Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

[Debaser]

Didn't junction design used to be to the 100th or 150th most congested flow and the infrastruture built to cater for that knowing there would be congestion for a known number of days?

TD42 used the 50th highest hour flow, the example used in Annex 1 factoring the Annual Average Hourly Traffic by 2.891.

[tom66]

This isn't just sticking a tunnel somewhere to hide a road from rich NIMBYs like the ridiculous decisions to build 10 mile tunnels for HS2, we have a site that is globally recognised as one of the most important landmarks in the world with millennia of history under it and all people on this forum are bothered about is getting traffic moving quicker than development of a proper masterplan that improves the A303 and ensures the stones remain a globally significant site. There is far more to consider than the insular needs of drivers who can't think beyond their gas pedal.

This isn't anything like HS2. The reason for HS2 being bored in long tunnels is because it's a line that will operate at up to 225mph, including in tunneled sections. For that, it needs to be razor straight with minimal grade. You simply can't put that above ground with the planned route.

Stonehenge tunnel is a different situation altogether. Road vehicles are of course more tolerant of variation in grade and of corners than high speed trains, so the argument is whether a 3km dual carriageway tunnel improves the current site sufficiently versus doing nothing currently, not why HS2 gets much longer tunnels. Arguably, HS2 is much more important nationally than the A303 upgrade too, so it will get the best pick of infrastructure.

Frankly, I'm surprised at the protests over this tunnel project. A possible outcome of continued resistance is the project gets abandoned altogether - is that a desirable outcome? Surely the current situation of a busy single carriageway some 200m away from the stones is far more intolerable than a tunneled section that may have some archaeological impact.

[fras]

When, when, oh when, is this tunnel going to be built. This must be the longest running saga on road building inaction in the UK. Why can't we just get on and build things like they do in the rest of the world ? (OK, USA excepted !!!)

[Phil]

This isn't anything like HS2. The reason for HS2 being bored in long tunnels is because it's a line that will operate at up to 225mph, including in tunneled sections. For that, it needs to be razor straight with minimal grade. You simply can't put that above ground with the planned route.

NOT TRUE!

A huge amount of that tunnelling is to hide it from NIMBYs!

The exit from Old Oak towards the Chilterns was originally planned to be on the surfacer for example - but was put into a tunnel to pacify the residents living along the Central line corridor it uses.

Similarly the tunnel under the Chilterns is far longer than it needs to be for engineering reasons - its being done to pacify the residents of the Amersham area.

Further tunneling is also being done so as to mineralise the environmental impact - the Long Itchington Wood Tunnel is being done to avoid damaging some ancient woodland.

There are also some large chunks of cut & cover tunnel - again not remotely needed engineering wise but put there because of environmental or NIMBY concerns.

Finally if you examine High Speed rail across the world one thing you will NOT find is them having 'minimal grade' For high speed rail its 'minimal curvature' which is the most important thing to achieve as THAT is what governs the maximum permissible speed.

Also tunnels are in fact usually avoided if possible due to the huge diameters needed when running at high speed because of the massive air resistance they present to high speed trains traversing them. By contrast modern high speed electrically powered trains have zero problem maintaining speed up savage gradients with some sections for the French TGV network looking more like a roller-coaster than a railway in gradient profile terms.

[jackal]

When, when, oh when, is this tunnel going to be built. This must be the longest running saga on road building inaction in the UK. Why can't we just get on and build things like they do in the rest of the world ? (OK, USA excepted !!!)

It's less than a year since the high court decision. In Germany they still have decade-long legal sagas over road schemes like we used to have prior to the 2008 Planning Act.

[hoagy_ytfc]

Via email from National Highways:

A UNESCO report has been submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport to be considered as part of the process to look again at our Development Consent Order application. The report contains the findings of an UNESCO Advisory Mission visit to Stonehenge in April.

The full report has been published on the Planning Inspectorate’s website.

https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... ission.pdf

Edit: Just realised the document is dated April 2022, so apols if this is old news

[Jim606]

This Daily Mail article was interesting in the fact that National Highways are now openly admitting that the western approach cutting needs further discussion, i.e. more amendments. UNESCO however, are still calling for the road to be rerouted probably to the south.

Derek Parody, National Highways' project director for the A303 Stonehenge scheme, said: 'We welcome the report and the fact almost all of the scheme is totally acceptable to UNESCO. Although the western portal approach remains an area for further discussion, UNESCO has particularly praised the work of our independent Scientific Committee, which has been key to ensuring experts guide our development at every stage.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... henge.html

[B9127]

The time scale on this is probably longer than it took to build Stonehenge - would it be cheaper to move Stonehenge?

[KeithW]

This Daily Mail article was interesting in the fact that National Highways are now openly admitting that the western approach cutting needs further discussion, i.e. more amendments. UNESCO however, are still calling for the road to be rerouted probably to the south.

Well there are a few rather important MOD properties south of the A303 that suggest this is not a viable option
MoD Boscombe Down
Dstl Porton Down

[Bryn666]

This Daily Mail article was interesting in the fact that National Highways are now openly admitting that the western approach cutting needs further discussion, i.e. more amendments. UNESCO however, are still calling for the road to be rerouted probably to the south.

Derek Parody, National Highways' project director for the A303 Stonehenge scheme, said: 'We welcome the report and the fact almost all of the scheme is totally acceptable to UNESCO. Although the western portal approach remains an area for further discussion, UNESCO has particularly praised the work of our independent Scientific Committee, which has been key to ensuring experts guide our development at every stage.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... henge.html

Derek Parody?!

[KeithW]

Derek Parody?!

I know but he is real.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/derek-parody-20628b58
https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-road ... m-ceequal/

[Bryn666]

Derek Parody?!

I know but he is real.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/derek-parody-20628b58
https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-road ... m-ceequal/

And they say satire is dead. It's alive and very much kicking... us collectively in the nuts.

[jackal]

This Daily Mail article was interesting in the fact that National Highways are now openly admitting that the western approach cutting needs further discussion, i.e. more amendments. UNESCO however, are still calling for the road to be rerouted probably to the south.

"Further discussion" as in we will now write a bit saying why UNESCO are (still) wrong. NH have been very clear that extending the tunnel or rerouting has costs vastly disproportionate to benefits, and UNESCO restating their longstanding and rather one-sided view doesn't change that.

As a reminder, UNESCO are an international heritage organization that has no obligation to even consider social and economic effects in the country in question. So of course their views will often disagree with rational public policy, as when they threw their toys out the pram in response to socially beneficial redevelopment in Liverpool and Dresden.

[Peter Freeman]

When, when, oh when, is this tunnel going to be built. This must be the longest running saga on road building inaction in the UK. Why can't we just get on and build things like they do in the rest of the world ? (OK, USA excepted !!!)

It's less than a year since the high court decision. In Germany they still have decade-long legal sagas over road schemes like we used to have prior to the 2008 Planning Act.

But the first post in this thread was in 2002.

[jackal]

When, when, oh when, is this tunnel going to be built. This must be the longest running saga on road building inaction in the UK. Why can't we just get on and build things like they do in the rest of the world ? (OK, USA excepted !!!)

It's less than a year since the high court decision. In Germany they still have decade-long legal sagas over road schemes like we used to have prior to the 2008 Planning Act.

But the first post in this thread was in 2002.

And related to a different scheme, which was cancelled for political reasons by New Labour. The feasibility study for the current scheme was announced in the Autumn statement 2014.

Obviously "should we do it?" to DCO still takes several years (7 years in this case). The difference is that at the end of the planning process (DCO) you do not potentially have a further 5-10 year of legal challenges. We're at a year with Stonehenge, which is very much the exception - A38 Derby has been like that as well, but there have been 70-80 RIS schemes that have gone through with essentially no legal delay.

[Bryn666]

When, when, oh when, is this tunnel going to be built. This must be the longest running saga on road building inaction in the UK. Why can't we just get on and build things like they do in the rest of the world ? (OK, USA excepted !!!)

It's less than a year since the high court decision. In Germany they still have decade-long legal sagas over road schemes like we used to have prior to the 2008 Planning Act.

But the first post in this thread was in 2002.

Talk of improving the A303 at Stonehenge goes back to the early days of motoring. It is perhaps worth pointing out if they'd laid it out for a surface dual carriageway in about 1950 people wouldn't care but that ship has sailed now and regardless of what accountants say, this is one job where if we have to spend "silly sums" to get the right answer then we should given, you know, the global significance of the site.

Unlike Liverpool Docks, which personally I never understood were worthy of world heritage status being largely derelict and unusable for any other purpose unless rebuilt entirely.

[Jim606]

Talk of improving the A303 at Stonehenge goes back to the early days of motoring. It is perhaps worth pointing out if they'd laid it out for a surface dual carriageway in about 1950 people wouldn't care but that ship has sailed now and regardless of what accountants say, this is one job where if we have to spend "silly sums" to get the right answer then we should given, you know, the global significance of the site. Unlike Liverpool Docks, which personally I never understood were worthy of world heritage status being largely derelict and unusable for any other purpose unless rebuilt entirely.

The fact that Derek Parody (National Highways) admitted that the scheme needs more work is a major step forward. I still think more coverage is needed for the western portal approach cutting and UNESCO seem to agree. What influence UNESCO actually have remains to be seen. I guess they can strip the site of World Heritage Site status, like Liverpool. But Stonehenge is a joint designation with Avebury, so perhaps they might only strip the Stonehenge bit? As for Liverpool, I think they were concerned about all the tower blocks going up on the waterfront? However, most of the old warehouses, including the massive Tobacco Dock https://www.tobaccowarehouse.co.uk/ are being converted into apartments and the new Everton stadium piling has been designed not to interfere with the old Bramley Moore Dock walls.

[the cheesecake man]

The time scale on this is probably longer than it took to build Stonehenge - would it be cheaper to move Stonehenge?

Yeah just stick it on some rollers and drag it back to Pembrokeshire.

[jackal]

Stonehenge tunnel contracts worth £1.31bn signed

... a £1.25bn contract has been signed with MORE joint venture, which comprises FCC Construcción, WeBuild and BeMo Tunnelling.

They would undertake the construction of the proposed tunnel's civil, structural, mechanical, electrical and technology components.

To "ensure programme timescales are maintained", a £60m contract has been signed with Costain and Mott MacDonald, NH said.

These firms would provide technical and construction management expertise during the project - which is expected to take five years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-63094057

[ABB125]

Stonehenge tunnel contracts worth £1.31bn signed

... a £1.25bn contract has been signed with MORE joint venture, which comprises FCC Construcción, WeBuild and BeMo Tunnelling.

They would undertake the construction of the proposed tunnel's civil, structural, mechanical, electrical and technology components.

To "ensure programme timescales are maintained", a £60m contract has been signed with Costain and Mott MacDonald, NH said.

These firms would provide technical and construction management expertise during the project - which is expected to take five years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-63094057

What's the betting that the "technical and construction management expertise" is insufficient to maintain the timescales?