Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

[Jim606]

There has been some press reports about the funding arrangements for both the Stonehenge Tunnel and the Lower Thames Crossing. This article appeared in the New Civil Engineer magazine recently, although it is behind a paywall, I think we can get the idea that there isn't any money! More info however, can be found on this following article; transport-network.co.uk/MPs-call-for-cl ... emes/15695

MPs have called for clarity over funding for two major road projects after the Government confirmed that the schemes ‘sit outside’ the second Road Investment Strategy (RIS 2). The Department for Transport (DfT) has admitted that it does not yet have a funding solution for the muliti-billion pound Stonehenge Tunnel and Lower Thames Crossing schemes. The Public Accounts Committee said it is concerned that the Treasury and the DfT's ‘lack of a clear plan’ for what will replace PF2 (private finance) funding for the projects, ‘risks squeezing funding already allocated elsewhere.'

[Fluid Dynamics]

There has been some press reports about the funding arrangements for both the Stonehenge Tunnel and the Lower Thames Crossing. This article appeared in the New Civil Engineer magazine recently, although it is behind a paywall, I think we can get the idea that there isn't any money! More info however, can be found on this following article; transport-network.co.uk/MPs-call-for-cl ... emes/15695

MPs have called for clarity over funding for two major road projects after the Government confirmed that the schemes ‘sit outside’ the second Road Investment Strategy (RIS 2). The Department for Transport (DfT) has admitted that it does not yet have a funding solution for the muliti-billion pound Stonehenge Tunnel and Lower Thames Crossing schemes. The Public Accounts Committee said it is concerned that the Treasury and the DfT's ‘lack of a clear plan’ for what will replace PF2 (private finance) funding for the projects, ‘risks squeezing funding already allocated elsewhere.'

Isn’t part of the issue that with Brexit dominating Parliamentary proceedings we are still awaiting a new comprehensive spending review to set out Government funding priorities into the next decade. It’s not that the money isn’t necessarily there, but that the settlement hasn’t been agreed?

I assume the Lower Thames Crossing will be Toll funded?

[Jim606]

Isn’t part of the issue that with Brexit dominating Parliamentary proceedings we are still awaiting a new comprehensive spending review to set out Government funding priorities into the next decade. It’s not that the money isn’t necessarily there, but that the settlement hasn’t been agreed?
I assume the Lower Thames Crossing will be Toll funded?

As far as I am aware, the government decided that Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes didn't represent good value for money. These two schemes are at the end of that and are probably too far advance to be scrapped. The government no doubt will just have to find the money from somewhere else.

[alans]

From 2020 all VED is to be ring-fenced for highway expenditure,which amounts to around £25b over 5 years.This represents an increase of £10b over 5 years from the current 5 year spend,so I'm rather surprised they are saying there is not the funding available for Stonehenge and the LTC without PFI.
Does this mean that there will be a large increase in expenditure on schemes other than S/H and LTC ? I know there is a lot of work in the pipeline but these 2 schemes have been on the cards for quite a few years now and the funding availability for them must have been known before now.


https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet- ... ds-funding

[Jim606]

The project has now moved onto the main examination stage with the first meeting planned for 2nd April 2019 infrastructure.planninginspectorate/a303-stonehenge/

[jackal]

PFI would've meant these schemes being built and serviced by a Special Purpose Vehicle (private consortium) over 25-30 years, with central government paying them over the same period. There is no difficulty for the government to arrange essentially the same structure 'in-house', i.e. issue their own debt to build the scheme, service it themselves, and pay off the debt over subsequent decades. This should cost the exchequer no more, and perhaps less if the ineffeciency of PFI is to be believed.

Perhaps the difficulty is that the exchequer doesn't want to take billions of extra debt onto their balance book, because it's not a good political look. But that is the whole point of abolishing PFI - to have debt obligations transparent, rather than hidden in PFI agreements, which generates perverse incentives. As they will have already budgeted for the PFI, the budget should already be there for the non-PFI debt repayments. Surely raiding the RIS2 budget would be a worse look than simply converting the planned obligations to the SPV into public debt obligations.

[Bryn666]

My inner cynic says they'll find an excuse to abandon the schemes again, having ensured that close political friends have profiteered first without actually delivering anything.

[Berk]

If they dare to pull out, there will be a MASSIVE amount of egg on face. I think hopes and stakes have been raised this time around like never before.

[Norfolktolancashire]

If they dare to pull out, there will be a MASSIVE amount of egg on face. I think hopes and stakes have been raised this time around like never before.

I love eggs with my stake

Seriously I have thought that this scheme will be suspended/abandoned due to lack of political motivation, let alone the cost of trying to police protests if the works start. It's odd that the scheme for the other end of the A303 upgrade, the Taunton to Southfields scheme, is also dragging its heels.

[Berk]

No, that’s where I think this is different. There is political motivation - at the moment.

Whether it would remain in the face of unforeseen difficulties or costs is anyone’s guess.

[A320Driver]

Construction scheduled for 2021/2, so as long as the Tories hang on until then (scheduled election in 2022)...

Decision by Planning Inspectorate due by October, so it’s probably a year from now before we get a final decision from the government.

[multiraider2]

A road cobbled together over 80 year ago and having 50 plus years of dualling and bypassing decisions being made for it based on the "easy kills". The difficult-to-do bits being shunted off to one side until it's somebody else's problem.

The expense and opposition to it means it won't happen in my lifetime. Sorry.

[Berk]

The thing is, back in the 80s and 90s that’s where we were. There have been countless studies since then showing exactly what the geological and archaeological issues are, so now it should be relatively straightforward to build.

Plus we now have the support of Historic England and the National Trust - previously, without their support the scheme could not possibly go ahead.

[jackal]

There's no groundswell of opposition to the Stonehenge scheme. Labour hate anything the govt do - not a peep on this. Even the recentish Guardian article was pretty balanced. Several expressway sections of the A303 were built in the 90s, when the political and regulatory environment for roadbuilding was much more hostile than it is now (think Welsh-style public inquiries).

The only way I see it getting cancelled is from a change of govt, because new govts like to cancel infrastructure projects as a FU to the ancien regime, regardless of what they think of the scheme. It's possible, especially if the construction schedule slides further, beyond the 2022 election. But the idea it's going to get canned by this government because of a few archaeologists or Swampy types is a holdover from the 90s that doesn't reflect the current reality.

The funding issue is potentially more a problem for speculative late RIS2/RIS3 schemes. I don't see shovel ready schemes like Stonehenge or the LTC, which the govt have invested a lot of political capital in, getting dropped when there would be the far easier solution of dumping the likes of Manchester NW Quadrant, which no one outside of SABRE and The Bolton News has even heard of.

[si404]

There's no groundswell of opposition to the Stonehenge scheme.

The opposition is rather quiet currently, because nothing much is happening currently.

Plus we now have the support of Historic England and the National Trust - previously, without their support the scheme could not possibly go ahead.

UNESCO removing World Heritage Site status, as they have threatened should the scheme go forward with its current design, ought to leave Historic England and the National Trust rather embarrassed by their support for the scheme. But it seems like they have no shame on that front.

It'll look (and already does look) like only caring about the bits they own, and about making money - support a scheme that stops people getting a look at some of their prize assets without paying to visit the visitors centre, and not caring about it taking out some of the richest archeological sites of the landscape (that neither HE or NT own) to make cuttings and tunnel portals.

HE and NT supported the scheme before the recentish tweaks that saw the tunnel portal's impact on seeing solstice sunrise/set from the stones reduced - they didn't even that concerned about preserving one of the most famous things about the henge itself!

And it's not as if UNESCO are being unreasonable and demanding a ton of money be spent or a less economically viable scheme - they are pushing for the cheaper (by £400m) southern bypass option that has a similar cost-benefit ratio.

[Berk]

But we know that a southern route is a non-starter. The 2006 report spells that out.

And it’s also a case of how far south do you want to go?? You would be talking about a route much closer to Salisbury, and the A303 mainline would end up mirroring the A36 some of the way.

That’s not going to happen either.

[si404]

But we know that a southern route is a non-starter. The 2006 report spells that out.

So what was it still doing being considered as the main alternative to the tunnel 10 years later (cf Jan 2017 option selection report) if it had already been ruled out as a possibility?

[jackal]

There's a consultation in June on PFI. It seems that the new funding model will involve private finance in some way.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest ... 77.article

[Scratchwood]

There has been some press reports about the funding arrangements for both the Stonehenge Tunnel and the Lower Thames Crossing. This article appeared in the New Civil Engineer magazine recently, although it is behind a paywall, I think we can get the idea that there isn't any money! More info however, can be found on this following article; transport-network.co.uk/MPs-call-for-cl ... emes/15695

MPs have called for clarity over funding for two major road projects after the Government confirmed that the schemes ‘sit outside’ the second Road Investment Strategy (RIS 2). The Department for Transport (DfT) has admitted that it does not yet have a funding solution for the muliti-billion pound Stonehenge Tunnel and Lower Thames Crossing schemes. The Public Accounts Committee said it is concerned that the Treasury and the DfT's ‘lack of a clear plan’ for what will replace PF2 (private finance) funding for the projects, ‘risks squeezing funding already allocated elsewhere.'

Isn’t part of the issue that with Brexit dominating Parliamentary proceedings we are still awaiting a new comprehensive spending review to set out Government funding priorities into the next decade. It’s not that the money isn’t necessarily there, but that the settlement hasn’t been agreed?

I assume the Lower Thames Crossing will be Toll funded?

The Lower Thames Crossing is different as it will be Toll funded and indeed is already toll funded, when you consider that the tolls to pay off the QE2 bridge were never stopped once it was paid for

[Berk]

But we know that a southern route is a non-starter. The 2006 report spells that out.

So what was it still doing being considered as the main alternative to the tunnel 10 years later (cf Jan 2017 option selection report) if it had already been ruled out as a possibility?

Perhaps as one of those
wildcard options that always gets rejected??