|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » New Stonehenge road plans |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 18:03
|
||
|
I think they'll go for a short, cut-and-cover tunnel. Yes Baz. But here's what worries me. I lived in a village where a new road was proposed. The Ministry produced various options, including what they said was their preferred one - right through the middle, knocking down dozens of houses, including mine. We the peasantry went to their exhibition and shouted at their smart young officials and said how ridiculous it was and in due course they informed us they'd "listened" to our concerns and instead had decided to bore through the immensely important and historical Wychbury Hill (Morfe will know all about it). In the event, it never happened, but I'm pretty sure their original plan was purely a frightener to make us feel grateful for their true intentions. The Stonehenge proposals reek of a similar approach. Almost go for cut and cover, allow everyone to go bananas about it and then relent in favour of short bored, and try to suggest they'd done something praiseworthy. Hands off the Stonehenge World Heritage Site - in all and every respect.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 18:47
|
||
|
>The Stonehenge proposals reek of a similar approach. Almost go for cut and cover, allow everyone to go bananas about it and then relent in favour of short bored, and try to suggest they'd done something praiseworthy.< Mmm... very interesting Nigel but are they (the bureaucrats) really that devious (let alone that clever)? I dunno, maybe they <i>are</i> devious <i>and</i> clever but I've got a feeling that maybe the whole issue has got so bogged down in detail that no-one knows for sure anymore what to do for the best. At the risk of exacerbating the problem even further perhaps it's time to hand the whole thing over to UNESCO and let them sort it out.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 18:49
|
||
|
"No Short Tunnel" No Ta Mac!
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 19:24
|
||
|
"but are they (the bureaucrats) really that devious (let alone that clever)?" Devious and clever enough to entirely exclude what's best for Stonehenge from the options document, and to slag off some of the remaining options but not others... "perhaps it's time to hand the whole thing over to UNESCO and let them sort it out." You mean the UNESCO that a couple of years ago put on record it's warm congratulations to the British government over it's management of Silbury? Nah, we're on our own over this. We could raise the money for a long tunnel quite easily though. Get the government to come home from Iraq just 11 days earlier, that'd do it. Or get the Yanks to stop just an afternoon early, that'd do it as well...
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Feb 03, 2006, 20:51
|
||
|
>Nah, we're on our own over this.< But everyone keeps going round in circles Nigel (no pun intended). What on earth <i>is/i> the right solution? How can it best be implemented? I confess I'm as confused on the issue as perhaps are many others :-(
|
|||
|
BuckyE 468 posts |
Feb 04, 2006, 01:56
|
||
Well, the obvious solution is to just close the A303 from Amesbury to Wylye. There's nothing in between those two points that needs dual carriageway. And there's your slogan: "Just Shut It Down!"
|
|||
|
andy worthington 25 posts |
Feb 09, 2006, 23:21
|
||
|
Hi all. Just catching up, and glad to see all the discussions. I have to say that I'm finding it hard to figure out what English Heritage and the Highways Agency are up to. The short bored tunnel proposal met with almost universal cricitism from so many different parties (including the National Trust) that I can't really see it being resuscitated, and the cut and cover proposal is, of course, even less appealing, and would attract even more criticism from respectable organizations (NT included again) as well as providing an extraordinary focus for direct action. Another thing to bear in mind is that the dualling option is less important than it used to be. There was a time when the whole of the A303 was supposed to be dualled because it was some kind of European Trade Route, but that all went out of the window when Alistair Darling backed down on plans to dual part of the road further west in Somerset (last year? the year before?) Add to this the pressure that can - and will - be exerted by the environmental groups that are part of the opposition to inappropriate development (and who will start talking about how we may be nearing the point of maximum road traffic), and I think there's a strong message to be put out that, if the long bored tunnel option isn't economically possible, then all the plans to date should be ditched, and some fresh ideas introduced. But for now: no short bored tunnel, no cut and cover, better the devil you know... 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'. http://www.andyworthington.co.uk
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Feb 10, 2006, 07:43
|
||
|
"But for now: no short bored tunnel, no cut and cover, better the devil you know...". Yes, but, latest release (23/l/06) gives the following options In addition to the bored tunnel, the following alternatives are being looked at; 1) Bypasses of the Stonehenge site, either to the north or south, 2) a cut and cover tunnel past stonehenge 3) Changes to the Countess roundabout, closure of the A344/A303 junction and construction of the Winterbourne Stoke Bypass. Decisions still have to be made, opposition still has to be garnered, these options just won't go away. The full force of government plus constructional interests - Balfour Beatty/Costain is the firm, with a cost estimate of £510 million and a starting date of 2008 - all will have a strong bearing on the outcome. A handful of environmentalists stand little chance, construction firms hire heavyweights.. In the end we all have to get out of our cars and stop driving every where because we think we have a right to do so..Stonehenge should be made more difficult to get to, perhaps we need a little more difficult wilderness in Britain and less urban escapism.
|
|||
|
VenerableBottyBurp 675 posts |
Feb 10, 2006, 12:33
|
||
|
"achievABLE STONEHENGE" ! This may not be overly popular on this forum as it doesn't go far enough for what we had all hoped, but seeing as that will never happen we have to go for the lowest common denominator - the farthest we can push something with the majority support. The public simply want the present services removed and moderately upgraded leaving the site presentable without spending the sort of money that hospitals and schools are in far greater need of, and they do not want to wait until the 12th of Never for an unachievable consensus in respect of the road in order for these improvements to take place. Why not go for an "achievABLE STONEHENGE" - (leave the A303 road argument to one side as we will never ever get any agreement, then simply close the A344 and remove the tarmac back to the start of the present car park which can be reduced to a turning-circle for transporting disabled visitors. Remove the tunnel offices and shops, and create a reception area with car park of overlaid 'Ground Guard' north of a line drawn east from Airman's Corner. Stonehenge is ably supported by the Wiltshire Heritage Museum at Devizes and South Wilts Museum at Salisbury, it doesn't need a Visitor Centre or a Theme Park that is just a cash cow for you know who) ? VBB
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 10, 2006, 12:49
|
||
|
Yes. Yes yes yes yes yes. I'd already picked up your mention of the slogan "achievable Stonehenge" from your use of it elsewhere and commented to someone how inspired it was. Here's the thing: It's absolutely vital that we all agree to this as a broad idea and not lose unity over minor details. I don't necessarily agree with every nuance of what you say, and the practicalities may well dictate a few changes, but everyone signing up for the broad concept is what matters. A few of us are working on it. There are some very strong and unifying cards in this. One of the strongest is the fact that £60 million on an interpretation centre is unnecessary, disproportionate and even crass, given the tiny size of the heritage pot. There are 1,000+ British Stone circles. Most get inspected by EH once every 7 years. How can that not be plain wrong? Let's stick together, keep it simple and wield some people power.
|
| Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
