Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by markeystone
close
more_vert

I don't know whether a Long Tunnel or a Road Around is best but at this stage any debate about them simply helps the Short tunnel movement by weakening the opposition, which is why I feel "No Short Tunnel" is the strongest call that everyone should make.

Competing interests from the wild lifelobby is something else the bad guys profit from. The RSPB is rather taken with the idea of a lake for migratory birds at Thornborough, as Tarmac never tire of saying (bird flu notwithstanding!) Every time a quarry company digs a hole they give the impression that their main aim is to provide a wildlife habitat.

If it came to a choice though, the Stonehenge archaeological landscape is more important than the wildlife I'd have thought. RSPB and the nature Conservation Trust are pretty clever at creating new environments and reintroducing species. As a lifelong birdwatcher and fanatical lepidopterist I'd cheerfully throttle the Stone Curlews and squash all the grizzled Skippers if in so doing Stonehenge wasn't further messed up.

Harsh but fair.
;)

>If it came to a choice though, the Stonehenge archaeological landscape is more important than the wildlife I'd have thought.<

Ah, there I must respectfully disagree with you Nigel. Stonehenge, its attractions and its tourists will still be there in another 1000 years + while the stone curlew, and other endangered species, might not (and if push came to shove I think I'd rather throttle the tourists and save the curlews :-)

The bored short tunnel, as recommended by the Inspector, is too expensive, so that's not going to happen. The "Options for Review":

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/8311.aspx

states:
"The methods of boring the 2.1km tunnel will be reviewed in the light of the discovered ground conditions to determine whether cost savings can be achieved."

I think they'll go for a short, cut-and-cover tunnel.

"No Short Tunnel"

No Ta Mac!