Before getting up to Stonehenge, I had an assignation with a lovely lady called Rebecca Rooney from BBC Wiltshire, for an interview on the A303 funding announcement. We met up on the forecourt of the Bell Inn, Winterbourne Stoke, with the fast-moving, early morning, commuter traffic providing an "interesting" backdrop. We had the usual mix of large HGVs travelling at well over the 40 mph limit to help them get up the hills on either side of the village. We had school kids using the light-controlled crossing with fast moving vehicles bearing down on them with seemingly little realisation that there was a crossing there at all. Then we had the usual nightmare of villagers trying to get out of the village onto the A303 - with one taking almost 10 minutes to find a nearly safe gap into which to pull out.
I'll even forgive Rebecca for calling me Mr Churchill - perhaps I should go into politics after all and give John Glenn MP a run for his money?
So what's the big deal? Well, the Government announced that it was going to be earmarking some £15 billion for important road projects across the UK. Its worth contrasting that sum with the £17 billion earmarked (so far) for the HS2 - and bear in mind that only 10% of goods traffic and a fraction of passenger traffic is shipped by rail.
Of the £15 billion, some £2 billion has been ear-marked for the A303 and £1.3 billion earmarked for a tunnel under Stonehenge - though it isn't clear if the £1.3 billion is separate from the £2 billion, or the major part of it. It sounds a lot of money, but how far will it go? Well lets have some facts and figures:
- dual carriageway cost between £20 million/mile to £25 million/mile to build on average - so £2 billion would buy 80-100 milesof dual carriageway - much more than is needed for the A303. £0.7 billion gets you 28-35 miles - probably about right.
- tunnels cost a darned site more to build than dual carriageway, though I'm not sure £1.3 billion is necessarily realistic.
-to put things in perspective, the A3 Hindhead tunnel at 1.9km long cot the bulk of the £371 million spent on the whole 4km project. However, the "Big Dig" project in Boston (US) cost in excess of £12.5 billion for a tunnel twice the length of the one proposed for Stonehenge.
So, we welcome the news - but with a healthy scepticism. After all, we'vee been here before. Back in the late 1980s, Maggie Thatcher promised A303 widening as a package of road building measures that were claimed to be the biggest since Roman times - they failed to deliver. More recently, the last Labour government promised to do the job, but killed the project on cost grounds. So in some ways, here we go again.
However, there are a few differences this time. Firstly, English Heritage and the National Trust appear to be singing from the same song-sheet and have agreed a plan that minimises impact on the World Heritage Site. Pragmatism is being shown by many other parties too, recognising that the A303 is a strategic route and it has to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
Pragmatism will also be needed here in Winterbourne Stoke - clearly we will benefit from the removal of traffic from the centre of the village, but there are risks - noise from a dual carriageway situated to the north of the village being an obvious issue. So we will need to fight hard to ensure the environmental issues are addressed to our satisfaction and benefit. I am sure there will be other issues.
The best news is the fact that they plan to tie the funding into the Infrastructure Bill that is currently going through parliament. It's all tied into making the Highways Agency a company and ensuring funding certainty in 5-year tranches. It doesn't mean that a future government couldn't stop things going ahead, but they would have to change legislation as well as changing their minds.
So - a healthy scepticism. As I write, Rebecca Rooney is reporting a similar healthy scepticism from Larkhill and other villagers
Up at Stonehenge, lots of positive vibes about the plan. STAGs Janice Hassett seemed to be more in demand from interviewers than did Nick Clegg - but then she is a bit of a straight-talking, fire-brand who calls a spade, a spade.
It was a good opportunity to buttonhole people like the regional head of the Highways Agency to ask about what happens in the meantime about the A303 nightmare. Specifically, we raised the issue of the dangers of Longbarrow Roundabout - as did other STAG members. We'll see if this has any effect.
So - lets see what happens when all the fuss about today's news dies down and the economic realities hit home.
4 comments:
You and other local villagers are right to be cautious. There is a need to keep fighting first and foremost to free advances for W.Stoke and Shrewton/Larkhill from anything tied to any tunnel or Stonehenge scheme that will take more than 5 years and (as you rightly say) may in any case be cancelled. What I would particularly underline is that it simply isn't true that EH & NT are backing "a plan that minimises impact on the World Heritage Site" - tunnel entrances and infrastructure inside the WHS would cause a great deal of damage and the hydrological change threatens unknown damage to the extent that Salisbury Cathedral is seeking an indemnity I hear.Changes to the water levels due to a tunnel also then poses a threat to farmland and housing. There are alternatives, not least a second westbound lane between Stonehenge Road and Longbarrow Roundabout on the present footprint which would bring instant relief to Shrewton/Larkhill/Bulford - let's all try and force them to get on with that without excuses. Brian
Brian, Many thanks for your comments, but having spoken to both EH and NT about this issue, your assertion that the tunnel would cause a great deal of damage within the WHS is, quite simply, nonsense. They were charged with coming up with a plan that was acceptable to the WHS ethos in heritage terms and which, whilst possibly not ideal, was pragmatically acceptable. Thats what they have done and what we support. We've also heard a lot of nonsense spouted this morning about the dangers of putting a tunnel into a huge water table. Clearly, we need to invest a bit more in teaching basic science in schools.
‘General’, The likelihood of EH/NT coming up with something acceptable to WHS ethos can be judged by statements made by ICOMOS, the president of which is the NT’s former chief archaeologist: "We appreciate the very real need to address the issue of the A303 and recognise that a tunnel could have beneficial impacts on parts of the World Heritage property, however, we are concerned that associated portals and dual carriageways could have a highly adverse impact on other parts of the World Heritage landscape that cannot be set aside, however great the benefits of a tunnel."
I'll PM you on Facebook - Brian
Oh dear, has the president of ICOMOS breached his own rules in making such a statement?
In order to avoid possible conflicts of interest the following shall apply:
1 ICOMOS bases its evaluations and other opinions on research and peer review.
2 Whilst as a standard practice ICOMOS consults the national committees concerned with a property that is being evaluated, in all other steps of the process it draws only on experts from countries other than the State Parties concerned.
3 ICOMOS does not use in its involvement with a property, experts who have been engaged with the preparation, or otherwise contributed to the nomination file, the development of a management system or plan or any other study, or state of conservation report submitted by a State Party, regardless of the nationality of the experts concerned.
Of course, one option would be for ICOMOS to make a fuss, get WHS status removed and thus remove all barriers to dualing the A303 along its current route. That would be a disaster. There needs to be a degree of pragmatism from all parties regarding what can be achieved given all the constraints. There can be no "ideal" answer as there are too many equities involved.
Post a Comment