A27 Arundel Bypass
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
https://www.chichester.co.uk/news/polit ... hy-3447355 - can't find NH press release for this though.
There is also a planning application in to move the access road to the new development in Walberton to Tye Lane since its current access road will make way for the A27. This isn't that bad since Tye lane is wide enough for 2 vehicles to pass each other and will become a no through road as it will be cut in half for motorised traffic. https://www.bognor.co.uk/news/politics/ ... es-3335920
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... n-january/
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
They have also lowered the speed limit for the western 1/3rd of the scheme to 50mph. At the western tie in, due to the changes it has a corner radius of 360m, which the DMRB says for One step below desirable Minimum R (superelevation 7%) 85km/h is the design speed (53mph). However I do think that the speed limit does extend too far East. And a lower speed limit on approach to the Fontwell Roundabouts is probably a benefit as well, since the would be the first roundabout on the route since Worthing.
Looking at the detailed designs the A27 dual carriageway to be de-trunked will remain as a dual carriageway, although looks like D1 with a shared cycle pavement... I was hoping for a S2 with a 3m cycleway+2m footway... One can only dream.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Still too many rbts westwards but, better than the present situation.
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
There's no point building a second bridge when traffic levels will be, as you say, much lower.
The northern rbt is teadropped, which is good, but the southern one isn't for some reason (services access seems unchanged).
- JammyDodge
- Member
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Im not sure why they haven't. It would make sense if they made the services access left-only exit, but the drawings show no physical barrier for right turns
-
- Member
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
The current arrangement is a temporary arrangement, albeit 30 years old and the current design has always suggested a dumbbell arrangement.SteveA30 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:41 Why is Crossbush changed to a dumbell? The existing rbt caters for all movements and can just have its signals removed, after traffic levels are greatly reduced. Good scheme generally and creates a long stretch of D2 just as A303 Sparkford similarly will.
Still too many rbts westwards but, better than the present situation.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
The 'existing arrangement' happens to include an earth built embankment dumped across the part built A27 mainline as a temporary measure to cope with the traffic volumes.
Anything other than a dumbbell configuration requires not only a new bridge but extensive earthmoving to re-configure the junction (the current earth embankment is half way along what will become the east facing slips and too low to simply be replaced by a bridge).
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Although there are no plans to do anything about it yet, were it desired to remove the Fontwell roundabouts then there is scope for the curve the be eased as the best way of getting rid of the northern / eastern one is for the A27 to not do a 90 degree turn and have it continue in a smooth arc to the north of the existing road and linking up with the Arundel scheme.jervi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 09:26 Western tie in has more of a free-flow merge, rather than doing a 270 bend which is much better. Also straight alignment at Yapton Lane seems better, although construction may be more difficult since it would be online. Also by Yapton Lane they have shifted the alignment slightly north, so not to cut off the access road to the new development.
They have also lowered the speed limit for the western 1/3rd of the scheme to 50mph. At the western tie in, due to the changes it has a corner radius of 360m, which the DMRB says for One step below desirable Minimum R (superelevation 7%) 85km/h is the design speed (53mph). However I do think that the speed limit does extend too far East. And a lower speed limit on approach to the Fontwell Roundabouts is probably a benefit as well, since the would be the first roundabout on the route since Worthing.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
The better alignment past Fontwell is two the South. There are a few gaps that could be used, however lots of housing is filling up that area as there is no safeguarded route. The route to the North of Fontwell is better only as its own project since it would touch the SDNP, and getting anything past them (SDNPA) is a long and tedious process since they are only recently formed (2010) and their agenda is road=no regardless of anything. Hence why the Arundel bypass is now more than an Arundel bypass, and more like a SDNP bypass.Phil wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 06:20
Although there are no plans to do anything about it yet, were it desired to remove the Fontwell roundabouts then there is scope for the curve the be eased as the best way of getting rid of the northern / eastern one is for the A27 to not do a 90 degree turn and have it continue in a smooth arc to the north of the existing road and linking up with the Arundel scheme.
So I think removing the roundabouts at Fontwell are unlikely to happen in the next 40 years, bypasses at Worthing & Chichester would have to both be complete for them to bother at Fontwell. The best we will have at Fontwell before then is widening of the roundabouts to three lanes + signals.
-
- Member
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Having used this road regularly since Fontwell was improved, I have never found it causes any problems with regards significant congestion.jervi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 07:03 [quote=Phil post_id=<a href="tel:1221532">1221532</a> time=<a href="tel:1641968433">1641968433</a> user_id=59]
Although there are no plans to do anything about it yet, were it desired to remove the Fontwell roundabouts then there is scope for the curve the be eased as the best way of getting rid of the northern / eastern one is for the A27 to not do a 90 degree turn and have it continue in a smooth arc to the north of the existing road and linking up with the Arundel scheme.
The better alignment past Fontwell is two the South. There are a few gaps that could be used, however lots of housing is filling up that area as there is no safeguarded route. The route to the North of Fontwell is better only as its own project since it would touch the SDNP, and getting anything past them (SDNPA) is a long and tedious process since they are only recently formed (2010) and their agenda is road=no regardless of anything. Hence why the Arundel bypass is now more than an Arundel bypass, and more like a SDNP bypass.
So I think removing the roundabouts at Fontwell are unlikely to happen in the next 40 years, bypasses at Worthing & Chichester would have to both be complete for them to bother at Fontwell. The best we will have at Fontwell before then is widening of the roundabouts to three lanes + signals.
A bit surprised about the 50mph limit, not sure that’s warranted.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Which is a rather damming indictment of UK long term planning!Fluid Dynamics wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 08:00
The better alignment past Fontwell is two the South. There are a few gaps that could be used, however lots of housing is filling up that area as there is no safeguarded route. The route to the North of Fontwell is better only as its own project since it would touch the SDNP, and getting anything past them (SDNPA) is a long and tedious process since they are only recently formed (2010) and their agenda is road=no regardless of anything. Hence why the Arundel bypass is now more than an Arundel bypass, and more like a SDNP bypass.
So I think removing the roundabouts at Fontwell are unlikely to happen in the next 40 years, bypasses at Worthing & Chichester would have to both be complete for them to bother at Fontwell. The best we will have at Fontwell before then is widening of the roundabouts to three lanes + signals.
In any other sane country it would have long been recognised that a D2 expressway along the South Coast is a vital part of the countrys strategic road network providing resilience and also alleviating the need for people to pile onto the overloaded M25 round London.
As such a safeguarded route should have been selected years ago and kept in force for as long as it takes to build the route - not this nonsense where HM Treasury demands land can only be safeguarded if there is an active project to use them.
Yes but what if Chichester is sorted out at some point in the future? or Worthing?Fluid Dynamics wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 08:00
Having used this road regularly since Fontwell was improved, I have never found it causes any problems with regards significant congestion.
Its proven better roads attract traffic, and its been demonstrated time and time again what isn't a problem now may well become one in the future As such Fontwell roundabouts may eventually need removing and it struck me that this Arundel by-pass could be extended to remove one of them relatively easily.
The other one is, I admit, far more problematic to remove....
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
The trouble then is how to serve the other bit of the A29? There's not space for a full GSJ, and it would be difficult/controversial to run a link road alongside the existing bypass given this kind of thing.Phil wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 06:20Although there are no plans to do anything about it yet, were it desired to remove the Fontwell roundabouts then there is scope for the curve the be eased as the best way of getting rid of the northern / eastern one is for the A27 to not do a 90 degree turn and have it continue in a smooth arc to the north of the existing road and linking up with the Arundel scheme.jervi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 09:26 Western tie in has more of a free-flow merge, rather than doing a 270 bend which is much better. Also straight alignment at Yapton Lane seems better, although construction may be more difficult since it would be online. Also by Yapton Lane they have shifted the alignment slightly north, so not to cut off the access road to the new development.
They have also lowered the speed limit for the western 1/3rd of the scheme to 50mph. At the western tie in, due to the changes it has a corner radius of 360m, which the DMRB says for One step below desirable Minimum R (superelevation 7%) 85km/h is the design speed (53mph). However I do think that the speed limit does extend too far East. And a lower speed limit on approach to the Fontwell Roundabouts is probably a benefit as well, since the would be the first roundabout on the route since Worthing.
I'd suggest that the A29 should have an S2 bypass for Fontwell, Woodgate and Westergate, which would meet the A27 at a GSJ somewhere west of Norton. Fontwell west roundabout could then be removed, and perhaps replaced with a bridge to maintain local movements (maybe west-facing slips too).
-
- Member
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
I am not holding my breath on Worthing, any chance of a decent improvement went when they released the compulsory purchased housing and created the SDNP.
In my experience the real problem at Worthing is westbound when you come up to the out of town retail park. A GSJ there and some widening would help.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
A simpler improvement/ upgrade would be the at grade junctions between Westhampnett and Fontwell. Close the gaps and provide a GSJ at Tangmere. Easy. Dont know why it hasn't been done already.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
That was planned 30 years ago at the same time as the big A27 improvements.
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ind ... l_Junction
Big and complex.
From the SABRE Wiki: Crockerhill Junction :
Crockerhill Junction is a staggered crossroads on the A27 east of Chichester.
The present junction came into being when the A27 was dualled in the 1960s. There were originally two gaps in the central reservation allowing all turning movements to be made. This was later changed so the only remaining right turn was from the west to the B2233.
In 1995 proposals were made to improve safety by removing the remaining gap and replace it with a GSJ.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
As part of the previous Chichester Bypass (northern routes) plans in RIS1 it was proposed to completely remove the junction at Tangmere, maybe with a bridge over to maintain access. And then at the Temple Bar Interchange (A27/A285) a new road would be built linking it to Tangmere. Infact this link road is due to be built in the next couple of years as part of a housing development here.
The Chichester Improvements/Bypass is back on the cards for RIS3, so we will have to see what it proposed for Tangmere this time round.
From the SABRE Wiki: Temple Bar Interchange :
Temple Bar Interchange is a GSJ on the A27 East of Chichester where the A285 joins from the north to run in duplex to the west.
There was always a T-junction between Strettington Lane End and the A27 Arundel Road here, even when the A27 became a dual carriageway. In 1993, as part of the Westhampnett Bypass, it became a grade-separated junction, giving traffic no excuse for avoiding the new bypass.
|
[[Category:SE English Trunk Road
-
- Member
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Yes its not the Tangmere roundabout that's the real issue, at least on safety grounds, but the junction with the B2233. It's the one junction on the network that everytime I go through westbound I hold my breath. I presume that's why there's often a camera van in the central reservation just to the east.Truvelo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 19:33That was planned 30 years ago at the same time as the big A27 improvements.
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ind ... l_Junction
From the SABRE Wiki: Crockerhill Junction :
Crockerhill Junction is a staggered crossroads on the A27 east of Chichester.
The present junction came into being when the A27 was dualled in the 1960s. There were originally two gaps in the central reservation allowing all turning movements to be made. This was later changed so the only remaining right turn was from the west to the B2233.
In 1995 proposals were made to improve safety by removing the remaining gap and replace it with a GSJ.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
In the revised proposal the junction is moved north of the bypass, so only one bridge is required. It is being provided as a green bridge.
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... Layout.pdf