire to see the hill preserved. Before work commenced extensive archealogical digs were undertaken. Due to the tunnel this section

... Read More
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Chris5156 »

fras wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 21:01So it's easy-peasy then; extend cut-and-cover tunnel 1E at the west end to replace the cutting. Sorry to sound glib as I'm sure it's not quite as easy as that.
Designing a longer tunnel and adjusting the location of the Longbarrow junction is easy peasy, in as much as revising the design of a massive road project is ever easy peasy. It will be months of work and it will cost money and time, but it's a practical job that can be done if the will is there.

The less easy peasy bit is financing it. Extending the tunnel will massively increase the cost of the project and the cost is already an issue, because this one upgrade of a few miles of A303 is eating an enormous hole in the roads budget for the next five years. If you want a longer tunnel at Stonehenge you need to choose what other project or projects you wish to abandon.

The fairest thing to do, in terms of spreading investment across the UK, would be to cancel another scheme in the south west of England. Big ticket items in this part of the UK that might pay for a longer Stonehenge tunnel include the A27 Arundel Bypass, the M3 J9 upgrade and the A358 Taunton to Southfields dualling. What do we throw under the bus for a longer Stonehenge tunnel?
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

fras wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 21:01 So it's easy-peasy then; extend cut-and-cover tunnel 1E at the west end to replace the cutting. Sorry to sound glib as I'm sure it's not quite as easy as that.
Mind you, according to HE, the tunnel is not dead, and the government now just need to "go through the motions" to satisfy the judgment. Well, maybe !
No, as an additional point to Chris' very good points above, extending the cut and cover section is not a solution as the "cut" bit is the fundamental problem.

That being said, the National Trust and English Heritage support the tunnel as-is, and in 2007 UNESCO were very disappointed that the previously proposed tunnel was cancelled. Odd how a shorter tunnel was fine then but isn't now. But they are very inconsistent, objecting to this tunnel but a metro station literally next to the Colosseum is fine.
User avatar
Barkstar
Member
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 16:32

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Barkstar »

Phil wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 18:23 The reason they didn't is because the membership of the national trust vastly outweighs the number of political party members put together and as such the membership is a potent political force. If the NT are sidelined and their wishes are disregarded than that vast membership will be mobilised creating a deluge of protests to MPs and a very real threat to the governing party at the Ballot box.
Am I the only one who is a little disquieted by the power that the NT wield in their name only. They certainly aren't all nice gardens and cream teas and can be draconian bullies when it suits their aims.
User avatar
hoagy_ytfc
Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 00:10

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by hoagy_ytfc »

A320Driver wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 17:50
Herned wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:44
Bryn666 wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:25 If there's a whacking great D2 there, then that is lost. But hey, it's only history, who gives a f*** when we can shift cars to Cornwall quicker.
Why do you keep going on about it being to do with Cornwall? I would be astonished if more than 5% of the annual traffic was going to Cornwall.
Indeed, we get your point but please stop banging on about it, it’s tedious, and an offence to anyone who lives or works south of the A303 and west of Salisbury, as the road is the main link to the south east.
Yup. It’s an even dumber idea that the one we get from people who say HS2 is about “saving a few minutes to Birmingham”.
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 »

Chris5156 wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 23:53 The fairest thing to do, in terms of spreading investment across the UK, would be to cancel another scheme in the south west of England. Big ticket items in this part of the UK that might pay for a longer Stonehenge tunnel include the A27 Arundel Bypass, the M3 J9 upgrade and the A358 Taunton to Southfields dualling. What do we throw under the bus for a longer Stonehenge tunnel?
Only the A358 is within the defined south west region. Stonehenge is one of very few major schemes in the region which is generally devoid of investment precisely because it is so far away from the capital and also because, out of season, not that many vehicles travel the trunk routes compared to the more densely populated south east. Now with "levelling up" in mind that should really mean one of the more populous and affluent areas should have their schemes "thrown under the bus". Delay or can the LTC anyone?
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Chris5156 »

RichardA35 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 06:42
Chris5156 wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 23:53 The fairest thing to do, in terms of spreading investment across the UK, would be to cancel another scheme in the south west of England. Big ticket items in this part of the UK that might pay for a longer Stonehenge tunnel include the A27 Arundel Bypass, the M3 J9 upgrade and the A358 Taunton to Southfields dualling. What do we throw under the bus for a longer Stonehenge tunnel?
Only the A358 is within the defined south west region. Stonehenge is one of very few major schemes in the region which is generally devoid of investment precisely because it is so far away from the capital and also because, out of season, not that many vehicles travel the trunk routes compared to the more densely populated south east. Now with "levelling up" in mind that should really mean one of the more populous and affluent areas should have their schemes "thrown under the bus". Delay or can the LTC anyone?
Yes, you're quite right - I pulled those three from the list of schemes in the RIS2 policy document where they are all grouped under the heading "south and west". If you were to narrow it down to the South West region then the options are very few indeed - you basically have the other A303/A358 projects, a bit of widening on the A31 near Ringwood, and the A30 scheme in Cornwall which has already started on site.

Since fras is in the North West perhaps he'll volunteer the M60 J18 Simister Island improvement for cancellation, or the A628/A57 Mottram Moor bypass :wink:

In all seriousness, though - the Treasury were, at one time, pressed to fund Stonehenge as a special project, and refused, so the money is now coming from RIS2 and that caused a whole slew of other projects (mostly in Yorkshire) to be delayed to RIS3. There's no guarantee they will actually appear in RIS3 either - that's all still up for grabs. Extending the tunnel will require more money, and that too will have to come from the budget for RIS2. At this stage the number of schemes that a) are high-value enough to pay for the extra work, and b) could still be cancelled because they haven't yet started, is limited. So changes to the project at this stage cannot be made lightly.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

A plan for a road tunnel near Stonehenge will continue Highways England has said, despite opponents winning a High Court battle last week.

The government-owned company said it would proceed with handing out construction contracts for the scheme.

The £1.7bn project aims to reduce traffic on the A303 and includes a two-mile (3.2km) tunnel near the monument.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps approved the scheme last year, but a judge ruled that it was "unlawful".

Highways England is expected to announce who has won the contracts early next year, with three bids having been submitted.
As no new tender will be issued it seems that, as expected, there won't be much if any change to the scheme design. However, as also expected, it seems likely there will be a bit of slippage in the schedule:
preparatory work, including archaeological studies, which had been scheduled to begin this summer, have been postponed.

David Bullock, Highways England's project manager for the scheme, said that while they are waiting for the Department for Transport to consider its options, they would be continuing the process to appoint a contractor.

"We have now paused our plans to carry out early, preparatory work, but the procurement process is very much live to ensure we maintain programme timescales as best as possible," he said.

"We still believe our project is the best solution to the ongoing issues along the A303 past Stonehenge," he added.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-58092117
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 »

fras wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 18:46 I've been looking at the leaflet on the HE proposal. Yes, the east tunnel portal is where the existing dual-carriageway finishes just past Amesbury. Surely one cannot argue the tunnel should start further east, when there is a dual-carriageway road there already ? As for the western end, it would not be too difficult I would think, to extend the tunnel a bit further west to exit near the A360 roundabout, then carry on with the current proposals. The trouble is the maps don't give the vertical alignment like the HS2 1:10000 maps do, so its difficult to assess the feasibility, but the cutting is quite deep looking at the pictures, so it would seem so.
NONE of the stakeholders have any significant problem with the Eastern tunnel portal and its impact on the WHS! Look through all the documentary evidance including HEs own documents and you will see that as clear as day.

The ONLY area which is still controversial is the WESTERN portal and associated cutting, which at least two important stakeholders say is extremely harmful to the WHS

The issue with extending the tunnel in place of the cutting is not its feasibility (engineering wise is easy peasy),its the fact that its going to cost a lot more money - not only for the physically longer tunnel but also because the ventilation system has be be more a more sophisticated one so as to avoid the vent shaft that a bog standard system would need half way along.
fras
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by fras »

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.
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 »

fras wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 09:51 ….also charge EH and NT members the bond fee. At present they get in free of charge as part of the membership fee.
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
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardA35 »

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/
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 »

Chris5156 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 06:48
RichardA35 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 06:42
Chris5156 wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 23:53 The fairest thing to do, in terms of spreading investment across the UK, would be to cancel another scheme in the south west of England. Big ticket items in this part of the UK that might pay for a longer Stonehenge tunnel include the A27 Arundel Bypass, the M3 J9 upgrade and the A358 Taunton to Southfields dualling. What do we throw under the bus for a longer Stonehenge tunnel?
Only the A358 is within the defined south west region. Stonehenge is one of very few major schemes in the region which is generally devoid of investment precisely because it is so far away from the capital and also because, out of season, not that many vehicles travel the trunk routes compared to the more densely populated south east. Now with "levelling up" in mind that should really mean one of the more populous and affluent areas should have their schemes "thrown under the bus". Delay or can the LTC anyone?
Yes, you're quite right - I pulled those three from the list of schemes in the RIS2 policy document where they are all grouped under the heading "south and west". If you were to narrow it down to the South West region then the options are very few indeed - you basically have the other A303/A358 projects, a bit of widening on the A31 near Ringwood, and the A30 scheme in Cornwall which has already started on site.

Since fras is in the North West perhaps he'll volunteer the M60 J18 Simister Island improvement for cancellation, or the A628/A57 Mottram Moor bypass :wink:

In all seriousness, though - the Treasury were, at one time, pressed to fund Stonehenge as a special project, and refused, so the money is now coming from RIS2 and that caused a whole slew of other projects (mostly in Yorkshire) to be delayed to RIS3. There's no guarantee they will actually appear in RIS3 either - that's all still up for grabs. Extending the tunnel will require more money, and that too will have to come from the budget for RIS2. At this stage the number of schemes that a) are high-value enough to pay for the extra work, and b) could still be cancelled because they haven't yet started, is limited. So changes to the project at this stage cannot be made lightly.
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.

It's a nice to have project, which is why it needs to be done properly. Providing a fudge fix that the affected parties around the WHS have explicitly said they don't want is the fastest way to ensure we never build a road again.
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 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".
NICK 647063
Member
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 17:48
Location: Leeds

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by NICK 647063 »

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.
Post Reply