Thoughts on the A303

[Richardf]

Don't entirely buy this explanation in the wiki. A roundabout junction would I am sure taken up less space than the current junction and there is no reason why the A34 couldn't have been grade separated as well. Sure the gradients are an issue but not without solution and probably wouldn't have resulted in the steepest slip roads in the land!

[Berk]

When I was heading towards Solstice Park back in June, I was dismayed to see traffic backing up from the T junction. This quickly proved to be down to a lorry joining the A303.

I therefore decided to make poor progress until I was certain the lorry (and the car behind) had safely joined lane 1, and I could join lane 2 at a reasonable speed. Challenging, but not impossible.

[Herned]

Don't entirely buy this explanation in the wiki. A roundabout junction would I am sure taken up less space than the current junction and there is no reason why the A34 couldn't have been grade separated as well. Sure the gradients are an issue but not without solution and probably wouldn't have resulted in the steepest slip roads in the land!

It would need a lot more digging to do that, the cutting north on the A34 is quite deep as it is, another ~6m would have needed a lot more digging and land take. I think we should be grateful that it wasn't built as an at-grade roundabout on one of the routes! It is a bit of a bodge but it works quite well with the landscape and it would be easy to upgrade

[RJDG14]

To my knowledge almost all of the southern A34 (except for access to a handful of homes near Oxford) is grade seperated.

The Stonehenge tunnel proposals seem a little pointless to me, since I think it's quite an expensive engineering task for a road in rural Wiltshire. I do think that the A303 at Stonehenge could do with being dualled and rerouted a couple of miles to the north or south of where it currently is, but the proposed tunnel seems a bit of a white elephant in my opinion.

[Richardf]

Don't entirely buy this explanation in the wiki. A roundabout junction would I am sure taken up less space than the current junction and there is no reason why the A34 couldn't have been grade separated as well. Sure the gradients are an issue but not without solution and probably wouldn't have resulted in the steepest slip roads in the land!

It would need a lot more digging to do that, the cutting north on the A34 is quite deep as it is, another ~6m would have needed a lot more digging and land take. I think we should be grateful that it wasn't built as an at-grade roundabout on one of the routes! It is a bit of a bodge but it works quite well with the landscape and it would be easy to upgrade

I was thinking the A303 could go on the 'bottom' in a cutting, roundabout above then the A34 over the top. While the slips from the roundabout would climb a bit the gradient of the A34 to the north could be lessened with an embankment to and from the flyover.

[Chris5156]

The Stonehenge tunnel proposals seem a little pointless to me, since I think it's quite an expensive engineering task for a road in rural Wiltshire. I do think that the A303 at Stonehenge could do with being dualled and rerouted a couple of miles to the north or south of where it currently is, but the proposed tunnel seems a bit of a white elephant in my opinion.

A road on the surface, even a few miles north or south of the present A303, would be immediately halted by English Heritage and the National Trust. The issue is not just Stonehenge but the whole of the landscape surrounding it. The options - politically - are to build a tunnel or not upgrade the road.

[RJDG14]

The Stonehenge tunnel proposals seem a little pointless to me, since I think it's quite an expensive engineering task for a road in rural Wiltshire. I do think that the A303 at Stonehenge could do with being dualled and rerouted a couple of miles to the north or south of where it currently is, but the proposed tunnel seems a bit of a white elephant in my opinion.

A road on the surface, even a few miles north or south of the present A303, would be immediately halted by English Heritage and the National Trust. The issue is not just Stonehenge but the whole of the landscape surrounding it. The options - politically - are to build a tunnel or not upgrade the road.

That's a little stupid when Unesco says that it would be both cheaper and more environmentally friendly building a bypass to the south. There could be a condition whereby the road needs heavy vegetation planted on either side so that it is obscured (I would suggest either birch or pine trees that could go in at around 2m tall, since they grow faster than other types and grow by up to 1m a year in their first few years).

[Berk]

No, there really has been a lot of discussion and research (nearly 30 years worth). Not only would a new approach be breaking the consensus, it would result in a great deal of opposition, and loss of support.

We may also be forgetting that the planning application is already in examination. That means the tunnel design. That cannot be changed, or amended, without withdrawing the entire application.

And if you do that, it means - once more - that Winterbourne Stoke won’t get its bypass. When I was driving home in June, that’s where the queues began. Seriously. On the western side of Winterbourne Stoke.

Changing tack now will not be helpful, or constructive.

[Chris5156]

That's a little stupid when Unesco says that it would be both cheaper and more environmentally friendly building a bypass to the south.

Unesco aren't the only game in town. EH and NT have far more sway over the planning system than Unesco do - indeed NT very nearly has power of veto over projects that affect its sites. If you don't keep them on side you don't get to build your road, and regardless of what Unesco have suddenly decided, the National Trust want a tunnel.

Besides, as Berk rightly points out, there's been 30 years of work to get to this point. Building a short bypass on the surface has been evaluated many times over and has repeatedly failed to satisfy the needs of all the competing interests here. You might think it's a no-brainer but it is not going to fly!

There could be a condition whereby the road needs heavy vegetation planted on either side so that it is obscured (I would suggest either birch or pine trees that could go in at around 2m tall, since they grow faster than other types and grow by up to 1m a year in their first few years).

The whole point of the tunnel is to preserve the very unique landscape of Salisbury Plain, which is largely devoid of trees. Planting a swathe of trees that are not native to the area, in order to hide a dual carriageway built on the surface, would be insult to injury and would not improve the chances of the road being built. Blending a road sensitively with its environment involves a lot more than just smothering it in the fastest-growing trees you can find.

[Richardf]

The whole point of the tunnel is to preserve the very unique landscape of Salisbury Plain, which is largely devoid of trees. Planting a swathe of trees that are not native to the area, in order to hide a dual carriageway built on the surface, would be insult to injury and would not improve the chances of the road being built. Blending a road sensitively with its environment involves a lot more than just smothering it in the fastest-growing trees you can find.

Cuttings, False cuttings, green bridges etc would do the job much better in that environment.

[Richardf]

There was a version I saw similar to this on this forum, but cannot seem to find it anymore. I would think this could be a great D2 with full GSJ solution.

Looks good to me. Bypass Salisbury and Stonehenge in one go.

[BOH]

Always puzzled me why a shallow depth cut-and-cover tunnel or deep cutting would not work and just dual the current road past Stonehenge. The goal is surely to remove this trunk road from being close to the stones and being visible.

There is nothing to the south of the current road as the dualling finishes a mile or so west of the Countess rounadabout, continue the dualling on-line here, build the second carriageway to the south but sink the whole lot 5 metres into a cuttting and a) leave open or b) put a roof on top and grass over like the Holmsdale Tunnel on the NE quadrant of the M25.

Job done. Why not?

[Andy33gmail]

What still staggers me is how EH were permitted to get a road removed (A344) without planning and funding an alternative. Or for that matter, why they were so keen to demonify themselves to the local community.

[jackal]

In archaeological terms cut and cover is pretty much the worse thing you could do due to the vast earthworks relatively near ground level.

The bypass towards Salisbury has also been assessed many terms and is not a viable solution, not least because environmental impacts would be vastly higher. Look how much new road through countryside it requires compared to the proposed route.

[Richardf]

In archaeological terms cut and cover is pretty much the worse thing you could do due to the vast earthworks relatively near ground level.

The bypass towards Salisbury has also been assessed many terms and is not a viable solution, not least because environmental impacts would be vastly higher. Look how much new road through countryside it requires compared to the proposed route.

I know its quite a diversion for the A303 but a dualled upgrade of the A36 and A338 from the current route towards salisbury, would only leave a relatively short distance across the north of salisbury to close the gap, so you wouldnt be creating too much of a new route across open countryside, no more than most bypasses do anyway.

[KeithW]

I know its quite a diversion for the A303 but a dualled upgrade of the A36 and A338 from the current route towards salisbury, would only leave a relatively short distance across the north of salisbury to close the gap, so you wouldnt be creating too much of a new route across open countryside, no more than most bypasses do anyway.

Trouble is that short distance includes Old Sarum which is itself Grade 1 listed and a scheduled ancient monument and of course the army has a major presence in the area including firing ranges. This is no an easy part of the world to build anything in the modern era.

[Berk]

In archaeological terms cut and cover is pretty much the worse thing you could do due to the vast earthworks relatively near ground level.

The bypass towards Salisbury has also been assessed many terms and is not a viable solution, not least because environmental impacts would be vastly higher. Look how much new road through countryside it requires compared to the proposed route.

I know its quite a diversion for the A303 but a dualled upgrade of the A36 and A338 from the current route towards salisbury, would only leave a relatively short distance across the north of salisbury to close the gap, so you wouldnt be creating too much of a new route across open countryside, no more than most bypasses do anyway.

Have you seen the A338 down to Salisbury on a map?? I’ve never even driven it (although I’m sure it’s very nice), because it’s so twisty.

So you’d be talking about a new, offline road for a start. But the southern route is a complete fantasy, miles off beam. And keeps ignoring the fact the planning application is already being considered !!?

The only way to change it would be to start again. Which isn’t justifiable at this stage. Perhaps if it got a negative report, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[Berk]

Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 23.09.49.png

There was a version I saw similar to this on this forum, but cannot seem to find it anymore. I would think this could be a great D2 with full GSJ solution.

Looks good to me. Bypass Salisbury and Stonehenge in one go.

OK, perhaps it’s not quite such a big ask. But the fact remains it won’t be considered unless the Stonehenge tunnel route is declined for some reason, and there seems a lot less likelihood of that.

It would also mean having to build support for a Salisbury bypass, and I’m not sure how easy that would be.

[Richardf]

I realise the tunnel is the plan, I'm just looking at alternatives as I am not a fan of the tunnel scheme. A southern diversion would be my preference as if done right it would help Salisbury as well. North to Larkhill is another alternative which could work but would have zero benefit for Salisbury.

I am aware of the nature of the A338, I wasn't thinking of an online upgrade but rather an offline improvement of the route, probably to the north past Boscombe Down and Porton. Past Salisbury itself I envisage a route some distance north of old sarum (sufficiently concealed to blend into the landscape), and meeting the A36 somewhere near Stapleford.

I'm afraid I'm not terribly optimistic about the tunnel going ahead, something will happen to take things back to the drawing board, when TPTB will have to look again at other options.

[Berk]

You may not be aware that English Heritage and the National Trust have given a lot of support to this scheme - which has helped it to get as far as it has. Any problems could only really come down to one of two things.

Either the financial forecast is estimated to have gone up, and has to be looked at again, or new environmental evidence emerges during the examination hearings which would cause the inspector to make a negative report.

Of course, the hearings and report may be favourable, only it for it to get blocked at ministerial level. But we have been there 3 or 4 times already. You would at least hope that ministers would learn from previous efforts, which is why so much research has taken place.

In any case, I’m sure they are aware of the importance of this scheme, so I believe it would only truly be cancelled if the cost projections shot up suddenly. Or more importantly, the lack of private finance (which hasn’t been fully agreed yet), as that is the foundation for allowing this scheme to go ahead.

No public money is meant to be involved due to the risk/cost. It was supposed to be funded under a PFI contract, but Phillip Hammond scrapped that. The government haven’t yet said how they intend to finance it. Maybe waiting until the reports are released.

You also need to remember that the reason there is so much support for the scheme now is due to the way the designers have changed from a 1¼ mile cut and cover tunnel to a 1¾ mile bored tunnel.

It may be a mile shorter than some campaigners have asked for, but still 50% longer than the version proposed 25 years ago. It’s also thought to be less environmentally and ecologically damaging as a bored tunnel.

The northern route through Larkhall is a non-starter; the National Trust have already said they will never support it.

Although I can see some merit in a southern route to the north of Salisbury, I have my doubts much like you have for the current scheme. It is many miles longer for a start, and largely greenfield road building, which is very unpopular these days.

It’s not fully out of the World Heritage Site area either. Which again would mean opposition from conservation groups.

And although the traffic situation around Salisbury isn’t ideal (and I will admit I’ve not really seen it at peak hours), it does have a fairly decent D2 ring road, which is far more than many cities have. Traffic seems to keep moving fairly well, it’s just a bit of a drive to get to the correct junction you need, and onwards.

It may only have been planned as stage 1, and the 90s proposals may have been more ideal about connecting surrounding villages and towns up. If it ever made the light of day, maybe a northern bypass for Salisbury could work, but I doubt it would ever be given the chance.