A27 Arundel Bypass

[jackal]

I found a ppt presentation that seems to be for an abandoned scheme that would have had the 'A27 carriageway extended under bridge to signalised junction with A284' at Crossbush:

https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/159 ... ion_v2.pdf

[Richardf]

I saw that too. Can't see how it would have helped, you would have had the D2 A27 crashing into a signalised T junction instead of a Gyratory junction as now. Thank goodness it never saw the light of day.

[jackal]

'"Strong majority" will back Arundel bypass, MP says'

http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/n ... -1-8094473

[Fluid Dynamics]

I found a ppt presentation that seems to be for an abandoned scheme that would have had the 'A27 carriageway extended under bridge to signalised junction with A284' at Crossbush:

Crossbush - Copy.PNG
https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/159 ... ion_v2.pdf

I always felt that a quick fix option here, might have been a variant on what is shown above. However, only the westbound A27 would have continued under the bridge to merge with the northbound A284. The bridge would be used for 2 way traffic, catering for A284 north to A27 east traffic and A27 eastbound to A284 southbound traffic. A27 eastbound would have a free flow filter lane. A27 westbound to A284 southbound would have be as shown. This would allow both A27 directions to have a single free flowing lane through the junction, although westbound this would still require a lane drop at some point.

[jackal]

Consultation starts next week:

http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/a ... provement/

[Reading]

On BBC South today again this morning http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-engla ... x-41004312

Option 1

A new dual-carriageway from Crossbush junction, passing to the south west of Arundel railway station, re-joining the existing A27 east of Ford Road, which will be widened to a dual carriageway. This option also includes improvements at Crossbush junction, new bridges over the railway line and the River Arun and a new pedestrian/cycle path from Crossbush junction.

Option 3

A new dual-carriageway from Crossbush junction, south of the current A27, rejoining the A27 at a new junction near Havenwood Park. This option also includes improvements at Crossbush junction, new bridges over the railway line and the River Arun and a new pedestrian/cycle path between Crossbush junction and Yapton Lane.

Option 5A:

A new dual-carriageway following the same route as option 3 between Crossbush junction and Ford Road. From Ford Road the route continues west passing between the South Downs National Park and Binsted Woods, re-joining the existing A27 at a new junction near Yapton Lane. This option also includes improvements at Crossbush junction, new bridges over the railway line and the River Arun and a new pedestrian/cycle path between Crossbush junction and Yapton Lane.

[jackal]

Crossbush is a dumbbell under all options.

Option 1 is largely online and aside from Crossbush will be at-grade, including signalization of the existing Ford Road rbt Cost: £135m.

Options 3 is offline, with a dumbbell at the western terminus at Havenwood Park and no junctions between there and Crossbush. Cost: £260m.

Option 5A is offline and fully grade separated, with a dumbbell variant at the western terminus at Yapton Lane and no junctions between there and Crossbush. This provides a higher quality route than Option 3, which would retain the at-grade junction at Yapton Lane. Cost: £250m.

tl;dr 5A>3>1

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... el-bypass/

[AJK1982]

I agree that 5a is the better of the 3 options. Option 1 is probably the least environmentally damaging, but does have the joy of a traffic-signalled roundabout. I'm not convinced how the dualling west of the Ford roundabout would work either, there are a number of accesses on that section at the moment, including for the hospital. Additionally the current alignment isn't that good. Option 3 would face a lot of opposition as it's the same route as planned before that ploughs through Binsted Wood.

5a also has the advantage that it actually removes a large chunk of the A27 from the SDNP.

[Richardf]

5A looks the best option. Avoids most of the woodlands and nicely seperates local and long distance traffic.

The online option looks the simplest to do in some ways, but not being grade separated and combining local and long distance traffic in one road will result in another Chichester situation in a few years.

But what's the betting the online option becomes the preferred HE one on basis of cost?

[Bryn666]

5A as well.

Also their CAD technician needs to be shown how a two way road joins a roundabout.

[sotonsteve]

I second that about what bryn said about the drawings.

Option 5a does seem to be the best option, skirting away from the National Park, being to a high design standard thought and not snaking around too much. Option 1 is pretty poor really, and like others, I question the buildability due to the alignment and presence of junctions on the existing route. It would be a dual carriageway of a low design standard that would be a cop out.

[SarahJ]

If they do build option 5, what will happen to the current by-pass. 90% of the time I'm going that way I'm turning off towards Ford for some shopping , would hate it if my options became driving through the town centre or bypassing then u turning.

[Berk]

Surely it'll be left alone, like an 'inner bypass'?? That's happened in places before.

In fact, that should be the whole point of the scheme - to separate town, and long-distance A27 traffic.

Mind you, the worst bits will still be Worthing and Sompting. I was last down there a couple of weeks ago. I set off from Brighton, heading towards Beaulieu on a Sunday morning (well, it was more like midday after I'd got my bum in gear, not really a morning person). I was counting on the road being 'OK', as it was a Sunday, and there not being too many people around.

Guess I left it a bit late, because just after Shoreham and the airfield, I had to slam on the brakes at the series of junctions. The worst of which was probably this one. Never a bright idea to have lights-controlled junctions in close succession to each other. Traffic was barely able to move from one to the next.

My journey took about 2 hours, but the rest was surprisingly OK, as I'd expected. Even Chichester wasn't too bad. Just wish I could do anything to avoid Worthing.

[jackal]

Yes, I don't see what value there'd be in butchering it - after all it will still presumably be an A road (A284).

5A as well.

Also their CAD technician needs to be shown how a two way road joins a roundabout.

Assuming you're talking about the 5A junction, they probably didn't notice that they were two way roads. Not sure if that's better or worse...

[Richardf]

Surely it'll be left alone, like an 'inner bypass'?? That's happened in places before.

Given the alternative through the old High St, they would be mad to do otherwise.

[SarahJ]

Surely it'll be left alone, like an 'inner bypass'?? That's happened in places before.

In fact, that should be the whole point of the scheme - to separate town, and long-distance A27 traffic.

Mind you, the worst bits will still be Worthing and Sompting. I was last down there a couple of weeks ago. I set off from Brighton, heading towards Beaulieu on a Sunday morning (well, it was more like midday after I'd got my bum in gear, not really a morning person). I was counting on the road being 'OK', as it was a Sunday, and there not being too many people around.

Guess I left it a bit late, because just after Shoreham and the airfield, I had to slam on the brakes at the series of junctions. The worst of which was probably this one. Never a bright idea to have lights-controlled junctions in close succession to each other. Traffic was barely able to move from one to the next.

My journey took about 2 hours, but the rest was surprisingly OK, as I'd expected. Even Chichester wasn't too bad. Just wish I could do anything to avoid Worthing.

You can avoid it going this way. It's longer, and prob does not save you time, but at least you keep moving:
Off the A27 at Shoreham, A283 via Steyning, A24 down to Findon, then the link to the A27. If the queue at Crossbush gets you down, stay in the left lane, turn left, pop into the services, get a coffee from McD's, back out. (nice Garden to sit in if it's nice) Again, no time saved, but keeps you on the move (sort of) and refreshed.
Somehow E/B while slow seems less stop start.

[sotonsteve]

It looks like with the offline options, where the bypassed sections are currently dual they would be singled. I imagine there may be other traffic calming measures adopted too such as narrowings where right turn lanes exist in the centre of the road.

[Berk]

It looks like with the offline options, where the bypassed sections are currently dual they would be singled. I imagine there may be other traffic calming measures adopted too such as narrowings where right turn lanes exist in the centre of the road.

Fair do's just as long as the bypass gets built properly. And we can drive underneath Crossbush as intended!!

[Lil]

I would go for option 5 too as it makes an attempt at sorting out the at grade Yapton Lane junction.

I would tweak it though by closing the Shellbridge Lane access to the A27 there, there's no real need for it as this lane can be accessed via the A29 which is not far from the A27 at this point. This would allow a clean A27 east to Yapton Lane slip road, and I would divert Yapton Lane up to the southern dumbell roundabout, allowing the Yapton Lane to A27 East movement to happen there, and have a clean southern dumbell roundabout to A27 west slip road.

[jackal]

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much local support for option 5A if this article is anything to go by:

http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/n ... -1-8115463