News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Tunnel to be built under Stonehenge

Started by Road Hog, January 12, 2017, 07:03:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roadgeekteen

Build an interstate under Stonehenge
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5


english si

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2020, 12:54:00 AM
Thankfully this project has been approved and construction will proceed in a few years:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/in.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN27S1Z0
Thankfully this unlawful approval has been quashed by the High Court. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-58024139

"[The judge] found that there was a "material error of law" in the government's decision-making process as there was no evidence of the impact on each individual asset at the site.

And he said Mr Shapps had failed to consider alternative schemes, in accordance with the World Heritage Convention and common law."
(BBC article's summary of the ruling)

The full judgement has been uploaded by the Claimant: https://stonehengealliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Save-Stonehenge-judgment-FINAL-CO-4844-2020-30-07-2021.pdf

renegade

Quote from: kurumi on November 16, 2020, 02:32:44 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 22, 2019, 12:07:03 AM
Will it be built to the right scale?

Yes, the tunnel bores will be 18 inches high :-)
This one made my day!   :clap:
Don’t ask me how I know.  Just understand that I do.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: english si on July 30, 2021, 01:54:24 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2020, 12:54:00 AM
Thankfully this project has been approved and construction will proceed in a few years:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/in.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN27S1Z0
Thankfully this unlawful approval has been quashed by the High Court. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-58024139

"[The judge] found that there was a "material error of law" in the government's decision-making process as there was no evidence of the impact on each individual asset at the site.

And he said Mr Shapps had failed to consider alternative schemes, in accordance with the World Heritage Convention and common law."
(BBC article's summary of the ruling)

The full judgement has been uploaded by the Claimant: https://stonehengealliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Save-Stonehenge-judgment-FINAL-CO-4844-2020-30-07-2021.pdf
That's sad to see UK follow in the US footsteps of blocking much needed projects. Hopefully a resolution comes and this project is built.

Evan_Th

I'll believe the A303 needs expansion, but why can't they just expand it in place or build a wider road through the fields to the south of the current road?  Why does it need to be in a tunnel?

english si

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2021, 04:07:17 PMThat's sad to see UK follow in the US footsteps of blocking much needed projects.
Average time saved was assessed by the people promoting the scheme to be less than a minute. The congestion problem is handful of days a year (and has been significantly improved in recent years by small improvements) - closing side turns, restrictions on stopping). This leads people to think its always bad - because they only travel it on the bad days (and have memories of what it was like pre-improvements) and think its always like that.

There's lots of schemes that are more needed: eg the similar-standard A31 running parallel 25 miles to the south has worse congestion problems - and not just those handful of days a year (where it also sees traffic slow to a crawl and take about 8 times longer than it would in free-flowing conditions), but rush hour too.
QuoteHopefully a resolution comes and this project is built.
Hopefully not without serious modifications. While the ruling wasn't to pass judgement on the scheme, merely the lawfulness of the process approving it, the Order approving it was quashed, rather than put on hold without as there was no way it would have been approved had the process not been violated.
Quote from: Evan_Th on July 30, 2021, 04:11:08 PMwhy can't they just expand it in place or build a wider road through the fields to the south of the current road?  Why does it need to be in a tunnel?
How to put this in American terms? The whole area is ancient native burial grounds, settlements and monuments. And not just run-of-the-mill stuff but the densest, most extensive and best preserved, collection of prehistoric monuments in Britain, considered to be a "landscape without parallel" by UNESCO and one of the wonders of the world by Medieval Chroniclers. It's the strongest candidate for the flagship historic site in the UK - the most famous, the most globally important, etc.

You can't go through the archaeology - which anything on the surface will do - so you either go about 3.5 miles to the south*, or you go under it all in a bored tunnel.

The scheme, as proposed, has been found to have unlawfully ignored that it's a wider landscape and not just the stones and their immediate surrounding. It didn't go under it all, instead demolishing a large settlement with its western tunnel portal and the associated cutting would be through a large cemetery. They also didn't investigate alternatives enough to satisfy legal requirements. They were the two grounds upheld about the unlawfulness of the approval decision.

*Arguably a more useful scheme roads-wise would be doing this by having a similarly-priced big bypass of the Amesbury-Stonehenge area that also functions as a northern bypass of Salisbury. It's not a low impact route that won't be controversial, but the current route certainly isn't! it ought to be looked at in detail alongside a more expensive longer tunnel that does actually go under it all.

BrynM65

The main selling point for the half-baked scheme was it saved Highways England a load of money, at the expense of annoying everyone else.

As Si above says, the nearest equivalent would be suggesting sticking an interstate through the middle of the Alamo or having a tunnel portal directly next to Mount Rushmore. Some road projects need to be done properly or simply not at all - the USA of course learned this the hard way with numerous urban freeways that are now needing expensive remediation work.
The road giveth, and the road taketh away...

jakeroot

Quote from: english si on July 31, 2021, 06:48:41 AM
*Arguably a more useful scheme roads-wise would be doing this by having a similarly-priced big bypass of the Amesbury-Stonehenge area that also functions as a northern bypass of Salisbury. It's not a low impact route that won't be controversial, but the current route certainly isn't! it ought to be looked at in detail alongside a more expensive longer tunnel that does actually go under it all.

Speaking of: whose idea was it to build the Amesbury Bypass north of Amesbury, pointing directly at Stonehenge? I get that planners of the 1960s weren't as keen on environmental considerations. Still, even they must have known that, as a legitimate bypass of the M5-M4 route between Southeast England and London, it would become a relatively popular road and need dualling even beyond key town bypasses. Stonehenge certainly isn't something that should be anywhere near a dual carriageway.

skluth

Quote from: jakeroot on October 01, 2021, 02:10:36 PM
Quote from: english si on July 31, 2021, 06:48:41 AM
*Arguably a more useful scheme roads-wise would be doing this by having a similarly-priced big bypass of the Amesbury-Stonehenge area that also functions as a northern bypass of Salisbury. It's not a low impact route that won't be controversial, but the current route certainly isn't! it ought to be looked at in detail alongside a more expensive longer tunnel that does actually go under it all.

Speaking of: whose idea was it to build the Amesbury Bypass north of Amesbury, pointing directly at Stonehenge? I get that planners of the 1960s weren't as keen on environmental considerations. Still, even they must have known that, as a legitimate bypass of the M5-M4 route between Southeast England and London, it would become a relatively popular road and need dualling even beyond key town bypasses. Stonehenge certainly isn't something that should be anywhere near a dual carriageway.
There is a UK military facilities just north of Salisbury and Stonehenge. They're referenced in numerous shows like V for Vendetta.  The highway's purpose is more than just getting traffic to/past Salisbury and Stonehenge.

english si

Quote from: skluth on February 12, 2022, 02:03:13 PMThere is a UK military facilities just north of Salisbury and Stonehenge. They're referenced in numerous shows like V for Vendetta.  The highway's purpose is more than just getting traffic to/past Salisbury and Stonehenge.
Sorry, this is imposing US notions on the UK. We don't have a key purpose of our high quality roads being "defence", we don't have large numbers of troops creating such high traffic at bases that freeway-grade roads need building to serve them. If we need to mobilise forces on training camps like Salisbury Plain quickly, we'd be doing it by air anyway as the enemy would need engaging far quicker than can be done by road.

While roads are built to easier access military installations, we're talking about stuff like building 2-lane roads  where it would otherwise be narrow and twisty lanes. Try getting to RAF High Wycombe - you are signed down a road that is missing its central line in places because its not wide enough for 2 full lanes at those points and has bends worthy of warning sign to get to a relatively busy (hundreds of people work there, not many live on site) and highly important base (lots of VIPs come to the site as its where various commands are held) about 40 miles from London.

Plus absolutely none of these bases near Stonehenge/Salisbury are accessed using the Amesbury bypass, or the route covered by the proposed Stonehenge bypass. You'd always turn off the A303 before to reach them via the best route.

Furthermore, Porton Down (the base from V for Vendetta) is not meant to be easily accessible / easy to get away from. You don't want that from your microbiological research site - it needs to be easily locked down, and easy to cordon off a perimeter if locking down the site isn't enough.

Plutonic Panda

So do you think this road gets built at all or will it be canceled completely?

Plutonic Panda


kernals12


Plutonic Panda


Plutonic Panda




Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.