to account (Peter Fowler interview
(e) The landscape in Stonehenge Bottom. Stonehenge Bottom
is a dry valley east of the ridge which forms the eastern boundary of
the Stonehenge Bowl. The top of the tunnel will be above the surface of
this dry valley. The mound covering the tunnel will be no higher than
the existing embankment but, with a width of 120 metres, it will be considerably
broader and will change the character of the landscape (Master Plan 1998:
fig 2). The dry valley floor is potentially a rich archaeological site
and the tunnel may change the underground drainage pattern. The architect
engaged by the constructors is reported to be most uneasy about this aspect
of the proposed cut-and-cover tunnel (Davidson interview 15/3/99).
(f) The view from the road. Many people enjoy being able
to see Stonehenge from the A303. People questioned by Maddison et al.
who were in favour of retaining the present A303, gave two main reasons:
they liked to see Stonehenge as they drove past, and/or they disliked
long tunnels (Maddison at al. 1998: 70). Brian Davidson suggests the people
of Wiltshire could be compensated for the loss of a free view through
a concessionary entrance fee (interview 15/3/99).
(g) Delivering visitors to the park and ride set-down.
The current proposals include a single, large visitor centre just beyond
the World Heritage site's eastern boundary, on the east side of the Countess
Roundabout (see figure 2). The presence of buildings at Countess Farm
on the west side of the Countess Roundabout, which might conceivably be
incorporated into a visitor centre, has not been actively investigated
(Fielden, interview 13/4/99). Visitors arriving from the west (about 30%
of visitors in the late 1980s) will have to drive through the tunnel to
park, then be taken back through the tunnel by minibus to the set-down
point at the end of the truncated A344. The additional time this costs
visitors, the road wear and cost of fuel will inevitably lead to demands
for a parking point west of Stonehenge. The least-damaging solution should
be included in a current, long-term plan (Davidson interview 15/3/99).
A case could be made for several small car parks placed around the edge
of the World Heritage site, to give walkers more ready access and to disperse
traffic. These could be concealed by trees and given an unobtrusive green
surface (Fowler interview 15/3/99).
The deep bore tunnel
Tunnel Vision identified two possible routes for a deep bore tunnel; a
long ('green route') tunnel, passing under the Avenue and Cursus and a
short ('purple route') tunnel passing under the Cursus. The short tunnel
proposal was quickly abandoned when it encountered universal opposition
from the local community (Tunnel Vision, annexe A, table A1). The longer
('green') tunnel would be approximately three and three-quarter kilometres
long (see figure 1). Until publication of the Master Plan, a deep bore
tunnel was the option favoured by both the National Trust and English
Heritage. Its direction was predicated on the need to minimise the slope
of the approach from the east, if the tunnel entrance were to be immediately
below King Barrows Ridge. In 1994, the Director General of the National
Trust, who own land on which cut-and-cover tunnel would be dug, said the
long-bore tunnel was the only feasible alternative which met World Heritage
site requirements (quoted in Fielden 1998: 735). This view was endorsed
by the Highways Agency Planning conference held in November 1995 and described
in Wainwright 1996. Wainwright changed his opinion because he was satisfied
the cut-and-cover tunnel was the only affordable option, and that it achieved
the main objective of enabling visitors to roam across the landscape around
Stonehenge (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99).
Cost of a deep bore tunnel. The cost of the longer deep
bore tunnel has been variously estimated at between £200 million
and £300 million (Tunnel Vision annexe A, Stone n.d.: 5, Wainwright
1996: 11). The method for arriving at these estimates has not been published
although Wainwright reports that foreig