• Nighed@sffa.community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I mean it would speed things up, I think the plan involved a bypass for the village next to it too?

    I didn’t agree with the location of the tunnel though, so kinda happy it got canned.

    • smeeps@lemmy.mtate.me.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      It would move the queues to the next bottleneck. “Just one more lane bro” planning never works.

      Rail between London and Cornwall needs improving instead, as does local transport around Salisbury (active travel, public transport) as a large portion of the queuing vehicles are local drivers avoiding congestion in the town.

      • Nighed@sffa.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        On the one more lane thing, going from 1 lane each way to two is a massive improvement as it allows overtaking.

        Agree otherwise.

        • wren@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          When I saw Stonehenge as a kid, we just drove past it really slowly, with my dad saying “don’t worry, everyone else wants to slow down to look too!”

          Now I make that drive every few weeks 🫠

      • Nighed@sffa.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I mean, it’s a bottleneck heading back towards London too, between the barrow roundabout and Stonehenge is often a mess in both directions. Mostly due to people looking at Stonehenge instead of the road.

        It’s less about improving the trains and more about making them cheaper! (Not that I would complain about some new lines either!)