4 ms·
The major A303 highway already passes within 150m of Stonehenge. [1] Surely it's a massive improvement to put it in a tunnel regardless. Unfortunately often pr
by stirlo 5y ago
The major A303 highway already passes within 150m of Stonehenge. [1] Surely it's a massive improvement to put it in a tunnel regardless.
Unfortunately often protests seeking a perfect outcome stand in the way of any progress.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Stonehenge/@51.1773294,-1.8274179,1258m https://www.google.com/maps/place/Stonehenge/@51.1773294,-1....
- simonh 5y agoIn _a_ tunnel yes, but not this one. The argument isn’t against tunnels in general, just the damage that would be done by the current plan.
- Danieru 5y agoWow, why on earth would one dig a tunnel there?! Its open fields. If moving the highway a way from Stonehenge is valuable: then move the highway into other fields. Don't spend 1.5 Instagrams on a tunnel.
- kitd 5y agoThe whole area for miles around is littered with significant archaeology.
- shakna 5y ago> The Stonehenge Alliance has campaigned from the start for a longer tunnel if a tunnel should be considered necessary. The protests weren't against using a tunnel - they asked for a more nuanced and considered approach to a tunnel.
- stirlo 5y agoThey delayed the tunnel another 2 years (minimum) in pursuit of a more costly complicated solution.
- wumpus 5y ago> stand in the way of any progress. What does this mean? If they have to build the road and/or tunnel farther away from the henge, is that not progress? Or should they just demolish the damn thing, because that's progress? The UK spends significant funds to preserve historical sites; this is a historical site. And preserving them is progress.
- kitd 5y agoEvery alternative route in that area goes through a significant archaeological site. You are resigned to either disturbing something somewhere or going very deep under it. The campaigners have only really delayed an equally unpalatable decision somewhere else.
- michaelt 5y agoIt depends:- * Does blocking a short tunnel mean you get a long tunnel instead? Or does it mean the road remains on the surface? * Does the damage to the site from excavating a tunnel outweigh the improvement of the site by hiding the unsightly roadway? * Does the climate emergency mean we should stop expanding roads for cars all together? Is a £1.7bn tunnel already too much to spend on cars, to say nothing of an even longer one? If they've successfully blocked the short tunnel but instead they get to keep the congested surface road for another 30 years, that seems like an own goal to me...