…one man's contribution to the Weeeeerly Wild World
[This topic was posted on 4th December 2014 following the then renewed Tunnel topic. As of January 2017 the topic has reared itself again.]
It was ten years ago that the idea of digging a tunnel under Stonehenge was in the news, I know because I mentioned it briefly on my website, and now the idea is back.
It is peculiar why these things resurface, and why now? Only a few months ago Barack Obama visited the site for the first time, then just after the latest tunnel announcement David Cameron visited the site – I’ve yet to see it in the flesh. I do live in an area (Anglesey in North Wales, UK) where there are standing stones though, Anglesey, and I have had an interest in such sites for many years – reading books about Stonehenge, Callanish in Scotland, the Pyramids of Egypt, and other ancient sites around the world – all of which I feel are related in some way, even if they all just provide individual links to our past.
I have also read work by David Icke. His book, Children of the Matrix, I read back in 2002, and in it, if I recall correctly, he outlines his ideas about how such sites affect the energy of the earth, which is evident through ley lines, and in particular how building substantial structures near these sites affects that energy, and likely not in a good way. Indeed where I live amongst a scattering of standing stones there is a large structure – a nuclear power station, and a second is to be built nearby.
Icke and others claim that there is a conspiracy at play in that large structures are built at these sites to disrupt that energy. The argument against this is that there are beneficial reasons for these structure to be built here, it just so happens that there are standing stones here.
The same could be said for Stonehenge. The road that passes through the site, close to the stone circle itself (or what remains of it) likely follows an ancient pathway that has existed for as long as a henge has been there, and the demands by the volume of traffic travelling from London to the south-west of the country call for an increase in capacity [or rather that shorter journey times will “boost the economy”].
Perhaps there are demands for the power of the site to be disrupted further and I believe a tunnel will certainly do that. Such views as these can easily be dismissed as “crackpot”, which I can appreciate – I will air them here and accept that they will have little or no effect on the outcome. At the least, digging a tunnel in this area will destroy any archaeology that exists (even if the tunnel were to be dug by the hands of careful archaeologists, which I doubt would be the case), but some people could could say “who cares about any historical significance?”
Digging/building a tunnel is not only a major undertaking, it’s also an expensive one (figures banded around have already doubled, and of course such a project will come in over-budget) and based on ideas about how much such a feat would cost I can’t understand how a tunnel could even be considered as a solution for the area. For areas where there are mountains in the way or bodies of water to cross, yes, but not here. The cheapest solution to ease congestion on the road passing Stonehenge is to make it a dual-carriageway. This is the A303 and much of it is already dual-carriageway, and it becomes a single-carriageway while it passes the site. Where traffic is compressed into a single-carriageway after enjoying two lanes for a while there will often be congestion, the same with junctions – the fewer changes to the flow of traffic the better. Actually, that’s the second cheapest – the first is for fewer people to drive the route.