Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

A30_Elizabeth · Post by **A30_Elizabeth** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 17:38

<< Does anyone beleive that the A303/A30 will be dualled totally between the m3 and the m5? I heard that parts will be dualled but there will always be parts where dualling will never be environmentally possible.>>
The preffered option is to dual the A303 East of the Southfields roundabout and dual the A358 from Ilminster to Taunton to join the M5. The A303/A30 from Ilminster - Honiton will then be de-trunked West of the Southfields roundabout.

PeterA5145 · Post by **PeterA5145** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 17:54

<<The preffered option is to dual the A303 East of the Southfields roundabout and dual the A358 from Ilminster to Taunton to join the M5. The A303/A30 from Ilminster - Honiton will then be de-trunked West of the Southfields roundabout.>>

When will the government realise that all this pussyfooting around and prevaricating is a waste of time?

*J*F*D*I* !

Dual the whole A303/A30 all the way to Exeter.

Regards,

Peter

A30_Elizabeth · Post by **A30_Elizabeth** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 18:02

that will likely never be done as the route goes through the Blackdown Hills.

PeterA5145 · Post by **PeterA5145** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 18:16

<<that will likely never be done as the route goes through the Blackdown Hills.>>
Oh dear, so widening the existing alignment by 30 or 40 feet would totally ruin the Blackdown Hills, then?
Why can't we have a government that is prepared to be decisive about vital transport infrastructure projects rather than all this prevaricating and pussyfooting about?
Maggie Thatcher would never have stood for all this nonsense.
Regards,
Peter

A30_Elizabeth · Post by **A30_Elizabeth** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 18:25

Alistair Darling does not support that upgrade as there is an alternative, dual the A358 from Ilminster to the M5 at Taunton.

mnb20 · Post by **mnb20** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 18:32

<<Oh dear, so widening the existing alignment by 30 or 40 feet would totally ruin the Blackdown Hills, then?>>

Widening the existing alignment would give a seriously sub-standard road, though. It would almost certainly have a 50 limit applied from opening (granted, this would be better than doing 10 in a traffic jam like you sometimes do at present).

Also, whatever alignment you use the junctions would need to be improved (grade separated, one would hope) taking more land, and in some cases this would probably require frontage roads.

Yes, of course it's still worth doing, but it'll be a lot more destructive than just adding 30 or 40 feet along the existing alignment.

ndp · Post by **ndp** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 18:39

I don't see whats wrong with the alternative A358 plan. Seems a good compromise to me.

c2R · Post by **c2R** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 19:14

<<I don't see whats wrong with the alternative A358 plan. Seems a good compromise to me.>> There's two main problems with it - the first is that it's further, and so will cause more pollution. The second is that both London and Birmingham traffic heading for the south west will merge on the stretch of the M5 from Taunton to Exeter, before the A30 and A38 diverge splits traffic again...
<<Also, whatever alignment you use the junctions would need to be improved (grade separated, one would hope) taking more land, and in some cases this would probably require frontage roads. Yes, of course it's still worth doing, but it'll be a lot more destructive than just adding 30 or 40 feet along the existing alignment.>>

Of course - but the road could even be built as a compormise between the environment and the road - cut and cover or bored tunnels could be used on somestretches (it is fairly hilly, after all), as well as fencing to prevent creatures from being killed on the road.

Or alternatively, how about a new route heading south before Ilminster, and joining a South Coast motorway to Exeter via Honiton?

Chris
Chris

Chris5156 · Post by **Chris5156** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 07:20

While there is the problem that A303 traffic will end up following the M5 from Taunton to Exeter, this won't be anything new - it just uses it further. The A30 drops all south-west-bound traffic onto the M5 Exeter bypass too.

I think the major benefit in dualling the A303 comes in having more redundancy and duplication of routes. If something chokes the M5, then there's still other good roads into the south-west available; if the A358 is dualled then you are effectively putting all your eggs in one basket.

Chris

c2R · Post by **c2R** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 09:15

<<While there is the problem that A303 traffic will end up following the M5 from Taunton to Exeter, this won't be anything new - it just uses it further. The A30 drops all south-west-bound traffic onto the M5 Exeter bypass too.>>

Well, yes and no - the A30 does indeed drop south-west bound traffic on the M5 at J29; but then splits again at J31, where a lot of traffic takes the A30 to the north coast, while the rest carries on down the A38 to the south coast.

Thus the stretch which all the traffic will be using is J29-31; just a couple of miles. This would be far easier to widen (and probably implement collector-distributors for J30) than a massive stretch right the way down from Taunton... And as you say - all your eggs would then be in one basket!

Chris

RickyB_uk · Post by **RickyB_uk** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 09:15

According to the report - allowing for growth in traffic, by 2026, 8,500 trips per day would go from the Ilminster Bypass through to Junction 29 of the M5 (1000 more than currently). Of these, 3,500 vehicles per day would divert onto the M5/A358, and 5,000 vehicles per day would continue to use the A303/A30 route. The rest of the traffic on the A303 being local and not divertable.
The journey time saving by 2011 would be about 7 minutes for the A303/A30 option, and just 45 seconds for the A358/M5 option.
Report can be seen here.

jim · Post by **jim** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:20

17th Febraury 2004
Stonehenge Public Inquiry starts;
language=JavaScript> </SCRIPT> <TABLE cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0> [tr] <TD vAlign=top> <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0> [tr] <TD vAlign=bottom align=left height=30> language=JavaScript> </SCRIPT> ITN[/td][/tr] [tr] <TD height=2>

Stonehenge road tunnel inquiry to begin

A public inquiry into plans to build a road tunnel under Stonehenge is about to get under way.

The ancient monument is often overshadowed by heavy traffic thundering along the busy A303 just a few yards away.

But campaigners are not convinced that re-routing the road under the historic stone circle is the answer.

The proposed scheme aims to resurrect the iconic ancient monument from its label as "a national disgrace".

Under the plans the A303, which is clogged with traffic in the height of the tourist season, would be widened and taken under the famous stones in a 1.3-mile-long tunnel.

The ?183 million scheme is designed to prompt a return of Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire to traditional, unspoilt chalk downlands grazed by livestock and would be coupled with a new ?57 million visitor's centre built outside the World Heritage Site.

Monument keepers English Heritage is backing the proposals.

"The crowning achievement of the Stonehenge Project will be the removal of the roads, replacing the sound of traffic with birdsong and enabling people to enjoy Stonehenge and its landscape safely and at peace," it said.

Landowner the National Trust wants change but remains "unconvinced" by the Government-approved plan, heralded as "a new dawn" for the monument.

It wants the tunnel to be longer, as do other conservation groups.

The National Trust is concerned about plans to site exits on "archaeologically sensitive ridgelines" and says the landscape would be impacted by traffic.

Spokesman Martyn Heighton said: "The inquiry needs to consider whether the proposed tunnel is long enough to conserve and enhance Stonehenge's spirit of place, landscape and archaeological interest."

The Campaign to Protect Rural England said: "It fails to realise the potential for the full reunification of the unique Stonehenge archaeological landscape."

George McDonic, chairman of CPRE Wiltshire has said: "The scale and impact of the Government proposals would seriously damage the visual character of the area and substantially worsen the physical division of the World Heritage Site."

Friends of the Earth go even further saying the tunnel should be doubled in length to 2.8 miles.

Story filed: 07:32:52Tuesday 17 February 2004

[/td][/tr] [tr] <TD vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2><A target=_top>

? Tesco 2004 | [url=https://multi1.rmuk.co.uk/RealMedia/ads/ ... 3534646430?]

BobSykes · Post by **BobSykes** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 21:53

Can't see what all the fuss is about. Paid a visit to Stonehenge last summer, and there's not very much to it. Distinctly underwhelming; even if you do pull into the stupendously expensive car park (double yellows everywhere else) and pay your admission fee on top, you just get to parade round behind a 10ft high wire fence encircling the site. And fight your way through snap-happyJapanese tourists.
I certainly can't see the justification for spending ?200m on an effing tunnel just to hide the A303. And if Swampy's mates get their way, it'll be double the length and probably 3 times the cost. What else could we get for that sort of dosh? I quite like the idea of being able to see a major world landmark from the car whilst blasting past at 70mph.
I've said it before, but the world's gone mad.

Bryn666 · Post by **Bryn666** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 23:45

In America, Stonehenge would sit proudly at the side of an Interstate, with its own designated service area, and view point.
In England, it sits next to an overloaded single carriageway, and, er, that's it.
Perhaps the Griswalds had the right idea when they reversed into it....

Derek · Post by **Derek** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 06:44

Am I alone in finding comments like the above, well, what can I say? - Sad?
Bobsykes: <<I certainly can't see the justification for spending ?200m on an effing tunnel just to hide the A303. >> it's only one of the most important historical sites in the world Bob, that's all. If that sort of thing means nothing to you there's little I could say to convince you.
Sorry, but I'm with Swampy here. What the hell if it's going to cost a bit more?
<<I quite like the idea of being able to see a major world landmark from the car whilst blasting past at 70mph>>. Try getting out of your car a bit Bob, there's a whole world out there you seem to have no concept of.
Bryne-A666 << In America, Stonehenge would sit proudly at the side of an Interstate, with its own designated service area, and view point.>> Yes, you're probably right. Luckily the US doesn't have any ancient monuments.
I'm saddened by the lack of appreciation from some people here as to just what Stonehenge actually is and just how damaging the road is.

If a jobs worth doing, then do it right.
Derek

gazzaman28 · Post by **gazzaman28** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:13

I'm saddened by the lack of appreciation from some people here as to just what Stonehenge actually is and just how damaging the road is.
Here here! It is an incredibly amazing and magical place and once they sort out getting the roads out of the way and building a decent visitor centre it will be a thousand times better.

A303ytfc · Post by **A303ytfc** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:54

'whilst blasting past at 70mph.'

Chance'd be a fine thing!

Bryn666 · Post by **Bryn666** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 18:16

I don't seewhat is wrong with displaying one of our monuments at the side of a dual carriageway - the visitor centre could be accessed from the road, and passing motorists could look and know they were somewhere special.
Of course, tanks did more damage to the stones in WWII than the A303 ever will, and it isn't like the stones are going to be demolished for the A303, so what is the problem?
And swampy, FWIW, wouldn't want the bloody tunnel, let alone a surface level expressway.

PeterA5145 · Post by **PeterA5145** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 18:37

<<I don't seewhat is wrong with displaying one of our monuments at the side of a dual carriageway - the visitor centre could be accessed from the road, and passing motorists could look and know they were somewhere special.>>

I think the point about Stonehenge is that it isn't an isolated monument, it's part of an overall landscape of avenues, barrows and henges, and therefore a major road running through the middle of it is highly intrusive.

However, it's hard to escape the conclusion that many of those who profess concern about the monument are basically looking for any excuse to oppose building a much-needed road.

I still don't see why it wouldn't have been possible to build a new surface-level road some way to the south, perhaps leaving the current course of the A303 at the Countess Roundabout, following the Avon Valley south, then cutting across to join the current alignment of the A36 around Stapleford.

Regards,

Peter

BobSykes · Post by **BobSykes** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 21:16

<Try getting out of your car a bit Bob, there's a whole world out there you seem to have no concept of.>

Ouch.
I spend far too much time in my car commuting. At a weekend or on a summer's evening, I like nothing more than getting out and about in our glorious countryside. I live in a beautiful rural area, and enjoy walking, cycling and running. Do quite a bit of sport actually.I enjoy travelling around, in the UK and overseas. I spend a lot of time in my parents' cottage in the Lake District over the summer, which is a lovely part of the country where I am sure I'll end up when I retire. So the idea of me having no concept of the wide world outside my car is a bit fanciful. And shows what happens when you make a snap judgment about someone from a series of lighthearted comments plainly intended to provoke a bit of debate!
Yes, Stonehenge is obviously one of the world's most important monuments and should be preserved. But having visited it for the first time last summer, I have to say I was a bit unimpressed, and disappointed that I'd driven about 40 miles out of my way for a look. And then be fleeced by English Heritage or whoever it is for the experience. What I did actually like was being able to whizz up the A303 (it was fairly free-flowing when i was there, during the week) alongside such a famous pile of stones. It could only happen in England.
Peter is right, it's the environmental brigade which opposes allroads who are behind all this, and they won't be happy unless they get a tunnel of 3km or more - madness. I am sure that the ?200m or more that this tunnel will cost could be far better spent if it was spread around the country on various smaller road projects or improvements.