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
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by KeithW »

JonB2028 wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:39 DfT asking for more info from NH, further info wanted on consideraiton of alternatives but other things too: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 202022.pdf
They have been talking about the Stonehenge Landscape not just the stones for decade, this is why their putting the A303 in a tunnel for petes sake. As for details about what they might find in the bedrock the only way to know is to dig the darn thing.
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5676
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Vierwielen »

KeithW wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:55
JonB2028 wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:39 DfT asking for more info from NH, further info wanted on consideraiton of alternatives but other things too: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 202022.pdf
They have been talking about the Stonehenge Landscape not just the stones for decade, this is why their putting the A303 in a tunnel for petes sake. As for details about what they might find in the bedrock the only way to know is to dig the darn thing.
It is unlikely that anything of interest will be found at a depth of more than two metres - ie not the bedrock but the topsoil. Tunnelling through the bedrock might however disturb the water table and hence the moisture content of the topsoil. Draining of subterranean water can also, in certain circumstances, cause sinkholes - a common problem in mining areas.
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by A303Chris »

JonB2028 wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:39 DfT asking for more info from NH, further info wanted on consideraiton of alternatives but other things too: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 202022.pdf
How I read this, given 25 years in Transport Planning, is the SoS wants to approve it and as it is one of Boris's main projects and wants to make sure that all the objectors concerns have been covered off as it is obvious the objectors and the green transport groups will try another court injunction.

As long as the SoS can say I have considered all the evidence covering these issues on balance then the objectors can not review.

Often objectors comments are emotional and subjective and quite often even when a planning application is dealt with I have produced documents ensuring the points raised by third parties are answered in full before a planning application is decided , to ensure there is no judicial review on the councils approval decision.
The M25 - The road to nowhere
RichardEvans67
Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26
Location: Surrey

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardEvans67 »

Looks to me that the security of state is just trying to make sure there a no loose ends that the objectors might use for another court challenge.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by KeithW »

Vierwielen wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:39 It is unlikely that anything of interest will be found at a depth of more than two metres - ie not the bedrock but the topsoil. Tunnelling through the bedrock might however disturb the water table and hence the moisture content of the topsoil. Draining of subterranean water can also, in certain circumstances, cause sinkholes - a common problem in mining areas.
They have been making test drillings to check water levels, one of the more temperamental archaeologists threw a hissy fit because nobody consulted him first. In fact HE had included an archaeologist in the team , informed English Heritage and the National Trust and put up a website.
https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-work ... the-cones/

As for mining it is certainly a big problem in some parts of the world, the North East has old mine sites dating back to the Roman era and East Anglia has some that are prehistoric but I dont think there ever has been significant mining on Salisbury plain.

I had a look on the British Geological Survey map and they have no record of mining in the area and a few water wells in Amesbury. In fact the military use of Salisbury plain has essentially preserved the landscape so its now the largest area of undisturbed chalk uplands in Europe, I suppose those stone monuments west of Amesbury are an intrusion though :)
User avatar
Jim606
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:11

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Jim606 »

From https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest ... 5-07-2022/
Longer Stonehenge Tunnel would cost up to £730M more, National Highways claims
15 JUL, 2022 BY ROB HORGAN

Building a longer Stonehenge Tunnel would cost up to £730M more than current plans, according to National Highways internal analysis. The current plans are for a 12.8km dual carriageway, and a 3.2km tunnel underneath the World Heritage Site closely following the existing A303 route. National Highways estimates the scheme will cost £1.7bn to deliver.

Transport secretary Grant Shapps is currently in the process of “re-determining” his decision on National Highways’ planning application for the Stonehenge Tunnel after a High Court judge ruled his original decision to approve the scheme as “unlawful”. As part of the process, Shapps has asked National Highways to conduct a comparative analysis which looks at extending the tunnel.

That analysis – published by the Planning Inspectorate this week – concludes that both a bored tunnel extension and cut and cover extension would be “slightly more beneficial than the [existing proposal] in heritage terms alone”. However, the report concludes that both alternatives would cost significantly more than the current £1.7bn scheme and would take a year longer to build. On costs, National Highways estimates that a bored tunnel extension would cost £340M more to build, while the cut and cover tunnel extension would require another £266M in construction costs. National Highways analysis also concludes that over 60 years, an additional £126M would be required to maintain either alternative. On top of this, National Highways concludes that restarting the development consent order application process could delay the project by up to four years and would require up to £271M in additional funding. In total, the maximum additional cost for building a longer Stonehenge Tunnel comes in at £737M.

Consequently, the report concludes: “In carrying out a balanced appraisal of the benefits and disbenefits relating to heritage, environment, traffic, programme and cost, we conclude that the additional cost of each alternative over and above the DCO Scheme would not deliver meaningful additional benefits to the WHS that would justify either alternative being taken forward.”

It adds: “There is no evidence that the additional investment required to extend the tunnel length would deliver meaningful additional benefits to the WHS that would justify the additional cost.”

In its submission to the Planning Inspectorate, the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) “urged" the DfT to look at alternatives due to the harm that it claims the proposed scheme would do to the World Heritage Site (WHS). The CBA said its position remains the same as in evidence submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in May 2019, when it suggested considering a southern surface route or a long bored tunnel "to remove the A303 from the WHS without unduly harming other objectives". The CBA added that if a long tunnel under the whole of the WHS is not achievable, then other alternatives such as the southern surface route should be examined "to avoid the unacceptable harm caused by the proposed scheme".

"The CBA examined this issue in some detail, recognising that if a substantially longer tunnel is not acceptable, the southern surface offers significant advantages which had not been optimised or given sufficient weight," the submission says.

"This includes how beneficial outcomes are weighed against harm – especially in the context of how the cumulative effects of the existing highway are dealt with as required by NPSNN, how adverse effects might be ameliorated and how cost benefits are identified."

In May, National Highways selected a joint venture comprising Spain’s FCC Construcción, Italian firm WeBuild and BeMo Tunnelling from Austria to deliver the £1.25bn contract for the tunnel, along with the main construction work for the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down scheme past Stonehenge. Mace has also been brought in to deliver commercial services including cost consultancy and quantity surveying, as well as acting as a liaison between National Highways and its main contractors.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

Thanks for that. One key point not mentioned there is that the bored or C&C extension would be only 1km (NH previously appraised a longer bored extension).

Below is the comparison between the proposed scheme and the bored extension, which is identical to C&C aside from construction technique and depth. The extension requires the GSJ with the A360 to be pushed further west.

A303 Stonehenge 1km longer tunnel - Copy.JPG

£737m or anything like that is a crazy amount of money for such a marginal heritage benefit.

https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 220711.pdf
User avatar
Jim606
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:11

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Jim606 »

A303Chris wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 13:53
JonB2028 wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:39 DfT asking for more info from NH, further info wanted on consideraiton of alternatives but other things too: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 202022.pdf
How I read this, given 25 years in Transport Planning, is the SoS wants to approve it and as it is one of Boris's main projects and wants to make sure that all the objectors concerns have been covered off as it is obvious the objectors and the green transport groups will try another court injunction.

As long as the SoS can say I have considered all the evidence covering these issues on balance then the objectors can not review.

Often objectors comments are emotional and subjective and quite often even when a planning application is dealt with I have produced documents ensuring the points raised by third parties are answered in full before a planning application is decided , to ensure there is no judicial review on the councils approval decision.
Like the Council for Archaeology, I don't know why the so called Southern Bypass route wasn't given more consideration? I guess this would have been a combination of tunneling and cut & cover? Although it was rejected early on perhaps it should have been given more consideration?

My main concern with the current plan is the tunnel is situated too close to the stones at around 200m, plus there is the long standing issue of the western portal approach cutting. If the tunnel was move say another 200m+ to the south and more coverage for the western approach cutting (i.e. to reinstate the green bridge which would carry the realigned A360 bridleway over the A303) then I can't see why the scheme shouldn't get the go-ahead?
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

Why does 200m from the stones matter? And how does making it 400m make any difference?
User avatar
DavidB
Member
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2002 20:32
Location: Berkshire

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by DavidB »

Video posted today by local archaeology and transport YouTuber Paul Whitewick:

Kinitawowi
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 14:22
Location: Manchester

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Kinitawowi »

DavidB wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 20:13 Video posted today by local archaeology and transport YouTuber Paul Whitewick:
Isn't the point of the tunnel as much to get rid of traffic from the view of Stonehenge as it is to resolve the capacity problems? Public transport (lol) won't actually fix anything there.
User avatar
Jim606
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:11

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Jim606 »

Herned wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 16:02 Why does 200m from the stones matter? And how does making it 400m make any difference?
IIRC, the actual distance from the stones isn't even 200m, it's more like 185m. This still feels uncomfortably 'near' to me. Most of the earlier plans did indeed have it much further away.
User avatar
Jim606
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:11

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Jim606 »

Kinitawowi wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 20:42
DavidB wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 20:13 Video posted today by local archaeology and transport YouTuber Paul Whitewick:
Isn't the point of the tunnel as much to get rid of traffic from the view of Stonehenge as it is to resolve the capacity problems? Public transport (lol) won't actually fix anything there.
I guess the point the Whitewick's might be making is some alternative investment in rail may also make sense, such as reopening the Amesbury branch line and creating some sort of shuttle bus link to the stones?
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Chris5156 »

Jim606 wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 20:51
Kinitawowi wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 20:42
DavidB wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 20:13 Video posted today by local archaeology and transport YouTuber Paul Whitewick:
Isn't the point of the tunnel as much to get rid of traffic from the view of Stonehenge as it is to resolve the capacity problems? Public transport (lol) won't actually fix anything there.
I guess the point the Whitewick's might be making is some alternative investment in rail may also make sense, such as reopening the Amesbury branch line and creating some sort of shuttle bus link to the stones?
It might, perhaps, but would that resolve any of the issues the tunnel is designed to address - namely, removal of the A303 from the surface in the critical part of the World Heritage Site, and ending the problem that Stonehenge is the critical obstacle to the Expressway to the South West policy? Unless you decide that those things are no longer policy objectives, and the Government shows no intention of doing that, then you can’t scrap the tunnel without finding another way to address them.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

Jim606 wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 20:49
IIRC, the actual distance from the stones isn't even 200m, it's more like 185m. This still feels uncomfortably 'near' to me. Most of the earlier plans did indeed have it much further away.
It's further away than the existing road. I don't understand what difference it makes as it is way below any potential archaeology and sufficiently far enough that even if something goes terribly wrong the stones won't be affected
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

DavidB wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 20:13 Video posted today by local archaeology and transport YouTuber Paul Whitewick:

Could he possibly have chosen a more misleading or unnecessarily emotive image?
User avatar
hoagy_ytfc
Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 00:10

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by hoagy_ytfc »

Herned wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 22:04 Could he possibly have chosen a more misleading or unnecessarily emotive image?
That's the sort of thing that you need to do to get seen on that platform, sadly.
User avatar
hoagy_ytfc
Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 00:10

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by hoagy_ytfc »

Jim606 wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 20:51 I guess the point the Whitewick's might be making is some alternative investment in rail may also make sense, such as reopening the Amesbury branch line and creating some sort of shuttle bus link to the stones?
That'll def help the families trying to go on holiday!
User avatar
hoagy_ytfc
Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 00:10

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by hoagy_ytfc »

I like Paul, I watch all his videos.

But I think he views this from the wrong angle. It's not spending 1.6b on a road, cos you could do the road for maybe a quarter of that (comparing the cost of Sparkford/Podimore, for example). The cost is obviously for doing something that protects/improves the site, so one needs to view the high cost as investment in Stonehenge, rather than as investment in the road. For the most part.
Kinitawowi
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 14:22
Location: Manchester

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Kinitawowi »

This is the first I've seen or heard of him, but from this I'd assume he's anti-road investment (or at least anti-anything that makes things easier for cars) in general.
Post Reply