Re: A303 to go into a tunnel eventually? | Forum

Stonehenge and its Environs 134

Image by moss

A303 to go into a tunnel eventually?

Sanctuary Sep 30, 2013 09:36:52

Replying to nix

nix wrote:

Littlestone wrote:

Of course we’ve heard it all before but is this a sign that Stonehenge will one day get the (isolated) ambiance it so richly deserves - here’s hoping. Meanwhile, the noise-reduction coating to the A303 is good news as that (the traffic noise) really was a distraction to anyone who just wanted to sit on the grass and contemplate the monument.

Hi Littlestone.

Just thought I'd say that although I sympathise with that point of view, it isn't a distraction for me - well, not compared with the huge cost and impact of such a tunnel. We live in the modern world too and the closure of the road adjacent is such an improvement that I think it enough. I quite like the contrast between the two for many sites actually!

very best

I'm sat on the fence somewhat with this. Stonehenge is an ancient monument which has survived into modern times and without a doubt has become an iconic sight as one drives past on the A303 so for that reason I would leave it as it is although I fully understand LS's preferred isolation of it. My biggest objection would be the cost of a tunnel. I think Stonehenge has had enough money thrown at it and would rather like to see it spent on maintaining and researching many of our other ancient sites which year by year are slowly returning to nature because many are out of the public gaze.
Even with all the money spent on it, Stonehenge still seems to be as big a mystery as it ever was with a new idea one week then being dismissed the next and replaced by yet another and further reasons to raise more cash. When does it end?

Mustard Sep 30, 2013 10:11:17

Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:

I think Stonehenge has had enough money thrown at it and would rather like to see it spent on maintaining and researching many of our other ancient sites which year by year are slowly returning to nature because many are out of the public gaze.

It's an immense amount of money, and for little gain. In an ideal world, I'd like to see the 303 buried. But in a world where we're forced to choose between different projects, it's hard to see it as being the most sensible use of cash. I can think of ten sights that could benefit hugely from a fraction of that spend off the top of my head. And what would be gained at Stonehenge for the average visitors? In normal hours, the place is swarming with tourists. Even without the 303, it would hardly be a "natural environment", and I can't imagine feeling particularly connected to the place whilst surrounded by a throng of visitors.

Littlestone Sep 30, 2013 18:59:48

Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:

My biggest objection would be the cost of a tunnel.

That would be one of mine as well. It might be worth remembering though that the new visitor centre, “...is financed almost entirely by Heritage Lottery Fund money (£10m), English Heritage commercial income and philanthropic donations including significant gifts from the Garfield Weston Foundation, the Linbury Trust and the Wolfson Foundation.” Doubt if a Stonehenge tunnel would get that sort of investment (there’d be no payback) though there might be some, and with help from the State it might be achievable.

The alternative is this :-(