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
Debaser
Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 16:57

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Debaser »

KeithW wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:06 As for the bridleway width 3 m is within the standard
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498941/Technical_Standard_-_Public_rights_of_way.pdf wrote: 6.1.5 Footpaths which are cross‐field paths shall have a width not less than 1 metre.
6.1.6 Footpaths which are not cross‐field paths shall have a width not less than 1.5 metres.
6.1.7 Bridleways which are cross‐field paths shall have a width not less than 2 metres.
6.1.8 Any other public right of way (e.g. a bridleway which is not a cross‐field path, a restricted
byway or a byway open to all traffic) shall have a width not less than 3 metres.
NOTE – The minimum widths given above are the values given in the Rights of Way Act 1990 for
the statutory minimum widths to be to be kept clear from interference by crops and for reinstatement
after disturbance (e.g. ploughing).
I'm sorry, but whether you meant it or not, that's the sort of attitude that's meant infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists in this country has been absolutely godawful for generations. I can make a case for 6.5m being 'within the standard' for the width of an S2, but if we started using that for all roads then numerous Sabristi would no doubt be up in arms at the unusable penny-pinching trash that was being provided.
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 »

Debaser wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 09:45
KeithW wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:06 As for the bridleway width 3 m is within the standard
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498941/Technical_Standard_-_Public_rights_of_way.pdf wrote: 6.1.5 Footpaths which are cross‐field paths shall have a width not less than 1 metre.
6.1.6 Footpaths which are not cross‐field paths shall have a width not less than 1.5 metres.
6.1.7 Bridleways which are cross‐field paths shall have a width not less than 2 metres.
6.1.8 Any other public right of way (e.g. a bridleway which is not a cross‐field path, a restricted
byway or a byway open to all traffic) shall have a width not less than 3 metres.
NOTE – The minimum widths given above are the values given in the Rights of Way Act 1990 for
the statutory minimum widths to be to be kept clear from interference by crops and for reinstatement
after disturbance (e.g. ploughing).
I'm sorry, but whether you meant it or not, that's the sort of attitude that's meant infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists in this country has been absolutely godawful for generations. I can make a case for 6.5m being 'within the standard' for the width of an S2, but if we started using that for all roads then numerous Sabristi would no doubt be up in arms at the unusable penny-pinching trash that was being provided.
Hey I didn't write the regulations and I don't build roads. They are what they are and the usual response to exceeding such values is 'That is over specified'. As a matter of fact the British Horse Society recommends a minimum clear width of 3m and ideally 5m. For the record most residential streets in my area are around 5m, in the town centre many of the old terraces are 4.5 m or less excluding the parked cars.

The shared used footpaths in my area are typically 4 m which works pretty well for the most part.
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jnty »

KeithW wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 12:05 The shared used footpaths in my area are typically 4 m which works pretty well for the most part.
Does your area have a World Heritage Site in it? I think that's the key difference here, as well as the point that adding a bit of extra width to allow some separation between different modes is easy because of the existing road surface.

Shared paths are a nice idea but basically rely on the route being quiet or one mode being disproportionately unpopular. Busy ones basically have to work in a very utilitarian style, with groups of pedestrians staying to one side at all times and cyclists constantly negotiating them with varying levels of skill and grace. I would say that any path near Stonehenge ought to include a clear separation of modes with space for people to linger given they will have much cause to do so!
User avatar
solocle
Member
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by solocle »

jnty wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 12:37
KeithW wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 12:05 The shared used footpaths in my area are typically 4 m which works pretty well for the most part.
Does your area have a World Heritage Site in it? I think that's the key difference here, as well as the point that adding a bit of extra width to allow some separation between different modes is easy because of the existing road surface.

Shared paths are a nice idea but basically rely on the route being quiet or one mode being disproportionately unpopular. Busy ones basically have to work in a very utilitarian style, with groups of pedestrians staying to one side at all times and cyclists constantly negotiating them with varying levels of skill and grace. I would say that any path near Stonehenge ought to include a clear separation of modes with space for people to linger given they will have much cause to do so!
Although if you want to look at Stonehenge then the former A344 really is the superior choice.
A7CB7F35-689C-451E-8DF0-5CBEFBF5C090.jpeg
50B7DDA6-F0C3-4B53-8456-4ABA9D195DEE.jpeg
Without maintenance a 3 metre wide shared path is going to very quickly deteriorate. From Stonehenge it's not the A303 that you notice, it's the traffic on it.

On a long distance ride like the one above [London down the A30 then A303 from Bullington Cross], had visiting Stonehenge not been one of the objectives!? Well, a cycleway that isn't fit for purpose would increase the likelihood of somebody deciding to cycle through the tunnel, illegal or not.

I'd keep the current width of the road. Maybe surface it with green tarmac to make it even less noticeable.

(entering the WHS at 6:38:14)
User avatar
Jim606
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:11

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Jim606 »

Debaser wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 09:35
jackal wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 19:31 A 4m shared use path would be most the width of the existing road, somewhat contrary to heritage concerns.
Worrying about the 'heritage concerns' of a bridleway whose users will comprise solely of walkers, cyclists and equestrians whilst ignoring the dual carriageway with a cross section probably 10 times its width and carrying however many PCU/day of motor vehicles is exactly the sort of thing NH's project managers (just try finding an engineer there) seem to spend their days doing.
I agree with your comments. Fussing over a shared-use path whilst ignoring a four lane highway in a massive cutting to the west of the tunnel is certainly a case of 'Cognitive Dissonance' if ever there was one.
KeithW wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 12:05
Debaser wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 09:45
KeithW wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:06 As for the bridleway width 3 m is within the standard


I'm sorry, but whether you meant it or not, that's the sort of attitude that's meant infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists in this country has been absolutely godawful for generations. I can make a case for 6.5m being 'within the standard' for the width of an S2, but if we started using that for all roads then numerous Sabristi would no doubt be up in arms at the unusable penny-pinching trash that was being provided.
Hey I didn't write the regulations and I don't build roads. They are what they are and the usual response to exceeding such values is 'That is over specified'. As a matter of fact the British Horse Society recommends a minimum clear width of 3m and ideally 5m. For the record most residential streets in my area are around 5m, in the town centre many of the old terraces are 4.5 m or less excluding the parked cars.

The shared used footpaths in my area are typically 4 m which works pretty well for the most part.
I've followed the Stonehenge Tunnel project for a long time and I got my info about the idea to build a National Trust visitor centre from the Stonehenge Alliance. The NT own the land at Countess Barns as well as several large areas around the stone themselves. If completed, the tunnel plan opens up several new opportunities for the NT to develop the site. Reading their submission to the consultation and talking to those in the know, then a new smaller VC - coach drop-off point could be built at Countess Barns. It makes sense as they want a share of the £££tourist pound£££. Stonehenge is a honey pot and they want to maximise profits; as the upkeep of property around the country is expensive. To be fair, at least the NT have a plan, they want to see the A303 embankment at Stonehenge Bottom (the former junction with the A344) removed and re-landscaped, plus it is likely they would also like to see the former pond at the same location reconstructed. Now if all this happens, then a suitable way of getting people between Countess Barns and the English Heritage VC at Airman's Corner would be a good idea. The NT could use shuttle buses to take people up to King's Barrow ridge. The existing Byway 12 is a good 8m wide and this isn't a problem. Why scrimp on a 3m shared-use path along the line of the downgraded A303. This is particularly bonkers as the road is already wider enough for such a new use.
Last edited by Jim606 on Mon May 02, 2022 16:24, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jim606
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:11

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Jim606 »

Jim606 wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 14:11
Debaser wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 09:35
jackal wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 19:31 A 4m shared use path would be most the width of the existing road, somewhat contrary to heritage concerns.
Worrying about the 'heritage concerns' of a bridleway whose users will comprise solely of walkers, cyclists and equestrians whilst ignoring the dual carriageway with a cross section probably 10 times its width and carrying however many PCU/day of motor vehicles is exactly the sort of thing NH's project managers (just try finding an engineer there) seem to spend their days doing.
I agree with your comments. Fussing over a shared-use path whilst ignoring a four lane highway with a massive cutting to the west of the tunnel is certainly a case of 'Cognitive Dissonance' if ever there was one.
KeithW wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 12:05
Debaser wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 09:45
I'm sorry, but whether you meant it or not, that's the sort of attitude that's meant infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists in this country has been absolutely godawful for generations. I can make a case for 6.5m being 'within the standard' for the width of an S2, but if we started using that for all roads then numerous Sabristi would no doubt be up in arms at the unusable penny-pinching trash that was being provided.
Hey I didn't write the regulations and I don't build roads. They are what they are and the usual response to exceeding such values is 'That is over specified'. As a matter of fact the British Horse Society recommends a minimum clear width of 3m and ideally 5m. For the record most residential streets in my area are around 5m, in the town centre many of the old terraces are 4.5 m or less excluding the parked cars.

The shared used footpaths in my area are typically 4 m which works pretty well for the most part.
I've followed the Stonehenge Tunnel project for a long time and I got my info about the idea to build a National Trust visitor centre from the Stonehenge Alliance. The NT own the land at Countess Barns as well as several large areas around the stone themselves. If completed, the tunnel plan opens up several new opportunities for the NT to develop the site. Reading their submission to the consultation and talking to those in the know, then a new smaller VC - coach drop-off point could be built at Countess Barns. It makes sense as they want a share of the £££tourist pound£££. Stonehenge is a honey pot and they want to maximise profits; as the upkeep of property around the country is expensive. To be fair, at least the NT have a plan, they want to see the A303 embankment at Stonehenge Bottom (the former junction with the A344) removed and re-landscaped, plus it is likely they would also like to see the former pond at the same location reconstructed. Now if all this happens, then a suitable way of getting people between Countess Barns and the English Heritage VC at Airman's Corner would be a good idea. The NT could use shuttle buses to take people up to King's Barrow ridge. The existing Byway 12 is a good 8m wide and this isn't a problem. Why scrimp on a 3m shared-use path along the line of the downgraded A303. This is particularly bonkers as the road is already wider enough for such a new use.
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 »

Jim606 wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 14:11
I've followed the Stonehenge Tunnel project for a long time and I got my info about the idea to build a National Trust visitor centre from the Stonehenge Alliance. The NT own the land at Countess Barns as well as several large areas around the stone themselves. If completed, the tunnel plan opens up several new opportunities for the NT to develop the site. Reading their submission to the consultation and talking to those in the know, then a new smaller VC - coach drop-off point could be built at Countess Barns. It makes sense as they want a share of the £££tourist pound£££. Stonehenge is a honey pot and they want to maximise profits; as the upkeep of property around the country is expensive. To be fair, at least the NT have a plan, they want to see the A303 embankment at Stonehenge Bottom (the former junction with the A344) removed and re-landscaped, plus it is likely they would also like to see the former pond at the same location reconstructed. Now if all this happens, then a suitable way of getting people between Countess Barns and the English Heritage VC at Airman's Corner would be a good idea. The NT could use shuttle buses to take people up to King's Barrow ridge. The existing Byway 12 is a good 8m wide and this isn't a problem. Why scrimp on a 3m shared-use path along the line of the downgraded A303. This is particularly bonkers as the road is already wider enough for such a new use.

One of the major aims of the project voiced by both the NT and EH is to remove modern intrusions such as surface roads and buses not add new ones.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

Jim606 wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 14:11 Now if all this happens, then a suitable way of getting people between Countess Barns and the English Heritage VC at Airman's Corner would be a good idea. The NT could use shuttle buses to take people up to King's Barrow ridge.
In an ideal world, the solution would be a battery powered tram running on grassed-over tracks - that would be virtually invisible in the landscape. That was originally proposed when the A344 was closed
User avatar
Jim606
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:11

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Jim606 »

One of the major aims of the project voiced by both the NT and EH is to remove modern intrusions such as surface roads and buses not add new ones.
Yes, certainly and a lot has been achieved. The old VC / car park & the A344 running past the stones were removed. The existing bridleways, however, were retained. The big irony is both the NT & EH support the construction of the new road and the highly destructive western approach cutting. The NT did manage to get an agreement to build an enlarged 110m green canopy beyond the end of the western tunnel portal, but this was at the expensive of green bridge no. 4 (along the line of the proposed downgraded A360) I have always maintained this green bridge needs reinstating.
In an ideal world, the solution would be a battery powered tram running on grassed-over tracks - that would be virtually invisible in the landscape. That was originally proposed when the A344 was closed
The tram idea was actually two separate ideas. The first was a proper tram proposed by someone connected with the Stonehenge Alliance and was due to link the VC with Amesbury. Then there was the EH idea to build a land-train from Countess East to Kings Barrow ridge. This is when EH nearly built a VC just behind Countess Travelodge. Neither of these ideas came to fruition.

What EH did do in the end, was build a new Visitors Centre at Airman's Corner. I believe this was built without piled foundations, so, if needed, the whole thing could be removed in the future, unlike the A303 tunnel and approach cuttings. This is the level of 'cognitive dissonance' involved with the whole process. Treat one thing with 'kid gloves' yet another with a 'sledge hammer'.

Whilst EH & the NT are highly organised bodies, they're not immune from making mistakes. When the A344 was first closed, EH transported people to the stones via a 'land train' which was basically a fleet of carriages pulled by Land Rovers. After a few months this turned out to be (shall we say) an unsuitable solution. They were unreliable and the turning circle down at the stones (situated upon the old A344) was too small for them to turn around properly! In the end EH 'retired' the land train Land Rovers and brought in smaller 'shopper hopper' type buses and rebuilt the turning circle to a higher specification. Please see BBC news article below;
English Heritage has unveiled a new fleet of buses to transport visitors between a visitor centre and the Stonehenge monument in Wiltshire.

When the £27m visitor centre opened in December 2013, land trains were used to ferry visitors to the stones. However, these were taken out of service following complaints about long queues and inadequate transport.
_99619033_dtpvgqexcaamnlc.jpg-large.jpg
English Heritage admitted there had been issues with the land trains and said the new buses were more efficient.

The six vehicles can each carry up to 80 passengers on the 1.5-mile (2.4 km) journey which takes five minutes. Marketing manager Jane Thomas said: "The problem with the land trains was that we have so many visitors that we just couldn't get enough people on and get them to the stones fast enough. "Now, in the height of summer we can get up to 80 people on a bus at a time."

More than one million people visit Stonehenge each year. About two thirds of them come from overseas.

A footpath which allows visitors to see Stonehenge free of charge also opened in 2017. The right of way, which passes within feet of the ancient circle, follows the route of the A344 which was closed to traffic and grassed over in 2013.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-42707970
[/i]
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by jackal »

The main works contract of £1.25bn has been awarded to MORE JV, comprising Spain's FCC Construcción, Italy's WeBuild and Austria's BeMo Tunnelling. The design consortium includes Atkins, Jacobs and Sener.
National Highways said the appointment of a preferred bidder on Thursday, May 26, “in no way” pre-empted any decision by Mr Shapps.

Derek Parody, National Highways’ project director for the A303 Stonehenge scheme, said the contract would only become “live” once the transport secretary had concluded the planning process.

“Once that is finalised, and should the development consent order be granted, having a contractor in place will put us in the strongest possible position to deliver this transformational scheme and deliver the benefits we know it can,” he said.
https://www.business-live.co.uk/economi ... e-24065656
RichardEvans67
Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26
Location: Surrey

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardEvans67 »

by jackal » Thu May 26, 2022 11:02

The main works contract of £1.25bn has been awarded to MORE JV, comprising Spain's FCC Construcción, Italy's WeBuild and Austria's BeMo Tunnelling. The design consortium includes Atkins, Jacobs and Sener.
I assume they wouldn't do that unless they were pretty confident that they were going to get DCO. Probably reasonably soon.
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8990
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by wrinkly »

Early Contractor Involvement has been a thing for many years now, with contractors appointed sometimes long before statutory processes are complete. I assume the contract contains a lot of detail about who pays what if the scheme is not approved.
RichardEvans67
Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26
Location: Surrey

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardEvans67 »

by wrinkly » Sat May 28, 2022 21:38

Early Contractor Involvement has been a thing for many years now, with contractors appointed sometimes long before statutory processes are complete.
OK. Well it would seem that that didn't happen with the A30 Chiverton scheme, where it took several months to find a contractor after they got DCO. Well, it would make sense that a contractor would be prepared to get involved earlier, in order to win the contract.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 »

I suspect the sacred and spiritual importance of the site is no longer relevant if things like this can be done and people are OK with it: https://twitter.com/EH_Stonehenge/statu ... 3990250496

Probably might as well just build that ground level D2 and have done with it, eh. :roll:
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Herned »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 12:02 I suspect the sacred and spiritual importance of the site is no longer relevant if things like this can be done and people are OK with it: https://twitter.com/EH_Stonehenge/statu ... 3990250496

Probably might as well just build that ground level D2 and have done with it, eh. :roll:
That's just weird. I expect the Daily Express will insist it is made permanent
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Bryn666 »

Herned wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 14:39
Bryn666 wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 12:02 I suspect the sacred and spiritual importance of the site is no longer relevant if things like this can be done and people are OK with it: https://twitter.com/EH_Stonehenge/statu ... 3990250496

Probably might as well just build that ground level D2 and have done with it, eh. :roll:
That's just weird. I expect the Daily Express will insist it is made permanent
It has rather undermined any argument for preserving the damn things by turning them into another tacky theme park driven by faux-nostalgia... how utterly British.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7517
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by Big L »

I agree that's not nice, but shining a light on something doesn't exactly have a lot of long term effect.
Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
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 »

Big L wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 15:49I agree that's not nice, but shining a light on something doesn't exactly have a lot of long term effect.
Could we project a second carriageway alongside the A303? That must be cheaper than tunnelling... :scratchchin:
RichardEvans67
Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26
Location: Surrey

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by RichardEvans67 »

by Bryn666 » Mon May 30, 2022 12:02

I suspect the sacred and spiritual importance of the site is no longer relevant if things like this can be done and people are OK with it: https://twitter.com/EH_Stonehenge/statu ... 3990250496
Is that any comment about her age :o.
User avatar
JonB2028
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 22:36

Re: Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

Post by JonB2028 »

DfT asking for more info from NH, further info wanted on consideraiton of alternatives but other things too: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 202022.pdf
Post Reply