|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Stonehenge and its Environs Forum | Start a topic | Search |
202 messages | Select a forum: |
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 Reply | with quote |  27th February 2017ce 18:06 In reply to: Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel (tjj) |
Messages in this topic: |