A27 Arundel Bypass

[wrinkly]

Further to the recent discussion of how to deal with the traffic at Crossbush during construction, one option might be to operate a temporary highly elongated gyratory using the bridge and the full length of the slip roads. Similar layouts were used at (at least) a couple of sites in the NW several decades ago. Maybe there's some reason why it would be regarded as unacceptable today, but I can't instantly see one.

[SteveA30]

The conversion could be along the lines of this from 1977. The right hand road was 2 way for 2 days, down to the D2 A30, opened earlier in Nov 75.

In other news, locals are perplexed by this new fangled motorway thing and earlier, the Exeter extension is delayed, meaning one more summer of bypass congestion.

[Johnathan404]

Nice to see a diagram of the junction, still designed to look roughly like its original plan.

Several years? The full construction period of the entire bypass is likely to be two years, but it doesn't take two years to remove an embankment, construct a road bed for a length of say twenty metres across the site the embankment used to occupy and then pave it. It certainly won't take two years.
[..]
I don't see how this is catastrophic.

I'm guilty of exaggerating, but given Highways England's track record with simple projects I may not be that far off.

It's not so much that I think the situation is catastrophic, in fact I think it'll be a necessary pain. I'm just surprised a capacity improvement would be built which would have to be removed once traffic levels have risen enough to start working on a permanent upgrade.

I'm reading too much in to it, and the simple answer is probably that no-body has ever put any long-term thought in to this junction.

Further to the recent discussion of how to deal with the traffic at Crossbush during construction, one option might be to operate a temporary highly elongated gyratory using the bridge and the full length of the slip roads. Similar layouts were used at (at least) a couple of sites in the NW several decades ago. Maybe there's some reason why it would be regarded as unacceptable today, but I can't instantly see one.

This is what I suggested. The whole length of the slip roads would need traffic management anyway, so moving the signals down shouldn't be too much of an ordeal.

The problem with the 'running the A284 southbound on the bridge' idea is that it would need an extra phase in the traffic lights to allow it to cross the eastbound onslip. This would cause additional delays to the A27 in both directions, but it would also need queueing space to be added to the A284/A27 eastbound. Maybe it'll work if they build the northern roundabout straight away... I just hope they've got the models to prove it!

[wrinkly]

Further to the recent discussion of how to deal with the traffic at Crossbush during construction, one option might be to operate a temporary highly elongated gyratory using the bridge and the full length of the slip roads. Similar layouts were used at (at least) a couple of sites in the NW several decades ago. Maybe there's some reason why it would be regarded as unacceptable today, but I can't instantly see one.

This is what I suggested.

Sorry, I see now that was your possibility b, which I missed.

The whole length of the slip roads would need traffic management anyway, so moving the signals down shouldn't be too much of an ordeal.

The examples I'm thinking of didn't have signals, they operated with the same give way rule as an ordinary roundabout, however with today's traffic levels signals might be needed.

[RichardEvans67]

On the subject of the Crossbush Junction, I can't see the problem lasting long enough to be worth any major extra work. I can't see it taking more than a couple of months to remove the embankment and built the carriageway below.

However if they do want to do something, then how about build the carriageway west of the junction, and then put a temporary embankment on top of that. There wouldn't be the worry of the condition of foundations after many years of being burred. So at the end it would be pretty much a matter of just removing the temporary embankment, to reveal a completed carriageway underneath.

Richard.

[jackal]

WSCC came out in support of 5A:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-41658489

[RichardEvans67]

by jackal » Sat Oct 21, 2017 15:28

WSCC came out in support of 5A:

I wonder, how much would Binstead be affected, if measures like noise banks and trees were used. I'm thinking this because I'm quite near the Caterham ByPass, but you often don't notice it until you get within about 50 yards.

[Richardf]

People are getting worried about the bypass cutting through the woods but only one option does this I think, the longer route option bypasses most of it which can't be that bad really, and has to be the preferred option.

[Chris Bertram]

The Grauniad's wrong-about-everything environment correspondent Patrick Barkham gets his two-penn'orth in here. As ever, a lot of "hello birds, hello trees", but no consideration for the benighted residents of Arundel itself.

[Bryn666]

Ah yes, the super simplistic "no new roads" school of thought which presumably also extends to "no new houses", "no new schools", "no new hospitals", etc. Why? Because their only argument is 'well, people use it if you build it, so you need more and more'. It's primary school debate level.

[Herned]

Saw that article, I thought the use of a photo of much prettier countryside 30-odd miles away was less than honest, shall we say

People who believe new roads lead to worse congestion should take a look at what the Netherlands have been doing to solve that conundrum... much bigger roads!

[Chris Bertram]

Saw that article, I thought the use of a photo of much prettier countryside 30-odd miles away was less than honest, shall we say

The same author wrote an article about the, er, travelling folk who briefly made the town of Cromer a no-go area. He took the side of the travellers, and the article was illustrated with a picture of a traditional gypsy caravan, rather than one of the sleek modern motorhomes that the ruffians are far more likely to rock up in.

As I said, wrong about everything.

[Arcuarius]

Saw that article, I thought the use of a photo of much prettier countryside 30-odd miles away was less than honest, shall we say

The same author wrote an article about the, er, travelling folk who briefly made the town of Cromer a no-go area. He took the side of the travellers, and the article was illustrated with a picture of a traditional gypsy caravan, rather than one of the sleek modern motorhomes that the ruffians are far more likely to rock up in.

As I said, wrong about everything.

Just in the interest of balance, what have the Daily Heil and the Daily Excrement said about it?

[Chris Bertram]

Just in the interest of balance, what have the Daily Heil and the Daily Excrement said about it?

No idea, I prefer not to bother with their idea of "news".

Anyway, Mr Barkham appears not to realise that the "bizarre" layout of the Crossbush junction is because a previous plan for a bypass was cancelled. Did Not Do The Research is how TV Tropes describes that.

[RichardEvans67]

If environmentalists had there way, we would have no roads and we would have to rely on railways. Except that they were once against against railways, so we would have to rely on canals. Except that they were once against canals, so we would be using pack horses, carrying small loads short distances along treacherous paths.

Or perhaps they would prefer us to go back to living in caves, and never traveling any distance.

[Chris Bertram]

Or perhaps they would prefer us to go back to living in caves, and never traveling any distance.

It's hard to avoid the impression that some ultra-greenies really *would* be happy going back to the stone age.

[KeithW]

It's hard to avoid the impression that some ultra-greenies really *would* be happy going back to the stone age.

Except for themselves of course. As guardians of the planet they would have to force themselves to live in modern housing and use mechanised transport to keep an eye on things.

[owen b]

If environmentalists had there way, we would have no roads and we would have to rely on railways. Except that they were once against against railways, so we would have to rely on canals. Except that they were once against canals, so we would be using pack horses, carrying small loads short distances along treacherous paths.

Or perhaps they would prefer us to go back to living in caves, and never traveling any distance.

It's hard to avoid the impression that some ultra-greenies really *would* be happy going back to the stone age.

Except for themselves of course. As guardians of the planet they would have to force themselves to live in modern housing and use mechanised transport to keep an eye on things.

Would the world be a better place if the environmentalists were never heard? Really? Would the world be a better place if there were no national parks, no SSSIs, no tree preservation orders, no protection of culturally, historically, or ecologically valuable landscapes, seascapes and cityscapes? Where the polluters and developers and those with wealth and influence have carte blanche to destroy, poison, contaminate, spread disease and kill?

That Guardian article about the Arundel proposals was unbalanced, inadequately researched and poorly argued. But that doesn't mean that everyone who questions the validity of the bypass proposals is a loony who wants us to return to the Stone Age any more than the equally preposterous straw man that anyone who wants a bypass is hell bent on destroying the planet.

[RichardEvans67]

Postby owen b » Wed Nov 15, 2017 20:53

Would the world be a better place if the environmentalists were never heard? Really? Would the world be a better place if there were no national parks, no SSSIs, no tree preservation orders, no protection of culturally, historically, or ecologically valuable landscapes, seascapes and cityscapes? Where the polluters and developers and those with wealth and influence have carte blanche to destroy, poison, contaminate, spread disease and kill?

I don't think the world would be a better place if environmentalists were ignored. And these days they seem to put in a lot of effort to consider the environmental impacts of a new road, and take a lot of measures to mitigate against the impacts. I think it's debatable whether they go too far on environmental issues, but the current balance is a reasonable position.

That Guardian article about the Arundel proposals was unbalanced, inadequately researched and poorly argued. But that doesn't mean that everyone who questions the validity of the bypass proposals is a loony who wants us to return to the Stone Age any more than the equally preposterous straw man that anyone who wants a bypass is hell bent on destroying the planet.

Well, whatever they do here will be a bit controversial, (but I think doing nothing would be the worst option). I suppose I was having a bit of a rant, because of seeing what I saw as usual floored environmentalist arguments.

[Bryn666]

I think people are confusing "environmentalist" with "crank".

The shrill ban all roads, let's live in cave types are nothing but misguided trolls and desperate for coverage in the media. They should be treated with disdain.

Genuine environmentalists tend to stick to facts, and accept that on balance some things should or should not be done. Like with most causes though, the cranks turn up and take over and make it impossible to take anyone related to said cause seriously. See also Brexit, Momentum, etc.