Some Thoughts on the Great Stonehenge Debate

There has been much argument and a marked polarisation of views recently on the question of what to do about that well-loved icon of British pre-history, Stonehenge.

The principal issue seems to be the congestion on the nearby A303 (the ‘road to the sun’ as it often prosaically called) and how to relieve it. 

Users of this busy single-carriageway arterial cross-country road linking the M3 with the A30 to the East of Exeter regularly endure tailbacks several miles long around Stonehenge during the peak holiday season. The fact that has been allowed to remain a two-lane road in this day and age almost beggars belief, and a relief road scheme is urgently needed. (see Figure 4)

A bypass of some description has been under consideration for the last 50 years, but until very recently no progress had been made, due largely to the efforts of the environmental lobby.

Several news outlets reported last week that the plans for a road tunnel, originally approved in 2020 then challenged in the courts, had been approved. However, due to severe financial cutbacks which extend to infrastructure project funding, it is possible that the plans for the tunnel may yet be scrapped by HMG on costs grounds. Is there perhaps a better and less costly solution to the problem ?

Possible solutions

A quick look at the monument’s layout reveals it to be almost a perfect circle, surrounded by a circular ditch (See Figure 1). Viewed from this vantage point therefore, one solution immediately presents itself…a roundabout….

We in the UK have a great tradition of radical roundabout design. The Milton Keynes system of interlocked islands is the ‘envy of Europe’ and some would like to see the MK network designated as the 9^th wonder of the world. Not only would a new and revolutionary design at Stonehenge cement our position as a world leader in roundabout design, but it would stop all those endless arguments over tunnels…and save a whale of a lot of infrastructure cash into the bargain.

A relatively simple design should suffice and could be landscaped to harmonise with the existing layout of the monument, as well as providing much-improved facilities for visitors. The moat-like ditch already surrounding the stones would provide a convenient delimiter for the new circular portion of the road with a feeder slip-road section from the existing A303 at each end of the roundabout (see Figure 3).

To cater for visitor traffic, and service vehicle access to the monument when required, an underpass could be constructed on the south eastern side of the new road layout. The existing course of the A303 could be left as it is and a new dual carriageway constructed along its length for ca 2 miles either side of the monument with feeder entry and exit slip-roads at either end to allow visitor access to the site.

This upgrade to the A303 would undoubtedly relieve congestion around Stonehenge, and improve access to the monument. It should also avoid the thorny problem of driver distraction when attempting to view the monument from the main route. A far better view would be available from the roundabout, and this could be obtained without the need to stop at the visitors centre. This new structure would also block off the direct view from the road, while freeing up the existing space taken up by the current parking and visitor facilities to the northwest of the monument.

The novel design could also include an inner drive-through viewing lane at the inner edge of the roundabout carriageway for visitors preferring to remain in the comfort of their vehicles, thus reducing footfall and minimising environmental damage to the monument’s surroundings. Using ANPR, charges could be levied from drive-through only visitors automatically, thus ensuring the existing tourist revenue stream is maintained. The drive-through element and the resulting improved traffic flow should also provide an opportunity for an increase in visitor numbers and hence augment revenues further.

The capital cost of such a scheme would be certain to undercut the estimated £1.7Bn required for construction of the tunnel, which with inflation would be expected to over-run by some margin before construction was complete in the late 2020s. Apart from a small single-lane pedestrian and service access underpass, the design involves only two significant new structures – the bridges carrying the slip-roads to and from the westbound carriageway of the A303.

This should sit well with those holding the infrastructure purse-strings and leave plenty of budget to spare for landscaping and site restoration. Any further savings against budget could be used to extend the dualling of the A303 beyond the initial 2-mile planned stage 1 upgrade. The Gyratory project as shown could also be completed far more quickly than a complex tunnel build, and hence provide must faster congestion relief from the present periodic traffic chaos.

Would this innovative alternative scheme still raise objections from the opposition ? - of course it would,  but I suspect less so than the tunnel proposal, particularly since this scheme has now been approved in principle, and now sits like the 'Sword of Damocles' over objectors' heads. 

Improving access to a popular visitor attraction in a way that avoids additional traffic congestion always involves additional construction work to accommodate the extra numbers, so a compromise between leaving things as they are and upgrading them will undoubtedly be necessary – sooner or later.

If the alternative is an expensive and highly controversial tunneling scheme, then perhaps this design would be acceptable as the lesser of two evils ?

In the words of the now famous Meerkats….s i m p l e s…

(Editor’s Note: For those environmentalists of a nervous disposition, please note publication date)

 First published 1/4/23

 

Figure 1: Stonehenge at Sunset

 

Figure 2: Satellite Image of the Monument March 2023

 

 

Figure 3: Suggested Design for 'Stonehenge Gyratory'

Figure 4: The Traffic Problem