Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by Rhiannon
Stonehenge

Proposal for an Achievable Stonehenge

close
more_vert
PeterH P
PeterH Feb 13, 2006 15:19:39
Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

We should not think that the tunnel has no adverse effects. Concern has been expressed that there will be "intrusive tunnel approaches in the high quality landscape at Longbarrow crossroads and King Barrow ridge". Furthermore, what about vibration from traffic hurtling through four lanes of subterranean dual carriageway? The traffic may be hidden, but it will still be just as close to Stonehenge as it is today. If the landscape is "sacred", I just don't like the idea of tunneling under it and running traffic through it. Better by, far to re-route the A303 south and take it much further away from Stonehenge altogether.

M moss
moss Feb 13, 2006 16:01:24
Replying to PeterH

Better by, far to re-route the A303 south and take it much further away from Stonehenge altogether.

The problem is an awful lot of barrows and linear features, are you proposing to take it over the last group and nearer to Woodford Valley...... The whole landscape is a mass of archaeological features, it will make the intended road very much longer and more expensive. Coming back to a landscape as "sacred" are'nt the barrows just as important as Stonehenge? I'm going for the "partial solution", in the hope that we will eventually run out of oil in the near future and there will be no road building, also believe that tunnelling is far more disruptive to the landscape.