Wooly Thinking on the A303 And Stonehenge From Tom Corbin

In a letter to the Salisbury Journal of 14th May 20214, Tom Corbin, Labour's parliamentary candidate for the Salisbury constituency demonstrates some particularly woolly thinking on the future of the A303 past Stonehenge. 

Tom Corbin

In fact, as woolliness goes, it outdoes many of the sheep that wander round the stones from time to time.

Sheep

 Having mentioned his support for HS2, oh, and the fact that he is a rail-worker who might just have a vested interest in railways, he begins his comments on the A303 with:

"The argument is about the importance of improving national infrastructure based on value for money and economic returns whilst competing for funding against other national roads projects".

We wouldn't disagree with that, providing of course that value for money was determined on a fair basis and one that didn't unduly favour urban projects more than rural ones because of the distorted way in which government data has been collected.  For instance, road usage data is collected on any days that aren't: weekends, public holidays, school holidays, etc, etc.  Just the times when the A303 traffic flow is minimal and that on urban roads is maximal.

Mr Corbin then shoots his value for money argument in the foot by writing:

"Taking in some of the arguments for a tunnel or cutting as part of A303 improvements, if passing traffic can no longer enjoy the views of Stonehenge then aside from a fall in drop in visitor numbers everyone will miss out on seeing the iconic stones in the varying daylight conditions year round, something we should be able to enjoy just as we do with other scenic views."

Poppycock Mr Corbin.   Strangely, I can't see Blackpool Tower from the A303.  It's clearly my unalienable right to look at Blackpool Tower, but if I can't see it from the A303, it's up to me to make the effort and get a bit closer.  The same goes for Stonehenge.   If it is shoved in a tunnel, lowered in a cutting, or moved a few miles north or south of its present route, then people will need to make a bit of an effort to see it - like we do for any other scenic view.

"Only a few people would pay to see the stones several times a year". 

"This treasure should not be isolated from view, or it will slip from our consciousness."

Almost certainly true, but pretty disingenuous.  Even without seeing Stonehenge from the A303, no-one needs to pay to see Stonehenge at all.  Everyone, with or without their bikes, horses and carriages, are able to freely wander past the stones, along the course of the A344, Byway 12, or across the open-access National Trust land to the north. OK, English Heritage would be happier if you ransomed your granny and got a little bit closer to the stones, or even sacrificed your first-born for the privilege of a special visit within the stone circle itself, but for most people, if you can't touch actually touch the stones, then whether you are 50 metres away or 200 is somewhat academic. 

As we have demonstrated unequivocally in recent weeks,  passers-by slowing to look at Stonehenge are the root cause of many of the A303 traffic jams, not just the volume of traffic.  The best way to ensure this problem stops in the short and long term is by removing the ability to see the stones from the A303.

In the short term, sight-screens might help a little on the stretch of the A303 closest to Stonehenge.  In the long term, the solution will be to move the road, vertically or horizontally, a sufficient depth or distance such that the stones can no longer be seen from the road. Tom Corbin would have made a great deal more sense had he said something along the lines of:

"This treasure should be isolated from the view of motorists to ENSURE it will slip from their consciousness and not encourage them to slow unnecessarily; thereby hindering other road users, increasing travelling time to the south west of England, burning additional fuel, delaying workers, enraging locals and tourists alike, wasting money, increasing chemical and noise pollution."