A27 Arundel Bypass

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
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

jervi wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 13:22 The MP for the area has made another statement about the bypass, can't agree with him more.
https://www.nickherbert.com/news/2019/1 ... del-bypass
He's now calling it the "National Park Bypass", mostly due to it (an offline option) reducing the roads length through the national park from 2km to 0.25km. Although the A27 does run through the National Park for considerable lengths elsewhere.
For some reason the National Park Authority are against any bypass option, which is extremely odd due to the amount of accidents (and deaths) on national park roads, which are typically narrow, bendy and under-maintated when compared to most other regions of the country.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1794659 ... el-bypass/
They are saying that "every option would impact negatively on the park", which I'd argue extremely against.
Anyway the consultation is due to end in 22 days, anyone know how long it typically takes for HE to publish information and then produce their Preferred Route?
From the first link it seems support is coalescing around Magenta, which is no bad thing.

Your final question is a bit 'how long is a piece of string?'. But the A358 is probably the most comparable current scheme, given the type of project and because it similarly had a further consultation with additional options. That took nearly a year and a half from second consultation to PRA: https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/ ... uthfields/ I'd hope for closer to a year on this one.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

jackal wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 16:56
From the first link it seems support is coalescing around Magenta, which is no bad thing.

Your final question is a bit 'how long is a piece of string?'. But the A358 is probably the most comparable current scheme, given the type of project and because it similarly had a further consultation with additional options. That took nearly a year and a half from second consultation to PRA: https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/ ... uthfields/ I'd hope for closer to a year on this one.
Oof that a bit of a wait. Wasn't expecting it to be before the new year, but anything over 6 months seems too long. And then it will be another 3 years before building starts and before you know it, it will be the first project that is in RIS1, RIS2 and RIS3
GeekyJames
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 21:42
Location: Southampton / Eastbourne

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by GeekyJames »

Yes I can't understand why the SDNPA won't compromise on one of the routes as it's obvious that the current situation cannot continue. RTheir report just makes no sense

https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-conten ... ndices.pdf
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Berk »

Reading their report (quickly, so not too carefully), I believe their position is that they don’t support any routes, rather than being outright opposed.

It also seems to be based on some very strange perspectives. A lot of their position concerns itself with inserting a new road into the landscape. They perceive severance (of animal species) from woodlands, even on the preferred, more distant route (magenta/5BV1), which they accept doesn’t really affect ancient woodland.

They make a great deal of mention of lighting, but most trunk and non-trunk roads aren’t lit by default any more, only junctions.

They fail to make any comment about pollution, or reduction of pollution/improvement in air quality whatsoever. That to me is the killer point - only accepting the negative points that new roads could possibly bring, rather than accepting there may be positive benefits, or enhancements.

Anyone who has had to drive along The Causeway during rush hour will know how pretty foul the air gets along there with idling traffic.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

jervi wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 21:59
jackal wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 16:56
From the first link it seems support is coalescing around Magenta, which is no bad thing.

Your final question is a bit 'how long is a piece of string?'. But the A358 is probably the most comparable current scheme, given the type of project and because it similarly had a further consultation with additional options. That took nearly a year and a half from second consultation to PRA: https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/ ... uthfields/ I'd hope for closer to a year on this one.
Oof that a bit of a wait. Wasn't expecting it to be before the new year, but anything over 6 months seems too long. And then it will be another 3 years before building starts and before you know it, it will be the first project that is in RIS1, RIS2 and RIS3
They're aiming for late 2022 start of construction.

Btw many projects will stretch across RIS1-3 if you count development and the entire construction period. LTC, Manchester NW Quadrant, A66, Oxbridge Expresway, Stonehenge, etc.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Micro The Maniac »

GeekyJames wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 22:38 Yes I can't understand why the SDNPA won't compromise on one of the routes as it's obvious that the current situation cannot continue. RTheir report just makes no sense
I cannot understand how SDNP can have a bigger objection to a new road that has less effect on the park than the existing road.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Berk »

Because they’re obsessed about visual and lighting intrusion (where they are minimal), and bizarre interpretations of ‘severance’ (pretty much non-existant).
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Chris Bertram »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 13:15
GeekyJames wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 22:38 Yes I can't understand why the SDNPA won't compromise on one of the routes as it's obvious that the current situation cannot continue. RTheir report just makes no sense
I cannot understand how SDNP can have a bigger objection to a new road that has less effect on the park than the existing road.
I presume the original road will remain, but will be much less used?
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 16:17
Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 13:15
GeekyJames wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 22:38 Yes I can't understand why the SDNPA won't compromise on one of the routes as it's obvious that the current situation cannot continue. RTheir report just makes no sense
I cannot understand how SDNP can have a bigger objection to a new road that has less effect on the park than the existing road.
I presume the original road will remain, but will be much less used?
The original road will still exist in all parts.
The current issue with road safety doesn't strictly apply to the current A27 single carriageway, typically it's quite safe as there is so much traffic on it that you don't actually drive that fast along it, the biggest benefit is the reduction on traffic on other east-west roads which are in the park, which don't have a good safety record, and cannot be fixed due to the national park throwing their arms up if the local council ever try to make them safer in any way other than reducing in speed limit.
Also the A284 currently runs in multiplex with the A27 through Arundel down to crossbush junction, without a doubt that section would become the A284. In the event that an offline bypass (other than Crimson) is chosen, the section of dual carriageway between the western-tie in and the eastern part of the dual carriageway would become a single carriageway, with the other carriageway being partly broken up and turned into a cycle track / bridleway, I'd also guess it would become a B class road.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Berk »

Or even a spur of the A284. Or possibly unclassified.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Berk wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 23:14 Or even a spur of the A284. Or possibly unclassified.
I'll put money on it being a B or A road.
It could become a spur of the A284, but the A284 is really quite a short road anyway, it only goes 2.7mi North of Arundel, if the road to the west would become a spur, it could be upto 2.6mi. It's not really a spur if it travels the same distance in both directions.
I'd expect it to be a B27xx number
User avatar
Peter350
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 20:20
Location: Southampton

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Peter350 »

On the subject of the A284, does anyone know what’s happening with the proposed Lyminster bypass? Last time I looked on OpenStreetMap it appeared to be shown as under construction.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Peter350 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 13:33 On the subject of the A284, does anyone know what’s happening with the proposed Lyminster bypass? Last time I looked on OpenStreetMap it appeared to be shown as under construction.
The southern end of the "bypass" in Wick, there has vegetation clearances and new fences erected (about 4-5 months ago), no ground works just yet. I'll go and check next week as I'll be back in Sussex.
WSCC have a page for the "bypass" for "Lyminster North", which suggest the southern section (nearer Wick) is part of a different project.
https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/roads-and ... ass-north/
For the that section it says that it was granted planning permission in March of this year and construction is to start early 2021. However I'd guess that they will try and get it done before construction on the A27 Arundel Bypass begins, especially if a through route town is chosen.

ps. Just checked the map they produced https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/983 ... ptions.jpg
Middle section is where vegetation has been cleared, Northern section is due to start in 2021, Southern section no-one knows
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Local Council (Arun District Council) has come out with their most supported route. This being the Magenta Route that got 31 votes, while Crimson got 5, no other routes got any votes.
Not too sure how much impact this has on HE's decisions.
Its at least better than when the A27 Northern bypass of Brighton was being built and the council didn't want none of it.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

jervi wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:30 Local Council (Arun District Council) has come out with their most supported route. This being the Magenta Route that got 31 votes, while Crimson got 5, no other routes got any votes.
Not too sure how much impact this has on HE's decisions.
Its at least better than when the A27 Northern bypass of Brighton was being built and the council didn't want none of it.
Chichester was pretty similar (they started backtracking once the scheme was withdrawn, of course). Worthing likewise. And people wonder why the A27 is such a state...
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Berk »

Maybe we should sack the council(lor)s. Just have direct rule commissioners instead. :twisted:
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

West Sussex County Council has backed the Magenta Route, inline with what the local MP is wanting.
https://www.nickherbert.com/news/2019/1 ... for-bypass
Meanwhile in crazy land "protesters" are wanting to die outside Chichester Town Hall (I guess that's where WSCC HQ is?) and stating that
up to 20 homes in Binsted would be compulsorily purchased if the magenta route went ahead.
, which obviously isn't true.
20 Properties may have small patches of land compulsory purchased, but I think it's more like 3 maybe 4 homes that are actually going to be demolished.
Also they are saying Findon would turn into a "rat run", but the opposite is going to happen.
Personally, as I've said before, the Amber route is the best, 0 homes destroyed, small amount of ancient woodland removed, however will be on a viaduct over the woodland floor.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Berk »

It’s quite absurd how people are getting in a tis over this scheme. I don’t meant to sound flippant, but the environmental effects consequences of this scheme are very, very minimal, and surely beneficial overall, as they will remove a huge amount of fumes, pollution and noise from idling traffic from The Causeway and the A284/old bypass.

Even if you consider the effect on the ancient woodland, who’s to say no-one ever disturbed any of it before?? If matey in the 1600s chopped a few trees down to build a house, collect some firewood, we wouldn’t be any the wiser. The “severance” the National Park authority spoke of is non-existent. As is/will be the “excessive light pollution”; I very much doubt any of it except the roundabouts will be lit.

There really is no reason not to support this scheme.
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9861
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by owen b »

Berk wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 22:53 The “severance” the National Park authority spoke of is non-existent. As is/will be the “excessive light pollution”; I very much doubt any of it except the roundabouts will be lit.
Ah, so either the road will be closed to all traffic when it's dark, or vehicles will be prohibited from using their lights :shock: :laugh: .
Owen
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Berk »

No, the park authority claimed that the road would be fully lit.

Any recent major scheme tends to only have lighting at junctions.

They didn’t make any distinction between private cars and streetlighting; they just concentrated on the latter.
Post Reply