Stonehenge Tunnel

This is nonsense. The tunnel will be far deeper than any possible archaeological remains. Ancient man may have built interesting stone monuments above the ground but he didn't go down very deep, so the tunnel cannot possibly have any effect on the strata that might contain dig sites.

Reply 2

L i b

Original post by fablereader

While the reasons of the tunnel seem valid (to ease traffic and improve safety), it should not be ignored that the tunnel would have a devastating impact on the rich archaeological history and landscape of the area.

More so than the big ****-off A-Road that currently runs beside it? I find that extremely difficult to believe.

Reply 3

nulli tertius

21

Original post by fablereader

Hi, the primary purpose of this discussion is to raise awareness.

The British government is currently in pre-consultation stage to reroute the A303, which passes close to the famous Stonehenge, into a tunnel (although the working assumption of Highways England is that the tunnel will happen). While the reasons of the tunnel seem valid (to ease traffic and improve safety), it should not be ignored that the tunnel would have a devastating impact on the rich archaeological history and landscape of the area.

Stonehenge Alliance is dedicated to preventing this tunnel. If you agree with them, you can sign a petition on their website here:
http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/

Also, Tom Holland, a well-known historian, has made a short Youtube video against the tunnel here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u4grV5VlH8

Actually they appear to want a bigger tunnel

http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/our-campaign/our-position/

Yet they also say:

"relief of congestion or stimulation of the economy are insufficient justification in themselves for increasing road capacity"

Most normal people believe those are exactly appropriate justifications for increasing road capacity. Most normal people oppose road schemes which believe do not deliver this. Most normal people believe stimulation of the economy is essentially good.

Reply 4

Original post by nulli tertius

Actually they appear to want a bigger tunnel

http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/our-campaign/our-position/

Yet they also say:

"relief of congestion or stimulation of the economy are insufficient justification in themselves for increasing road capacity"

Most normal people believe those are exactly appropriate justifications for increasing road capacity. Most normal people oppose road schemes which believe do not deliver this. Most normal people believe stimulation of the economy is essentially good.

These people are idiots. The two fundamental problems there are (a) the amount of traffic (and need to allow it to grow) and, (b) perhaps even more important, the fact that the traffic slows to a crawl as motorists rubber-neck the stones as they pass. It has never taken me less than an hour to pass between the roundabouts at Amesbury and the A360 junction with the A303 - and they aren't even 3.5 miles apart!

A tunnel is the only solution to the latter problem that doesn't also ruin the view.

Reply 5

fablereader

OP

4

Original post by Good bloke

This is nonsense. The tunnel will be far deeper than any possible archaeological remains. Ancient man may have built interesting stone monuments above the ground but he didn't go down very deep, so the tunnel cannot possibly have any effect on the strata that might contain dig sites.

Actually, there are significant archaeogical sites undergound in the area. Note this survey of the area around Stonehenge:
http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/stonehenges-hidden-landscape.htm

Reply 6

fablereader

OP

4

Original post by nulli tertius

Actually they appear to want a bigger tunnel

http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/our-campaign/our-position/

Yet they also say:

"relief of congestion or stimulation of the economy are insufficient justification in themselves for increasing road capacity"

Most normal people believe those are exactly appropriate justifications for increasing road capacity. Most normal people oppose road schemes which believe do not deliver this. Most normal people believe stimulation of the economy is essentially good.

They want a longer tunnel under the present A303, which will not create any further damage, instead of a shorter tunnel elsewhere within the World Heritage Site which will cause more damage.

A more full quote is: "We are mindful of widely accepted studies that relief of congestion or stimulation of the economy are insufficient justification in themselves for increasing road capacity. Evidence shows that these benefits are often not realised in practice."

Essentially, it has been shown that the proposed goals of the tunnel will likely not be reached, and as such it would be silly to cause damage for nothing.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 7

fablereader

OP

4

Original post by Good bloke

These people are idiots. The two fundamental problems there are (a) the amount of traffic (and need to allow it to grow) and, (b) perhaps even more important, the fact that the traffic slows to a crawl as motorists rubber-neck the stones as they pass. It has never taken me less than an hour to pass between the roundabouts at Amesbury and the A360 junction with the A303 - and they aren't even 3.5 miles apart!

A tunnel is the only solution to the latter problem that doesn't also ruin the view.

Please don't call the supporters of the petition, who include the historian Tom Holland and archaeologist Dr. Sophie Hay (she is also concerned about the tunnel, as shown here: https://twitter.com/pompei79/status/797942316291985412 ), 'idiots'. The two people I have pointed out are more along the line of 'experts' when it comes to history and archaeology, and they are concerned. Therefore, I reserve the right to feel concerned as well.

Reply 8

Original post by fablereader

Actually, there are significant archaeogical sites undergound in the area. Note this survey of the area around Stonehenge:
http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/stonehenges-hidden-landscape.htm

You aren't reading and thinking. Ask yourself two questions: (a) how deep are the archaeological sites below the surface? and (b) how deep will the tunnel be?

Obviously, if the second answer is larger than the first (and assuming the great folly of a cheaper cut and cover tunnel isn't adopted) there can be no archaeological damage.

The answers to the questions are (a) about 3m at most and (b) a damn sight deeper.

Many objectors simply want a widened road so that they can continue to drive past and see the stones, but this cannot work as the traffic will simply drive past at its current crawl, still causing jams.

Reply 9

spanker

Here's a simple solution: Kill all humanity.

Reply 10

Original post by fablereader

Please don't call the supporters of the petition, who include the historian Tom Holland and archaeologist Dr. Sophie Hay (she is also concerned about the tunnel, as shown here: https://twitter.com/pompei79/status/797942316291985412 ), 'idiots'. The two people I have pointed out are more along the line of 'experts' when it comes to history and archaeology, and they are concerned. Therefore, I reserve the right to feel concerned as well.

People who think a bored tunnel won't be below any possible archaeological site are idiots.

Reply 11

Lord Samosa

So its people like you that make life difficult for us, we've been wanting to do this for so long. We gotta ease congestion somehow. Not to mention the number of cars on the road is always increasing. 🙄

These schemes are done with a long term view, they don't just decide to start one. There's a very very long process where the project is questioned relentlessly to ensure it is justified.

Reply 12

cambio wechsel

future archaeologists wonder "what could be signified by their placing these stones immediately over a tunnel?"

Reply 13

Nunchuck-master-2334

Original post by fablereader

Hi, the primary purpose of this discussion is to raise awareness.

The British government is currently in pre-consultation stage to reroute the A303, which passes close to the famous Stonehenge, into a tunnel (although the working assumption of Highways England is that the tunnel will happen). While the reasons of the tunnel seem valid (to ease traffic and improve safety), it should not be ignored that the tunnel would have a devastating impact on the rich archaeological history and landscape of the area.

Stonehenge Alliance is dedicated to preventing this tunnel. If you agree with them, you can sign a petition on their website here:
http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/

Also, Tom Holland, a well-known historian, has made a short Youtube video against the tunnel here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u4grV5VlH8

They should stay away from Stonehenge.
It's an ancient wonder and is used for some of the biggest times of the year (winter &summer solstice).
It was also used for religious purposes. Leave Stonehenge alone, guys.

Reply 14

Original post by Mvine001

They should stay away from Stonehenge.
It's an ancient wonder and is used for some of the biggest times of the year (winter &summer solstice).
It was also used for religious purposes. Leave Stonehenge alone, guys.

So you would like to leave the busy road running past it and making a walking approach from the south impossible? You want to keep it noisy rather than allow people to see it in the peace and quiet as it might have been in times gone by?

Reply 15

Nunchuck-master-2334

Original post by Good bloke

So you would like to leave the busy road running past it and making a walking approach from the south impossible? You want to keep it noisy rather than allow people to see it in the peace and quiet as it might have been in times gone by?

You can always access it by foot.
I don't want the building of the tunnel risk destroying Stonehenge.
That's how I see it.
CXall me stupid, but I don't want the foundations to be damaged at all.
We don't know how big the stones are anyway.

Reply 16

Original post by Mvine001

You can always access it by foot.
I don't want the building of the tunnel risk destroying Stonehenge.
That's how I see it.
CXall me stupid, but I don't want the foundations to be damaged at all.
We don't know how big the stones are anyway.

It won't damage the stones, and will be far, far below the stones (and not actually directly underneath them anyway). If we can bore a tunnel under modern houses in London without damaging them we can certainly bore a tunnel to relieve the stones of the traffic and its noise, and to allow that traffic to make proper progress.

Reply 17

Nunchuck-master-2334

Original post by Good bloke

It won't damage the stones, and will be far, far below the stones (and not actually directly underneath them anyway). If we can bore a tunnel under modern houses in London without damaging them we can certainly bore a tunnel to relieve the stones of the traffic and its noise, and to allow that traffic to make proper progress.

If it's done like that, then that's good.

Reply 18

the bear