Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

[Fluid Dynamics]

One issue that might have a positive impact on the public purse is that a lot of the PFI and DBFO schemes are coming to the end of their terms which will lead to a reduction in unitary charge payments being made by public bodies. However, the flip side is more public infrastructure will be handed back to public authorities and maintenance budgets are always the first things to be cut.

[Vierwielen]

It seems apparent that there is likely to be an election before tunnel construction starts, so I would be curious as to what the respective parties say about the scheme.

I really don't know whether it's likely to be cancelled. I read that Labour are in favour of infrastructure projects, but that is pretty vague. So no idea whether that includes roads. Apparently it was Labour who built HS1. So they have some form for completing major projects. On the other hand canceling the Stonehenge tunnel would save a great deal of money. However that would be leaving a big long running problem, that was just about ready to be fixed.

I suppose we will just have to wait and see.

Most of the areas that are likely to benefit from the Stonehenge Tunnel are currently held by the Conservatives and are Lib-Dem targets rather than Labour targets (Somerset, North Dorset, Devon and Cornwall).

[Phil]

The cancelled 1997 scheme I always remember was the A40 Gypsy Corner and associated improvements between the Westway and Hanger Lane. A lot of the preparatory work, demolition and if I recall correctly service diversions had been completed when John Prescott pulled the plug. This would have completed the grade separation all the way from the M25 to the Marylebone flyover, and was at a similar or later stage than the preparatory work on the A47 when the plug was pulled.

Completing this would have been a genuine improvement and instead we saw the areas of demolition replaced with housing, some tinkering with gyratories and significant works replacing the railway bridges that would have been replaced by the works. Haven’t been along there in over a decade, but the queue's were still significant last time I went that way.

The HUGE problem with completing those GSJ schemes is all they would have done is dumped even more traffic onto Euston Road at Marylebone!

Given it struggles to cope with current volumes then its pretty clear to anyone who is looking at it from either a cost benefit ratio or simply the perspective of those living within the Marylebone area that anything which allows even more traffic to arrive at Euston Road within a specified time is a very bad idea.

Just because the A40 may be a good quality Arterial road does not mean that car commuting (which is what the GSJing of the junctions would benefit the most) should be encouraged - particularly to places within inner London and as such measures which make the journey inbound from the Chilterns / M40 easier should rightly be resisted.

In fact even the Westway itself is regarded as a huge mistake these days by anyone who studies urban planning - yes a dual carriageway without frontages linking the A40 at Shepherds bush to Euston Road is a good idea - but in practice that would be best done by a surface level route with at grade junctions thus matching the situation on Euston Road into which it feeds.

[GillsPeter]

I’m amazed Sunak didn’t delay the cancellation of HS2 until after the election - it was just a dumb decision for him politically (as well as being the wrong decision for the country).

You were in favour of moving overpaid businessmen to Birmingham slightly quicker?

[Bryn666]

I’m amazed Sunak didn’t delay the cancellation of HS2 until after the election - it was just a dumb decision for him politically (as well as being the wrong decision for the country).

You were in favour of moving overpaid businessmen to Birmingham slightly quicker?

Well if you believe that is what HS2 was meant to be, then yes, but ignoring what the Daily Mail had to say about it the original intention was to provide a new line to free-up space on the WCML and MML. The failure was not having proper communications pointing this out - HS2 Ltd dropped a major ball here and have allowed this myth to continue which now means instead of the actual proposed investment objective, we are indeed now getting a white elephant that will serve only to shift business suits to Birmingham slightly quicker. This will set the rail industry back 50+ years and is clearly an ideological decision Sunak took as part of his "Plan for Drivers" culture war nonsense and not for any sound economic reason. It is VERY telling that the "saved money" is mostly being rediverted to road improvements down south with some crumbs left for the Red Wall, another resounding success for the knuckle dragging racist northern Lee Anderson loving vote there.

Heads should be rolling over this. Would anyone have argued in favour of not building the M6 north of Stafford because "the A34 gets you to Manchester"? You could argue the Stonehenge tunnel just moves holiday home owners in London to Cornwall quicker so shouldn't be built either.

[Bryn666]

The cancelled 1997 scheme I always remember was the A40 Gypsy Corner and associated improvements between the Westway and Hanger Lane. A lot of the preparatory work, demolition and if I recall correctly service diversions had been completed when John Prescott pulled the plug. This would have completed the grade separation all the way from the M25 to the Marylebone flyover, and was at a similar or later stage than the preparatory work on the A47 when the plug was pulled.

Completing this would have been a genuine improvement and instead we saw the areas of demolition replaced with housing, some tinkering with gyratories and significant works replacing the railway bridges that would have been replaced by the works. Haven’t been along there in over a decade, but the queue's were still significant last time I went that way.

The HUGE problem with completing those GSJ schemes is all they would have done is dumped even more traffic onto Euston Road at Marylebone!

Given it struggles to cope with current volumes then its pretty clear to anyone who is looking at it from either a cost benefit ratio or simply the perspective of those living within the Marylebone area that anything which allows even more traffic to arrive at Euston Road within a specified time is a very bad idea.

Just because the A40 may be a good quality Arterial road does not mean that car commuting (which is what the GSJing of the junctions would benefit the most) should be encouraged - particularly to places within inner London and as such measures which make the journey inbound from the Chilterns / M40 easier should rightly be resisted.

In fact even the Westway itself is regarded as a huge mistake these days by anyone who studies urban planning - yes a dual carriageway without frontages linking the A40 at Shepherds bush to Euston Road is a good idea - but in practice that would be best done by a surface level route with at grade junctions thus matching the situation on Euston Road into which it feeds.

The Westway would not have been a major radial route though had the full road plan been realised; Marylebone and Euston Roads would not have been the ring road so there would not have been as much traffic being funnelled along it. An at-grade route was considered in the 1960s but ruled out as even more destructive than what is there today; at least houses survived the Westway being built (not that anyone wanted to live in them). Roads.org.uk has some great history on this if you have not already read it.

This is the fundamental problem with new road building - unless you sort out junctions, all you are doing is "one more lane" planning which is a discredited approach to traffic management. Even if you sort out junctions you have to then lock in the released capacity otherwise it is swamped by adjacent new development or unleashed traffic demand by people who would travelled by other modes until you just knocked 15 minutes off a drive.

[jnty]

Heads should be rolling over this. Would anyone have argued in favour of not building the M6 north of Stafford because "the A34 gets you to Manchester"? You could argue the Stonehenge tunnel just moves holiday home owners in London to Cornwall quicker so shouldn't be built either.

Indeed. If speed isn't remotely important, let's just address every motorways capacity issue by reducing the speed limit to a blanket 50mph. It clearly increases capacity, and you can probably narrow the lanes to squeeze in an extra one, too. No expensive gantries, refuge areas, widening or concrete barriers required. Much cheaper.

[Phil]

The Westway would not have been a major radial route though had the full road plan been realised; Marylebone and Euston Roads would not have been the ring road so there would not have been as much traffic being funnelled along it. An at-grade route was considered in the 1960s but ruled out as even more destructive than what is there today; at least houses survived the Westway being built (not that anyone wanted to live in them). Roads.org.uk has some great history on this if you have not already read it.

This is the fundamental problem with new road building - unless you sort out junctions, all you are doing is "one more lane" planning which is a discredited approach to traffic management. Even if you sort out junctions you have to then lock in the released capacity otherwise it is swamped by adjacent new development or unleashed traffic demand by people who would travelled by other modes until you just knocked 15 minutes off a drive.

I have indeed read up the articles on the ringways and the Westway itself so I'm very well aware that the Westway was not intended to become as significant as it has done in terms of road traffic distribution.

Nevertheless the point still stands - with Central London lacking any high capacity roads, having an urban motorway* unleashing huge volumes of traffic on surface streets is now rightly recognised as a terrible mistake and would never be contemplated these days - although a non grade separated surface level dual carriageway might be as there will always be a need for some vehicles to enter inner London (though not commuters from the Chilterns who should be on trains not driving along the A40 corridor!)

This more enlightened understanding is precisely why GSJing the remaining at grade junctions between Hangar Lane and the Westway has been rejected by those in power in London even if the money had been provided - its pandering to outdated notions of seeing cars journeys as something to be facilitated rather than discouraged.


* Yes I know its not a motorway anymore

[Phil]

I’m amazed Sunak didn’t delay the cancellation of HS2 until after the election - it was just a dumb decision for him politically (as well as being the wrong decision for the country).

You were in favour of moving overpaid businessmen to Birmingham slightly quicker?

Try educating yourself rather than spouting right wing media headlines!

The purpose of HS2 is to provide an addition two tracks on the busiest section of the WCML thus allowing more train services overall - including local stoppers and freight not just express trains to / from the north.

However, just as is the case with motorways its a lot less disruptive and should end up being cheaper overall to build on a brand new alignment than widen what already exists (and which is frequently surrounded by urban areas requiring far more demolition of property etc.

Its also the case that if you are building a new railway, you build it to modern standards not Victorian ones (just as we don't build roads according to 1900 design principles) and also do so in a way which respects the environment rather than simply trashing it as the railway pioneers did.

Yes plenty of mistakes have been made with HS2 (mostly because of stupid politically motivated reasons) but the fundamentals of WHY the project is needed are robust and they certainly do NOT revolve around getting to Birmingham a little bit quicker.

[Phil]

Heads should be rolling over this. Would anyone have argued in favour of not building the M6 north of Stafford because "the A34 gets you to Manchester"? You could argue the Stonehenge tunnel just moves holiday home owners in London to Cornwall quicker so shouldn't be built either.

Indeed. If speed isn't remotely important, let's just address every motorways capacity issue by reducing the speed limit to a blanket 50mph. It clearly increases capacity, and you can probably narrow the lanes to squeeze in an extra one, too. No expensive gantries, refuge areas, widening or concrete barriers required. Much cheaper.

Context is everything.

In the case of Stonehenge for example its in the middle of rural Wiltshire and as such motor vehicles are an incredibly important method of travel precisely because its completely unrealistic (not to mention economic to create a dense public transport network.

In London by contrast you have a very good public transport network and many arterial roads like the A40 are paralleled by good radial rail services and as such its completely realistic to discourage car use.

As for the M6 - it falls somewhere between the two in that it does run parallel to the WCML and there are good rail connections between major population centres - but its also used by people heading to / from areas where, like Whiltshire, public transport is limited and there isn't a realistic choice.

Therefore whether a scheme is a good idea or not is very much location specific - tunnelling under Stonehenge is, on balance a necessity. GSJing junctions in West London most certainly isn't!

[Helvellyn]

Indeed. If speed isn't remotely important, let's just address every motorways capacity issue by reducing the speed limit to a blanket 50mph. It clearly increases capacity, and you can probably narrow the lanes to squeeze in an extra one, too. No expensive gantries, refuge areas, widening or concrete barriers required. Much cheaper.

I don't think speed is massively important to be honest. Slowing motorways to 50 mph is something I wouldn't have a problem with journey time wise. The problem is that driving along a road much slower than its design speed gets tedious and frustrating pretty quickly. An equivalent journey over a road only suitable for 50 mph is something I've got no problem with. The motorway is there because that other road doesn't have the capacity, and you'd end up with a speed closer to 5 mph than 50 (speed isn't massively important but it's not completely unimportant, not having a problem with not being very fast doesn't imply that I should therefore be fine with anything faster than stationary).

[BicesterRob]

Could the following announcement mean this scheme will go ahead regardless of a general election, surely once work starts it will be too late to cancel: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/mot ... 6386&ei=17

[RichardEvans67]

Could the following announcement mean this scheme will go ahead regardless of a general election, surely once work starts it will be too late to cancel:

I don't think GB News is a very reliable Source.

Anyway. I think the April start was assuming all the legal stuff is sorted out by then. It's still not certain that an appeal won't succeed. Even if it doesn't, I'm not sure that that will be the end of all of it. So I wouldn't regard the April start date as certain just yet.

Also, schemes tend to start slowly, without much done at the start. So even if it starts this year, I think the amount spent by the time of the GE would probably be just a fraction of the overall cost. So a new government might consider it worth throwing away the relatively small cost so far, to save the big cost. Then again, there would probably be penalties to pay for cancelling the contracts, and I've no idea how much,

I hope it still goes ahead, and starting would make this more likely, but I don't think it would make it anywhere near certain.

[jackal]

^ These are enabling works. It's quite normal for them to start months ahead of main construction. And yes, the cost is a small fraction of main construction.

[Micro The Maniac]

This is the fundamental problem with new road building - unless you sort out junctions, all you are doing is "one more lane" planning which is a discredited approach to traffic management. Even if you sort out junctions you have to then lock in the released capacity otherwise ...

Just look at some of the massive junctions that are springing up - M40/J15 and M6/J10 as two examples, where the off-slip opens into five or six lanes at a traffic light controlled roundabout. The M25/A3 being another contender for worst-junction, but at least this one adds free-flows...

[Bryn666]

This is the fundamental problem with new road building - unless you sort out junctions, all you are doing is "one more lane" planning which is a discredited approach to traffic management. Even if you sort out junctions you have to then lock in the released capacity otherwise ...

Just look at some of the massive junctions that are springing up - M40/J15 and M6/J10 as two examples, where the off-slip opens into five or six lanes at a traffic light controlled roundabout. The M25/A3 being another contender for worst-junction, but at least this one adds free-flows...

It's such a false economy too. Thank the DMRB wonks that think bringing traffic to 0 mph is more efficient than a 20 mph freeflow loop like the rest of the world would build. We must be the only country on earth that wants car dependency but doesn't even provide the roads for that. At least the concrete hellscapes of American suburbia are making a statement.

[RichardEvans67]

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest ... 3-04-2024/

Very early stages. Apparently they have started installing an electricity cable, (and fibre optic cabling). This will provide the power needed for the construction, and eventually to run the tunnel.

https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/ ... nge-tunnel

Although this says the legal challenges are not yet resolved .

Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site (SSWHS) is seeking leave to appeal.

[A320Driver]

Clutching at straws, I would suggest

NH must be pretty confident of the failure of any legal challenge, to start work.

[RichardEvans67]

NH must be pretty confident of the failure of any legal challenge, to start work.

I wouldn't quite say that. The cost of these works would be tiny compared to the cost of the whole scheme. So the risk of wasting money on this is probably far smaller than the risks of delaying the scheme further.