A27 Arundel Bypass

[M5Lenzar]

With link to http://www.a27arundel.org/mythbusting which has all the hall marks of the badly researched and parrot-fashion antics of the "Road Block" campaign.

I very, very much doubt that 'over half' the population doesn't have access to a car.

Is that counting all the kids?

[KeithW]

With link to http://www.a27arundel.org/mythbusting which has all the hall marks of the badly researched and parrot-fashion antics of the "Road Block" campaign.

I very, very much doubt that 'over half' the population doesn't have access to a car.

Is that counting all the kids?

The last piece of statistical research I saw came to the conclusion that the highest number of households without a car was to be found in large cities, especially London where public transport was widely available. There was little evidence that those in the lower socio economic groups with the exception of those in group 8 (long term unemployed and have never worked) had less access to a vehicles but unsurprisingly there was a link between the socio economic group and number of cars per household and the age/quality of those cars. In general the poorer section of the community tend to drive smaller and older cars and are more often only have one car per household, the one standout here was again in the big cities where a much higher percentage of the more prosperous groups drove small city type cars but they tended to be newer vehicles. They also had fewer vehicles per household. This is no surprise to anyone who has lived in London as many of the most expensive houses and flats have very limited parking available. Overall the study showed that 81% of households had access to at least one vehicle.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 16.1177466

[Berk]

With link to http://www.a27arundel.org/mythbusting which has all the hall marks of the badly researched and parrot-fashion antics of the "Road Block" campaign.

Local cycling solutions won't make a jot difference to freight movements, build the bypass and then Arundel can be converted to this 'sustainable' utopia - it can't be achieved with a trunk road through the middle.

The current ‘bypass’ might even benefit from a new, parallel cycle track. You can’t possibly consider this at the moment, due to pollution, and risk of accidents.

At the risk of going over old ground, the environmental divs never seem to grasp that trunk traffic is, by nature, long-distance - thus rendering arguments about sustainable travel, cycling and walking routes irrelevant for that class of travel. And even for local travel too. It’s not exactly like the early 1800s when folks regularly walked 10 miles or more a day. I don’t think you’ll get lorry loads of food, fuel, furniture etc. going by bike, either.

Or try travelling from Eastbourne to Exeter by rail. It can be done, but only with several changes. Due to congestion, I’d wager it takes the same amount of time by rail as road, but you probably wouldn’t get there by rail for the same price as a single tank of fuel.

Once this bypass, and Chichester open, it’ll be blown away.

[RichardEvans67]

People don't usually decide whether to buy cars based on whether there are new roads. They decide whether to buy cars based mostly on whether they think they can afford them (and whether they can get a license).

Traveling by public transport, instead of by car, is usually just a huge added pain (The exception is urban areas). Most people would much rather get a car if they can.

New roads only contribute slightly to increased traffic. The main reasons for growth in traffic are things like more people being able to afford cars, and economic growth.

[RichardEvans67]

by Berk » Thu May 24, 2018 23:26

The current ‘bypass’ might even benefit from a new, parallel cycle track. You can’t possibly consider this at the moment, due to pollution, and risk of accidents.

Or afterwards, when the old A27 route has much less traffic, couldn't they just make it far more cycle friendly ?

[RichardEvans67]

by Bryn666 » Thu May 24, 2018 15:26

With link to http://www.a27arundel.org/mythbusting which has all the hall marks of the badly researched and parrot-fashion antics of the "Road Block" campaign.

Under pollution it says there will be slightly more traffic after the bypass is built. It says nothing more, so presumably implying that more traffic always means more pollution. This seems to ignore the fact that vehicles cruising at a steady speed create much less pollution per mile than the same vehicles in slow moving stop start traffic.

[Berk]

The moaners have obviously not driven through Arundel at rush hour, when you’re lucky to do 10mph. The pollution now must be horrendous, especially on hot days.

That will vanish once the bypass opens (or be diffused more evenly).

[WHBM]

I very, very much doubt that 'over half' the population doesn't have access to a car.

I can tell you (it even became a university exam question in 1972) that the "car in a household" percentage reached 50% in Scotland (always less than England at that time) in 1971. 45 years ago.

[Johnathan404]

The problems with the existing Arundel Bypass in isolation are heavily exaggerated. I have spent many Friday evenings on the A27 and Arundel itself is never that bad. It's a chore, but it isn't the main issue. With suppressed demand, new developments and the presence of the A284 still uses it, I can easily see the perceived traffic levels returning to normal after a few years.

The long delays here are encountered where two lanes go into one, which happens far from Arundel town centre, and is not an issue which directly affects people going about their lives in Arundel unless they are using the A27. It's for that reason that a new bypass is needed. Of course objectors will object but talking about pollution in the town centre feels like it's missing the point to me.

[Big L]

...in 1971. 45 years ago.

Check your maths !!

[RichardEvans67]

by Big L » Fri May 25, 2018 21:36

WHBM wrote: ↑Fri May 25, 2018 18:53
...in 1971. 45 years ago.

Check your maths !!

It works as an approximation

[Fluid Dynamics]

If the road is being taken entirely out of the National Park what authority do the South Downs National Park Authority have to object? If it’s on visual impact of view from downs that would create a dangerous precedent for any development between Winchester and Eastbourne.

[jackal]

It will still be partially inside the park.

http://www.arundelbypass.co.uk/_app_/re ... 05Amod.jpg

[Fluid Dynamics]

It will still be partially inside the park.

http://www.arundelbypass.co.uk/_app_/re ... 05Amod.jpg

OK, I stand corrected. But Binsted Woods isn't really geographically part of the South Downs, its just how the boundary happens to have been drawn in this area. So the HA have 2 options fight the national parks authority or divert around the wood.

[RichardEvans67]

by Fluid Dynamics » Sat May 26, 2018 11:12

So the HA have 2 options fight the national parks authority or divert around the wood.

Diverting around the wood would end up taking the road into other areas that would probably cause worse problems. As it is, at least they are only cutting off a small section, not cutting through the middle of it.

Personally I think that going through woods can often be a reasonable option, as the trees deal with the noise. They can also make the road less visible. The only place that is made worse is in the wood near the road.

[Berk]

Exactly. Always sceptical of so called “ancient woodland”, as there seem to be so few objective criteria to judge it by, the term is almost meaningless.

From an uneducated perspective, it might mean ‘those woods that people consider to be ancient’ - never mind if it’s ‘only’ 300 years old, for instance.

[RichardEvans67]

by Berk » Sun May 27, 2018 17:22

Exactly. Always sceptical of so called “ancient woodland”

I remember learning at school that the natural vegetation for the UK is Deciduous Forest (Presumably this is most of the UK). Since then most of it has been cut down, so presumably this would mean that most of the woodland left today is "Ancient Woodland". So nothing especially special about "Ancient Woodland", it's the norm.

[M5Lenzar]

Exactly. Always sceptical of so called “ancient woodland”, as there seem to be so few objective criteria to judge it by, the term is almost meaningless.

From an uneducated perspective, it might mean ‘those woods that people consider to be ancient’ - never mind if it’s ‘only’ 300 years old, for instance.

It's a term used by the anti-progress groups in the hope that people are daft enough to fall for their propaganda.

[owen b]

by Berk » Sun May 27, 2018 17:22

Exactly. Always sceptical of so called “ancient woodland”

I remember learning at school that the natural vegetation for the UK is Deciduous Forest (Presumably this is most of the UK). Since then most of it has been cut down, so presumably this would mean that most of the woodland left today is "Ancient Woodland". So nothing especially special about "Ancient Woodland", it's the norm.

No. Yes, the natural vegetation of most of the UK is deciduous forest. Yes, the vast majority of it got chopped down, until by 1918 the UK was one of the least forested countries in Europe (only 5% forested). The Forestry Commission was set up in 1919 to build up the UK's supplies of commercial timber. Since 1919, the percentage of the UK covered by trees has doubled, but the new forestry has mostly been conifers (very often non-native species), and remaining ancient woodland continued to be felled and replaced with conifers. Consequently, today only about 1% of the UK is ancient natural or semi-natural woodland. Natural deciduous forest is a very rich and diverse ecosystem, a conifer plantation isn't. Anyone who doubts me is welcome to join me on one of my Scottish hillwalking trips, I'll quite happily show you the difference between a rich ecosystem such as the ancient natural Rothiemurchus Forest in the Spey Valley (a remnant of the prehistoric Caledonian Forest), and the relative biodiversity desert that is a conifer plantation, such as you find in for example the Galloway Forest Park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_woodland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothiemurchus_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloway_Forest_Park

[RichardA35]

Exactly. Always sceptical of so called “ancient woodland”, as there seem to be so few objective criteria to judge it by, the term is almost meaningless.

From an uneducated perspective, it might mean ‘those woods that people consider to be ancient’ - never mind if it’s ‘only’ 300 years old, for instance.

It's a term used by the anti-progress groups in the hope that people are daft enough to fall for their propaganda.

Wrong. It is a recognised term (Google is your friend here) and is used as a constraint (development benefits must outweigh the disbenefit of destruction of the woodland) in environmental appraisal of proposed infrastructure. For instance DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 5 where it is a factor to inform the assessment of landscape quality. All other aspects being equal, a proposed route through a pine forest would be more attractive and less damaging than a similar route through ancient woodland due to the greater biodiversity supported by the latter and this would be weighed up in arriving at a route choice.