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.
Doing it 'on the cheap' is relativeHerned 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.
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..