Stonehenge Alliance....and their experts?

Remember my posting on 14th June this year, featuring Dr Simon Temple as Dr Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker....you can read it here if you don't have the time to look back:
https://staga303.blogspot.com/2019/06/dr-bunsen-honeydew-in-attendance.html
Well, just when we hadn't heard from him and his cronies at Stonehenge Alliance for some months, out they come again from their little laboratory with more of their ideas on what they see as fact, and sadly, someone is paying this band of "professionals" to produce all this drivel.   They have yet again submitted their report to the Planning Inspectorate this time to meet Deadline 9 with their views as to why nothing needs to be done about the A303 past Stonehenge.  If you have 2 hours, you can read it here but I've selected a few paragraphs to simplify things for you and I warn you.... it's full of hyperbole,
gobble de gook, discrepancies and contradictions:
https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010025/TR010025-001705-Stonehenge%20Alliance%20-%20Response%20to%20Highways%20England%20REP8-013%20on%20Transport%20by%20Dr%20Simon%20Temple.pdf

So here goes.....these are words from the representative of Stonehenge Alliance...

 A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down Project,

 Development Consent Order Application Scheme Reference: TR010025 

Response to Highways England’s Document “8.49-

Comments on Transportation 

For The Stonehenge Alliance (Reference No. 2001870) 

By Dr. Simon Temple

3.8 Paragraph 6.2.29 Traffic Growth The Stonehenge Alliance continues to hold the view that there is increasing evidence that the long term growth in road traffic has largely stalled and the apparent linkage between economic and traffic growth has been broken. The evidence to support this is set out in REP 2-129 and Figure 2 from this document is reproduced below.    Passenger Travel Trends and Economic Growth since 2000 This throws considerable doubt on to the validity of future traffic growth forecasts and makes them highly uncertain, as discussed in Paragraph 2.1 above. In relation to the specific points raised by Highways England in their comments, the Stonehenge Alliance strongly supports an evidence-based approach to decision-making. Accordingly, we analysed road traffic growth over the past 20 years in REP 2-129 and this showed that road traffic levels peaked in 2004. Our subsequent discussion about changes in travel patterns used this as a starting point, and we pointed out the significant difference between using 2000 and 2004 as a starting point for analysing rural A road growth in REP 4- 056. We did not assert that Highways England were seeking to “exaggerate” growth, merely that the use of different base years leads to significantly different results. For the reasons set out above, we consider that 2004 is a more appropriate base year. On the substantive point that there has been some growth on rural A roads, we have acknowledged that this has occurred but it is implausible to expect that there will be a large disparity between these roads and the road network as a whole in the longer term. It is also important to note two factors that are relevant to the specific data on rural A road growth: Highways England assert that capacity constraints on the A303 have restricted traffic growth on the route at Stonehenge. However they do not present evidence to support this supposition. We note that the average speed in their validated inter-peak model is 87 km/h as compared to 95 km/h on the fastest day (REP 6-032). There is little variation in journey time through the day, except on summer Fridays to Sundays, as shown in Figures 2-1 and 2- 2 of the Case for the Scheme (APP-294). Accordingly congestion is not sufficient to have a significant effect in suppressing traffic growth outside peak times. While we acknowledge that there is significant congestion at weekends during holiday periods, these are times when other routes are also congested, so it is unlikely that conditions on A303 have significantly reduced growth.
3.5 Paragraph 6.2.26 Assessment of Alternative Modes The Stonehenge Alliance notes that Highways England have not challenged our assessment that they set an unnecessarily high and unrealistic threshold against which to assess a potential public transport alternative. Instead they argue that this is irrelevant because the maximum potential transfer to rail would not be sufficient to remove the need for intervention. However the assessment of potential transfer is flawed because: 1) Only trips with an origin and destination within 5 kilometres of a rail station were considered in-scope for switching to rail. In reality, many people are willing to drive significantly further to access an inter-city rail head. This is demonstrated by the success of stations such as Tiverton Parkway, which has a very small population within 5 kilometres and (according to Office of Rail and Road data) served 504,000 passengers in 2017/18. 2) It is based on a 2003 TRL report compiled at a time when rail patronage was only 56% of its 2017/18 level. Since 2003 there has been a marked increase in people’s propensity to travel by train (and a reduction in their propensity to travel by car) and this indicates that relationships established at that time are no longer likely to be valid.
3.7 Paragraph 6.2.28 CO₂ Emissions Highways England have not produced any new information in their response on this point. The Stonehenge Alliance remains convinced that it is inappropriate to approve projects that are forecast to result in increased CO₂ emissions, especially since Parliament declared a Climate Emergency. We also note that Highways England have only assessed the impacts from the A303 Stonehenge project and not the cumulative effect of the overall A303 programme to create a continuous Expressway between the M3 and M5, which will inevitably be much greater."

We say....surely if traffic is moving smoothly, CO2 emissions would be lower than that accumulated at West Amesbury, where traffic is moving slowly in a stop start situation.

"3.9 Paragraph 6.2.30 Driver Information and Diversionary Routes This issue arises from the position set out in paragraph 3.6.2 of REP 2-129 which is addressing the issue of how to manage blockages of the A303 in the specific context of improving network resilience. Among other measures, the Stonehenge Alliance suggested that “improved driver information systems" – both on-line and through roadside signage – would assist drivers to avoid any blockages. Improved information systems would also give drivers greater certainty and might assist in reducing rat running.” The Stonehenge Alliance does not, and never has, made the “supposition that the traffic problems between Amesbury and Berwick Down might be addressed by driver information systems.” Instead, our position is that the case for intervention is weak and Highways England have not put forward convincing arguments for the need for a scheme of the proposed scale. Highways England then claim that the consequence of better driver information systems would be “more drivers diverting from the A303 [which would] increase the impacts caused by those drivers on local roads and communities.” The absurdity of this argument can be demonstrated by comparing two scenarios. In both cases there is a major blockage resulting 4 This is based on assuming that there was a one off increase in rural A road traffic equal to the reduction in urban A road traffic. in the A303 being closed for some time between the Countess and Longbarrow roundabouts. In Scenario 1, no driver information is provided. Long queues develop in both directions and drivers are unaware that there is a problem until they are delayed. They do not know the nature of the problem and how long it is likely to last. Inevitably a proportion of drivers will seek to avoid the problem through rat running along local roads, in turn causing problems in communities such as Shrewton. As drivers will not know of these problems, they will continue to divert exacerbating the issue. In Scenario 2, drivers will be advised of the problem as soon as it occurs. Those close to Stonehenge may have few options and may resort to rat running, but – as a minimum – can be advised once this starts to cause knock-on problems. Those further away can be advised to use alternative A roads. In the case of the most severe incidents, some drivers could be advised to use the M4/M5 alternative. With a properly designed system, the consequence would be less rather than more impact on local communities. The logic of Highways England’s position appears to be that providing better driver information is counter-productive, which begs the question of why they are investing heavily in it elsewhere on their network".....and that concludes Dr Bunsen Honeydew's contribution but.....
here's some more, this time from a whole list of experts representing Stonehenge Alliance's objection of the project.   You can read the whole thing from this link or I've provided a precis here https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010025/TR010025-001707-Stonehenge%20Alliance%20-%20Summary%20of%20Case.pdf

"for The Stonehenge Alliance (Reference No. 2001870)

Dr. Kate Fielden, Dr Simon Temple, Alan James, Andy Norfolk, Dr George Reeves, Charlie Hopkins, Rupert Thornely-Taylor, Clive Bentley and Mike Birkin

1.2. Our specialists made oral submissions at Issue Specific Hearings and provided written summaries of them. We have answered the Examining Authority’s Written Questions as relevant and responded to Highways England’s comments on our various submissions. 

1.3. We find no reason to alter our case for objection to the Scheme.

5. Traffic, Transportation and Value for Money 

5.1. The case for intervention presented by Highways England is weak. The evidence does not support their contention that the existing route suffers from high levels of congestion and journey time unreliability, except on a limited number of days – primarily summer weekends. Traffic volumes on the route have not increased significantly in the last 15 years and there is much uncertainty about whether, and by how much, they might grow in future. Evidence that conditions on the A303 are holding back economic growth is weak and is based – in part – on biased survey work.

Well done you!...if you managed to read and make sense of all this.   It does appear that Stonehenge Alliance considers itself to be experts in flood risk, groundwater protection, geology and land contamination biodiversity, biological environment and ecology vibration.    
Also, they are apparently experts in road traffic management, saying that traffic on the A303 has not increased since 2004 but is merely badly managed!!!!