Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

c2R · Post by **c2R** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 22:02

I too think the view of the stones from the A303 is magnificent. I never tire of driving over the crest of the hill there to see the stones below me on the plane. I hope that stretch of road is kept as a bridalway or something (even if unsurfaced)so that in the future I can still enjoy that view by bike, or on horseback, or on foot... The first time I saw the stones, they were bathed in sunlight in the middle of a thunderstorm.
I think that they are amazing stones; but I do feel that the A303 should be diverted slightly away from them when it is widened; and I've got no real issues with those that want the road hidden in a cut and cover tunnel - HGVs don't really fit in with the desolate stones anyway - as long as the road gets widened.
Chris

jim · Post by **jim** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:27

Here's the info of the alternative routes considered by the Highways Agency
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/area/0 ... lternative

Derek · Post by **Derek** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:55

Bob << Ouch.>>
Sorry

Still, your light hearted comment stirred it up a bit which can't be a bad thing!
<<Yes, Stonehenge is obviously one of the world's most important monuments and should be preserved. But having visited it for the first time last summer, I have to say I was a bit unimpressed, and disappointed that I'd driven about 40 miles out of my way for a look. And then be fleeced by English Heritage or whoever it is for the experience.>>
Which is the problem, the setting for the stones is dire, mainly because the whole site is dominated by the two roads, although the visitor centre doesn't exactly help.
<<Peter is right, it's the environmental brigade which opposes allroads who are behind all this, and they won't be happy unless they get a tunnel of 3km or more - madness.>>
I'm not against the road being upgraded, it's clearly needed. However, I do believe that if you're going to build roads through sensitive places, then you should spend the money needed to reduce the impact of the road to an absolute minimum. It's not a good idea to subsidise the private car, the road haulage industryor the consumer societyby sacrificing our heritage, be it natural and man-made.
What I don't understand is whythe A303can't take a detour around the site - does anyone know why it has to follow the route it does?
In my view the problem has been caused by the short term piece-meal approach to upgrading the A303, as it was with Tyford Down on the M3. The road has been upgraded either side of the stones, leaving the "missing link" past the difficult bit. Had the route been properly planned in the first place, none of this needs tohave happened.
But it's not madness to want this job done right, the stones are totally unique and this is a chance to create something very special. Anyway, if we can afford to do some of the other things we've done as a country over the past year, we can afford to build a tunnel.
Derek

si404 · Post by **si404** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 13:34

i wonder why the southern routes, going along the A36 for a bit were rejected? if no direct access was provided to the old A303, and access to Stonehenge was via the A360 (so the new A303 would be the shortest route for long distance so a Black) then all the problems surrounding the site would have gone. I suppose cost is to blame, which is a shame as the A36 would also get an upgrade along part of it's route for 'free'.
Simon

Derek · Post by **Derek** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 13:51

Simon
<<I suppose cost is to blame,>>
It would have been cheaper than building the tunnel though, I'd have thought. It's interesting the item Jim posted about the alternatives didn't explain why they were rejected.
Strange...
Derek

jim · Post by **jim** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 14:47

"It's interesting the item Jim posted about the alternatives didn't explain why they were rejected."
.......er that's because I was at work and should of being others things rather than looking at SABRE!
I beleive the southern routes were rejected because they would in effect be a Sailsbury northern bypass which would lead to a whole host of other problems with the envirionmental lobby.
As for the northern routes they go near to several areas of housing and if the stick the local residents there are making about the proposed new Stonehenge Visitors Center at the Countess East roundabout thenI am sure the Highways Agency were frightened off by the NIMBY lobby. The tunnel just seemed the easiest option. Derek-in-Norwich is about right when he says;
"The road has been upgraded either side of the stones, leaving the "missing link" past the difficult bit. Had the route been properly planned in the first place, none of this needs tohave happened."
The tunnel does seem to be the best option howeverI would put it a little further to the south and of course make it longer. The main concern by the objectors is that the present scheme severs the route of the processional avenue from the River Avon to the Stones. an extra few hundred meters to the east would slove this problem.I beleive that this is the deal that will be 'thrashed' out after the Public Inquiry. A cynic would say that this has probably been 'decided' already its just the the Government and Highways Agency will make the environmentalists work for it so that they feel they have won something from the Inquiry.
One of the other issues is the lighting tunnel entrance portals which the protesters claim the resulting light pollution will inhibit the solstice celebrations. HoweverI amsure that I've read somewhere that smaller columns would be used. Similar to the ones by airports.
So the outcome a 3km tunnel and probably a bit of protesting.
Regards Jim

Bryn666 · Post by **Bryn666** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 15:13

Full cut off lanterns would result in light being thrown down onto the road with no light spill upwards whatsoever.
High mast columns would result in light pollution on a grand scale. One question though - why the hell are they considering HMCs on a rural dual carriageway?HMCs should only be used in urban areas (ie the M8) or on toll plazas. I don't recall any plans for a toll on the A303.
So where'd they get that idea from? You use small full cut offs as you approach the tunnel, making sure the light transition doesn't dazzle motorists.

Tastyfish · Post by **Tastyfish** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:15

Attached is an alternative option that would allow an 'at one with nature' experience pleasing both the environmentalists and the motorists. A happy compromise?
Attachment: 132kb
Stonehenge.jpg

PeterA5145 · Post by **PeterA5145** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:20

ROFLMAO

Peter

PeterA5145 · Post by **PeterA5145** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 11:07

I see Jim has a letter published in today's "Times"

Plans for a tunnel at Stonehenge
From Mr Jim Wishart

Sir, Ever since the concept of a tunnel to carry the main road past Stonehenge was mooted, I have been waiting for common sense to prevail. The opening of the public inquiry (report, February 18) seems to be the final step before driving this scar through the landscape.
All the tunnel will do is provide future archaeologists with evidence of the short-term nature of British society at the start of the 21st century. It will also show our lack of real respect for heritage, and the ability of governments to squander money.

The tunnel will dwarf this World Heritage site in scale and engineering complexity. It will need fans, pumps and lighting, all consuming fossil fuels.
Furthermore, within the lifetime of our offspring, the tunnel will become redundant, either because the volume of traffic will have grown so much that it will become a bottleneck, or because concepts in transport will have changed. The main road should be diverted away from the World Heritage site as a surface route. It may take a minute or two longer to travel, but it would be cheaper, adaptable in the future and removable if required.
Discussion about the length of the tunnel is irrelevant. It is the concept which is ludicrous.

Regards,
Peter

Derek · Post by **Derek** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 11:22

>>
Discussion about the length of the tunnel is irrelevant. It is the concept which is ludicrous.
>>
A very interesting letter Jim and the point is well made.
I don't know enough about the surrounding area to know if there's any serious objection to a detour, but it does seem to be the obvious solution really.
We have a saying here in Norwich - "If I wanted to go there, I wouldn't start from here". This is the situation we find ourselves in with the A303, as I said above, short sighted development and no long term plans have created this mess.
Derek

PeterA5145 · Post by **PeterA5145** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:12

<<I don't know enough about the surrounding area to know if there's any serious objection to a detour, but it does seem to be the obvious solution really.>>

The obvious solution from the map seems to be to combine a new route for the A303 running well south of Stonehenge with an A36 Salisbury northern bypass. This would also give far more new road per ? spent.

But I suspect the greenies would be up in arms about that too, particularly as a Salisbury bypass has already been rejected by the government.

As I have said in a previous message, there are compelling archaeological arguments for moving the main road well away from Stonehenge, but these are eagerly seized upon by people who just oppose new roads full stop.

If the A303 is fully dualled between Basingstoke and the M5 I can see a D2 tunnel (presumably with a 50 limit) rapidly becoming a bottleneck - particularlywhen there are accidents in the tunnel.

Regards,

Peter

t1(M) · Post by **t1(M)** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 13:00

Perhaps the 1922 committee had the right idea by sending the A30 through Salisbury, and the later creation of the A303 was a big mistake. I doubt if renumbering the A303 to its original hotch-potch of numbers would help though!
Even now, there is relatively little dual carriageway between Amesbury and Mere, so maybe a route further north, from the new Solstice Park junction near Bulford Camp (A3028) via Larkhill, Shrewton and the B390 and B3095 would be better. Given what the army have done to much of that part of Salisbury Plain, I can't see that a dual carriageway could spoil it much!

jim wishart · Post by **jim wishart** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 14:35

It is an interesting letter from a Jim Wishart but it is not this Jim Wishart!
jim wishart

jim · Post by **jim** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 07:01

Good letter, but it's not from me either.
One of the other major issues about the longer tunnel is what to do with the extra spoil. Again I am sure I read somewhere that it would be doposited somewhere in the area and as a result change the natural contours of the landscape = more ranting and raving by the environmeantal lobby.

"Furthermore, within the lifetime of our offspring, the tunnel will become redundant, either because the volume of traffic will have grown so much that it will become a bottleneck, or because concepts in transport will have changed. The main road should be diverted away from the World Heritage site as a surface route. It may take a minute or two longer to travel, but it would be cheaper, adaptable in the future and removable if required."
The letter does make a very interesting point about the life expectancy of the tunnel. considering Stonehenge has been arounf for some 3000+ years would the tunnel last that long?
Perhaps we do really need to go back and have a look at some of the other options.
Jim

A303ytfc · Post by **A303ytfc** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 08:10

A missed opportunity.

It could be done cheaper by making the A303 a flyover rather than dive-under
- the upright stones could be used to support the road deck.

Derek · Post by **Derek** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 08:56

>>
It could be done cheaper by making the A303 a flyover rather than dive-under
- the upright stones could be used to support the road deck.
>>
OUCH!!! Actually I was going to suggest that, but I thought better of it! It would keep the druids dry on midsummers day though.
Seriously though, these environmental concerns are valid and have been too often ignored in the past. Some of us may moan about the under investment in the road network, but it is important to realise that virtually everything we have has come in the past 50 years or so and that we've lost a lot as a result.
But as regards Stonehenge, apparently the problem with a northern diversion, which would be the least damaging option, is that the land is owned by the military. Can anyone confirm that?
Derek

Guy-Barry · Post by **Guy-Barry** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 09:07

A303ytfc: << It could be done cheaper by making the A303 a flyover rather than dive-under - the upright stones could be used to support the road deck. >>
So that's why they built Stonehenge! It all makes sense now.
The A303 is, of course,a great national monument which should be preserved at all costs. I propose moving the stones a few miles further south,or possibly putting them underground.
Failing that, a one-way system could be introduced on the A303, A360 and A344 which would make Stonehenge part of the biggest traffic island ever...
Guy
P.S. I actually saw the last proposal suggested, in all seriousness, in a letter to a newspaper once.

highwaymana31 · Post by **highwaymana31** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:35

A few bitsI gleanedfrom a recent (2004) newsletter I came across
1400+ objections been received since the Draft Orders and Environmental Statements were published last June. Many have already been dealt with or been withdrawn, the remainder to be addressed by the enquiry
In answer to those here that have suggested a route to the south. An outline design has been carried out on what is referred to as The Parker Route (clickhereto view). Also, a full environmental assessment is being coordinated for this.
This route will provide 33m of new dual carriageway. It should produce an interesting debatewhen balancing poor economic performance of such a route coupled with the landscape and archaeological impacts, against, the benefits to both Salisbury and Stonehenge this route would produce
Glenn

Derek · Post by **Derek** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:05

Interesting Highwayman. The site this comes from is the Save Stonehengesite. a southern detour really does seem the best option.
Derek