A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
doofer
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:26

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by doofer »

The biggest obstacle is the South Downs National Park. This effectively turns the entire area into a preserved museum - things need to change, as you can't keep stuffing more people into an area without improving the infrastructure at some point. The big mistake was butting the park boundary right up to the edge of the buildings, without having the foresight to think that a bypass would be an obvious need at some point in the future.

Trees and views are good things to have, but that should be after the basic needs of the population have been catered for.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by RichardA35 »

doofer wrote:The biggest obstacle is the South Downs National Park. This effectively turns the entire area into a preserved museum - things need to change, as you can't keep stuffing more people into an area without improving the infrastructure at some point. The big mistake was butting the park boundary right up to the edge of the buildings, without having the foresight to think that a bypass would be an obvious need at some point in the future.

Trees and views are good things to have, but that should be after the basic needs of the population have been catered for.
Conversely it is arguable that preserving the views and trees are "needs" and improving the road is merely a "want" and until an affordable solution is found that caters adequately for the competing demands, no solution (or a do-minimum junction tweaking) is better than an affordable bypass solution that would have unacceptably severe environmental impacts or an unaffordable solution that minimises the impacts.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by jackal »

1. Build GSJ at Ivydore Ave on the western side of Worthing, feeding into tunnel portal.
2. Bore tunnel through to the land SW of the cemetery, where you build a GSJ with a portal at either end.
3. From the eastern side of the GSJ, bore tunnel either to the golf course (with the route at surface level thereafter) or all the way to Church Lane east of worthing, where there's another GSJ.
doofer
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:26

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by doofer »

This undated article...

http://www.cnp.org.uk/government-announ ... onal-parks

Implies that sticking a road through a national park isn't a non-starter - it could still happen, if it can be justified.

Balance is what's needed, but everyone has a different view of the importance of the competing factors.

Everything mellows with time. The M6 through the lake district probably wouldn't have got approved if it was to be built today but we couldn't manage without it now and it's one of the most amazing views from a road in the country. Perhaps it gives people who wouldn't otherwise see the countryside the ability to appreciate it.
Richardf
Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by Richardf »

Stevie D wrote:
Richardf wrote:I don't low what would be the least undesirable way of dualling the road. Demolition and online upgrade I suppose, creating an urban/suburban expressway. Great for long distance traffic but not great for locals!
Converting the existing S2 to HQDC would probably require compulsory purchase of well over 100 (very expensive) houses, and would blight hundreds more, just to do the bit between Durrington and Lyons Farm. It would be a VERY brave politician that signed that one off!

How many road projects in the last 30 years have destroyed so many homes?
On the other hand, while existing houses might be lost, improving the road might open up opportunities for new developments elsewhere to compensate.
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
User avatar
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by Stevie D »

Richardf wrote:On the other hand, while existing houses might be lost, improving the road might open up opportunities for new developments elsewhere to compensate.
It's hard to see what new developments might be opened up, given that it is pretty much continuously built up between the sea to the south and the steep hills of the national park to the north. That's why fitting a new road in is so difficult!
Richardf
Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by Richardf »

National park boundary needs altering to line of most viable offline route, which when built becomes the southern edge of the park. Any space then within the line of the bypass is freed from NP planning restrictions.

Looking at the area again, if demolition or tunneling is needed to dual the route then make that route offline (towards Findon) to separate local and long distance traffic and reunite the two parts of Worthing separated by the A27.

There is a local pressure group campaigning for a bypass. I agree with them. The current HE plan is rubbish and online D2/GSJ would be bad for the town. Bypass is the best option. How you carry it out is another matter though!
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by jackal »

I don't think the solution should be determined in advance by the govt. We've seen what a disaster that can be at Chichester. Give HE £500m-£1bn and see what they can come up.
Last edited by jackal on Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:02, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by Stevie D »

Richardf wrote:National park boundary needs altering to line of most viable offline route, which when built becomes the southern edge of the park. Any space then within the line of the bypass is freed from NP planning restrictions.
Areas are designated as national parks for good reason, it isn't just about greenies being ornery and trying to stop perfectly reasonable development. The South Downs NP comprises a long ridge with steep sides sloping down to the edge of the residential areas of northern Worthing. That means the only way to build a northern bypass would be to put a massive gash all the way along the ridge, desecrating the very thing that has made it a national park. There is no "fringe area" that can be sacrificed to a road. There just isn't. It goes straight from houses to hills with no break between - even without National Park status it would be totally unacceptable to plough through it.

The only place you could feasibly put a northern bypass would be the other side of the hills. Head north from Arundel following the railway line, then thread a route through between Amberley, West Chiltington Common, Storrington and Ashington, then upgrade the A283 with a small amount of CP and demolition around Steyning and Bramber. But it would be about 21 miles, compared with just 12 miles on the existing road, and because it is so far out, it would be of limited value as it would not take any intermediate traffic.
Richardf
Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by Richardf »

Only one answer then.

Get rid of Worthing!!! :@ :bang: :driving:

Seriously though, there has to be a way of doing it without damaging the downs too much. Long tunnel?

Maybe the Stonehenge money would be better spent in the A27? Cost to Benefit ratio might be higher.
Last edited by Richardf on Fri Jul 21, 2017 23:59, edited 1 time in total.
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
doofer
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:26

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by doofer »

Perhaps tunnel(s) through the NP would be the obvious answer then? Perhaps with a few amazing viaducts to enhance the beauty of the valleys?
User avatar
sotonsteve
Member
Posts: 6079
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 21:01

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by sotonsteve »

Question, how did they build the Brighton Bypass?

As far as I can see, the issues are the same. The only difference is that Brighton got done in the early 1990s and Worthing didn't, and our outlook on buildability has since changed.
Richardf
Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by Richardf »

What's the history with bypass plans for worthing? What form did previous scrapped plans take? Is it another one that nearly got built in the 1990s but just missed the cut when Labour came to power?
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
Richardf
Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by Richardf »

List of 1994 schemes here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12154

Specific listing of Worthing
Worthing-Lancing Imp, W. Sussex |A27 |D2-D3 |106.9 |6.0 |OP
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by jackal »

I believe this one was withdrawn by the Conservatives.
GeekyJames
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 21:42
Location: Southampton / Eastbourne

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by GeekyJames »

Yes I believe the original plans were dropped in 1996..

Going back to the latest plans, they are similar to those proposed by WSCC several years ago before HE put A27 improvements back on the agenda!
https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/159 ... ion_v2.pdf

also not everyone is against the latest plans...
http://www.somptingestate.com/a27-worth ... n-launched
doofer
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:26

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by doofer »

Shock news: Owners of countryside estate are not in favour of building in the countryside. I really hope all these nimby groups get the absolute ignoring they all deserve, but Lord whatever-his-name of Goodwood seemed to do a pretty good job of stopping the Chichester North option.

Someone, somewhere gets all the traffic past their house. In my view those who've put up with it for years have at least equal rights to everyone else. In fact perhaps traffic in towns is worse, as a greater number of people get exposed to higher levels of noise and toxins.

The South Downs National Park didn't exist until 2011. It looks like whoever drew the boundary just drew a line around the edge of all the adjoining towns and didn't think about the problems that would arise. They need to accept they got it wrong and put the road in the best place regardless of the arbitrary park boundary, and hopefully regardless of the status, money and power of the people who happen to live in these areas.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by jackal »

Some choice quotes from local councillors:
Steve Waight (Con, Goring) suggested grade separated junctions would ‘greatly enhance traffic flow’.

He argued that if the scheme is not future proofed, all they were doing is spending £69m which would be ‘wasted’ when a long-term solution is then required.

Meanwhile Bryan Turner (Con, Broadwater) said: “It’s poor value for money and any benefits will not be worth the disruption of the construction phase.”

He added: “I think the view from Worthing is it’s a waste of money as proposed. Bank the money and come up with something better.”

The most scathing criticism came from George Barton (Con, Sompting and North Lancing), who was not in attendance, but his written statement was read out by the committee’s chairman.

He said: “This is an arrogant self-opinionated proposal, being put forward by a team of desperate paper planning bureaucrats who have no alternative options and ideas to offer the public.”

James Walsh (LDem, Littlehampton East), leader of the Lib Dem group, described the scheme as ‘pitiful’ and felt ‘absolutely underwhelmed and disappointed by the scale of the proposal’.

But he also made a plea not to press Highways England too hard on a survey of the cumulative impact of all the schemes for the A27, as he argued this could delay or threaten other projects such as the Arundel bypass.

Committee member Sean McDonald (Con, Northbrook) said he was ‘flabbergasted’ when he learnt that the current proposals would only improve average peak journey times by four minutes, adding: “We need to go back to Highways England and ask them to revisit this at some length.”

Michael Jones (Lab, Southgate and Gossops Green) asked if the improvements were ‘some kind of sick joke’ by the Government and Highways England, adding: “Anything which does not properly address congestion on this road is money wasted.”
Read more at: http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news/po ... -1-8140273
User avatar
sotonsteve
Member
Posts: 6079
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 21:01

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by sotonsteve »

The plans on offer are embarrassing to say the least.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement

Post by Berk »

The locals have hit the nail on the head. Actually, I'd be pleased if they got the current proposals cancelled à la Chichester. Because they are complete and total rubbish, and will do absolutely nothing to improve congestion.

The current road could only be improved if one junction, and maybe two sets of lights were removed. And have at least 2+1 (for westbound traffic).

Otherwise, nothing else than a GS D2 will do.
Post Reply