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
User avatar
Bryn666
Social Media Admin
Posts: 27936
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 » Sun Jan 12, 2020 14:53

Chris5156 wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 13:50
someone wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:51
Chris5156 wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:19
HE's "expressway" standard isn't in DMRB.
"Requirements for new and upgraded all-purpose trunk roads (expressways)" is volume 0, section 2 part 5 of DMRB, contained in document GD 300. Expressways are grade separated at all delivery levels.
I stand corrected! Hadn't seen this at all. Thank you.
Yet all that document does is effectively redirect you to existing chapters where design standards for GSJs have been in place for decades. Could we have some plain English as well instead of drivel like "enhancing community cohesion" which is typical HE corporate speak to make keeping an existing ROW accessible as some kind of improvement when it is actually a legal requirement unless there are very good grounds to do otherwise.

Talk about jobs for the boys...
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
The key to success is not to be good at your job, but to be good at stopping others from being good at theirs.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

jervi
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: Haywards Heath

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jervi » Sun Jan 12, 2020 15:01

someone wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:51
Chris5156 wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:19
HE's "expressway" standard isn't in DMRB.
"Requirements for new and upgraded all-purpose trunk roads (expressways)" is volume 0, section 2 part 5 of DMRB, contained in document GD 300. Expressways are grade separated at all delivery levels.
Oh wow, didn't think they created this yet. Just gave it a quick read and right at the top on E1.1 (3) it says that "the scheme or corridor either connects to a motorway or has a length that exceeds 10 miles with terminal junctions that intersect with the edge of an urban area or major transport hub.". So that answers the question. Since this scheme is only about 7 miles long, it cannot be given the "expressway" designation straight off the bat.
Although I am a little confused about the wording, is it saying that if it doesn't connect to a motorway is has to be more the 10 miles AND terminate at the edge of urban area/major transport hub? Or is it saying has to be at least 10 miles with an end (one end or both ends?) of the designation being at the edge of an urban area/major transport hub?
And what if it is less than 10 miles and connects onto an expressway, not a motorway? Is that allowed or not?

User avatar
MotorwayPlannerM21
Member
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 19:08
Location: Walderslade, Kent
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by MotorwayPlannerM21 » Sun Jan 12, 2020 16:06

jervi wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 15:01
Just gave it a quick read and right at the top on E1.1 (3) it says that "the scheme or corridor either connects to a motorway or has a length that exceeds 10 miles with terminal junctions that intersect with the edge of an urban area or major transport hub.". So that answers the question. Since this scheme is only about 7 miles long, it cannot be given the "expressway" designation straight off the bat.
That is talking specifically about it being a motorway. I guess it's to ensure that there aren't any isolated motorways built for no reason.
GD 300 Requirements for new and upgraded all-purpose trunk roads (expressways) wrote:E/1.1 Motorway designation of an expressway scheme or corridor shall only be implemented when:
1) a decision in support of motorway designation has been made by the Overseeing Organisation in
conjunction with the DfT;
2) the requirements of this document have been met;
3) the scheme or corridor either connects to a motorway or has a length that exceeds 10 miles with
terminal junctions that intersect with the edge of an urban area or major transport hub.
jervi wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 15:01
And what if it is less than 10 miles and connects onto an expressway, not a motorway? Is that allowed or not?
If said expressway is a motorway, then yes, otherwise, no, it cannot be classed as a motorway. It is still an expressway though.
"All roads lead to Rome"
What about the M25?

The A205 - The road to... oh wait I should've turned right back there!

User avatar
Jim606
Member
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:11

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Jim606 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 13:49

jackal wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 09:58
A320Driver wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 08:57
I reckon this scheme will get the go-ahead. Boris was answering a question from a Cornwall MP during PMQs this week - he said that “we’re improving the A303, you name it” in terms of unlocking economic development for the south west. I assume construction still wouldn’t start until next year though?

Or are we going to have to wait for RIS2 in April?
Yes, they hope to start construction in 2021. The decision is due by 2 April. There doesn't seem to be opposition beyond the usual suspects and I expect it'll go ahead.
Yes, your right, we'll certainly get a decision by 2 April and depending on funding the scheme is likely to start in 2021, as noted. Apart, from 'the usual suspects', The National Farmers Union (NFU) has objected to the location of the tunnel spoil dump due to loss of arable land. Plus, they have rightly commented about the lack of any new crossing along the line of A360 around the Longbarrow Junction. This section of road was to become a direct bridleway. Green Bridge no.4 however, was moved further into the World Heritage Site (WHS) to cover more of the western tunnel approach cutting on the previous consultation. It will be interesting to see what amendments (if any?) the examiners have made in their report?

User avatar
thatapanydude
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 21:35
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by thatapanydude » Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:07

This interesting article has come up on my FT today. The gist of it is while Shapps wants the scheme to go ahead he is getting push back from the treasury on the 2bn costs. It seems like some ministers (not Shapps) think that the M4/M5 should be the route to the S.West?

Hopefully the tunnel will get the go ahead, otherwise it would be a catastrophe for any chances of dualling the A303 to Honiton.
A1/A1(M) >>> M1

A320Driver
Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 19:11
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by A320Driver » Sun Jan 19, 2020 22:28

The Treasury have never been keen on this scheme, way back in 2007 when the cost spiralled from £470m to £1.4bn it was scrapped, and more recently since its revival in 2013/4 the stated CBA has been marginal.
It is a one-off scheme, let’s get it built now while there is the general political will to do so.
Formerly ‘guvvaA303’

fras
Member
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by fras » Mon Jan 20, 2020 00:00

Do the Treasury ever wholeheartedly accept
any
scheme ? I suspect every single scheme put in front of them is either only grudgingly accepted, or rejected outright. Their "rules" have meant that almost all significant schemes have inevitably been in the South East of England.

User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 8905
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Berk » Mon Jan 20, 2020 03:35

Something like. You have to ask, if the original M1 and M6 plans had been subjected to BCR rules, would they ever have been built??

Probably not, they’d have been scrapped, and “just improved the A5” instead.

matt-thepie
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 16:03
Location: Portsmouth

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by matt-thepie » Mon Jan 20, 2020 09:41

fras wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 00:00
Do the Treasury ever wholeheartedly accept
any
scheme ? I suspect every single scheme put in front of them is either only grudgingly accepted, or rejected outright. Their "rules" have meant that almost all significant schemes have inevitably been in the South East of England.
Have they? The most recent Motorways constructed have been in the North.

User avatar
Bryn666
Social Media Admin
Posts: 27936
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:00

matt-thepie wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 09:41
fras wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 00:00
Do the Treasury ever wholeheartedly accept
any
scheme ? I suspect every single scheme put in front of them is either only grudgingly accepted, or rejected outright. Their "rules" have meant that almost all significant schemes have inevitably been in the South East of England.
Have they? The most recent Motorways constructed have been in the North.
Also the A6 Broughton, A533 Mersey Gateway, A555, A556 Knutsford-Bowdon, A59/582 Penwortham & Preston Western Distributor, A683 Lancaster Bypass... AND all the smaller road widenings just within 50 miles of my doorstep.

It's a myth that only the South East has money spent on it, but the difference is the few SE projects that exist soak up all the money.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
The key to success is not to be good at your job, but to be good at stopping others from being good at theirs.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
Jim606
Member
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:11

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Jim606 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:06

I know we've mentioned this earlier in this tread, but with HS2 costs now predicted to rise to £106B bbc.co.uk/news/business the Stonehenge tunnel is starting to look like small fry in comparison.

KeithW
Member
Posts: 8161
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by KeithW » Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:20

Jim606 wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:06
I know we've mentioned this earlier in this tread, but with HS2 costs now predicted to rise to £106B bbc.co.uk/news/business the Stonehenge tunnel is starting to look like small fry in comparison.
It is small in terms of the infrastructure being supplied as well of course. At the end of the day what is being built is 3 a few miles of D2 All purpose road not a new 200 mph national project. Heaven forbid we should actually build railways as good as or worse better than those in France, Germany, Italy or Spain.

tompatt
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 16:40

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by tompatt » Tue Jan 21, 2020 08:54

Herned wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:07
RichardA35 wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:48
We all know that a solution similar to Sparkford to Ilchester would have been far, far cheaper but unachievable. It's a question of whether we feel paying all this extra money is a good use of the public purse at this time to fix a predominantly summer problem.
I must be imagining all the many times I have been stuck for 15+ minutes queuing where it becomes single lane in the winter

Obviously its a lot of money, but there is no other acceptable solution than tunnelling, so sooner or later it has to be done.
Agreed, the Amesbury bottleneck is particularly painful

User avatar
Jim606
Member
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:11

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Jim606 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:35

A320Driver wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 22:28
The Treasury have never been keen on this scheme, way back in 2007 when the cost spiralled from £470m to £1.4bn it was scrapped, and more recently since its revival in 2013/4 the stated CBA has been marginal.
It is a one-off scheme, let’s get it built now while there is the general political will to do so.
I think the scheme will get 'signed off' by the minister by the 2nd April with some minor amendments (hopefully including the A360 bridleway crossing?). A great deal of time, effort and money has already been spent, so why scrap it now? The current plan is much more developed than the 2007 project which didn't have the support of EH and the NT. A lot of the major issues have now been addressed.

User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 8302
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by c2R » Wed Feb 19, 2020 07:09

More protests against the scheme: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-51546481

They should be told that it's this or online widening, what would they prefer.
Are you feeling bored? Wiki: Things to do - Join the Great C Road Hunt

A320Driver
Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 19:11
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by A320Driver » Wed Feb 19, 2020 08:28

I can’t help but feel that the ship has sailed on this one. The time for protests and petitions was over the last 3 years with the public and statutory consultations.
I suspect/hope that the government’s mind is made up already and wonder if the scheme will be ‘announced’ in the budget, whenever that may be!
Formerly ‘guvvaA303’

User avatar
RJDG14
Member
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 15:47
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RJDG14 » Wed Feb 19, 2020 15:16

I think I may have said this before a while back, but I personally feel rerouting the A303 to the south of Amesbury away from Stonehenge would be a cheaper option than building a tunnel, plus there would be far fewer risks in doing to than the proposed tunnel. The tunnel would be the more interesting option of the two, but I don't feel the A303 is a major enough route to warrant one, thus I've always found this concept a bit of a white elephant (though it's nowhere near as crazy as a proposal that got turned down to build a monorail in Swindon, which reminded me of a Simpsons episode).

There are obviously green belt implications since it's a world heritage site which may be why they wish to build a tunnel, however I'd have thought building a new road a couple of miles south would also be satisfactory.
RJDG14

See my Geograph profile here - http://www.geograph.org.uk/profile/74193
The Swindon Files - Swindon's modern history - http://rjdg14.altervista.org/swindon/

----
If I break a policy designed only to protect me and nobody else, have I really broken anything?

KeithW
Member
Posts: 8161
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by KeithW » Wed Feb 19, 2020 16:14

RJDG14 wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 15:16
I think I may have said this before a while back, but I personally feel rerouting the A303 to the south of Amesbury away from Stonehenge would be a cheaper option than building a tunnel, plus there would be far fewer risks in doing to than the proposed tunnel. The tunnel would be the more interesting option of the two, but I don't feel the A303 is a major enough route to warrant one, thus I've always found this concept a bit of a white elephant (though it's nowhere near as crazy as a proposal that got turned down to build a monorail in Swindon, which reminded me of a Simpsons episode).

There are obviously green belt implications since it's a world heritage site which may be why they wish to build a tunnel, however I'd have thought building a new road a couple of miles south would also be satisfactory.

Its a bit more complicated than just going a few miles south of Amesbury as at that location is MOD Boscombe Down which is an airfield that has two runways, one of 3,212 metres (10,538 ft) in length, and the second 1,914 metres (6,280 ft). The airfield's evaluation centre is currently home to Rotary Wing Test Squadron (RWTS), Fast Jet Test Squadron (FJTS), Heavy Aircraft Test Squadron (HATS), Handling Squadron, and the Empire Test Pilots' School. The Ministry of Defence is not about to relinquish it.

Just south of that facility is Porton Down
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porton_Down

There is a also a lot of National Trust land down there and short of changing the law you are not going to be able to slap a Compulsory Purchase Order on it.

User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 8905
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Berk » Wed Feb 19, 2020 20:02

Not simply that, the A303 is the major route to the south west, not only from the M3 and London, but Oxford, Cambridge and the south Midlands too.

I’ve regularly used it to get to Cornwall, Dorset and Bournemouth/Poole, so it’s handy for Channel Island ferries too.

My route of preference for the south coast is A303 up to Longbarrow, then A360 to Salisbury, A36 ring road, and then the A338 to Bournemouth.

User avatar
RichardA35
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 4250
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardA35 » Wed Feb 19, 2020 20:34

Berk wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 20:02
Not simply that, the A303 is the major route to the south west, not only from the M3 and London, but Oxford, Cambridge and the south Midlands too.

I’ve regularly used it to get to Cornwall, Dorset and Bournemouth/Poole, so it’s handy for Channel Island ferries too.

My route of preference for the south coast is A303 up to Longbarrow, then A360 to Salisbury, A36 ring road, and then the A338 to Bournemouth.
Making a transit or Salisbury via the A360 is one of the longest and slowest IME compared to the A30 via Stockbridge or the A343 from Andover and also going via the A3094 to Wilton and Harnham but each to their own...

Post Reply