For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1862076
I think the point is that the proposed tunnel is too short and close to the site. It would damage much of historic importance.
Last November in their ruling the planning inspectors warned it would cause “permanent, irreversible harm” to the Unesco world heritage site in Wiltshire.
#1862097
The trouble is, it should be a two part questionnaire.

1) Would you like Stonehenge to be better protected from passing traffic?

2) How much are you prepared to pay towards this?

I fail to see how 2 miles of tunnel can be called 'penny pinching'. Quite frankly I would be happy to see a surface road ('at grade' I think is what we civil engineers call that) perhaps half a mile offset from the current alignment, but that would still allow the lifting of the heart to the many millions of travellers who pass by and see the stones.

Failing that why not sell the stones to the US and let them build a theme park?
#1862099
Dino wrote:I think the point is that the proposed tunnel is too short and close to the site. It would damage much of historic importance.


But that doesn't seem to be the point made by the campaign spokesman whose position seems to be 'don't build roads'?

Rob P
#1862121
Relevant road schemes in recent history are the M3 cutting through Worthy Down at Wichester, the A3 South of Petersfield and the A3 tunnel at Hindhead. Most people would probably agree that the Hindhead tunnel was the best solution. We had several different schemes put forward, including a cutting on the current road line, a long bypass to the North, decimating various villages and a bridge across the Punchbowl. The tunnel has reunited a blighted landscape.
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/nostalgia/hindhead-tunnel-now-how-radical-21175816
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1862125
We always look for the cheapest solution not the best solution these days and privatisation is a poorly managed solution because the road "owner" has few obligations and a guaranteed income for 30 to 40 years. The result is the usual penny wise pound foolish outcome. We have just been through all this in respect of the A417/419 in the Cotswolds, I won't bore you with the whole sorry saga but it's not great.... :(
JAFO, kanga liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1862152
Paul_Sengupta wrote:The tunnel is the most expensive solution though.



The tunnel would be a good solution but it needs to be longer and further away..........
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1862159
Colonel Panic wrote:
johnm wrote:We always look for the cheapest solution not the best solution these days

Really? Surely the cheapest solution here is to do nothing, but that was not what was proposed. :roll:


At the risk of getting tangled up, my point was that when we do something we penny pinch and so we don't get the best available outcome. I saw some adverts on TV last night, which I rarely do as generally I wander off or zap when they come on, and I was struck by how they all focussed on low prices; features and quality were not mentioned. So I conclude it's everywhere not just public projects.
#1862162
So Stonehenge which has the sight, sound and pollution of an overburdened major road in close proximity will lose its World Heritage Status if it does away with this feature.

Exactly what is heritage? Traffic?

Rob P