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.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 10:45
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.
Not everyone in the South West is a second home owner in Cornwall. Some of us would quite like a road fit for the 20th century to get to the nation's capital
The WHS boundaries are pretty arbitrary in places, and just happen to coincide with where the road is on the western side. Who knows how much archaeology there is to the west of the road?
This row of garages is part of the World Heritage Site. I for one am very pleased the United Nations recognise their importance to humanity
Herned wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 13:54
Not everyone in the South West is a second home owner in Cornwall. Some of us would quite like a road fit for the 20th century to get to the nation's capital
The WHS boundaries are pretty arbitrary in places, and just happen to coincide with where the road is on the western side. Who knows how much archaeology there is to the west of the road?
This row of garages is part of the World Heritage Site. I for one am very pleased the United Nations recognise their importance to humanity
Given that its part of Larkhill Camp the Ministry of Defence may beg to differ and they have the troops in place to enforce their opinion including two regiments of artillery
I'm confused as to the lack of consensus on this issue.
Those in objection to the proposed tunnel scheme (of which no doubt there are valid concerns) cannot surely have a desire for the road to remain 'as is'?
Given the transformative impact the tunnel will have on the WHS by the removal of the surface road balanced against there being no change to the road at all (which is the alternative outcome) I cannot understand how a cancellation of the project could be a preferred outcome. Am I missing something obvious?
There's a variety of different objections, from people who want no tunnel popping up in the middle of the wider site to people who want no form of tunnelling at all to people who want no road spending at all. The inability to sate everybody is why the status quo is the most likely outcome of all this, because if there's one thing the UK's good at it's rubbishy non-solutions that satisfy nobody. Plus doing nothing is cheap.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's people who want the road pulled up with no form of replacement.
deadeye wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 23:10
I'm confused as to the lack of consensus on this issue.
Those in objection to the proposed tunnel scheme (of which no doubt there are valid concerns) cannot surely have a desire for the road to remain 'as is'?
Given the transformative impact the tunnel will have on the WHS by the removal of the surface road balanced against there being no change to the road at all (which is the alternative outcome) I cannot understand how a cancellation of the project could be a preferred outcome. Am I missing something obvious?
Having an objection to a proposal is not the same as advocating doing nothing. A cancellation of a bad proposal can very much be a preferred outcome (even accepting that the status quo is bad) - do the job properly or not at all. Poor, cheap and nasty solutions are poor answers, and we shouldn't let "well accept that or get nothing" be an argument otherwise those poor solutions are all we'll ever get, from people who don't really give a damn about the country and what they're doing to it.
Of course you may be perfectly happy with the proposal, that doesn't make those who aren't wrong though.
The ideal world would indeed do nothing and simply not have anywhere near as much traffic on it. Not saying that's possible (because it's not in any vaguely realistic world), but you need to remember that at best it's a matter of the lesser evil.
Herned wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 13:54
The WHS boundaries are pretty arbitrary in places, and just happen to coincide with where the road is on the western side. Who knows how much archaeology there is to the west of the road?
We've seen this elsewhere, eg the A27 where the boundary of the South Downs National Park was aligned with the A27 as a clearly defined edge, then improvements to that road are constrained because of the SDNP status
Yes, I agree, if you're going to do a job, do it right or not at all.
The original idea was was a tunnel somewhat longer than what's proposed, but oh no, it cost too much so a cut down project was selected. This is a totally unique area, it deserves to be done properly.
Personally I would like to see the road gone entirely, but that probably isn't possible, so if there really isn't an alternative route, then it needs the longer tunnel.
I would also add that building a D2 tunnel runs the risk of creating a pinch point in the future, much like the Brynglas Tunnels, So again, do it right or don't do it.
Derek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 09:57
Yes, I agree, if you're going to do a job, do it right or not at all.
The original idea was was a tunnel somewhat longer than what's proposed, but oh no, it cost too much so a cut down project was selected. This is a totally unique area, it deserves to be done properly.
Personally I would like to see the road gone entirely, but that probably isn't possible, so if there really isn't an alternative route, then it needs the longer tunnel.
I would also add that building a D2 tunnel runs the risk of creating a pinch point in the future, much like the Brynglas Tunnels, So again, do it right or don't do it.
At this point, a route south of Amesbury which rejoins the current A303 route at Yarnbury Hill seems to be a cheaper and more popular option now, although I have no evidence to back this up so it's purely anecdata, however, there's so much controversy surrounding the current proposal that I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be the case.
Kinitawowi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 00:13
There's a variety of different objections, from people who want no tunnel popping up in the middle of the wider site to people who want no form of tunnelling at all to people who want no road spending at all. The inability to sate everybody is why the status quo is the most likely outcome of all this, because if there's one thing the UK's good at it's rubbishy non-solutions that satisfy nobody. Plus doing nothing is cheap.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's people who want the road pulled up with no form of replacement.
It's the same reason why we have a road going right through the Avebury site. Any diversion of the road would cause potential damage to somewhere else in the wider area, so it's easier to just keep the status quo.
Derek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 09:57
The original idea was was a tunnel somewhat longer than what's proposed, but oh no, it cost too much so a cut down project was selected. This is a totally unique area, it deserves to be done properly.
That's not right, the tunnel has got longer each time it has been proposed. The current plan is the longest that has been officially proposed, although of course some parties want an even longer one
Derek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 09:57
Yes, I agree, if you're going to do a job, do it right or not at all.
The original idea was was a tunnel somewhat longer than what's proposed, but oh no, it cost too much so a cut down project was selected. This is a totally unique area, it deserves to be done properly.
Personally I would like to see the road gone entirely, but that probably isn't possible, so if there really isn't an alternative route, then it needs the longer tunnel.
I would also add that building a D2 tunnel runs the risk of creating a pinch point in the future, much like the Brynglas Tunnels, So again, do it right or don't do it.
The 1995 government proposal was for a cut and cover tunnel. The 2002 proposal was for a 1.3 mile bored tunnel, which was cancelled in 2005 at which point the cost estimate was £470 million. The current proposal is a lot more substantial and a lot more expensive in real terms. If it ever gets built, I think D2 will have to be sufficient long term. The rest of the A303 is no more than D2.
I know it's easy and borderline fashionable to knock the bean counters (I am a corporate bean counter myself but no offence taken from the various remarks upthread ) but it is inconveniently true that money does not grow on trees and there must come a point when the powers that be should say that the numbers cannot be made to add up and so for the time being at least a project should not proceed. In my view, if Stonehenge can be bypassed without being ruinously expensive while satisfying the major environmental considerations then great, let's do it, and then the way is clear for the rest of the A303 corridor to be upgraded in relatively short order, providing a second high quality road corridor to the south west from M25, the south east and the London area. If it can't, then so be it, better not to have the A303 corridor upgraded than spend an unaffordable fortune on a project which still falls far short of an acceptable environmental outcome.
Scratchwood wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 14:31
It's the same reason why we have a road going right through the Avebury site. Any diversion of the road would cause potential damage to somewhere else in the wider area, so it's easier to just keep the status quo.
Its not exactly a busy road however, AADF is 6 to 7k and most of the buildings in the circle are there to cater for the visitors. If you want an undeveloped neolithic monument try the Rollright Stones https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.97557 ... ?entry=ttu
Owain wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 16:04
I know what: make fibreglass lookalikes of the stones and put them on Salisbury Plain, and put the real ones in the British Museum... tee hee hee!
Didnt Spinal Tap make replicas, of course they did get the scale wrong
Owain wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 16:04I know what: make fibreglass lookalikes of the stones and put them on Salisbury Plain, and put the real ones in the British Museum... tee hee hee!
Didnt Spinal Tap make replicas, of course they did get the scale wrong
Haha - I was thinking more along the lines of the equestrian statue of Marco Aurelio on the Campidoglio, a replica made when the original was placed in a museum for conservation.
Derek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 09:57
The original idea was was a tunnel somewhat longer than what's proposed, but oh no, it cost too much so a cut down project was selected. This is a totally unique area, it deserves to be done properly.
That's not right, the tunnel has got longer each time it has been proposed. The current plan is the longest that has been officially proposed, although of course some parties want an even longer one
Is there a map of the various proposals, tunnelled section and approaches ?
Derek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 09:57
The original idea was was a tunnel somewhat longer than what's proposed, but oh no, it cost too much so a cut down project was selected. This is a totally unique area, it deserves to be done properly.
That's not right, the tunnel has got longer each time it has been proposed. The current plan is the longest that has been officially proposed, although of course some parties want an even longer one
Is there a map of the various proposals, tunnelled section and approaches ?
I've got some plans of the early 2000's proposals.
Attachments
How would you like your grade separations, Sir? Big and complex.
Owain wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 16:04
I know what: make fibreglass lookalikes of the stones and put them on Salisbury Plain, and put the real ones in the British Museum... tee hee hee!
The price of land in Central London would probably be the same as the cost of digging a tunnel.
Owain wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 16:04
I know what: make fibreglass lookalikes of the stones and put them on Salisbury Plain, and put the real ones in the British Museum... tee hee hee!
Or even put the fiberglass 'stones' in a completely different location, and call it the Stonehenge replica.
Derek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 09:57
I would also add that building a D2 tunnel runs the risk of creating a pinch point in the future, much like the Brynglas Tunnels, So again, do it right or don't do it.
In theory, that might be true, but unlike Brynglas, most of the traffic passing Stonehenge is long-distance. Alternative routes nclude the M4/M5, A30 via Salisbury, M27/A35 etc, all of which are feasible for traffic originating in London and going on the Devon or Cornwall. If the tunnel were to be built now, I doubt that it will become a pinch point for years to come.
