Twyford Down, was there really no alternative?

[Comstock]

I've just been watching part three of 'secret life of the motorway', which of course is on YouTube.

It's all academic now, of course, but why did they not make a long loop out to the East of Winchester? Or would that have been even more environmentally sensitive?

[JohnnyMo]

Maybe something more like the Baldock Bypass may have been better.
With a short tunnel and the ridge line restored

[Vierwielen]

There was an alternative - a tunnel. Given the costs of all the inquiries, the tunnel might well have been cheaper. The biggest difference as far as I can see between Twyford Down and Hindhead is that the National Trust had a much more effective lobbying system that did those who opposed the cutting at Twyford Down.

[Phil]

IIRC that was one of the options considered, but rejected as part of the inquiry. Thing is even back in the 30s there was extensive consultation on the route picked for the original bypass and the one chosen had lots to do with, what we would call today 'minimizing the effect on the environment' too.

Basically however you looked at it the best solution (minimizes the environmental impacts, maximizes use of the already built M3, most cost effective option, etc) was the one that eventually got built and is not dissimilar to the way the M40 descends from the Chilterns at Stokenchurch.

Having said that, given the opposition that emerged at the time (not all was from the Swampy types, a surprising number of middle class car owning conservative voters got involved) a tunnel along the lines of the one done for the A505 Baldock by-pass might have gone some way to mitigate its effect

[A303Chris]

I think tunnels at Baldock and Hinehead are a result of Twyford Down. In my own opinion I think, Twyford Down is not that bad and blends in well, its not that bigger eyesore. Thats why the road is so steep.

I think some of the middle class objectors were from Hockley Golf Course who lost a couple of holes which had to be replaced. I must admit it is noisly playing the holes close to the M3

[Richardf]

In my view the worst part of the M3 around Winchester is not Twyford Down but the rather roller-coaster like section just to the south of it. I know it has to get over the railway but it is not a nice bit of motorway (to drive or in engineering terms) and cannot be all that pleasant to either look at or live near, forming as it does this great embankment to the southeast of the city. I wish another design could have been found for this bit.

I have often wondered if a route further east was possible and would have been better both aesthetically and for construction purposes. I can see why they chose to follow the old bypass as much as possible to reduce land take, costs and make it easier to tie in this the existing roads. That said had the M3 bypass replacement gone further out then the section through J9 could have become a spur for the A34.

[zapalniczka]

I miss the spitfire bridge...

[Ritchie333]

The main problem was the A33 / A333 lights. A 1930s junction trying to cope with 1980s traffic carrying a pinch point from London and the Midlands to the South Coast was never going to work, but it was stuck with a hill one side and a protected flood plain in the other. They had to do something to get the economy moving, not that road protestors seem to actually give a monkeys about that. Telling somebody driving several tons of musical gear up Twyford Down in a transit to "get out and walk" is rather humorous.

[PeterA5145]

People have said in the past that a tunnel would have required a less steep gradient, meaning even deeper cuttings at each portal which would also have to be lit, and so the overall damage to the local environment might not have been much less.

[Comstock]

Also I believe tunnels are expensive to maintain. I remember reading somewhere that the New York tunnels make a loss, despite being heavily tolled and well used, and have to be subsidised by the bridges.

Of course a tunnel under land might be less expensive, but I doubt it comes cheap.

[sotonsteve]

A variety of routes were looked at between Popham and the M27. There were a couple of options to the west of Winchester, and these two options would have joined the M27 at J3 (the M271). There were also three options to the east, which would have joined the M27 between J5 and J7. The option that was taken always seemed to be the preferred option, closely following the A33 north of Winchester. In a way, the route of the M3 was dictated by the A33 south of Winchester, where the Chandlers Ford and Otterbourne Bypass opened in 1967, which was the highest standard trunk road in Hampshire at the time.

Protests against the M3 past Winchester only started in the early 1970s it seems, after the Chandlers Ford and Otterbourne Bypass had been opened to the south, the M3 at Popham to the north, and also a couple of dualling improvements to the A33 and the Kings Worthy A34 link. Hence, it was looking like all upgrades were focusing on the route following its original intended route parallel to the Winchester Bypass in the water meadows, and it was the water meadows that were the controversial bit. Come 1973 the construction of the M3 from Popham to Bar End was given the go ahead, with the southern terminus of the M3 facing the proposed route around the water meadows.

Through the 1970s the question was whether the motorway would be built or not, rather than where it would be built. Following the campaigning and public enquiries of the 1970s, the 1980s was the decade when they looked at avoiding the water meadows, but, of course, to both the north and south of Winchester the road links were already in place or under construction. To have taken a late 1960s view and reconsidered the routes to the west and east would have meant writing off all of the trunk road improvements already made to produce a completely new alignment. They did not do this, and instead they planned to utilise improvements already made or in the pipeline, and merely plug the gap. A tunnel was one option, the cutting was another. The tunnel would have been a lot deeper through the hill it seems, and the motorway would have also gone underneath the London-Southampton railway. In 1985, the scheme that ultimately got built was put forward. There were even plans in the 1980s for a stop-gap measure to ease traffic problems, getting rid of the Hockley traffic lights, closing Five Bridges Road, and having a north-facing half-junction with an overbridge. All traffic coming north from Twyford would have been directed onto the Winchester Bypass and traffic that would have gone straight on into Winchester via Five Bridges Road would have had to go via Bar End into Winchester.

To be honest, it's almost as if the motorway was taken over the railway to help use up the chalk removed from Twyford Down, so that it could be retained 'on site' rather than dumped elsewhere in the country. If the motorway had gone under the railway there would have been a lot of chalk to find a new home for away from the road scheme.

As a side note, the Labour party pledged to stop the M3 from being built through Twyford Down if they had won the 1992 general election. So if they had won that election, where would we be now?

[Glom]

As a side note, the Labour party pledged to stop the M3 from being built through Twyford Down if they had won the 1992 general election. So if they had won that election, where would we be now?

The same place we are now with Heathrow Airport where the opposition pledged to stop the third runway but this time they did and won and now they're undergoing convulsions trying to square their right-on opposition policies with the policies needed by a responsible government.

What is it with the number 3? Seems to be bad luck in transport planning.

[woodlea1]

The tunnel option was considered at great length at the P Inquiry. The M3 is a three lane motorway with hard shoulders. There are not that may bored tunnels of that size, even in Europe. Hindehead is dual two, so M3 tunnels would each be twice the diameter and 4 x the volume. Apart from the cost it was argued that the portals would be so large that they would be as visually intrusive as the cutting.... and the tunnel and approaches would have to be lit.

Perhaps the M3 should have gone to the west of Winchester from the A303 junction at Popham to the M271 at Nursling and straight into the Southampton Docks.... But if they had got wind of that idea perhaps the great local land owners, Lord Rank and Lord Mountbatton might have vetoed it!

[Richardf]

A third option using the A33 route would have been to split the carriageways. Northbound could have used the old bypass with southbound either having a smaller cutting or a smaller tunnel either of which would be far less intrusive than either of the other options. You could even have made the old bypass into a cut and cover or build land bridges to reconnect the hill with the city.

[Patrick Harper]

Hmmm, interesting....but what would you do junction-wise?

[Richardf]

Hmmm, interesting....but what would you do junction-wise?

Erm, not really got that far, idea just came to me last night when reading the thread. I suppose junctions wouldnt be much different in terms of location. J10 would have to be some sort of hybrid between pre and post Twyford layouts. 11 (north) might have to shift south a bit to fit in a NB onslip to the old bypass alignment. Would be better than the current arrangement, no steep uphill merge with motorway.

Wouldnt use the old bypass alignment for all of the northbound M3, just from Hockley to Bar End to get around the hill. South of Hockley current M3 route would be used, although would probably go under the railway rather than over it, particularly if using a tunnel for the southbound at twyford.

If a tunnel were used with this scheme then as only half a D3M, it would be no wider than a standard D2. Much easier to fit into the landscape.

[wrinkly]

I was hoping someone with detailed knowledge of the locality and the scheme's history would say this, but as nobody has, I will. Maybe such a person will join in later. We have at least one expert on the original Winchester bypass so maybe on this too.

The Twyford Down route was not the first officially proposed route. The first route was published in October 1970, 21 years before the eventual opening.

South of Winchester, from east to west there's Twyford Down, then St Catherine's Hill, then the site of the former A33 Winchester bypass now grassed over, then a wooded former railway embankment, then the water meadows. The embankment was a useful visual and noise barrier between the A33 and the meadows.

The first proposed route was close to the then A33. I've never seen a detailed plan and I don't know whether it was intended for it to completely absorb the A33, or whether it was entirely west of the A33, or whether it would have absorbed one carriageway and left the other for local traffic.

There was a massive campaign against it because it would have encroached on the water meadows and removed the barrier effect of the embankment. I'm not sure whether it would have removed the embankment itself, or been to the west of the embankment, or had one carriageway west of the embankment. Among the objectors was Winchester College which I think may be the owner of the meadows.

My recollection is that the government stuck with this route for a long time against all the opposition but eventually started looking at other routes. Maybe the Twyford Down route seemed at first to be probably less controversial.

Although I don't know for certain whether the original route involved completely absorbing the A33, my guess is that it didn't. Given that in the end the A33 was abolished, I wonder if a version completely absorbing the A33 would have been possible and better than the alternatives, maybe cutting a bit into the ex-railway embankment on one side and a good deal into St Catherine's Hill on the other.

[M4 Cardiff]

So is it just an urban legend that there were medeaval plague pits near the northern end of the cutting and that it was deemed too much of a risk to excavate them to allow a lower road level for a tunnel?

[SteveA30]

Got these from the Hampshire archive a couple of years ago. No date but, whenever the 2 week public inquiry was, in the early 70's.

[Richardf]

So is it just an urban legend that there were medeaval plague pits near the northern end of the cutting and that it was deemed too much of a risk to excavate them to allow a lower road level for a tunnel?

I have heard this rumor before. The only plague pits marked on the maps are on the south side of St Catherine's Hill not the north (although there may have been some there too), well off the current route to the cutting. Its possible that the tunnel would have tkaen a more westerly route under St Catherine's rather than Twyford Down so the southern pits could have been in the way of the motorway had the tunnel option been taken.

Of course its perfectly possible that it made no difference where the pits were and that they had no impact on the route/method taken!!