Hi Nigel,
Thanks for producing this. I think it's a very good starting point for discussions, so here are my first thoughts about it:
A 1-4. Excellent.
B 1. Yes, I agree that the Northern Route is unacceptable, but perhaps, instead of mentioning any of the 5 proposals in the 'new' road plans at this point, we should state from the beginning that we're opposed to all of them, and that only the long bored tunnel would be acceptable. I realize that this is essentially what you've done in your proposal at 'Phase 2', but still think it would be better to state upfront that we're presenting this alternative scheme because of the problems with the 5 current proposals.
B 2. I can't agree with this. No more unnecessary digging, please. If fencing is moved to the edge of the NT land (as proposed in A3), this will be enough.
C 1-2. Yes.
C 3. Don't even propose it. Until we elect a pacifist PM, the warmongers' demands will supersede all others.
D 1. Yes – though for Shrewton read Airman's Cross.
D 2-6. Not sure about these. I'd suggest that free access is viable if the current entrance costs are transferred to vehicles. Those arriving on foot, on bicycle – and perhaps on public transport – shouldn't have to pay. I'd also like to think that the use of moveable walkways might permit unlimited access at all times except when the weather is bad, and, of course, throughout the height of the summer season.
I'd also suggest that the low-impact shuttle buses proposed at D3 and D5 should be for disabled people only – though perhaps for the elderly as well. Otherwise the place will be overrun with shuttles (imagine how few of the 5,000 daily visitors in summer would actually be bothered to walk). If the main car park is somewhere near Airman's Cross, then most of the A344 – apart from the section that runs from the existing car parks across the Avenue to the A303 – could be retained and used as a pedestrian path (as it was at the summer solstice until last year) and also as the official disabled access route for the shuttles.
E 1-4. Yes and no. I actually think that shops, restaurants and exhibitions are financially important and not necessarily a bad thing (Tate Modern, for example, is free – apart from the special exhibitions – but more than makes up for it through its shops and food outlets). I think there's an argument for outlets at the three proposed entrances – Airman's Cross, Durrington and Countess – with the largest located at Airman's Cross, because of the shuttle access and the use of the A344 as the main path.
E 5. I agree about removing the metalled pedestrian path and replacing it with a removable trackway, but suggest that, with the A344 removed around Stonehenge, the pedestrian tunnel would be unnecessary, and can be filled in.
Hope this gets a lively discussion going.
All the best,
Andy

Andy is the author of Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion (Alternative Albion, 2004), described by SchNEWS as 'by far the best bit of modern British social history I've seen', and the editor of The Battle of the Beanfield (Enabler, 2005), described by Professor Ronald Hutton as 'probably the definitive work on its subject, something very rarely achieved in practice'.
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk