|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » New Stonehenge road plans |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
andy worthington 25 posts |
Jan 28, 2006, 21:57
|
||
|
Hi all, I know there are various Stonehenge discussions underway, but I'm getting bogged down in nonsense trying to follow parts of them, so apologies if this has surfaced somewhere else. On Monday, 23 January 2006, the Highways Agency announced the start of a public consultation on the options for road improvements at Stonehenge. They stated that: 'Following a Public Inquiry in 2004 into our proposals for improving the A303 past Stonehenge, the Inspector recommended a new dual carriageway should be built, along with a 2.1km long bored tunnel to remove the effects of the road and traffic from Britain's most famous prehistoric site. However, the cost of the new road has risen significantly since then and so Government Ministers have asked us to undertake a review and identify lower cost options. Over the coming weeks we will be holding exhibitions to illustrate our identified options and are looking for your feedback, using the enclosed questionnaire, on the best way forward. You are invited to attend an exhibition at the White Hart Hotel in Salisbury on: Thursday 9th February 2006 from 10 am to 8 pm Friday 10th February 2006 from 10 am to 8 pm Saturday 11th February 2006 from 10 am to 4 pm or in London at The Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, Piccadilly on: Friday 17th February 2006 from 10 am to 8 pm Saturday 18th February 2006 from 10 am to 4 pm Representatives of the Highways Agency and their consultants will be on hand to answer your questions." Full details and the online questionnaire for responses are available at http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/3659.aspx The options on offer via the new review are: 1. Short bored tunnel (2.1km) – the scheme that went to Inquiry in 2004, which was supported by English Heritage and the Highways Agency, but which was criticized by almost all other interested parties, including the National Trust, the Council for British Archaeology, Save Stonehenge, ICOMOS-UK (representing UNESCO), and the Stonehenge Alliance, which includes Friends of the Earth, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, Transport 2000, RESCUE and the Pagan Federation. 2. Short cut and cover tunnel (2.1km) – a scheme almost universally derided since it was first proposed in 1994 because of its devastating environmental impact. 3. A southern route through the World Heritage Site – unlikely, as there are grand houses to the south. 4. A northern route through the World Heritage Site – even more unlikely, as this is MoD land. 5. A flyover for Countess, a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke and the closure of the A344 junction at Stonehenge Bottom – which might result in more pressure for the creation of horribly destructive surface-level dual carriageways. To download the leaflet, visit: http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/documents/Stonehenge_leaflet_web_version.pdf What's particularly noticeable is that the longer bored tunnel option, which start and ends outside the borders of the World Heritage Site, is not included – because it's too expensive. What's also true, however, is that this is the only option that truly fulfils the government's obligations to UNESCO – to 'ensure the protection, conservation and preservation of the site, to the utmost of its resources'. The long struggle continues. Discuss. All the best, Andy Andy is the author of Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion (Alternative Albion, 2004), described by SchNEWS as 'by far the best bit of modern British social history I've seen', and the editor of The Battle of the Beanfield (Enabler, 2005), described by Professor Ronald Hutton as 'probably the definitive work on its subject, something very rarely achieved in practice'. www.andyworthington.co.uk
|
|||
|
The Eternal 924 posts |
Jan 29, 2006, 01:36
|
||
|
Andy, Who the Hell knows what's going on? Confusion reigns. I think all on here want the road well away from the Stones, but what that will that mean in terms of commercial exploitation is anyone's guess. Let's face it, they're (EH) charging a lot of money to see a ruin, and for very little added value, apart from an earpiece that tells you what you can read from a shit book, which they also charge for. Sorry, you can also buy a fridge magnet. How they will still make money from a site without gates and turnstiles is the worrying thing. They're surely not going from a big fee per head for nothing to no fee per head for an improved site in which you're free to walk, are they? Suspiciously yours, TE.
|
|||
|
andy worthington 25 posts |
Jan 29, 2006, 11:03
|
||
|
Hi there, Apart from some bluster about free access in the 1997 'Millennium Park' proposal, conceived by English Heritage and the Tussauds Group (which was dropped soon after), no other proposal has considered that all the fences will come down and everyone will be free to wander at will without paying. In fact, the visitor cost as a result of the various proposals hasn't really been discussed in any depth as far as I know. I remember that Chris Chippindale and a colleague did some research a few years back, which ended up concluding that we'd be looking at a cost of at least £10 a head! All the best, Andy Andy is the author of 'Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion', described by SchNEWS as 'by far the best bit of modern British social history I've seen', and the editor of 'The Battle of the Beanfield', described by Ronald Hutton as 'probably the definitive work on its subject, something very rarely achieved in practice'. More info at: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 15:59
|
||
|
The lack of interest in this thread is perhaps telling. Irrespective of what anyone thinks is right for Stonehenge, aren't the following realities apparent: 1.) Whatever anyone says and whatever the UNESCO obligations, there's no way the government is going to shell out enough money for a long tunnel or any other solution that would treat the site in the way it deserves. 2.) The remaining options have been drafted in a way that is meant to present the short bore tunnel as the only possibility - even though many will be bitterly opposed and, quite possibly, this too will prove too expensive. 3.) The other options - 3, 4 and 5 are there just to illustrate that they're even worse than the short bore tunnel and thus persuade people that short bore, though deeply regrettable, is the answer. So what is a poor heritage minded layperson to think or say? One thing, perhaps. There is weakness in divided opposition. The pointing up of the differing views of the various concerned organizations is a great advantage to the government. "We can't please everyone" may well be the theme that they adopt when they go for the short tunnel. But what if everyone (excluding EH of course who will support what their Whitehall masters ask them to as they always have for the past ten years) simply said Hands Off. If a long tunnel or other non-destructive solution can't be found then leave it alone, warts and all? The main road will clog up progressively, a traffic solution will become utterly urgent but the the appeal of a cheapo solution will have to be weighed against a unified protest movement that will utterly dwarf Newbury. Maybe, just maybe, the money will be found. I'd love to see Stonehenge sorted. This way I probably won't, as the present mess may remain for decades. But so what, in the scheme of things? So I think we need a slogan, one that encapsulates the issue and which everyone can agree to. Like Thornborough, the whole landscape should be sacrosanct. Unlike Thornborough, the Stonehenge landscape is defined and known, so a slogan that says something like Hands off the Stonehenge World Heritage Site might do the trick. Everyone would understand that as a worthy national aspiration, anything else would cause a massive and politically damaging furore and there'd be no danger of people being confused about what's at stake.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 16:35
|
||
|
>But what if everyone (excluding EH of course who will support what their Whitehall masters ask them to as they always have for the past ten years) simply said Hands Off.< Writing in The Independent recently Amanda Brown had the following to say (apologies if this has been posted elsewhere). "The recovery of one of Britain's rarest birds is under threat if plans to build a road tunnel near Stonehenge are scrapped... The overground alternatives to a tunnel... would destroy nesting and roosting sites of the stone curlew... The stone curlew has two UK strongholds, one of which is the area surrounding the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. The new road plans would also harm prospects for more than 25 other bird species and at least 14 types of butterfly... Tony Richardson, the director of the RSPB's south-west region, said: "A completely new road through the Stonehenge site is unthinkable, not only because of the area's obvious archaeological value but also because of the public outcry it will spark among the millions of who value Britain's wildlife."" >Unlike Thornborough, the Stonehenge landscape is defined and known, so a slogan that says something like Hands off the Stonehenge World Heritage Site might do the trick.< I tend to agree Nigel, the conservation and future of both Stonehenge and the Stonehenge area is so complicated that a 'Hands off Stonehenge' approach (at least for the time being) might be the best course of action.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 17:14
|
||
|
I don't know whether a Long Tunnel or a Road Around is best but at this stage any debate about them simply helps the Short tunnel movement by weakening the opposition, which is why I feel "No Short Tunnel" is the strongest call that everyone should make. Competing interests from the wild lifelobby is something else the bad guys profit from. The RSPB is rather taken with the idea of a lake for migratory birds at Thornborough, as Tarmac never tire of saying (bird flu notwithstanding!) Every time a quarry company digs a hole they give the impression that their main aim is to provide a wildlife habitat. If it came to a choice though, the Stonehenge archaeological landscape is more important than the wildlife I'd have thought. RSPB and the nature Conservation Trust are pretty clever at creating new environments and reintroducing species. As a lifelong birdwatcher and fanatical lepidopterist I'd cheerfully throttle the Stone Curlews and squash all the grizzled Skippers if in so doing Stonehenge wasn't further messed up. Harsh but fair. ;)
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 17:29
|
||
|
>If it came to a choice though, the Stonehenge archaeological landscape is more important than the wildlife I'd have thought.< Ah, there I must respectfully disagree with you Nigel. Stonehenge, its attractions and its tourists will still be there in another 1000 years + while the stone curlew, and other endangered species, might not (and if push came to shove I think I'd rather throttle the tourists and save the curlews :-)
|
|||
baza 1308 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 17:44
|
||
|
The bored short tunnel, as recommended by the Inspector, is too expensive, so that's not going to happen. The "Options for Review": http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/8311.aspx states: "The methods of boring the 2.1km tunnel will be reviewed in the light of the discovered ground conditions to determine whether cost savings can be achieved." I think they'll go for a short, cut-and-cover tunnel.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 17:48
|
||
|
Now then young Littlestone, you're being deliberately provocative. ;) I wasn't recommending causing any extinctions, just a bit of relocation to newly created environments, something the RSPB have done in loads of places. If the govt said they're going for a short tunnel to avoid disturbing some (not all that rare) butterflies you'd be outraged, surely?
|
|||
|
baza 1308 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 17:52
|
||
"Hands off Stonehenge" isn't an option. The Highways Agency want their dual-carriagewayed A303 and, one way or another, they'll eventually get it.Thats the driving force behind all of these Stonehenge road plans; consideration for Stonehenge is secondary.
|
| Pages: 3 – [ 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
