Dual carridge way proposal for the A303

[matt2007]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-38589118

Would be a godsend come the monday trip home

 

[eFestivals]

they've been talking about this tunnel for over 40 years.... and given that this announcement still isn't signed off (like all the other ones weren't), I wouldn't go holding your breath.

[philipsteak]

Aye, pretty sure this was definitely going to happen, yep definitely this time, no not like those other times, it really is this time, when I lived in Salisbury about 15 years ago 

[russycarps]

The approved tunnel is too short. The government has fucked it up as usual.

[guypjfreak]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

they've been talking about this tunnel for over 40 years.... and given that this announcement still isn't signed off (like all the other ones weren't), I wouldn't go holding your breath.

Yea and if they had done something years ago it wouldn't cost the £1444445255583656555322225658.85p and your right about holding your breath old son.. The trouble is if they say no to this and it takes even longer it'll cost even more and we're not talking a few hundred more are we.. 

[Bisque]

My father, just recently retired as a tunnelling engineer, has been asked to go back to work on the Stonehenge project by his former employers. So there might be something in it.

Plus he needs the bunce for his new house.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Bisque

[Woffy]

This was reported on local / regional news yesterday as a done deal. 

4 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

I've seen this reported. Forgive my ignorance but how is a shorter tunnel more damaging than if it were longer?

All sounds a bit vague:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-38589118

I think everyone down here is too busy pretending 0.000001mm of snow is a catastrophe so they've got an excuse not to go to work, rather than worry about the Stonehenge tunnel. Yet-a-fucking-gain.  

[Woffy]

16 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Yeah cheers. 

I've seen this reported. Forgive my ignorance but how is a shorter tunnel more damaging than if it were longer?

The impression I got was that a shorter (cheaper) tunnel would access and egress too close to the stones. The 303 currently being quite far from them. 

So - as I understand it - aesthetically damaging to the landscape. 

[russycarps]

19 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Yeah cheers. 

I've seen this reported. Forgive my ignorance but how is a shorter tunnel more damaging than if it were longer?

Because the shorter tunnel will emerge and cut through important barrow cemeteries as well as other prehistoric sites within the World Heritage Site. 

A longer tunnel avoids this. But obviously leaving things as they are is the best option. There should be no more engineering works at sites like this. It's insane.

Well, the best option would be to massively divert the A303 away from the area altogether. And close that abomination of a visitor centre.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by russycarps

[Smeble]

27 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

I've seen this reported. Forgive my ignorance but how is a shorter tunnel more damaging than if it were longer?

Because instead of starting well before Stonehenge and finishing well after Stonehenge the tunnel basically pops up right next to it completely defeating the point of it. Plus there will be light pollution right next to Stonehenge and apparently they have managed to put one end of it right where the sun sets through the stones.

[Smeble]

If it ever gets the go ahead it will cause utter chaos and will take forever, 

what are the chances of being able to dig a tunnel past Stonehenge and not come across more previously unknown archeology which will hold up the project?

[russycarps]

2 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

I see, That makes sense.

 

Cheers bud. Excuse my Northern ignorance. 

It's been really badly reported in the newspaper reports I've read. No doubt that's deliberate. 

There's lots of stuff about it here:  http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/cba-shines-a-spotlight-on-stonehenge/

http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/stonehenge-alliance-explains-concerns-to-unesco-mission/

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by russycarps

[guypjfreak]

1 hour ago, Smeble said:

If it ever gets the go ahead it will cause utter chaos and will take forever, 

what are the chances of being able to dig a tunnel past Stonehenge and not come across more previously unknown archeology which will hold up the project?

I hope that they find something that would be cool 

[geoffboycott]

I live just off the A303, further west than Stonehenge, which was bypassed in the past.  Tbh, something does need to be done regarding the road, the ball has been kicked in to the long grass for decades now.  The traffic has increased so much and the single carriageway sections get snarled up very regularly and not just in the Summer and w'ends as was generally the case in the past - to the point that a back route (which I won't name) that used to be free flowing is now being used a regular alternative.

One of the biggest problems is rubber-neckers passing Stonehenge, windows down, taking pics, it's utterly ridiculous and dangerous and incredibly frustrating for locals trying to go about their business.

It's not just Stonehenge that is the problem, ideally there needs to be dual carriageway the full length of the A303 - how this is achieved is the tricky part in terms of disturbing the environment, but just putting it off, sticking fingers in ears and going lalalala, doesn't help. It would also help boost and diversify the SW economy, which to be frank, is greatly needed.

I agree the tunnel is too short, it should be longer.  Also as I understand it, the plan is to move the road further South, away from the sensitive area and put it through chalk, where there is very little chance of any archaeological interest.

I'm going to one of the local planning presentations/consultations for the A303 Expressway in the next few weeks, will be interesting.

[Harry49]

Why a tunnel wouldnt it be cheaper/better to divert the road away from the old stones? 

[Woffy]

If the tunnel emerges at the bottom of the Hill of Death at Gate C, I might be able to get on board with it. 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Harry49 said:

Why a tunnel wouldnt it be cheaper/better to divert the road away from the old stones? 

it's pretty much the same problem all around there - lots of ancient stuff.

Underneath is the only realistic way to do it.

[Harry49]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's pretty much the same problem all around there - lots of ancient stuff.

Underneath is the only realistic way to do it.

Ancient stuff and wildlife - always a recipe for procrastination! Would seem unlikely to be ever built judged on other grand UK infrastructure plans. Shame for the locals and SW economy as Geoff B stated. 

 

[Pinhead]

When I was a student doing a degree in Archeology at Southampton, we had a lecture about the impending Stonehenge tunnel project in the context of heritage and the law in general. That was in 1995....

One of the problems they'll face if its too short will be that given the rich archaeological stratigraphy in the area, every time they put a shovel in the ground it will unearth a bit of archaeology which the law will require to be professionally rescue excavated, recorded and documented whilst the developer pays for the study and halts all work whilst it takes place at that location. This would likely contribute to spiralling costs and project overruns to the point where the feasibility of the whole thing would questioned. You would think that surely this would be a consideration before any actual planning takes place..?

[MrZigster]

 

45 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

When I was a student doing a degree in Archeology at Southampton, we had a lecture about the impending Stonehenge tunnel project in the context of heritage and the law in general. That was in 1995....

One of the problems they'll face if its too short will be that given the rich archaeological stratigraphy in the area, every time they put a shovel in the ground it will unearth a bit of archaeology which the law will require to be professionally rescue excavated, recorded and documented whilst the developer pays for the study and halts all work whilst it takes place at that location. This would likely contribute to spiralling costs and project overruns to the point where the feasibility of the whole thing would questioned. You would think that surely this would be a consideration before any actual planning takes place..?

Today I learnt that stratigraphy is a word.

Finding the Dover bronze age boat when they improved the A20 didn't hold up work for very long iirc, and that was in an area that's been settled since, well, at least the bronze age. It also runs right next door to one of the best preserved Roman houses in the country, so they probably paved over tons of Roman stuff for ever as well.

I've always thought the obvious problem with the A303 is the way it constantly swaps from single to dual carriageway, thus causing bottle necks as two lanes worth of traffic then has to try to fit into one. It's a no brainer why it happens. How you dual the thing the rest of the way is another matter entirely.

Edited January 13, 2017 by MrZigster

[Pinhead]

Rescue excavation is by definition nowhere near as thorough as a fully planned excavation project and is typically time constrained - I think there is a kind of communications protocol that has to be followed between developer and excavation party that is designed to minimise the amount of delay to the development as well. Thus such excavations will be quicker. However, each context identified that has to be studied and recorded, could cumulatively contribute to a fair bit of potential disruption where the archaeology is rich.

The A303 does need a solution though obviously. In the future of self driving cars, perhaps the congestion is likely to be reduced as all vehicles would talk to one another and adapt to running at the same speed...

[phillyfaddle]

3 hours ago, geoffboycott said:

I live just off the A303, further west than Stonehenge, which was bypassed in the past.  Tbh, something does need to be done regarding the road, the ball has been kicked in to the long grass for decades now.  The traffic has increased so much and the single carriageway sections get snarled up very regularly and not just in the Summer and w'ends as was generally the case in the past - to the point that a back route (which I won't name) that used to be free flowing is now being used a regular alternative.

One of the biggest problems is rubber-neckers passing Stonehenge, windows down, taking pics, it's utterly ridiculous and dangerous and incredibly frustrating for locals trying to go about their business.

It's not just Stonehenge that is the problem, ideally there needs to be dual carriageway the full length of the A303 - how this is achieved is the tricky part in terms of disturbing the environment, but just putting it off, sticking fingers in ears and going lalalala, doesn't help. It would also help boost and diversify the SW economy, which to be frank, is greatly needed.

I agree the tunnel is too short, it should be longer.  Also as I understand it, the plan is to move the road further South, away from the sensitive area and put it through chalk, where there is very little chance of any archaeological interest.

I'm going to one of the local planning presentations/consultations for the A303 Expressway in the next few weeks, will be interesting.

I live in Andover, so declare a vested interest in this. Absolutely something needs to be done, as the A303 horrendous a lot of the time (not just past Stonehenge) at those points where it goes down from 2 lanes to 1. When I'm heading south west, I drive x-country around Salisbury and join the A303 at Wylye, rather than at the junction 5 mins from my home, which is bonkers but quicker.

BUT as you say, that proposed tunnel needs to be far longer or routed completely to the south of the site. There is so much of huge archaeological importance that has yet to be explored. Every year they're uncovering new things, like the massive henge at Durrington and many of the barrows surrounding the site haven't yet been excavated. 

Interesting about those consultations. Might well go to one.

[Pinhead]

Rather than tunneling, my guess is that the'd do it as a covered cutting rather than a tunnel, i.e. lower the road level and roof over and cover with topsoil. Anyone know any details of the 'plan' is this time around?

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Rather than tunneling, my guess is that the'd do it as a covered cutting rather than a tunnel, i.e. lower the road level and roof over and cover with topsoil. Anyone know any details of the 'plan' is this time around?

that's one of the ideas that's been floated in the past - it's cheaper than tunnelling, I think - but I'm pretty sure it's been rejected because there's too much chance of hitting too much stuff.

[Pinhead]

I suppose if widening of the road area was also the goal then it would definitely hit more stuff, yeah.