It might fix everyone slowing down to a crawl as they go past Stonehenge though. The a303 is a dual carriageway that goes down to 1 Lane past stone henge, the new tunnel would stop the bottleneck that happens as it goes past stonehenge, if having a busy road that goes past Stonehenge hasn’t affected it’s world heritage status, then changing that to a tunnel shouldn’t affect it either, if anything it will improve the aesthetics as all you can hear there is the road.
The main question should be, could this money be better spent? The answer is obviously yes.
That being said, if the issue is traffic slowing down, then you put up a monument between the highway and Stonehenge that blocks drivers’ view. Could easily be a monument to the Celtic and Gallic history of England. Something nondescript from the road’s side.
If the issue is the amount of traffic, then regulated entry is the way. Put stoplights at the highway’s entry and only let several on at a time.
It will not fix everyone slowing down to a crawl, it will lead to more people driving when they should be taking a train and make traffic worse. This is the only possible result of road widening.
If there were a train route along the a303 this may be true. It’s also not building an extra Lane the whole route, most of the route is a 2 Lane dual carriageway, this section is not, it gets gridlocked as the roads struggle with it going from 2 lanes to 1 Lane, this is a rural route, everyone already drives anyway.
I’m not defending the building of the tunnel as I no longer need to use it, I couldn’t care less. But saying that building the tunnel won’t make a difference is completely wrong here as the traffic is not caused because the roads cannot handle the traffic, it’s caused because it’s a single lane road next to a world heritage monument that everyone slows down to look at it. Building a tunnel will improve the area around the monument and will stop idiots from stopping to take pictures on a single lane road. The extra lane will also prevent the bottleneck caused by going from 2 lanes down to one.
If by traffic, you mean the flow of traffic will increase, then yea, of course because if you remove obsticles and increase capacity, then more cars can use it instead of travelling through small villages and clogging up their roads.
If you mean building more capacity and removing junctions in the middle of nowhere where there is a bottleneck of traffic because of poor road layouts and a world heritage site will cause more traffic jams, I’d love to see that study. That’s pretty a niche study, and I’d imagine the people protesting this tunnel would appreciate seeing it.
Carbrain /kar 'bren/ [1] is a neighbourhood in Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire in Scotland. It gets a brief mention on William Roy’s eighteenth century map of the Scottish Lowlands.[2] In the nineteenth century it was no more than a farm steading.[3] An early map shows just a few buildings existed in 1864.[4] By the start of the First World War it had not grown significantly, although there was a school near the railway station.[5] It was sometimes spelled Carbrane.[6] Even in 1956 Carbrain was mostly farmland[7] with a small burn flowing through it.[8] The map seems to show this flowing possibly down the Gully[9] and eventually feeding the Red Burn in the Vault Glen. This burn isn’t named so can’t be identified with the Horseward Burn from historic maps.[10]
Fixing the a303 isn’t going to lead to more cars on the road: everyone uses it anyway, they just hate it. The tunnel is just to stop people slowing down to look at stonehenge as they drive past while keeping the number of lanes the same all the way so it doesn’t randomly narrow.
It might fix everyone slowing down to a crawl as they go past Stonehenge though. The a303 is a dual carriageway that goes down to 1 Lane past stone henge, the new tunnel would stop the bottleneck that happens as it goes past stonehenge, if having a busy road that goes past Stonehenge hasn’t affected it’s world heritage status, then changing that to a tunnel shouldn’t affect it either, if anything it will improve the aesthetics as all you can hear there is the road.
The main question should be, could this money be better spent? The answer is obviously yes.
That being said, if the issue is traffic slowing down, then you put up a monument between the highway and Stonehenge that blocks drivers’ view. Could easily be a monument to the Celtic and Gallic history of England. Something nondescript from the road’s side.
If the issue is the amount of traffic, then regulated entry is the way. Put stoplights at the highway’s entry and only let several on at a time.
How to kill your country’s infrastructure 101
It will not fix everyone slowing down to a crawl, it will lead to more people driving when they should be taking a train and make traffic worse. This is the only possible result of road widening.
If there were a train route along the a303 this may be true. It’s also not building an extra Lane the whole route, most of the route is a 2 Lane dual carriageway, this section is not, it gets gridlocked as the roads struggle with it going from 2 lanes to 1 Lane, this is a rural route, everyone already drives anyway.
I’m not defending the building of the tunnel as I no longer need to use it, I couldn’t care less. But saying that building the tunnel won’t make a difference is completely wrong here as the traffic is not caused because the roads cannot handle the traffic, it’s caused because it’s a single lane road next to a world heritage monument that everyone slows down to look at it. Building a tunnel will improve the area around the monument and will stop idiots from stopping to take pictures on a single lane road. The extra lane will also prevent the bottleneck caused by going from 2 lanes down to one.
Traffic is caused by cars. Any affordance made for more cars will only and always make more traffic.
If by traffic, you mean the flow of traffic will increase, then yea, of course because if you remove obsticles and increase capacity, then more cars can use it instead of travelling through small villages and clogging up their roads.
If you mean building more capacity and removing junctions in the middle of nowhere where there is a bottleneck of traffic because of poor road layouts and a world heritage site will cause more traffic jams, I’d love to see that study. That’s pretty a niche study, and I’d imagine the people protesting this tunnel would appreciate seeing it.
carbrain
Carbrain /kar 'bren/ [1] is a neighbourhood in Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire in Scotland. It gets a brief mention on William Roy’s eighteenth century map of the Scottish Lowlands.[2] In the nineteenth century it was no more than a farm steading.[3] An early map shows just a few buildings existed in 1864.[4] By the start of the First World War it had not grown significantly, although there was a school near the railway station.[5] It was sometimes spelled Carbrane.[6] Even in 1956 Carbrain was mostly farmland[7] with a small burn flowing through it.[8] The map seems to show this flowing possibly down the Gully[9] and eventually feeding the Red Burn in the Vault Glen. This burn isn’t named so can’t be identified with the Horseward Burn from historic maps.[10]
Fixing the a303 isn’t going to lead to more cars on the road: everyone uses it anyway, they just hate it. The tunnel is just to stop people slowing down to look at stonehenge as they drive past while keeping the number of lanes the same all the way so it doesn’t randomly narrow.