daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 11th, 2017, 10:26 AM   #4341
Exethalion
Remember Me
 
Exethalion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 845
Likes (Received): 646

Anything else you want to whine about?
Exethalion no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 11th, 2017, 11:51 AM   #4342
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,954
Likes (Received): 2205

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exethalion View Post
Anything else you want to whine about?
Now the M62 is closed (again) by wind when are we getting a tunnel under the Pennines then?
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2017, 08:10 PM   #4343
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,612
Likes (Received): 19400

A303 Stonehenge

A public consultation has started to upgrade A303 to a dual carriageway (which they call an 'expressway') through the Stonehenge area. There will be a 2.9 kilometer long tunnel at Stonehenge.

The aim is to transform the route into an expressway, a new type of strategic road which is as safe and reliable as a motorway and where ‘mile-a-minute’ journeys are the norm.

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace...03-stonehenge/

__________________

my clinched highways / travel mapping • highway photography @ Flickr and Youtube

Luki_SL, devo, Ryme Intrinseca, LAYiddo liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 12:04 AM   #4344
verreme
Registered User
 
verreme's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 1,392
Likes (Received): 645

Some motorways and expressways of Glasgow



__________________

Highway89, AvB, Luki_SL, ilyan, sonysnob liked this post
verreme no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2017, 03:05 AM   #4345
Ryme Intrinseca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 197
Likes (Received): 119

There will be two GSJs in the Stonehenge scheme, probably a dumbbell at the A360 and two-bridge roundabout at Countess/A345 (which is futureproofed with flaring to allow such an upgrade).

The whole point of the scheme is to remove sight and sound of the road from the Stonehenge, which will unfortunately mean that this kind of view from the road will no longer be possible.

Last edited by Ryme Intrinseca; January 14th, 2017 at 11:54 AM.
Ryme Intrinseca no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 11:23 PM   #4346
devo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 221
Likes (Received): 41

In addition to hiding all modern infrastructure around Stonehenge a minor point would also be to upgrade this part of A303 to dual carriageway, linking two other parts, thus removing a bottleneck.

I would've liked to see them extend the western portal to outside of the World Heritage Site, the eastern portal is not doing as much damage to "untouched" land so that isn't so bad.
It's about time they make this happen though, I first heard about this project back in 2000 when I visited Stonehenge for the first time.
devo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2017, 11:57 PM   #4347
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,562

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
In addition to hiding all modern infrastructure around Stonehenge
Though, ironically, removing the oldest thing on the site!
Quote:
the eastern portal is not doing as much damage to "untouched" land so that isn't so bad.
The streetlighting stinking up the sky is straight on the sightline from Stonehenge for some solstice solar situation.
__________________

devo liked this post
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 01:47 AM   #4348
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,954
Likes (Received): 2205

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
A public consultation has started to upgrade A303 to a dual carriageway (which they call an 'expressway') ]
I seem to remember a public consultation on this scheme in 1997, 20 years ago. I could be wrong but it has been around for years.

A roads tend to be 2+2 and no hard shoulder so expressway is fair enough in a way but the bloody thing will probably end in a roundabout at each end rather than a GSJ to placate all the howling Nimbys so 'expressway' is at least a misnomer and at most an outright lie.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if it ends up as an S4 tunnel with a 40Mph limit either.
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 11:40 AM   #4349
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,562

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponge_bob View Post
will probably end in a roundabout at each end rather than a GSJ to placate all the howling Nimbys
Which misses the entire point of what the objections are about. It's not the GSJs that are the problem for the protesters, it's the tunnel - which needs to be very deep through the WHS, or nowhere near it, and this one fails on both counts.
Quote:
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if it ends up as an S4 tunnel with a 40Mph limit either.
What benefit would that bring? The issue is the tunnel itself, not the nature of it, nor the speed limit.

And an S4 tunnel would actually be harder and more expensive to build than 2xS2 tunnels and would make a bigger gash through the architecture - not even Highways England's team that keeps re-proposing the same scheme with some tinkering on the edges that no one cares about and wondering why people are still not going for it are that dumb.


AFAICS, online dualling would be less destructive than the tunnel that keeps on getting proposed to get lambasted for the same reasons as the time before.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 11:53 AM   #4350
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 159
Likes (Received): 41

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Highways England's team that keeps re-proposing the same scheme with some tinkering on the edges that no one cares about and wondering why people are still not going for it are that dumb.


AFAICS, online dualling would be less destructive than the tunnel that keeps on getting proposed to get lambasted for the same reasons as the time before.
This is total nonsense, the tunnel has been supported by most people and bodies including English Heritage and the National Trust. There have been arguments for a longer tunnel certainly... but the reason the scheme has been proposed and cancelled at least twice is ENTIRELY down to the cost and poor value for money in purely economic terms. Obviously were Stonehenge not there then there is no way a tunnel would ever be proposed so the huge extra cost involved is just down to the aim of restoring the landscape
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 01:09 PM   #4351
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,954
Likes (Received): 2205

World Heritage Sites attract nimbys and howling econutters like nothing else does.

I fear that failing to tunnel under the entire site will prove to be a showstopper...when the public enquiry eventually ends ....in 2029.
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 01:44 PM   #4352
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 159
Likes (Received): 41

Thankfully schemes like this no longer need public enquiries - they are examined by the Planning Inspectorate who have a fixed timetable to examine all objections, and then there is a fixed timetable for their recommendations and a final decision by the Secretary of State. So as long as the Planning Inspectorate approves the scheme (and the money is still available) then it is likely to go ahead and maybe by 2029 it will actually be open
__________________

sponge_bob liked this post
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2017, 10:48 PM   #4353
Ryme Intrinseca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 197
Likes (Received): 119

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponge_bob View Post
A roads tend to be 2+2 and no hard shoulder so expressway is fair enough in a way but the bloody thing will probably end in a roundabout at each end rather than a GSJ to placate all the howling Nimbys so 'expressway' is at least a misnomer and at most an outright lie.
The consultation materials are clear that there will be no roundabouts on this section of A303 after the upgrade.
Ryme Intrinseca no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2017, 02:18 AM   #4354
Kanadzie
Registered User
 
Kanadzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,375
Likes (Received): 748

I'm curious... why the tunnel?
I sort of understand avoiding tunnel because maybe the vibrations will topple a rock.
But it's a pretty open area, why not a typical 2x2 motorway a few feet to the side of the old road?
__________________
100 coups de fouet, si vous n'êtes pas morts de rire !
Kanadzie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2017, 01:36 PM   #4355
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,562

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanadzie View Post
I'm curious... why the tunnel?
I sort of understand avoiding tunnel because maybe the vibrations will topple a rock.
Because the stones are the thing of LEAST archaeological significance on the neolithic landscape, which covers a large area.
Quote:
But it's a pretty open area, why not a typical 2x2 motorway a few feet to the side of the old road?
Because English Heritage wants to remove the noise from its visitors complex, and the free look at the stones for passing motorists.

As I said above, online dualling would be less destructive than the tunnel as-proposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
This is total nonsense, the tunnel has been supported by most people and bodies including English Heritage and the National Trust.
English Heritage have the stones and heritage centre - they only really care about the stones. The National Trust has about a third of the site - missing masses of stuff for no reason. The National Trust clearly doesn't care that key parts of the World Heritage Site would be destroyed by the eastern portal as they don't care enough to integrate these bits into its property.
Quote:
There have been arguments for a longer tunnel certainly... but the reason the scheme has been proposed and cancelled at least twice is ENTIRELY down to the cost and poor value for money in purely economic terms.
Because they haven't done the other bits - all benefits are small if all it does is move the bottleneck a bit further west. Stonehenge bypass needs to be the last bit of the A303 expressway built.
Quote:
Obviously were Stonehenge not there then there is no way a tunnel would ever be proposed so the huge extra cost involved is just down to the aim of restoring the landscape
By removing the oldest thing (the road) by putting it in a tunnel whose portal site is one world-recognised monument and is too close to another for a tunnel not to have a big effect. But heh-ho, those monuments aren't owned by the NT or EH, so they are fair game.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2017, 03:40 PM   #4356
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 159
Likes (Received): 41

The whole thing is a bit of a catch-22, build this section and the bottleneck will move to the other side of the Wylye valley, although I have never been stuck there for anything like as long as at Stonehenge so perhaps enough traffic diverts to the A36 for it not to be so bad

The reverse is that without this section the capacity of the whole road is reduced lowering the business case for the sections to the west at least as far as the A37.

So something needs to be built first and the government want to do this... It obviously needs to be built in a way that is sensitive to the archaeology, the tunnel is the apparently as long as can be built without needing mid-point ventilation which would have a bigger impact at least aesthetically (not 100% convinced that can be true though given the length of alpine/Norwegian road tunnels).

The other thing to consider is that for the average person the stones are Stonehenge, the surrounding landscape is no different to hundreds of square miles around there so spending lots on protecting potential archaeology is a much harder sell.
__________________

geogregor liked this post
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2017, 01:49 AM   #4357
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,954
Likes (Received): 2205

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
So something needs to be built first and the government want to do this... It obviously needs to be built in a way that is sensitive to the archaeology, the tunnel is the apparently as long as can be built without needing mid-point ventilation which would have a bigger impact at least aesthetically (not 100% convinced that can be true though given the length of alpine/Norwegian road tunnels).
That might explain why it comes UP in the middle of a World Heritage site rather than outside it.

Could they not hide the ventilation in what looks like a huge fake rock designed by Tracèy Emin ???
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2017, 12:57 AM   #4358
Ryme Intrinseca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 197
Likes (Received): 119

Public consultation on the A120 Braintree to A12 scheme is now open. There are five consultation options, varying between 9.5 and 15km in length, and priced at £475m-£825m (ouch). It will be D2 (i.e. four lane) and grade-separated, with construction to start 2020-2025.

http://a120essex.co.uk/wp-content/up...170120_web.pdf
Ryme Intrinseca no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2017, 07:29 AM   #4359
cairnstony2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 35

Part of the reason the World Heritage site is much bigger than the actual stones is because of the extensive archaeology that covers a much larger area. There are Woodhenge and The Cursus to the north and dozens of barrows all over the site. The Normanton Down Barrows lie very close to the western portal of the proposed tunnel, and possibly even across its path, I can't be sure.

It may be stating the obvious, but this is clearly a unique and amazing place. Portraying those concerned about any potential further damage to the site from the tunnel portals especially as mentally unstable is neither constructive nor factual.

I want to see the road upgraded as much as anyone; doing it at any cost is not an option; they need to get it right.
__________________

sotonsi liked this post
cairnstony2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2017, 01:22 PM   #4360
Nikolaj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 288
Likes (Received): 77

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryme Intrinseca View Post
Public consultation on the A120 Braintree to A12 scheme is now open. There are five consultation options, varying between 9.5 and 15km in length, and priced at £475m-£825m (ouch). It will be D2 (i.e. four lane) and grade-separated, with construction to start 2020-2025.

http://a120essex.co.uk/wp-content/up...170120_web.pdf
Again those ridicules UK prices. A pricetag of around EUR 57-62 per km for a 2+2 motorway in open land just does'nt make sense.
__________________
Nikolaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
highways, motorway, united kingdom

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium