DEVELOPING A VISITOR TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE STONEHENGE
WORLD HERITAGE SITE
Hawthorne, J P
Sinclair Knight Merz (Europe)
1. THE PROBLEM
Stonehenge is one of the most important prehistoric monuments in the United
Kingdom, and is recognised as a World Heritage Site (WHS). Yet it has been
famously described by a UK government committee as a 'national disgrace'.
The stones themselves are set close to historic (though much later) through
routes which have, in more recent history, become busy trunk roads carrying
high volumes of traffic. As a result, the current visitor centre is located on the
opposite side of the A344 and is linked to the stones via a pedestrian
underpass. The visitor facilities are cramped, with insufficient space for car
and coach parking, limited opportunities for visitor orientation and
interpretation, and inadequate catering and retail facilities.
The result is that few visitors are able to experience the grandeur of the site
within its wider setting, which is an extensive ceremonial landscape, and
fewer still take the opportunity to explore the other archaeological sites in the
vicinity.
2. THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CHANGE
In 2000, after extensive consultation with stakeholders, the Stonehenge World
Heritage Site Management Plan set out a plan to “conserve the outstanding
universal value of the cultural heritage assets of the Stonehenge World
Heritage Site”.
This plan has five main aims:
Provide objectives for management of the landscape
Increase public awareness and interest in the WHS
Develop a sustainable balance between conservation, visitor access and
farming
Maximise economic and cultural benefits without damaging the
archaeological resource
Suggest an achievable, prioritised programme of action.
Within the plan there are specific objectives relating to sustainable tourism
and visitor management. One of these is that
Management of visitors to Stonehenge should follow the Principles for
Sustainable Tourism as set out in ICOMOS guidance
This guidance states that “the design of new buildings, sites and transport
systems should minimise the potentially harmful visual effects of tourism.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
1
Where sites of great natural beauty are concerned, the intrusion of man-made
structures should be avoided where possible”.
The plan considers both access to and through the site as a whole, including
reduction of traffic movement within the WHS and the use of more sustainable
means of transport to get to the site.
Of particular relevance to this paper are the objectives relating to the visitor
centre and movement of visitors within the site. These are as follows
A new world class visitor centre should be secured to act as a gateway to
Stonehenge, to improve the visitor experience and to encourage dispersal
of visitors around the whole WHS
Arrangements for managed open access on foot within the core WHS
zone should be provided
Access and circulation to other key archaeological sites within the WHS
landscape should be improved to relieve pressure on the Stones and
increase public awareness
The plan places particular emphasis on the location of the visitor centre and
approach to the Stones themselves. The visitor centre is to be located
outside the WHS, clear of significant archaeology and such that it would have
limited adverse effects on significant nature conservation interest. It sets the
Stones in a defined “core zone” within which visitors should be encouraged to
approach on foot, either from the edge of the core zone or the visitor centre
itself.
Because it was recognised that the new visitor centre was likely to be sited
some way from the Stones, the plan identifies the need for a “park and ride
shuttle service”.
3. DEVELOPING THE CONCEPT OF A VISITOR CENTRE
The Stonehenge Project will implement key objectives of the WHS
Management Plan, and is intended to provide a dignified setting for an iconic
monument and a better experience for its visitors, whilst delivering much
needed road improvements through the WHS.
The two key elements of the Stonehenge Project are:
Removing roads and traffic from around the Stones (at the same time
upgrading the A303), and
Establishing a new visitor centre
Detailed discussion of plans to reroute the existing trunk roads is outside the
scope of this paper, but in brief the present proposals are based on a 2.1km
bored tunnel that would remove the A303 from within sight of the Stones.
Prgoress on these road proposals impacts on the timescale for
implementation of other parts of the Project.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
2
Consultation of a possible site for the visitor centre began in 1991, and from
an original list of eight sites the preferred option is located at Countess East,
some 3km to the east of the Stones. An imaginative structure has been
designed, with provision for visitor orientation, catering and retail facilities and
parking for cars and coaches.
In line with the Management Plan, the intention is that visitors should be able
to enjoy the experience of exploring Stonehenge in a wider context, without
the distraction of traffic and other intrusions in the landscape.
4. INITIAL DEVELOPMENT WORK FOR THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
Because the proposed location is remote from the Stones, the plans for the
new visitor centre include provision of a high quality visitor transit system to
transport visitors from the visitor centre to a number of drop-off points within
the WHS. In addition to providing two principal access routes to the Stones,
these also serve other points of interest within the wider WHS.
In connection with the design of the Visitor Centre, detailed modelling work
was undertaken by Colin Buchanan and Partners to determine whether a
visitor transit system could be devised capable of carrying peak visitor
numbers within stringent limits for noise and visual intrusion. This included an
initial evaluation of possible vehicle and system types.
In parallel with this work, SKM Anthony Hunts prepared plans and
specifications for a trackway capable of supporting lightweight self-propelled
vehicles with minimum disturbance to the underlying land surface. The
intention is that the trackway can be constructed and subsequently removed
or relocated without disturbing the underlying topsoil and any archaeological
features or artefacts it may cover or contain. The profile and choice of
materials is designed to blend in as closely as possible with the surrounding
landscape, with minimal interference to access by wildlife, pedestrians,
cyclists, and equestrians as appropriate.
A route network was mapped out, taking care to minimise visual intrusion and
construction in known sensitive areas. Parts of the route follow the alignment
of a dismantled railway which previously served the Larkhill Ministry of
Defence site to the north of the WHS. The Countess East site is located to
the east of A435, a single carriageway road flanked by low density housing.
When the railway was still operational, this was crossed at grade, but a tunnel
is proposed for the new transit system.
In addition, outline plans were devised for “stations” using materials and
designs which were sympathetic with the aims of the Stonehenge WHS
Management Plan and ICOMOS guidance
However, because the design of the trackway and stations (including facilities
at the visitor centre itself) was undertaken in the absence either of a detailed
vehicle or service specification, the resulting proposals were not necessarily
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
3
optimal for example in terms of trackway width (“single track” or “double track”)
or station layouts.
5. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
5.1
Service and quality standards
In order to clarify thinking on the specification of the visitor transit system,
Sinclair Knight Merz was invited to undertake a research study. The first
stage of this was to prepare a detailed Service and Quality Specification and
agree this with English Heritage. Potential vehicle types, including guidance
and propulsion systems, could then be evaluated. The specification
recognised the need to avoid damage to any sub-surface archaeological
features, and the stipulation that the trackway should, so far as possible, give
the appearance of a ‘natural’ surface, which effectively ruled out virtually all
tracked or guided systems. Possible vehicles types would have to meet strict
criteria for noise, visual impact and emissions.
The following standards were agreed with English Heritage:
Service Standard
Commentary
Indicative requirements
Capacity
Overall capacity required of
the system, including days
and hours of operation,
average and maximum
numbers of passengers to be
uplifted per hour.
All year operation.
Design Day of 4,500 visitors
between 0900 and 2100
Peak day modelled as 6,500
visitors
Boarding times, running
times and frequency
Target boarding and running
times also frequency of
service (if specified)
Model based on up to 9
departures from VC per hour
(total for two routes) with
round trip of 30-40 minutes.
Taken with the overall
capacity requirement, this will
determine vehicle capacity
and base fleet size.
Max PVR assessed as 5
vehicles, however current
proposed service pattern
may require 6/7 vehicles to
maintain frequency and
capacity
System configuration
Will boarding/alighting be
from one or both sides of the
vehicle? (Initial system and
possible future expansion)
Assume conventional single
side boarding from nearside
only, using low-level
platforms to give level
access.
Reliability
Targets to be achieved. How
acceptable are occasional
missed journeys or extended
intervals?
6,500 visitor scenario
requires at least 8 departures
from VC in peak hour per
hour to clear entries
(This will impact on
contingency measures and
overall fleet size)
Flexibility
Requirement for system to be
capable of reorganisation,
expansion (and contraction)
in future
System should be able to
cope with changes in route,
additional vehicles, etc.
Should be ability to match
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
4
capacity with demand during
high and low season
Implementation
What is required timescale
for implementation? Will it be
phased?
Originally proposed
implementation in 2008
Cost
Is there a cost limit? Is the
overall requirement to meet a
standard or a price? System
should be potentially
attractive to a leasing
arrangement.
Important to meet
environmental standards as
set out in planning
application.
Quality Standard
Commentary
Indicative requirement
Passenger environment
Will include the following:
Open, weather –protected or
closed vehicles?
Closed vehicles.
If closed, size and positioning
of windows and doors.
Good visibility. At least one
door per car.
Passengers standing/sitting
(acceptable ratios)
All passengers to be seated.
Seating quality
Upholstered seats
Air-conditioning / heating
/unheated
tba
Lighting/unlit
Internal lighting required.
Provision of audio/visual
facilities
Capability to install.
Should all or some parts of
all or some vehicles be
accessible to the disabled?
All vehicles to be accessible.
Capability to transport empty
wheelchairs to DF at start
and end of shift
Vehicle styling and
appearance
Are there any specific criteria
for external vehicle styling
and appearance?
High quality image, in
keeping with World Heritage
Site. Minimum practical
height with least visual
intrusion. Minimum width to
minimise track width
Environmental impact
Vehicle axle loadings, noise,
emissions
Noise and emission levels in
accordance with planning
application
Impact of passenger waiting
facilities, and vehicle storage
and maintenance facilities.
To be as ‘green’ as practical
“Whole system” energy audit
“Whole vehicle life” energy
audit
Cleaning and fuelling on-site
Maintenance off-site
(vehicles may need to be
transported on low-loader if
not licensed on public roads.)
The absolute minimal
hazardous waste output e.g.
oil changing only
5.3
Trade-offs considered
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
5
When assessing systems, it was recognised that there were a number of
issues where it might be necessary to make a trade off between features and
characteristics which will contribute to the fulfilment of the service and quality
specifications.
A number of such issues were identified, with an initial indication of client
aspirations.
Issue
Commentary
Indicative requirement
Vehicle size
Will the best solution be
delivered using fewer larger
vehicles or more smaller
vehicles
Prefer to use larger
vehicles/land trains capable
of uplifting 150 passengers to
minimise number of
movements. Carrying
capacity is the most
important consideration i.e.
minimum vehicle frequency.
Speed of loading against
ambience
Is the preference for multiple
doors for speedy loading and
unloading or fewer doors
enabling greater control of
interior ambience?
Need for operational flexibility
and efficiency pointed to
preference for multiple doors.
Innovation against risk
Is the client prepared to take
the risk of adopting
innovative systems not yet
proven in regular service?
Where is the cut off point?
Would prefer to use system
and/or components which
already have at least some
operational experience
Customisation against
standardisation
How much should the system
be tailored for the specific
situation? Will the use of
bespoke systems have an
adverse impact on reliability?
Would prefer to use system
which is proven in operation
with relatively easy access to
spares and procurement of
additional equipment as
required, accepting that
some customisation is likely
to be necessary
Will the use of bespoke
systems make it more difficult
to expand or modify the
system in future?
Tracked, guided or manually
steered
What benefits might be
conferred by a tracked or
guided system? What are
the disbenefits?
Tracked system unlikely to
be acceptable. However
guided systems may be
attractive if they can minimise
width of running surface and
facilitate docking at stations.
Staffing policy
Should there be minimum
staffing consistent with safety
or higher levels to provide
enhanced customer service,
interpretation etc.
Staffing of transit system may
be subcontracted or
outsourced, but preference
may be for English Heritage
staff in order to maintain
control over quality of
customer service
Will the focus be staffing on
the ground or on-vehicle?
Job-specific or multipurpose
staff.
In-house provision or
subcontracting
Range of possible options
from total subcontracting of
service provision (turnkey
Currently considering DBMO
or DBM contract with
established transport
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
6
solution) through to direct
management and provision
of all functions including
cleaning and routine
maintenance.
operator or facilities
management organisation.
The visitor transit system must complement the other visitor facilities. Thus
emerging details of possible vehicle capacities were fed back into detailed
service plans, to ensure that the capacity of the transit system could be
matched with overall visitor management plans for the site, and to enable the
width of the trackway to be minimised in the most sensitive locations.
Detailed discussions with manufacturers were undertaken to ensure that
potential vehicle types could achieve high environmental standards. It is also
important to minimise operational risks in a high-profile location.
6. SHORTLISTING METHODOLOGY
6.1
Go/no go criteria
The Service and Quality Standards formed the basis for shortlisting potential
systems. The overall principle adopted was to consider the systems available
(or potentially available) against each of these standards in turn, and to make
an assessment of the extent to which the standard was, or could be, achieved.
In practice a relatively small number of criteria were effectively go/no go
issues, where non-compliance with the standard meant that the vehicle would
be unacceptable, even if it met other criteria. Many of the potential systems
did not meet these criteria and were thus eliminated at an early stage.
The key go/no go criteria were as follows:
Guidance systems
Vehicle capacity
Vehicle characteristics
Guidance systems
An important feature of the transit system is that it should have a minimal and
potentially reversible impact on the natural environment. The trackway has
been designed to be laid on top of the existing ground surface. For this
reason, the following were rejected:
Any systems which require any form of above ground track or guidance
Any guidance systems which require painted lines or other visible
markings on the trackway
As a result of this, preference was generally give to manually steered rubbertyred systems, with only the following types of guidance potentially acceptable
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
7
Buried guidance systems which do not require physical contact with the
vehicle
Guidewheels to facilitate docking alongside station platforms
Vehicle capacity
The original specification was based on an overall transit capacity of 150
seated passengers.
During the course of investigations, it became clear that no vehicle types
currently available, and which also met the other key criteria, could offer the
capacity required.
Possible options considered were
Option for larger capacity
Increase overall length of vehicle/train
Double deck vehicles
Standing passengers at peak times
Reason for rejection
Not favoured by manufacturers as potential
problems with control and manoeuvrability
unless guided
Not acceptable to English Heritage as out of
character with the need to minimise visual
impact in the WHS landscape
Not acceptable to English Heritage as would
limit scope for interpretation during the
journey and seriously reduce the quality of
the visitor experience
A revised capacity of 100 seated passengers was therefore agreed, and now
forms the basis of further consideration of vehicle types and operating
patterns.
Vehicle configuration
There are two elements to this criterion:
Element
Physical configuration
Vehicle appearance
6.2
Key factor
Vehicle width must enable two vehicles to
pass at normal service speeds on 6m wide
trackway
Only single deck vehicles are acceptable
Other important criteria
Two other criteria also played a significant part in the selection process, as
follows:
Demonstrability
Technical capability
Demonstrability
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
8
Preference was given to systems where vehicles of at least a similar type and
comparable capacity were either currently in operation or in course of
introduction. Some systems had spent a considerable time as prototypes
without being developed into working systems in regular public use. Whilst it
was recognised that this may be due to a lack of clients willing to take the
systems through into service, the relatively high profile of the planned
Stonehenge system is such that the system selected must be capable of
reliable operation from the start.
A further important consideration is that it would be easier to demonstrate that
the proposed system meets or can meet environmental standards if examples
were already in service and can be observed and measured as necessary.
Technical capability
Where the proposed vehicle type was not currently available from the
manufacturer or supplier, an assessment was made of the capability to
develop vehicles which would meet the required specification; either by
adapting current designs, or the development of new designs. Here again,
the necessity for introduction of the chosen system at Stonehenge to proceed
as smoothly as possible was taken into account.
7. GENERIC VEHICLE TYPES AND PROPULSION SYSTEMS
CONSIDERED
7.1
Vehicle types
Based on the categories identified in the Buchanan Interim Assessment of
Options, initial application of the go/no go criteria gave the following results:
Category
Sub type
Initial evaluation
People mover
Tracked system
All tracked systems rejected
Magnetic/wire guidance
Taken forward for further
consideration
Airport apron bus
Rejected: too wide for
trackway
Rigid chassis
Rejected cannot offer
required capacity
Taken forward for further
consideration
All tracked systems rejected
Bus
Articulated
Light rail/tram
Tracked system
Road train
Manually steered
Taken forward for further
consideration
No detailed examination was made of any of the people moving systems
requiring above ground fixed track equipment such as monorails, cables, or
running rails, as none of these would be acceptable.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
9
Similarly, no detailed examination was made of light rail or tram systems as it
was clear that any form of running rails would not be acceptable.
7.2
Propulsion types
In order to ensure that design provision is made adjacent to the Visitor Centre
for fuelling and fuel storage, the current working assumption is that transit
vehicles will use compressed natural gas (CNG). However, a number of other
potential systems are under consideration as noted below. It is important to
note that various combinations of vehicle and propulsion system are possible
The following systems have been considered:
System
Compressed natural gas
(CNG)
Liquefied petroleum gas
Hybrid electric drive
Battery electric drive
Hydrogen fuel cells
Initial evaluation
Included in planning assumptions to date. Already available on a
number of bus and truck chassis, so potentially available across
all vehicle types.
Taken forward for further consideration against all shortlisted
vehicle types.
Already available on a number of bus and truck chassis, so
potentially available across all vehicle types. Less
environmentally friendly than CNG, but more than diesel.
Taken forward for further consideration against all shortlisted
vehicle types.
Already available on a number of bus and truck chassis, however
currently using diesel or LPG generators. Could potentially be
combined with CNG generators, though not currently offered as a
commercial package. Depending on battery size could
potentially be used for electric running on environmentally
sensitive sections.
Taken forward for further consideration against all shortlisted
vehicle types.
May be possibility given relatively low service speeds; however
battery size, range and recharging time all likely to be issues.
Contactless charging may be possible, however few if any
commercial systems are currently in operation, and dwell times
at Visitor Centre are likely to be insufficient. Therefore likely to
require a larger overall vehicle fleet to enable vehicles to be
taken out of service during the operating day for recharging.
Unlikely to be option for buses but may be a possibility for land
trains.
Currently in experimental service on a limited number of city
buses, but not yet generally available as a commercial package.
Relatively expensive and requires specialised fuel storage at
fuelling point and on vehicle.
Very unlikely to be an option for land trains, but may be option for
buses if current experiments result in series production.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SHORTLISTING
The Shortlisting Report was published in April 2005, and included
recommendations as follows:
None of the people mover systems considered was recommended for
further investigation, as all fail key go/no go criteria.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
10
Articulated buses may be a possible option; however it is unlikely they will
have a seating capacity above 70-80 passengers.
Power system options for buses remain open and any discussions with
manufacturers can continue to explore what is available.
Road trains appear to offer the best possibilities, and a number of types
and technologies already in operation indicate that it should be possible to
meet the specifications for Stonehenge
Power system options for road trains remain open and discussions with
manufacturers can continue to explore what is available
10. TAKING THE SCHEME THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS
10.1 The initial and resubmitted planning applications
The initial planning application for the Visitor Centre was refused in July 2005
but, following a detailed reappraisal of the scheme, Salisbury District Council
announced in February 2006 that they would invite English Heritage to
resubmit the application.
The proposals for the visitor transit system formed an important part of the
resubmitted application, and were subject to detailed examination by the local
planning authority.
10.2
Points of concern regarding the visitor transit system
The concept and planned configuration of the visitor transit system was the
subject of considerable public concern at the planning meetings, and it was
therefore important to be able to present clear and justifiable data and
explanations. A number of points were raised which are of general interest in
a transport planning context.
The proposed system was described as a “land train”. This led some
objectors to mistakenly assume that the system had fixed track or a
guideway of some kind.
There was general concern regarding noise, both from operation of the
system and noise from the passengers and any announcements made
within the vehicles. This included consideration of the seasonality, times
of day and frequency of operation.
Although part of the route, and in particular the section crossing a
residential road, was reuse of an old railway alignment, there was
nevertheless objection to the potential intrusion on privacy and amenity.
Because the majority of the route was also accessible to pedestrians,
there was concern regarding safety and, in particular, the speed of
operation.
There was concern regarding the extent of servicing and maintenance
activity to be carried out at the Visitor Centre site.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
11
10.3
Permission granted but with constraints
Salisbury District Council resolved to grant planning permission for the
resubmitted proposal for the Stonehenge Visitor Facilities and Access
Scheme in July 2006 on condition that the government has approved the
published A303 roads scheme, which includes a flyover at Countess Road,
the 2.1km bored tunnel, a bypass round Winterbourne Stoke and junction
improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads.
However, the Secretary of State decided that the application was to be ‘calledin’. The Secretary of State can "call in" certain planning applications for
example, where it may have significant regional or national controversy, or
potential conflict with national policy. These will then be subject to a public
inquiry presided over by a Planning Inspector who will make a
recommendation to the Secretary of State who will decide the application
instead of the local planning authority.
English Heritage decided in September 2006 to proceed with the appeal
against refusal of planning permission on the first application for the Visitor
Centre and Access Scheme and withdraw the second planning application.
The appeal process enables a planning applicant to challenge the local
planning authority’s decision. Although this generally involves a public inquiry,
it was thought that this would be shorter than a “call in” inquiry, thus
minimising delays and costs for all parties.
The hearing for the appeal took place in Salisbury in December 2006 and the
Planning Inspector’s report was submitted in January 2007.
On 29th March 2007, the Secretary of State announced the decision to grant
planning permission for the new Visitor Facilities and Access Scheme at
Stonehenge, but with a number of conditions, most of which had been agreed
between English Heritage and the local planning authority. These placed
restrictions on the hours of operation of the visitor transit system, the number
of vehicle movements and the levels of noise generated. Most critically, in
terms of the scheme’s implementation, was the restated proviso that the
scheme can only go ahead once the government has approved the published
A303 roads scheme.
11. CURRENT SITUATION
Since planning permission was granted, there has been no further decision
regarding the A303 roads scheme so the Visitor Facilities and Access
Scheme remains on hold.
Since the shortlisting report was prepared there has been further development
of propulsion systems, with particular application in the bus industry. Although
a key focus has been on reduction of emissions, a further benefit has been
the possibility of reducing the noise generated by the propulsion system and
associated transmission.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
12
A key point in the planning application was the intention to use vehicles with
the minimum environmental impact, consistent with proven and reliable
technology. It is therefore envisaged that at such time as the road scheme is
authorised, or the planning dependency is amended, there will be further
consideration of the vehicle types which might be available for use at
Stonehenge.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
13