Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

[Peter Freeman]

The existing tunnel proposal has the issue of the urban look of the portals.

Both have steep sided hard surfaced sides with a look of a multi storey car park entrance, along with street lighting, in the middle of grasslands in the middle of a rural area! There can be no mitigation in the idea of planting woodlands to soften the portals as per the A3 Hindhead tunnel, so I do not know what else can be done to reduce this look. It will be an issue even if the tunnel is extended.

Is this seriously an 'issue' ?! The road, at great cost, will be buried underground, but the portals will look too 'urban' ?! FFS!

I recently visited Liverpool for the first time in many years. My visit of course included not only 'The Cavern' but also strolling in the docks area, which is being re-furbished, re-populated, etc. Old buildings are being re-purposed, architecturally meritorious new buildings being added - in my opinion, imaginatively and sensitively. But it has caused the area to lose its WHS status! No matter - plenty of people around. My general impression whilst there was that everyone approved. I believe the fundamental reason for that is that reasonable people don't mind the juxtaposition of old and new, if it's done properly. In fact, in most real life settings, such juxtaposition is an inevitable and normal part of life.

This is analogous to ancient Stonehenge being next to modern road and vehicles, with Stonehenge's WHS status also under threat. I don't see why the presence and visibility of the A303 (in its current form, a dualled form, or a buried form) is a problem. Although environmentalists are making a fuss, and apparently we Sabristi too (see the quoted post), I seriously doubt whether it occurs to ordinary reasonable visitors that the road is a problem (other than its congestion, of course).

Finally, multi-billion pounds is too much to solve this hardly-existent problem. If the cash-strapped goverment scraps the project, I will not be surprised or displeased.

BTW, I'm not a Philistine, I'm not blind, I've visited the site via the visitor centre 3 times in 3 decades, and nearby archeological sites, I enthusiastically follow the archeological investigations, and have driven the A303 end-to-end (though I prefer M4/M5).

[WHBM]

Liverpool ... But it has caused the area to lose its WHS status

An analogy with Stonehenge is valid I think, with Stonehenge's WHS status also under threat. I don't see why the presence and visibility of the A303 (in its current form, a dualled form, or a buried form) is a problem.

Unfortunately World Heritage is part of UNESCO, a United Nations agency, and like anything to do with the UN is wholly wrapped up with politics and factions jousting against one another. There is a need to be 'equal between nations'. So, for example, Finland manages several such sites, which wouldn't get a look in anywhere else. And there's pressure to delist others as well. Though quite how Stonehenge managed its current status with the A303 past the fence, but loses it if its buried in a tunnel where nothing can be seen, I can't quite reconcile.

As I understand it, a key Stonehenge project goal is to remove all signs of modern life from view from The Stones. This seems very reasonable, I think almost all power and utility lines have gone now, the A303 is a last critical bit. Nothing from the tunnel project will be visible at completion.

[Chris5156]

The way things are going, the Stonehenge scheme is likely to bite the dust for financial reasons, and it'll be the next government's problem.

If it doesn't happen this time, it will be dead for another couple of decades. I can't see Labour going ahead with it if they win next year

Yes, agreed. The point has already been made upthread, but for all the discussion here about amending the project to appease the sceptics by doing this or doing that, the truth is that we are now at a point where the fundamental choice is to build the scheme in its current form or to do without it - possibly for another 20-30 years, possibly for all time.

[Norfolktolancashire]

The existing tunnel proposal has the issue of the urban look of the portals.

Both have steep sided hard surfaced sides with a look of a multi storey car park entrance, along with street lighting, in the middle of grasslands in the middle of a rural area! There can be no mitigation in the idea of planting woodlands to soften the portals as per the A3 Hindhead tunnel, so I do not know what else can be done to reduce this look. It will be an issue even if the tunnel is extended.

Is this seriously an 'issue' ?! The road, at great cost, will be buried underground, but the portals will look too 'urban' ?! FFS!

I recently visited Liverpool for the first time in many years. My visit of course included not only 'The Cavern' but also strolling in the docks area, which is being re-furbished, re-populated, etc. Old buildings are being re-purposed, architecturally meritorious new buildings being added - in my opinion, imaginatively and sensitively. But it has caused the area to lose its WHS status! No matter - plenty of people around. My general impression whilst there was that everyone approved. I believe the fundamental reason for that is that reasonable people don't mind the juxtaposition of old and new, if it's done properly. In fact, in most real life settings, such juxtaposition is an inevitable and normal part of life.

An analogy with Stonehenge is valid I think, with Stonehenge's WHS status also under threat. I don't see why the presence and visibility of the A303 (in its current form, a dualled form, or a buried form) is a problem. Although environmentalists are making a fuss, and apparently we Sabristi too (see the quoted post), I seriously doubt whether it occurs to ordinary reasonable visitors that the road is a problem (other than its congestion, of course).

Finally, multi-billion pounds is too much to solve this hardly-existent problem. If the cash-strapped goverment scraps the project, I will not be surprised or displeased.

BTW, I'm not a Philistine, I'm not blind, I've visited the site via the visitor centre 3 times in 3 decades, and nearby archeological sites, I enthusiastically follow the archeological investigations, and have driven the A303 end-to-end (though I prefer M4/M5).

Unlike Liverpool the countryside is rural and the tunnel portals, complete with lighting, will give an urban look to it.

Some Sabristi such as myself do have different opinions on this scheme.

By the way, what is the acronym "FFS"? I've searched this site and cannot find what it means.

[fras]

By the way, what is the acronym "FFS"? I've searched this site and cannot find what it means.

Obviously, you've led a sheltered life. OK, I saw the emoticon !!

[Owain]

Fully-Fledged Street.

[RichardEvans67]

Former Functional Street.

[ChrisH]

I believe Theresa May described Boris Johnson as a "Fine Foreign Secretary"

[Herned]

Both have steep sided hard surfaced sides with a look of a multi storey car park entrance, along with street lighting, in the middle of grasslands in the middle of a rural area!

The steep sides are to minimise the amount of land being used, and they don't have any lighting. The tunnels are lit inside, but that's all

[KeithW]

Unlike Liverpool the countryside is rural and the tunnel portals, complete with lighting, will give an urban look to it.

Some Sabristi such as myself do have different opinions on this scheme.

By the way, what is the acronym "FFS"? I've searched this site and cannot find what it means.

The only people who will see it are those driving along the A303 ! At present anyone visiting the monument can see the road and hear the traffic on it For Freds Sake.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1782498 ... &entry=ttu

[Chris Bertram]

By the way, what is the acronym "FFS"? I've searched this site and cannot find what it means.

Obviously, you've led a sheltered life. OK, I saw the emoticon !!

Writing it ferfuxake usually gets past profanity filters.

[the cheesecake man]

I believe Theresa May described Boris Johnson as a "Fine Foreign Secretary"

He was the foreign secretary and he got fined...

[Helvellyn]

The existing tunnel proposal has the issue of the urban look of the portals.

Both have steep sided hard surfaced sides with a look of a multi storey car park entrance, along with street lighting, in the middle of grasslands in the middle of a rural area! There can be no mitigation in the idea of planting woodlands to soften the portals as per the A3 Hindhead tunnel, so I do not know what else can be done to reduce this look. It will be an issue even if the tunnel is extended.

Is this seriously an 'issue' ?! The road, at great cost, will be buried underground, but the portals will look too 'urban' ?! FFS!

What do you mean FFS? The nature of the stuff we build these days is really quite a big, depressing issue, almost always looking cheap and nasty (whilst costing a fortune) and speaking of a bleakly utilitarian don't-give-a-damn-about-anything-else attitude that's already caused a lot of damage. I find the defence of it extremely offensive. Almost everything that gets built these days is a complete and utter disgrace. This is a good example of why.

It's depressing in the extreme how many people don't have an issue with it.

[AnOrdinarySABREUser]

The existing tunnel proposal has the issue of the urban look of the portals.

Both have steep sided hard surfaced sides with a look of a multi storey car park entrance, along with street lighting, in the middle of grasslands in the middle of a rural area! There can be no mitigation in the idea of planting woodlands to soften the portals as per the A3 Hindhead tunnel, so I do not know what else can be done to reduce this look. It will be an issue even if the tunnel is extended.

Is this seriously an 'issue' ?! The road, at great cost, will be buried underground, but the portals will look too 'urban' ?! FFS!

Is there any reason to be this rude to someone else due to differences in opinion?

Anywho, I do agree with the notion that the tunnel portals are very ugly. It would be ideal if they had a more natural look to them, i.e. like the Hindhead and Roundhill tunnels, but considering that we're so far into the project now, it would be better if they planted trees around the tunnel portal to conceal it from the public eye ─ even the Lower Thames Crossing portals aren't as ugly as the Stonehenge Tunnel portals.

[Fluid Dynamics]

The existing tunnel proposal has the issue of the urban look of the portals.

Both have steep sided hard surfaced sides with a look of a multi storey car park entrance, along with street lighting, in the middle of grasslands in the middle of a rural area! There can be no mitigation in the idea of planting woodlands to soften the portals as per the A3 Hindhead tunnel, so I do not know what else can be done to reduce this look. It will be an issue even if the tunnel is extended.

Is this seriously an 'issue' ?! The road, at great cost, will be buried underground, but the portals will look too 'urban' ?! FFS!

Is there any reason to be this rude to someone else due to differences in opinion?

Anywho, I do agree with the notion that the tunnel portals are very ugly. It would be ideal if they had a more natural look to them, i.e. like the Hindhead and Roundhill tunnels, but considering that we're so far into the project now, it would be better if they planted trees around the tunnel portal to conceal it from the public eye ─ even the Lower Thames Crossing portals aren't as ugly as the Stonehenge Tunnel portals.

Perhaps the entrance could be flanked by mock sarsen standing stones

In all seriousness, the landscape is very different to Hindhead i.e. Salisbury Plain barren grassland as opposed Surrey Downs/Weald woodland. Nothing is going to blend well and planting would be inappropriate in the landscape and potentially affect the setting solstice sun, which is probably why we have ended up with the current proposal. All the more reason to shift the entrance out of the WHS and beyond the current A360.

[Helvellyn]

In all seriousness, the landscape is very different to Hindhead i.e. Salisbury Plain barren grassland as opposed Surrey Downs/Weald woodland. Nothing is going to blend well and planting would be inappropriate in the landscape and potentially affect the setting solstice sun, which is probably why we have ended up with the current proposal. All the more reason to shift the entrance out of the WHS and beyond the current A360.

Nothing's going to blend; artificial structures of any sort and age rarely do wherever they are, if by blend you mean camouflaged. The difference between decent and disgusting is rarely so much blending as it is design and materials (and the exact location). "In keeping" is often a better goal than "blending," although I struggle to see how a dual carriageway could ever manage that with any decent degree of success.

[fchd]

Nothing's going to blend; artificial structures of any sort and age rarely do wherever they are, if by blend you mean camouflaged. The difference between decent and disgusting is rarely so much blending as it is design and materials (and the exact location). "In keeping" is often a better goal than "blending," although I struggle to see how a dual carriageway could ever manage that with any decent degree of success.

Whereas the current A303 and the associated constant traffic jams (even at 11:30 at night last week when it was dark and you couldn't see any stones) does blend in?

[RichardA35]

Nothing's going to blend; artificial structures of any sort and age rarely do wherever they are, if by blend you mean camouflaged. The difference between decent and disgusting is rarely so much blending as it is design and materials (and the exact location). "In keeping" is often a better goal than "blending," although I struggle to see how a dual carriageway could ever manage that with any decent degree of success.

Whereas the current A303 and the associated constant traffic jams (even at 11:30 at night last week when it was dark and you couldn't see any stones) does blend in?

....and I'll counter the anecdotal "associated constant traffic jams (even at 11:30 at night..)" with my anecdotal experience regularly at peak hours eastbound (~7am) when I go through with hardly a vehicle in sight which is more in line with the recorded traffic flows.
I would suggest that with the summer now over a queue at that time is more likely to do with maintenance activities than traffic.

[Helvellyn]

Nothing's going to blend; artificial structures of any sort and age rarely do wherever they are, if by blend you mean camouflaged. The difference between decent and disgusting is rarely so much blending as it is design and materials (and the exact location). "In keeping" is often a better goal than "blending," although I struggle to see how a dual carriageway could ever manage that with any decent degree of success.

Whereas the current A303 and the associated constant traffic jams (even at 11:30 at night last week when it was dark and you couldn't see any stones) does blend in?

Where to begin, where to begin...

Let's start with the part where you've clearly failed to notice the part between "blending in" and "in keeping," i.e. where I wasn't even necessarily advocating blending in. Then we can move on to the bit where I've never even said that the existing traffic does. And after that there's the implication that "well because the current situation isn't good then something else is OK," which is pretty inane. The existence of one bad situation doesn't justify the creation of another one, even if it's marginally better.

Always try to do a good a job as possible. Never try to justify "this crude, cheap and nasty (even when it's not cheap) approach is good enough." Whilst sometimes that's all that's actually possible when that's the case it needs to be understood as a necessary evil, one where there should be a desire to fix it if that's ever possible.

[Bryn666]

Nothing's going to blend; artificial structures of any sort and age rarely do wherever they are, if by blend you mean camouflaged. The difference between decent and disgusting is rarely so much blending as it is design and materials (and the exact location). "In keeping" is often a better goal than "blending," although I struggle to see how a dual carriageway could ever manage that with any decent degree of success.

Whereas the current A303 and the associated constant traffic jams (even at 11:30 at night last week when it was dark and you couldn't see any stones) does blend in?

Where to begin, where to begin...

Let's start with the part where you've clearly failed to notice the part between "blending in" and "in keeping," i.e. where I wasn't even necessarily advocating blending in. Then we can move on to the bit where I've never even said that the existing traffic does. And after that there's the implication that "well because the current situation isn't good then something else is OK," which is pretty inane. The existence of one bad situation doesn't justify the creation of another one, even if it's marginally better.

Always try to do a good a job as possible. Never try to justify "this crude, cheap and nasty (even when it's not cheap) approach is good enough." Whilst sometimes that's all that's actually possible when that's the case it needs to be understood as a necessary evil, one where there should be a desire to fix it if that's ever possible.

Unfortunately the Treasury and several commentariat types on here and elsewhere think the journey time saving justifies the decimation of a historic landscape so that's pretty much it screwed. The answer has always been "this is one job where you have to spend A LOT to get it right first time", and in true British fashion we decide we can't be bothered. Much more important that those second home owners get to Cornwall a few mins quicker.