|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » Highways England Consultation - A303/Stonehenge |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tjj 3606 posts |
Jan 15, 2017, 00:18
|
||
|
This has been touched upon under another topic where I said I wouldn't say anymore until I had something useful to contribute. Here it is: https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/cip/a303-stonehenge/ Please read and comment if you wish (not necessarily here). Stonehenge is as mysterious and enigmatic as some of the more far flung ancient monuments in the British Isles - it really is. Lets get this road/tunnel decision right for posterity. A knowledgeable friend who probably would not want to be named here says: "Time is short so please friends start reading and sharing to stop the tunnel." |
|||
thesweetcheat 6210 posts |
Jan 15, 2017, 09:43
|
||
|
Thanks June, just added as a news story too for non-forum visitors. Lots to digest in the papers. The maps show the proposed routes and the position of the monuments.
|
|||
Markoid 1621 posts |
Edited Jan 15, 2017, 10:28
Jan 15, 2017, 10:22
|
||
I see absolutely no reason for a tunnel, apart from traffic congestion. Although tunnels are more landscape friendly than bridges and more roads. Tunnels are hugely expensive though compared to bridges. And if there is traffic congestion, then one has to ask why? Shouldn't public transport in rural communities be more prevalent or frequent?
|
|||
|
ironstone 62 posts |
Jan 15, 2017, 15:01
|
||
Congestion on the A303 isn't a question of rural public transport requirements; it's the major highway down to the West Country (at least for those who prefer a more scenic or romantic route to the dull M4/M5 alternative) and its shrinkage from dual carriageway to single-lane at that point is what causes the bottleneck around Stonehenge. The only alternative to a tunnel would be to widen the existing road but that would be even more destructive/disruptive. No wonder this decision's been debated and postponed almost as long as the Heathrow expansion.
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Jan 15, 2017, 15:32
|
||
|
ironstone wrote: Congestion on the A303 isn't a question of rural public transport requirements; it's the major highway down to the West Country (at least for those who prefer a more scenic or romantic route to the dull M4/M5 alternative) and its shrinkage from dual carriageway to single-lane at that point is what causes the bottleneck around Stonehenge. The only alternative to a tunnel would be to widen the existing road but that would be even more destructive/disruptive. No wonder this decision's been debated and postponed almost as long as the Heathrow expansion. Thank you for your rational comment. It is all a complicated nightmare and I'm afraid the Highways England Consultation document does not give any alternative options. The Stonehenge Alliance seems to be the main source of alternative options and discussion. http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/just-7-weeks-to-have-your-say-on-the-short-tunnel/ There are also some other links to be found there which make interesting reading. Apologies if you know all this already. I can't help thinking how it would feel if a tunnel under Avebury was ever mooted and the destruction it would cause to the surrounding WHS.
|
|||
|
Markoid 1621 posts |
Edited Jan 15, 2017, 15:45
Jan 15, 2017, 15:39
|
||
|
I've been down that way and distictly remember the scenic drive being rather beautiful. It wasn't congested though, busy right enough. Speed limits perhaps..or would that annoy Toyota! You can't please everybody I suppose. Some rural communities depend on tourism I guess. The countryside is fairly huge in England and it shouldn't be spoilt. I travel on trains and I see it. The odd road here and there wouldn't hurt, but I can see how it would annoy the locals. As for Heathrow, the debate is over and it will happen. I have no problem with a third runway, and I live 8 miles away. It's busy enough with 2. I don't live in Hounslow though, but houses are much cheaper and jobs it will create. Apparentely Oxford Street is the most polluted street in Europe. Horrible place anyway, apart from 100 Club which is worth a zillion carbon emmisions, once in a while!
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Jan 16, 2017, 10:35
Jan 16, 2017, 10:33
|
||
|
I apologise for plugging away at this on the forum as I'm sure many people think it's a done deal and Stonehenge is a lost cause anyway. If anything all this has made me realise how precious Stonehenge is along with the World Heritage Site it sits in. However indispensable we thinks cars/fast roads are, they are in fact a blight on our planet. Here is a piece from the Architects Journal which quotes Mike Hayworth from the Council for British Archaeology. ".... Council for British Archaeology director Mike Hayworth said many heritage organisations would still like to see a longer tunnel, as it is ’almost impossible’ to avoid damaging the area if the development took place as currently planned. He said: ’Stonehenge sits within a very significant, internationally recognised prehistoric landscape. ’On the western end where the portal tunnel comes out … this is in quite a sensitive area where there are lots of barrows [prehistoric monuments]. I’d like to know exactly where that portal is ... " https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/stonehenge-tunnel-archaeology-chief-raises-concerns/10016430.article#.WHybLQarnSw.facebook
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jan 16, 2017, 10:50
|
||
|
Keep plugging . There might be a lot of inverted snobbery about Stonehenge and area but it is simply hugely important .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 16, 2017, 13:23
|
||
|
If you/we don't keep plugging June it means we don't care. This site, of all places, ought to. IMHO the SH landscape shouldn't be subjected to new damage. But Historic England have recently decreed that important places shouldn't be damaged "unless there are important planning matters" and have re-defined conservation as "managing change". Plus we've found 20 lies about the tunnel so far. Search "yowling moggies". ;)
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Jan 16, 2017, 14:06
Jan 16, 2017, 14:03
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: If you/we don't keep plugging June it means we don't care. This site, of all places, ought to. IMHO the SH landscape shouldn't be subjected to new damage. But Historic England have recently decreed that important places shouldn't be damaged "unless there are important planning matters" and have re-defined conservation as "managing change". Plus we've found 20 lies about the tunnel so far. Search "yowling moggies". ;) Thanks Nigel, I do get the "yowling moggies" into my email account. This statement has been released by the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS FB page ... you've probably already seen it. The link at the bottom is also on the first post of this thread. Am about to make my comments there now but wanted to learn as much as possible first about the real impact of a short tunnel. "We would urge everyone to participate in the public consultation about the changes to the A303 at Stonehenge. The cost of this short tunnel is considerable, yet feeding those accessing the Stonehenge visitor centre from the A303 onto the Devizes to Salisbury A360, there would be inevitable tailbacks and make life worse for those villages and roads leading to the A360. A tunnel will offer no relief to local villages that need localised traffic calming measures, and robs thousands travelling westbound daily of one of the finest views in the country. The tunnel comes with a flyover at Countess Roundabout that crosses into the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS), a raised section would tower 8 metres alongside the precious site known as Blick Mead, the road continuing to the barrow cemetery east of King Barrow Ridge and into a tunnel portal below the Stonehenge Avenue. Traffic having been speeded up, the noise and pollution on this stretch will affect everyone: from those walking the Avenue to Amesbury Abbey care home residents, and of course wildlife road kills increase with faster traffic. Rare bats have been found in this area recently, and the effect on the wildlife inhabiting Vespasian’s Camp will be exacerbated. We should also be concerned at the effect on the River Avon and its tributary the Till, which are important for aquatic wildlife as Special Areas of Conservation. At the other end, the location of the west tunnel portal threatens views of the winter solstice alignment from the stones and emerges alongside the RSPB’s special Normanton Down reserve, so the noise and pollution will ultimately ruin it and drive out the stone curlews. The new four lane western road affects Normanton Down barrow cemetery, including the famous Bush Barrow, and is imposed on the highly important group of Neolithic long barrows running from Normanton Gorse to Longbarrow Crossroads and back towards Stonehenge itself. Whilst removing the whole of the A303 from the Stonehenge World Heritage Site would have some advantages, this short tunnel of around half the width but with both portals inside - would be devastating. Only by making your opinions heard can this tunnel be changed!" https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/cip/a303-stonehenge/
|
| Pages: 21 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
