Indeed your proposals are better if they are achievable and a longer tunnel
would be more appropriate.
I think at the end of the day we have a traffic problem that needs to be
resolved whilst working with the WHS as well as the local population.
If the Government is proposing a 'once in a hundred year' definitive
resolution it shouldn't cut any corners.
On 1 Dec 2014 10:00, "Brian Edwards" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would like to persuade you to see this tunnel otherwise John, not least
> because a lot of folk will have an initial reaction along the same lines.
> Firstly, you mention "some disturbance": one tunnel entrance will be over
> a mile inside the World Heritage Site with the other more than half a
> mile... any tunnel works will prove a massive upheaval and disturbance of
> the landscape, wildlife, traffic, plus of course it will destroy
> archaeology and settings forever.
> As for "unsightly", I don't know how often you visit the Stonehenge &
> Avebury World Heritage Site but I do weekly and do not think the reality of
> the A303 unsightly or noisy, and let's face it it the A303 is rather
> further away from the stones than the route that passes through the centre
> of Avebury. Moreover, the occupants of 20,000 vehicles every single day
> have the privilege of a sight and opportunity to engage with a global icon
> at Stonehenge – whereas the visitor centre greets only between 500 and
> 5,000 each day!
> There are alternatives to a short tunnel that won’t cause as much damage,
> such as a very long tunnel or a detour, the other idea which works really
> well elsewhere is a dual clearway westbound and a single lane return
> eastbound – this would hardly damage any archaeology and we keep the view
> for all to share freely. The traffic noise isn’t increased because the
> lanes are not wide enough for excessive speed and cameras can always be
> added. This would be cheap and could be instigated quickly so would help
> the residents of Shrewton, Larkhill, Bulford, and Amesbury instantly.
> There are many, many more arguments to add, not least the hydrological
> change that threatens very important archaeological sites within the World
> Heritage Site - such as Blick Mead which is immediately adjacent to the
> A303 as well as being downhill from the tunnel entrance and below the level
> of the existing road. The tunnel proposed is a direct threat to this site
> among many others!
> I hope UNESCO rides in to save the WHS forever and stop this
> electioneering opportunism in its tracks.