=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Stonehenge and its Environs »
Highways England Consultation - A303/Stonehenge
Log In to post a reply
202 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
jonmor
jonmor
150 posts

Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 27, 2017, 18:06
tjj wrote:
[quote="nigelswift"]only the NT and EH could possible do that by stating the net income they receive from the Stonehenge ticket office. But as they want the short tunnel that would be kind of pointless ...


Definition of Value may not be important in archaeological enquiries, but they are relevant to government infrastructure schemes

It's very easy to show income value: For that, the monument untouched has a value of perhaps some £100-200m. However, that value is very low:

We are discussing partial destruction, so the value to be allowed to do that should be considerably higher. by using a comparative analysis, we could probably get £1bn to 2bn value. Of course, the sections being demolished are relatively small, so only a fraction of those costs could be allocated: Not enough to make a difference in this case.

A third mechanism, which only applies in some circumstances, is to show that unforeseen (or foreseen) extreme loss might occur (this is the method that was used in the appendices to Stern). In those circumstances, it is sometimes possible to justify much higher values: A higher value increases the value of the loss and can therefore be used to put forward justification for a scheme to be modified.


A second argument
In reply to:
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel (tjj)		 Replies:
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel (nigelswift)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index