Talk:Stonehenge road tunnel

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiltshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Can somebody please find out if a final decision has been made on the plans und update if required. 82.38.56.54 00:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done Richard B 21:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Michael Ellison's report

Who is this person? For what agency does he work? What is his authority? It's important to provide context for the reader.

Also, the PDF cited as his report is nearly empty. Suggest either removing it (and therefore the unsourced quote) or improving the citation. John Reid 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the citation. Richard Taylor 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

This article is biased heavily against the subject. For example: A tunnel or new road would be an irreversible interference and destruction of a site and monument that we, have no right to damage. This is an opinion and although I tend to share it, that does not make it a fact. Our commitment to neutrality and verifiability excludes such naked statements of opinion. This must be rephrased as a statement of the fact of an opinion held by some person or group -- and must be sourced. John Reid 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An indication of bias, or at best slipshod writing, is that the two quotes from the public inquiry report, said to represent the inspector's views, are highly selective. The first, saying that sacrifice of archaeological remains etc would more than offset the tunnel benefits, comes not from the inspector at all, but from an objector to the scheme. The second, noting expediency, refers only to the line of the route, not the design, which was the major source of contention. These need to be addressed. 85.211.76.144 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I have rewritten the article to be more manual of style compliant, add a lot more references and make it more neutral. I hope that this is an improvement. What I would like to do is expand the details on the alternatives and find references where there are none so far. Does anyone know of a good source for the alternative routes (I seem to remember 4 or 5 major proposals for the A303 being moved away or tunnelled)? Regan123 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have removed this and the resultant traffic congestion have resulted in The Guardian naming it one of the country's most congested roads as I cannot despite extensive searching find a reference. I have referenced the rest that I can.Regan123 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a Map

This really needs a map showing the proximity of the tunnel to Stonehenge. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progress since 2013 needs adding.

There was a 2013 feasibility study into the tunnel, which has developed into a preferred route announcement and consultations still under way which isn't reflected in to the 2013 section. In the context of the article this is highly relevant missing information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.180.186 (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map

All of that would be much easier to understand if we had a drawing showing the current situation and the alternatives considered. Wouldn't have to be perfect. JB. --92.193.207.22 (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]