Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

[Burns]

If a tunnel under Stonehenge means it'll lose its World Heritage Status then can I declare that the Tyne, Mersey, Thames, Clyde and so on aren't rivers because they have an tunnel under them? It makes about as much sense.

I disagree. If a World Heritage Site is damaged in such a way that it no longer meets the criteria then it's perfectly logical that it would lose its status.

I'm just trying to work out why routing the road away from the site would negatively impact it. Surely, removing the A303 from Stonehenge will improve the visitor experience?

[owen b]

If a tunnel under Stonehenge means it'll lose its World Heritage Status then can I declare that the Tyne, Mersey, Thames, Clyde and so on aren't rivers because they have an tunnel under them? It makes about as much sense.

I disagree. If a World Heritage Site is damaged in such a way that it no longer meets the criteria then it's perfectly logical that it would lose its status.

I'm just trying to work out why routing the road away from the site would negatively impact it. Surely, removing the A303 from Stonehenge will improve the visitor experience?

I'm really not an expert, though I have read the relevant chapters of The Making of the British Landscape https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/ ... ane-review which spends a lot of time on Stonehenge, but the Stonehenge site is not just the iconic stone circle we're all familiar with. It's a site about 6km north to south and 5km east to west (26 square km) with a large number of archaeological treasures, not all of them fully explored or understood :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoneheng ... _map_2.svg
To route the A303 away from the site you'd have to go either north of Larkhill, or half way to Salisbury. Both of those options have already been investigated and rejected for various reasons which I'm not familiar with in detail but I'm sure have previously been exhaustively rehearsed.

[Berk]

The 2006 inquiry report explains the options in some detail. It is available online - probably through Web Archive, or National Archives.

[Glom]

I have changed my opinion after driving through the area at the weekend. They shouldn't just dual it on the surface. The problem is rubber necking more than the constriction. Dualling it would only make the rubber necking more hazardous.

[Helvellyn]

I have changed my opinion after driving through the area at the weekend. They shouldn't just dual it on the surface. The problem is rubber necking more than the constriction. Dualling it would only make the rubber necking more hazardous.

Plant a screen of trees then? It would change the feel of the place somewhat I suppose but if rubbernecking is the biggest issue it's a simple, undamaging solution.

[chaseracer]

UNESCO's decision on Dresden seems a little bizarre given that much of the 'historic core' is less than 30 years old, having been subject to the attention of the RAF town-planning department in 1945 and not reconstructed until after the reunification of Germany in 1990.

[Big L]

UNESCO's decision on Dresden seems a little bizarre given that much of the 'historic core' is less than 30 years old, having been subject to the attention of the RAF town-planning department in 1945 and not reconstructed until after the reunification of Germany in 1990.

It was the area of river Elbe valley around, and including, Dresden that was the world heritage site. It does seem odd that building one bridge is enough to overrule whatever criteria existed to list the area in the first place.

[jackal]

The 2006 inquiry report explains the options in some detail. It is available online - probably through Web Archive, or National Archives.

The 2017 Scheme Assessment Report and especially 2016 Technical Appraisal Report provide contemporary comparisons of options:

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... tonehenge/

[Chris5156]

I'm all in favour of it as it will improve Stonehenge by removing most of the traffic on the A303. Obviously the old A303 will need to stay for access to Stonehenge, but a tunnel will remove most of the non tourist traffic and make visiting Stonehenge far more pleasant.

The plans are very clear that the old A303 will not stay - it'll be torn up and grassed over, returning the road to the landscape, for the length past the stones at least. Access to Stonehenge will be from junctions east or west of the tunnel and other existing roads. You won't be able to hop off the A303, take the existing road past the stones and rejoin afterwards.

[Johnathan404]

...and access to Stonehenge has not been from the A303 for several years.

[A303Chris]

And even with the tunnel some people are not happy, see here

Now a 5 mile tunnel is a non starter, so what do they want no tunnel and keep the A303 adjacent to the stones. This country should stop pandering to all these silly interests groups and we may actually get things built. Do the French, Italians and Spanish have these problems. I bet the Millau Viaduct would never have been built if it were here.

[Burns]

4.5km is less than three miles. I'm sure we could build a road tunnel of that size in the UK...

[Owain]

I have changed my opinion after driving through the area at the weekend. They shouldn't just dual it on the surface. The problem is rubber necking more than the constriction. Dualling it would only make the rubber necking more hazardous.

Plant a screen of trees then? It would change the feel of the place somewhat I suppose but if rubbernecking is the biggest issue it's a simple, undamaging solution.

I'm surprised by this suggestion. I don't know if you've ever been down that way, but there are very few trees on Salisbury plain. The lack of trees is one of the characteristics that makes the landscape what it is - it's surprisingly bleak for the South. A load of trees would probably look quite artificial, and out of place.

I'm in favour of the tunnel, not only because it would prevent people from trying to take photos on their phones while attempting to drive their car in a straight line (yes - I have seen this), but because it would take the traffic noise away from the site.

[doebag]

Briefly, what are the benefits of being a world heritage site ?

And what is the downside of losing the world heritage status ?

[Fluid Dynamics]

Briefly, what are the benefits of being a world heritage site ?

And what is the downside of losing the world heritage status ?

As someone who has a background in archaeology, what the alliance fail to consider is that the development will fund considerable archaeology allowing new insight that would otherwise not take place. Having said that I do think HE should extend the tunnel beyond the western end of the site. Surely some of the funding saved from Chichester must be available

[vlad]

Technically of course Stonehenge is only part of a World Heritage Site - Avebury is included in the same listing - so even if Stonehenge does lose WHS status we won't actually be down a site!

Stonehenge is only where it is given its proximity to the surrounding roads, so you can argue that if it weren't for the A303 the stones wouldn't be there either. Are the ancient transport links being taken into account?

[owen b]

Stonehenge is only where it is given its proximity to the surrounding roads, so you can argue that if it weren't for the A303 the stones wouldn't be there either.

But I don't see how you could then use that argument to justify a damaging road upgrade. I mean you could just as easily say that London is only where it is because it's on the route of Watling Street. London is a terrible bottleneck so let's make Watling Street into a D2 across London, an online surface option should be just fine. You can knock down Dunstable while you're on. It's a deliberately extreme analogy, but it's the same basic argument.

[Jam35]

The 2006 inquiry report explains the options in some detail. It is available online - probably through Web Archive, or National Archives.

The 2017 Scheme Assessment Report and especially 2016 Technical Appraisal Report provide contemporary comparisons of options:

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... tonehenge/

And the rigging of the options in that report was ridiculous. They artificially inflated the additional length of the F options by failing to consider either (a) closing Boscombe Down Airfield (the country isn't exactly short of airfields the RAF/Qinetiq could relocate to) or (b) shifting the point where the eastern end of the scheme rejoins the current A303 further east (they drew all the routes as getting to Idmiston and then dog-legging north to fit in before a grid line on a map). They also failed to factor in the benefits the F routes would have on relieving traffic on the A36 and A338, focussing myopically on local traffic in the Amesbury area that is a small proportion of the total traffic on the A303 (gasp, local traffic would use the local road network, whatever next...).

[jackal]

I agree they took a more indirect line for the surface option than really necessary. But whatever line you take you're to going to add far more surface mileage compared to the tunnel route, and destroy 20km or so of pristine countryside. I simply don't think we should treat the outer areas of the WHS as of so much value that we should protect them at the cost of far greater damage to the essentially similar land just outside the WHS.

I doubt it would really have placated UNESCO, Tony Robinson, et al anyway - most likely if a surface route were on the table they'd be saying it would ruin Stonehenge's wider setting in the prehistoric landscape, which doesn't stop at the WHS boundary.

[sotonsteve]

Sorry, but a D2 doesn't destroy countryside. The idea that roads destroy countryside is something peddled by the anti-roads lobby. Agreed, they have an impact, but destroy is a strong word. And as noted, if a surface route were to kill two birds with one stone and act as a bypass for two/three routes used into Salisbury, then that's not something terrible, it's something good. As previously noted, the surface routes seem to purposely dog leg, no doubt to keep the new build as short as physically possible. A rerouted A303 could commence at Andover, but instead, east of the A338 has been ruled out as a tie in point.

And another point, if the British cared so much about countryside, our whole planning system needs a complete overhaul.