Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

[jackal]

Surely tunnelling would be a rather self-defeating protest in this case...

[Bryn666]

Need about 8 machine guns with overlapping fields of fire. Mortar pit. Barbed wire. Might need gas troops to smoke out tunnels.

That's a perfectly rational response to something you don't like right there.

[Jim606]

I am surprised that National Highways haven't indicated that they are willing to make more Active Travel / Environmental Changes to the scheme?

The Lower Thames Crossing is a different story with several such changes now included within the scheme. Why aren't they making similar statements re; Stonehenge?

https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-work ... -pathways/
National Highways is one of the biggest builders of new pathways in the UK, and in total the Lower Thames Crossing will deliver almost 3km for every 1km of new road, designed to encourage active travel and promote health and wellbeing across the region. The plans include new bridges and paths that will connect to upgraded and extended routes to give the local community and visitors easier and safer ways of travelling between the area’s parks and woodlands, heritage sites, and employment centres.

The proposals include:

Seven new green bridges provide safe and easy crossings for people and wildlife – including an 84m wide bridge in Kent, one of the widest green bridges in Europe

• Two new footbridges over the A127 and one over the M25 to create safe, easy crossing points and restore links severed by historic road building
  A network of bridleways giving horse riders an uninterrupted route between woodlands such as Thames Chase Forest, Hole Farm community woodland and the Mardyke in Essex, and Ranscombe Farm Reserve, Ashenbank Wood and Shorne Woods Country Park in Kent
  A new cycle route south of the A2 running through Jeskyns Community Woodland from Park Pale in the east to Hares bridge in the west
  A new 3km foot and cycle path, separated from road traffic, will provide a safer and easier way to commute between East Tilbury, Linford and Chadwell St Mary.
  Improved foot and cycle path between the local community and heritage sites such as Coalhouse fort and East Tilbury Battery

[Herned]

I am surprised that National Highways haven't indicated that they are willing to make more Active Travel / Environmental Changes to the scheme?

The entire point of the tunnel is to improve the environment and restore links in the landscape, reconnecting footpaths and changing the existing A303 to a bridleway/cycle route.

[KeithW]

I am surprised that National Highways haven't indicated that they are willing to make more Active Travel / Environmental Changes to the scheme?

The entire point of the tunnel is to improve the environment and restore links in the landscape, reconnecting footpaths and changing the existing A303 to a bridleway/cycle route.

Well making it D2 is rather significant too.

[Herned]

Well making it D2 is rather significant too.

There is no engineering reason for the tunnel, it is entirely for heritage/Environmental reasons

[KeithW]

Well making it D2 is rather significant too.

There is no engineering reason for the tunnel, it is entirely for heritage/Environmental reasons

The functional requirement is that the Highway needs to be widened to provide a dual carriageway to handle modern levels of traffic. Previous schemes going back to 1991 were all rejected on cost or environmental reasons. For 30 years there was no progress so to say its solely about improving the environment is an overstatement. Go back into the 1960's and you will see the A344 transected the Avenue and you could basically park just outside the stone circle. Back then they could have built a 3 lane M303 and nobody would have blinked.

The 1950's reconstruction of the monument is worth a look, lots of concrete and heavy equipment was used.
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/vis ... 1950s-60s/

We werent always as precious about this as we are now. Take a look at Avebury were a road goes through the middle of the stone circle.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.42874 ... !1e3?hl=en

[Micro The Maniac]

We werent always as precious about this as we are now. Take a look at Avebury were a road goes through the middle of the stone circle.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.42874 ... !1e3?hl=en

Not just the road - but a whole village!

[Jim606]

I am surprised that National Highways haven't indicated that they are willing to make more Active Travel / Environmental Changes to the scheme?

The entire point of the tunnel is to improve the environment and restore links in the landscape, reconnecting footpaths and changing the existing A303 to a bridleway/cycle route.

In order to stand a better chance of approval National Highways (NH) have 'tweaked' the LTC scheme adding more environmental / active travel elements.

The Stonehenge Tunnel was rejected as it wasn't up to standard, particularly the western approach cutting scarring the landscape. NH have indicated that they are likely to resubmit the same scheme without any amendments. This seems a little strange when compared to the LTC? It seem logical to add an extra 'green bridge' over the line of the proposed (realigned) A360? Also the existing A303 is only going to be a 'minimum' 3m wide shared-use path when in reality it could be at least 4m+? The National Trust own Countess Barns next to Countess East roundabout (cum proposed Flyover) and there has been some discussion as to whether this will be developed as a separate Visitor Centre to the English Heritage one at Airman's Corner to the west. If this is the case why aren't the parties concerned taking to each other and discussing a bicycle hire scheme / connection project between the two via the old A303 bridleway. Instead they have opted for the bare minimum bridleway whilst support a massive road building project at the same time. It doesn't make much sense. Also the NT have asked for the existing 'Stonehenge Bottom' embankment to be reprofiled or used as further backfill for the old A344 running to the stones. NH haven't indicated that they are willing to do this? Finally, I believe the crossing points at the Countess flyover are at grade. Why isn't there any degree of separation?

[jackal]

I am surprised that National Highways haven't indicated that they are willing to make more Active Travel / Environmental Changes to the scheme?

The entire point of the tunnel is to improve the environment and restore links in the landscape, reconnecting footpaths and changing the existing A303 to a bridleway/cycle route.

In order to stand a better chance of approval National Highways (NH) have 'tweaked' the LTC scheme adding more environmental / active travel elements.

The Stonehenge Tunnel was rejected as it wasn't up to standard, particularly the western approach cutting scarring the landscape. NH have indicated that they are likely to resubmit the same scheme without any amendments. This seems a little strange when compared to the LTC? It seem logical to add an extra 'green bridge' over the line of the proposed (realigned) A360? Also the existing A303 is only going to be a 'minimum' 3m wide shared-use path when in reality it could be at least 4m+? The National Trust own Countess Barns next to Countess East roundabout (cum proposed Flyover) and there has been some discussion as to whether this will be developed as a separate Visitor Centre to the English Heritage one at Airman's Corner to the west. If this is the case why aren't the parties concerned taking to each other and discussing a bicycle hire scheme / connection project between the two via the old A303 bridleway. Instead they have opted for the bare minimum bridleway whilst support a massive road building project at the same time. It doesn't make much sense. Also the NT have asked for the existing 'Stonehenge Bottom' embankment to be reprofiled or used as further backfill for the old A344 running to the stones. NH haven't indicated that they are willing to do this? Finally, I believe the crossing points at the Countess flyover are at grade. Why isn't there any degree of separation?

The scheme was not rejected because it "wasn't up to standard". As explained and evidenced above, it was rejected for procedural reasons (SoS not reading the ES). Thus, quite logically, essentially the same scheme has been (not will be) submitted, but this time the SoS is presumably reading the ES.

By the way, there is a green bridge planned for the A360 junction. The most recent general arrangement is here: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... awings.pdf

A 4m shared use path would be most the width of the existing road, somewhat contrary to heritage concerns.

I'm not sure why you would compare it to the LTC, which hasn't even been accepted for examination yet, and has at least one more public consultation ahead of it. Obviously it is much more common for changes to be made at these earlier stages, when you have lines on maps rather than a detailed design. The Stonehenge scheme has already been through those stages and had progressively more environmental features added - now four green bridges, a longer bored tunnel, an additional cut and cover section, alignment changes, etc.

[Jim606]

The entire point of the tunnel is to improve the environment and restore links in the landscape, reconnecting footpaths and changing the existing A303 to a bridleway/cycle route.

In order to stand a better chance of approval National Highways (NH) have 'tweaked' the LTC scheme adding more environmental / active travel elements.

The Stonehenge Tunnel was rejected as it wasn't up to standard, particularly the western approach cutting scarring the landscape. NH have indicated that they are likely to resubmit the same scheme without any amendments. This seems a little strange when compared to the LTC? It seem logical to add an extra 'green bridge' over the line of the proposed (realigned) A360? Also the existing A303 is only going to be a 'minimum' 3m wide shared-use path when in reality it could be at least 4m+? The National Trust own Countess Barns next to Countess East roundabout (cum proposed Flyover) and there has been some discussion as to whether this will be developed as a separate Visitor Centre to the English Heritage one at Airman's Corner to the west. If this is the case why aren't the parties concerned taking to each other and discussing a bicycle hire scheme / connection project between the two via the old A303 bridleway. Instead they have opted for the bare minimum bridleway whilst support a massive road building project at the same time. It doesn't make much sense. Also the NT have asked for the existing 'Stonehenge Bottom' embankment to be reprofiled or used as further backfill for the old A344 running to the stones. NH haven't indicated that they are willing to do this? Finally, I believe the crossing points at the Countess flyover are at grade. Why isn't there any degree of separation?

The scheme was not rejected because it "wasn't up to standard". As explained and evidenced above, it was rejected for procedural reasons (SoS not reading the ES). Thus, quite logically, essentially the same scheme has been (not will be) submitted, but this time the SoS is presumably reading the ES.

By the way, there is a green bridge planned for the A360 junction. The most recent general arrangement is here: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... awings.pdf

A 4m shared use path would be most the width of the existing road, somewhat contrary to heritage concerns.

I'm not sure why you would compare it to the LTC, which hasn't even been accepted for examination yet, and has at least one more public consultation ahead of it. Obviously it is much more common for changes to be made at these earlier stages, when you have lines on maps rather than a detailed design. The Stonehenge scheme has already been through those stages and had progressively more environmental features added - now four green bridges, a longer bored tunnel, an additional cut and cover section, alignment changes, etc.

The whole Stonehenge saga has been one of 'Cat & Mouse' over many years, with the UK. Gov. / National Highways and its predecessors seeking to build a new dual carriageway across the site verses a collective of historians, archaeologists and other interested parties seeking to preserve the landscape. Give and take, push and pull, intricate debate etc. Both parties want the best 'deal', even if this takes a long time!

Although High Court ruling was on a 'technically', it was brought by the Stonehenge Alliance who used it as a part of a wider plan to extract more concessions. i.e. a longer tunnel or other environmental gains. As mentioned before, this particularly focuses on the western approach cutting. Now to be fair, NH agreed to a 110m long canopy at the western portal to replace the earlier green bridge no. four which was proposed to span the line of the downgraded A360 (bridleway). If I was a campaigner, I would want to see this green bridge reinstated in addition to the 110m canopy. I would do this by repurposing green bridge no. 2 which is outside the WHS to a position within it.

As for the bridleway then 3m is the minimum. The standard width of the existing A303 must be somewhere between 5.5 and 7m depending. It seems strange that EH & the NT have gone for this when they support the wider destruction of the landscape with the western approach cutting. 3m is very narrow if you are facing people on horse back? The idea of two visitor centres (i.e. an extra NT one at Countess East) is outside the remit of the road improvement scheme but EH & the NT could think ahead and look to how they could link the visitor experience together? i.e. a bicycle hire scheme between the two for example?

[KeithW]

Although High Court ruling was on a 'technically', it was brought by the Stonehenge Alliance who used it as a part of a wider plan to extract more concessions. i.e. a longer tunnel or other environmental gains. As mentioned before, this particularly focuses on the western approach cutting. Now to be fair, NH agreed to a 110m long canopy at the western portal to replace the earlier green bridge no. four which was proposed to span the line of the downgraded A360 (bridleway). If I was a campaigner, I would want to see this green bridge reinstated in addition to the 110m canopy. I would do this by repurposing green bridge no. 2 which is outside the WHS to a position within it.

As for the bridleway then 3m is the minimum. The standard width of the existing A303 must be somewhere between 5.5 and 7m depending. It seems strange that EH & the NT have gone for this when they support the wider destruction of the landscape with the western approach cutting. 3m is very narrow if you are facing people on horse back? The idea of two visitor centres (i.e. an extra NT one at Countess East) is outside the remit of the road improvement scheme but EH & the NT could think ahead and look to how they could link the visitor experience together? i.e. a bicycle hire scheme between the two for example?

So your idea of preserving the landscape involves building more stuff inside the WHS site including 2 visitor centres and adding commercial bicycle hire facilities, this sounds more like a theme park than preservation to me. How about adding a Stonehenge Audio Visual experience attraction as well , complete with gift shop of course.

As for the bridleway width 3 m is within the standard

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).

As an addendum at which point in history do you want it preserved ?

This is a landscape that has evolved over thousands of years
https://www.livescience.com/22427-stone ... Stonehenge.

[Phil]

Although High Court ruling was on a 'technically', it was brought by the Stonehenge Alliance who used it as a part of a wider plan to extract more concessions. i.e. a longer tunnel or other environmental gains. As mentioned before, this particularly focuses on the western approach cutting. Now to be fair, NH agreed to a 110m long canopy at the western portal to replace the earlier green bridge no. four which was proposed to span the line of the downgraded A360 (bridleway). If I was a campaigner, I would want to see this green bridge reinstated in addition to the 110m canopy. I would do this by repurposing green bridge no. 2 which is outside the WHS to a position within it.

But doing this effectively lengthens the tunnel and the big problem with making the tunnel ANY longer is it will then need either a mid position vent shaft (obviously completely unacceptable in the context of Stonehenge or a 3rd 'service tunnel' bore to bring fresh air and extract fumes from the middle of the tunnel to the portals at each end which would be massively expensive and definitely push the whole scheme into 'Completely unaffordable' category under current HM Treasury BCR rules.

[Jim606]

So your idea of preserving the landscape involves building more stuff inside the WHS site including 2 visitor centres and adding commercial bicycle hire facilities, this sounds more like a theme park than preservation to me. How about adding a Stonehenge Audio Visual experience attraction as well , complete with gift shop of course.
As for the bridleway width 3 m is within the standard
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 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).
As an addendum at which point in history do you want it preserved ?

*Please note*, it's not my idea to build another visitor centre (VC). The National Trust own the Countess Barns site next to the Countess Junction. They apparently 'understand its development potential' i.e. another car park and 'ye olde gifty shoppe'. All I am doing is making the point. If this were to happen, then a sustainable way of getting between the two i.e. by bicycle on say a 4m+ wide pathway would be a good idea. Even if this is only by safeguarding the space to widen at a later date.

Jim606 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 10:04
Although High Court ruling was on a 'technically', it was brought by the Stonehenge Alliance who used it as a part of a wider plan to extract more concessions. i.e. a longer tunnel or other environmental gains. As mentioned before, this particularly focuses on the western approach cutting. Now to be fair, NH agreed to a 110m long canopy at the western portal to replace the earlier green bridge no. four which was proposed to span the line of the downgraded A360 (bridleway). If I was a campaigner, I would want to see this green bridge reinstated in addition to the 110m canopy. I would do this by repurposing green bridge no. 2 which is outside the WHS to a position within it.

But doing this effectively lengthens the tunnel and the big problem with making the tunnel ANY longer is it will then need either a mid position vent shaft (obviously completely unacceptable in the context of Stonehenge or a 3rd 'service tunnel' bore to bring fresh air and extract fumes from the middle of the tunnel to the portals at each end which would be massively expensive and definitely push the whole scheme into 'Completely unaffordable' category under current HM Treasury BCR rules.

The new 110m canopy which replaced the earlier green bridge no. 4 proposal was added after the first consultation. There is a large gap between that and the western tunnel portal. This replaced the proposed green bridge no.4 which was to have crossed the A303 along the line of the A360. Unfortunately, anyone now wanting to cross the A360 (bridleway) would have to divert to the canopy. This issue was brought up by the National Farmers Union in their own submission to the consultation. They rightly pointed out that in order for this to happen National Highways have had to put a bridleway both sides of the A303. This uses more land than needed. They strongly argued for green bridge no. 4 to be retained in addition to the 110m canopy. This is not a 'longer tunnel' and wouldn't need any of the issues you raise above. As I've always said this could easily be done by building green bridge no.2 as a standard bridge and simply transferring its 'capacity' into the World Heritage Site.

What I am aiming to do, is think of solutions.

[Jim606]

Well, its been in the news yet again...this time in New Civil Engineer. I've aimed to be pragmatic with my own posts looking at how 'more coverage of the western approach cutting' could be achieved i.e. an extra green bridge in addition to the 110m canopy. Plus more environmental works, such as a wider path along the course of the downgraded A303 etc. As the article says there are still on-going calls for a longer tunnel.

Renewed calls for planned Stonehenge Tunnel to be made longer
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest ... 7-04-2022/
27 APR, 2022 BY CATHERINE KENNEDY

Supporters of a longer Stonehenge Tunnel are continuing to insist the alternative solution should be considered in new documents submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This comes in response to transport secretary Grant Shapps' request for further comments on the scheme from interested parties.

In its submission to the Planning Inspectorate, the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) said it "continues to urge" a reconsideration of alternatives due to the harm that 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".

Overall, the CBA stressed that it does not believe alternatives have been adequately considered in the planning process.

Its submission says: "We reiterate even more strongly that far more serious consideration should therefore be given to any alternatives by which the harm to the WHS could be avoided – especially where they offer much greater opportunities for enhancement and rehabilitation."

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."

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.

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 released a statement of matters in December last year which sets out the aspects of the planning application that he will be taking another look at.

A big part of redetermining the application is looking at the environmental and carbon impact of the proposed scheme in relation to government commitments and legislation. Shapps will also have to prove that he has considered an alternative scheme for a longer tunnel.

However National Highways has stood by its original Stonehenge Tunnel plans.

In documents submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, National Highways said its position regarding a bored tunnel extension "remains unchanged" and "this option should be excluded from further development".

The roads operator added: "There is no evidence that the additional investment required to extend the tunnel length would deliver meaningful additional benefits to the World Heritage Site (WHS) that would justify the additional cost."

National Highways has also ruled out a series of other alternatives. The cut and cover tunnel extension was rejected on the grounds that the balance of benefits and disbenefits would not justify the "significant additional cost". Surface routes to the south of the WHS were also rejected due to their "much larger footprint" and "greater overall environmental impact than the partially tunnelled options". National Highways project director for the A303 Stonehenge scheme Derek Parody said: “It is a scheme objective to conserve and enhance the WHS and this is being achieved through close collaborative working with heritage groups, including English Heritage, National Trust, Historic England and the independent A303 Scientific Committee, and our archaeology contractors Wessex Archaeology.

“The scheme will not only sustain the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS, it will also have a beneficial effect, and extensive archaeological studies and assessments have been undertaken to provide evidence of the benefits that the scheme will deliver for the World Heritage Site.

“A longer tunnel would represent a significant cost, provide limited benefits to heritage and limit the effectiveness of the scheme in relieving congestion along the route and associated local traffic problems.”

[Bryn666]

environmental impact than the partially tunnelled options". National Highways project director for the A303 Stonehenge scheme Derek Parody said

Surely not. No way. Derek PARODY?

[Jim606]

The protracted and polarised views of those in favour of the current scheme and those wanting a longer tunnel are getting the project nowhere.

I think the detractors have not been clear when requesting 'a longer tunnel'. How long exactly? They have only ever said 'across the WHS' or at least the 'full length of the western approach cutting'. No mention has ever been made about the extra cost or the required ventilation shafts? Just saying a longer tunnel is not enough without more detail. However, they still have a point, to some degree, that the current scheme is still not enough. Once this road is built it will scar the landscape forever, so it's a good idea to get it right.

I am still of the opinion that a compromise can be reached. In fact, for the project National Highways really need to come up with a new plan.

[Barkstar]

The protracted and polarised views of those in favour of the current scheme and those wanting a longer tunnel are getting the project nowhere.

I think the detractors have not been clear when requesting 'a longer tunnel'. How long exactly? They have only ever said 'across the WHS' or at least the 'full length of the western approach cutting'. No mention has ever been made about the extra cost or the required ventilation shafts? Just saying a longer tunnel is not enough without more detail. However, they still have a point, to some degree, that the current scheme is still not enough. Once this road is built it will scar the landscape forever, so it's a good idea to get it right.

I am still of the opinion that a compromise can be reached. In fact, for the project National Highways really need to come up with a new plan.

The way it's going I doubt I'll still be driving before they break ground on this. It's all rather depressing how many discussions on here are about issues and plans that are decades old and still being argued over

[Debaser]

A 4m shared use path would be most the width of the existing road, somewhat contrary to heritage concerns.

You sir, work for National Highways and I claim my £10!

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.

[jnty]

A 4m shared use path would be most the width of the existing road, somewhat contrary to heritage concerns.

You sir, work for National Highways and I claim my £10!

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.

Yes - landowners quite happily build gravel tracks of comparable width all over the countryside with no planning permission and minimal controversy. The trouble comes when you put thousands of vehicles down it every day.

Besides, my experience of long distance paved cycle routes is that the margins can turn into nature conservation zones very quickly...