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
someone
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:46
Location: London

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by someone »

Chris5156 wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:19HE'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.
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by ManomayLR »

jervi wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:32
Chris5156 wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:19 So the A303 isn't expressway standard yet, but it's further along the pathway to being a full-blown expressway than many of Highways England's other rural A-road dual carriageways. Given its current state, and the DfT's stated policy aim of creating an "expressway to the south west", it would astound me if the Stonehenge scheme wasn't full expressway standard, or something very close that could easily and cheaply be brought up to standard later.
Totally agree with you, It would be built to expressway standards (minus AMIs and VSL). I'm saying it is unlikely to be built with AMIs & VSL already in place, however would be designed in such a way that installation of additional gantries to hold AMIs could take place with near zero works to the road and embankments. Then when funding allows the rest of the A303 to be upgraded to an expressway, then gantries and AMIs could be installed on this section. Also MS4's would be installed as part of this scheme, as it would be a benefit right away notifying drivers of current and future closures as well as incidents on the SRN nearby and advisory speed limits.
I think the gantries with AMI and MS4 should be put in place as with other smart motorway schemes i.e. full gantry with lane control AMI signals and MS4s after every junction and accompanying lane-specific ADS approaching major junctions, and individual MS4s on cantilevers or gantries otherwise. They can all be installed in the first instance, but can be used with only advisory limits and lane control purposes until the road is ready for VSL.

Drivers need to become familiar with the idea that now, motorways aren't the only roads with electronic VMS signs and lane control signals at regular intervals along the carriageway for queue protection, incident management and lane control.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardA35 »

EpicChef wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 22:13
jervi wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:32
Chris5156 wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:19 So the A303 isn't expressway standard yet, but it's further along the pathway to being a full-blown expressway than many of Highways England's other rural A-road dual carriageways. Given its current state, and the DfT's stated policy aim of creating an "expressway to the south west", it would astound me if the Stonehenge scheme wasn't full expressway standard, or something very close that could easily and cheaply be brought up to standard later.
Totally agree with you, It would be built to expressway standards (minus AMIs and VSL). I'm saying it is unlikely to be built with AMIs & VSL already in place, however would be designed in such a way that installation of additional gantries to hold AMIs could take place with near zero works to the road and embankments. Then when funding allows the rest of the A303 to be upgraded to an expressway, then gantries and AMIs could be installed on this section. Also MS4's would be installed as part of this scheme, as it would be a benefit right away notifying drivers of current and future closures as well as incidents on the SRN nearby and advisory speed limits.
I think the gantries with AMI and MS4 should be put in place as with other smart motorway schemes i.e. full gantry with lane control AMI signals and MS4s after every junction and accompanying lane-specific ADS approaching major junctions, and individual MS4s on cantilevers or gantries otherwise. They can all be installed in the first instance, but can be used with only advisory limits and lane control purposes until the road is ready for VSL.

Drivers need to become familiar with the idea that now, motorways aren't the only roads with electronic VMS signs and lane control signals at regular intervals along the carriageway for queue protection, incident management and lane control.
How is the HE to monitor this road when there is little CCTV covering vast swathes of the motorway network in the South West and control rooms are few and far between? Yes the tunnel is likely to receive full coverage for safety but why install all this other equipment on a road that sees relatively little traffic for most of the year? The principles of using public money are that it has to pass a value for money test. I'm struggling to see what extra benefit would accrue from this proposal.
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by ManomayLR »

I’m surprised. Although I prefer the M4-M5 when going from London to Cornwall for example, I’m sure a lot of people take the other route via the A303.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
User avatar
TomJ
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon May 20, 2019 13:49
Location: Glasgow

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by TomJ »

EpicChef wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 22:51 I’m surprised. Although I prefer the M4-M5 when going from London to Cornwall for example, I’m sure a lot of people take the other route via the A303.
I'm one of them - I think it's just a more interesting drive to be honest. Whilst it's definietly busier during the summer months, I certainly wouldn't say that it feels any emptier at other times during the year when compared to some other routes that HE have marked as potential expressways.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

RichardA35 wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 22:39How is the HE to monitor this road when there is little CCTV covering vast swathes of the motorway network in the South West and control rooms are few and far between? Yes the tunnel is likely to receive full coverage for safety but why install all this other equipment on a road that sees relatively little traffic for most of the year?
Yes, the A303 is only busy in the summer. Source?
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardA35 »

Herned wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 00:43
RichardA35 wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 22:39How is the HE to monitor this road when there is little CCTV covering vast swathes of the motorway network in the South West and control rooms are few and far between? Yes the tunnel is likely to receive full coverage for safety but why install all this other equipment on a road that sees relatively little traffic for most of the year?
Yes, the A303 is only busy in the summer. Source?
Take a look at DfT traffic counts - AADT at Stonehenge ~ 26k dropping to 20k further west at Mere. It has always been a heritage and political decision to enhance the A303 - on pure traffic numbers and economic benefit unlocked there are more deserving schemes. (For info, traffic counts are carried out in "neutral" months outside of the summer)
M5Lenzar
Banned
Posts: 4477
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 14:39

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by M5Lenzar »

If a road is busy for part of the year, then it makes sense to upgrade it. It will be flowing better at the busy times - what's not to like?
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

RichardA35 wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 08:42
Herned wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 00:43
RichardA35 wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 22:39How is the HE to monitor this road when there is little CCTV covering vast swathes of the motorway network in the South West and control rooms are few and far between? Yes the tunnel is likely to receive full coverage for safety but why install all this other equipment on a road that sees relatively little traffic for most of the year?
Yes, the A303 is only busy in the summer. Source?
Take a look at DfT traffic counts - AADT at Stonehenge ~ 26k dropping to 20k further west at Mere. It has always been a heritage and political decision to enhance the A303 - on pure traffic numbers and economic benefit unlocked there are more deserving schemes.
Like where exactly? 26k is massive for a rural S2 trunk road, double design capacity. I can only think of the A64 that is comparable. Something like the A1 in Northumberland would have half the traffic.
A320Driver
Member
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 19:11
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by A320Driver »

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?
Formerly ‘guvvaA303’
DavidBrown
Member
Posts: 8398
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 00:35

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by DavidBrown »

I believe that, in terms of construction starting "soon", the Sparkford to Podimore scheme is the closest to being ready for the diggers to move in. But I can see Stonehenge starting before the mess of the A358 dualling, depending on how much worse the locals want to make that scheme.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

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.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardA35 »

jackal wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 08:55
RichardA35 wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 08:42
Herned wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 00:43

Yes, the A303 is only busy in the summer. Source?
Take a look at DfT traffic counts - AADT at Stonehenge ~ 26k dropping to 20k further west at Mere. It has always been a heritage and political decision to enhance the A303 - on pure traffic numbers and economic benefit unlocked there are more deserving schemes.
Like where exactly? 26k is massive for a rural S2 trunk road, double design capacity. I can only think of the A64 that is comparable. Something like the A1 in Northumberland would have half the traffic.
Yes but the spending on Stonehenge is way out of proportion to the benefit without a monetised heritage contribution.
SteveA30
Member
Posts: 6015
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 12:52
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by SteveA30 »

How was Hindhead funded? That was a similar combination of tunnel, protected landscape and removal of the old road. Did NT stump up any cash for that?
Roads and holidays in the west, before motorways.
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

RichardA35 wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:16
jackal wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 08:55
RichardA35 wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 08:42 Take a look at DfT traffic counts - AADT at Stonehenge ~ 26k dropping to 20k further west at Mere. It has always been a heritage and political decision to enhance the A303 - on pure traffic numbers and economic benefit unlocked there are more deserving schemes.
Like where exactly? 26k is massive for a rural S2 trunk road, double design capacity. I can only think of the A64 that is comparable. Something like the A1 in Northumberland would have half the traffic.
Yes but the spending on Stonehenge is way out of proportion to the benefit without a monetised heritage contribution.
On its face a reasonable point until you consider the alternatives, which are (1) unacceptably destructive surface routes or (2) abandoning the idea of the A303 as a high capacity route.

£1.7bn sounds like a lot for a few miles of road but it's a steal when you consider that (together with a few cheaper upgrades) it lets you fully utilise the existing 60 miles of A303 expressway. Relying on a single high quality route (M5) for Devon, Cornwall and Somerset in perpetuity is not sustainable - it can't cope as it is.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardA35 »

jackal wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:32
RichardA35 wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:16
jackal wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 08:55
Like where exactly? 26k is massive for a rural S2 trunk road, double design capacity. I can only think of the A64 that is comparable. Something like the A1 in Northumberland would have half the traffic.
Yes but the spending on Stonehenge is way out of proportion to the benefit without a monetised heritage contribution.
On its face a reasonable point until you consider the alternatives, which are (1) unacceptably destructive surface routes or (2) abandoning the idea of the A303 as a high capacity route.

£1.7bn sounds like a lot for a few miles of road but it's a steal when you consider that (together with a few cheaper upgrades) it lets you fully utilise the existing 60 miles of A303 expressway. Relying on a single high quality route (M5) for Devon, Cornwall and Somerset in perpetuity is not sustainable - it can't cope as it is.
£1.7bn is a lot - it doesn't just sound a lot. Again it is a political decision and we should be open about it, evaluate it in accordance with appraisal guidelines and not try to include nebulous future benefits that no one can be sure about or evaluate.
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.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

You have yourself quoted the numbers that show it's a severe year-round problem. This is a solution that's deliverable. Sending it through on the surface may be cost effective on paper but it's a total non-starter in the real world.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

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.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

DavidBrown wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 09:12 I believe that, in terms of construction starting "soon", the Sparkford to Podimore scheme is the closest to being ready for the diggers to move in. But I can see Stonehenge starting before the mess of the A358 dualling, depending on how much worse the locals want to make that scheme.
It's Highways England who have made a mess of the scheme, not locals. Their first proposal didn't link directly to junction 25 and onwards to Taunton (where most traffic is heading), so the bypassed village would have still been very busy
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Chris5156 »

someone wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:51
Chris5156 wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:19HE'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.
Post Reply