Stonehenge and its Environs forum 134 room
Image by jimit
Stonehenge and its Environs

Highways England Consultation — A303/Stonehenge

close
more_vert
tjj T
tjj Feb 27, 2017 09:48:56
Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:
To further clarify (lest Jon misunderstands) it's impossible to quantify CULTURAL value. Politicians wanting to suck up to interests which have other ambitions than culture apply monetary values to culture and compare it with the monetary value of speedier travel and conclude the latter is more beneficial. But the monetary value of culture, though real, is not the value of culture. Unless that reality is accepted this thread is kind of pointless!
I agree with most of the above Nigel - except your final sentence. I started this thread to help in some small way in getting information about the Highways England consultation process on the short tunnel proposal. I readily admit to being just a 'punter' but have listened to all the arguments and strongly feel tunnel or dual carriageway both to be highly damaging to the Stonehenge environment. It was jonmor who came on and diverted (for want of a better word) the thread talking about quantifying the value of heritage. He seems like a reasonable sort of person and may genuinely want to use the monetary value of Stonehenge WHS as part of the argument in the consultation process - though in fact, only the NT and EH could possible do that by stating the net income they receive from the Stonehenge ticket office. But as they want the short tunnel that would be kind of pointless ...

N nigelswift
nigelswift Feb 27, 2017 10:08:54
Replying to tjj

Sorry June, I didn't mean to close down your thread - which is, arguably, the most important of all for anyone who is into prehistoric sites, especially TMA readers. It's just that the assertions and hints by Jon that the value of the SH landscape can be "measured" somehow are a bit of a red herring. That's the bit of the thread I meant. Nothing wrong with threads going off the point but in this case it's not helpful.

J jonmor
jonmor Feb 27, 2017 17:56:57
Replying to tjj

tjj wrote:
[quote="nigelswift"]To further clarify (lest Jon misunderstands) it's impossible to quantify CULTURAL value.....

It was jonmor who came on and diverted (for want of a better word) the thread talking about quantifying the value of heritage. .

Apologies for diverting the thread ttj, I'll try to wrap it up: I've realised from reading the responses that our conversations are at cross-purposes. To my eyes, George and Nigel's responses did not appear to make any sense.

But there is a circumstance where my comments do not make sense:

If the consultation is primarily of an archaeological nature and concerns an archaeological scheme with some civil engineering as a side issue, then their comments perhaps make a lot of sense (I don't know much about archaeological works so perhaps my comments make no sense whatsoever)

On the other hand, if the consultation is primarily a highways (government) run exercise concerning a civil engineering scheme which has some archaeological issues, then George and Nigel's comments are an interesting and innovative approach.

J jonmor
jonmor Feb 27, 2017 18:06:16
Replying to tjj

tjj wrote:
[quote="nigelswift"]only the NT and EH could possible do that by stating the net income they receive from the Stonehenge ticket office. But as they want the short tunnel that would be kind of pointless ...
Definition of Value may not be important in archaeological enquiries, but they are relevant to government infrastructure schemes

It's very easy to show income value: For that, the monument untouched has a value of perhaps some £100-200m. However, that value is very low:

We are discussing partial destruction, so the value to be allowed to do that should be considerably higher. by using a comparative analysis, we could probably get £1bn to 2bn value. Of course, the sections being demolished are relatively small, so only a fraction of those costs could be allocated: Not enough to make a difference in this case.

A third mechanism, which only applies in some circumstances, is to show that unforeseen (or foreseen) extreme loss might occur (this is the method that was used in the appendices to Stern). In those circumstances, it is sometimes possible to justify much higher values: A higher value increases the value of the loss and can therefore be used to put forward justification for a scheme to be modified.


A second argument