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
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Micro The Maniac »

jervi wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 14:56 Preferred Route Announcement for the A27 Arundel Bypass
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... ouncement/
Hallelujah! The common sense strategic choice!

Now make it blue :-D :twisted: :lol:
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

Yes, Grey is the best option. It's the most direct one, freeflows up to the Fontwell East Roundabout, and I like the loop for westbound traffic from Arundel. They had the A team in for this one. High quality plans here (5BV1 is Grey):

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... x%20DG.pdf

Also:

[engage smug mode]
jackal wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 16:56 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.
[/smug mode]
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Perhaps as a sop to the SDNPA, given that the SDNP boundary was set along the A27, east of Arundel, the National Park boundary should be expanded to the new line of the A27...
... but with allowance for an expansion strip for D3M ;-)
ABB125
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 19:58

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by ABB125 »

Is the current A27 planned to be un-dualled (and some sort of cycle path installed)?
Also, it might be fun, but why have they chose a really tight loop (which looks like it's the minimum allowed radius (30m?)) instead of a "normal" sliproad?
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

ABB125 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 19:02 Is the current A27 planned to be un-dualled (and some sort of cycle path installed)?
Also, it might be fun, but why have they chose a really tight loop (which looks like it's the minimum allowed radius (30m?)) instead of a "normal" sliproad?
Taken from the announcement:
Subject to agreement with West Sussex County Council, the existing A27, approximately 6.6km in length, will be converted to a local road between the junctions with Tye Lane and Mill Road and Crossbush junction. This process, known as ‘detrunking’, could offer opportunities to deliver wider benefits that take advantage of the much lower traffic levels that will be using the road. It may be possible to improve local access for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, for example, while also improving connectivity between habitats that are currently divided by the existing road. These opportunities will be identified and assessed as our more detailed design work develops.
Basically, it's very likely that the existing A27 will become a single carriageway, and a cycle track along with a suitable surface for walkers & horse riders will be where an old carriageway was, however this will likely to reduce the width of the current single carriageway too, otherwise it would just be isolated. I'd imagine a cycle track to also continue along the corridor to Fontwell, however this is yet to be in any documentation. (however see image for how simple it would be to do this)
western_end.jpg
The slip roads have been proposed to be "compact" to minimise environmental impact as they take less land area & vehicles travel slower, however are going to be a right pain if the road is ever going to be looking at become an expressway.
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by JammyDodge »

ABB125 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 19:02 Is the current A27 planned to be un-dualled (and some sort of cycle path installed)?
Also, it might be fun, but why have they chose a really tight loop (which looks like it's the minimum allowed radius (30m?)) instead of a "normal" sliproad?
The radius isn't huge, but the slip road looks like it is a good length
Capture.JPG
And by looking at the roundabout in the top right, it looks like the existing A27 will be S2 with a cycle track alongside, which makes perfect sense
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Truvelo »

Why are there two bridges here when the junction of the side roads could be to the north of the bypass?
Attachments
arun.jpg
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

Truvelo wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 20:08 Why are there two bridges here when the junction of the side roads could be to the north of the bypass?
Land issue probably, which would make two bridges cheaper.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by A303Chris »

Great scheme, but without improving Chichester or Worthing properly, this is just going to increase the queues at these two towns even further, so in my opinion the total travelling time between the A3(M) and A23 along the A27 will likely remain the same
The M25 - The road to nowhere
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 21:37
Truvelo wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 20:08 Why are there two bridges here when the junction of the side roads could be to the north of the bypass?
Land issue probably, which would make two bridges cheaper.
Land cost is small fry compared to millions for an unnecessary bridge. And logically land take will be lower for the one bridge and connecting road than for two bridges, which as you can see each require substantial earthworks.
A303Chris wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:33 Great scheme, but without improving Chichester or Worthing properly, this is just going to increase the queues at these two towns even further, so in my opinion the total travelling time between the A3(M) and A23 along the A27 will likely remain the same
That's a self-defeating argument, because for this improvement to increase traffic at Chichester and Worthing, it would presumably need to reduce long distance journey times, which your argument assumes it does not.

A more modest claim along this lines would be correct: A3(M) to A23 journey time will decrease, but this will not be to the extent of the decreased journey time at Arundel as it is partially offset by induced traffic at Chichester and Worthing.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:06
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 21:37
Truvelo wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 20:08 Why are there two bridges here when the junction of the side roads could be to the north of the bypass?
Land issue probably, which would make two bridges cheaper.
Land cost is small fry compared to millions for an unnecessary bridge. And logically land take will be lower for the one bridge and connecting road than for two bridges, which as you can see each require substantial earthworks.
A more modest claim along this lines would be correct: A3(M) to A23 journey time will decrease, but this will not be to the extent of the decreased journey time at Arundel as it is partially offset by induced traffic at Chichester and Worthing.
Politics make it often cheaper to spend money on an extra bridge than spend 5 years arguing with a landowner. There'll be a reason for it.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

A CPO should not take years. Though you could be right that they don't want the hassle.

A similar thing are the access bridges to a one or two properties that are likely worth much less than the bridge.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Those two bridges are a bit odd, but even more odd is why they have proposed to realign the single lane road to the north over 200m after the end of the embankment. It's also to note that the whole Binsted Lane has TRO for no motor vehicles accept access.
Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Fluid Dynamics »

I hope they have the sense to go for the long viaduct variant, it sits better in the landscape and maintains views from the flood plan towards Arundel.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Fluid Dynamics wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 17:02 I hope they have the sense to go for the long viaduct variant, it sits better in the landscape and maintains views from the flood plan towards Arundel.
Will it maintain a better view of Arundel from the flood plains? and if it did, does it really matter or worth £100 million? Either way there is going to be a dual carriageway going right across it, whatever you do, it ain't going to be beautiful.
Also, IIRC the viaduct variant costs over £100 million more than the embankment. So the benefits of the embankment are: Easier to construct, £100 million cheaper, easier & cheaper to maintain, easier to carry out upgrades such as widening.
I'd come to a compromise and have between Ford Road & just east of the river on a viaduct. That would be 500m of viaduct instead of 1,200m and maintain what view would be left of Arundel when heading up Ford Road & the river.
booshank
Member
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 19:05

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by booshank »

Someone seems to have made a mistake, they've designed a road to transport traffic freely and rapidly from A to B, not something riddled with flat, multi-lane signalised roundabouts for new "developments"!
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 »

booshank wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 18:53 Someone seems to have made a mistake, they've designed a road to transport traffic freely and rapidly from A to B, not something riddled with flat, multi-lane signalised roundabouts for new "developments"!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
“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!
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Phil »

jackal wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:06
Land cost is small fry compared to millions for an unnecessary bridge.
Not in the South East of England it isn't!

As with most of the supposedly rural areas in Sussex, the countryside in the area the new by-pass will go through is littered with settlements and desirable residences (the inhabitants of which are usually politically very active when it comes to anything being built in the vicinity), plus the flat land around Ford / Barnham has long been very productive for horticulture.
jackal wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:06
And logically land take will be lower for the one bridge and connecting road than for two bridges.
No it won't - by the time you have gone and built a new road linking the two on the north side the amount of land is likely to be grater than the proposed layout which avoids re-routing the roads, just raising the existing alignments to meet the bridge.
Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Fluid Dynamics »

jervi wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 17:48 [quote="Fluid Dynamics" post_id=<a href="tel:1148532">1148532</a> time=<a href="tel:1602864167">1602864167</a> user_id=259]
I hope they have the sense to go for the long viaduct variant, it sits better in the landscape and maintains views from the flood plan towards Arundel.
Will it maintain a better view of Arundel from the flood plains? and if it did, does it really matter or worth £100 million? Either way there is going to be a dual carriageway going right across it, whatever you do, it ain't going to be beautiful.
Also, IIRC the viaduct variant costs over £100 million more than the embankment. So the benefits of the embankment are: Easier to construct, £100 million cheaper, easier & cheaper to maintain, easier to carry out upgrades such as widening.
I'd come to a compromise and have between Ford Road & just east of the river on a viaduct. That would be 500m of viaduct instead of 1,200m and maintain what view would be left of Arundel when heading up Ford Road & the river.
[/quote]

The nearby A259 Bognor northern bypass has used a long viaduct and its a lot less visually intrusive. A long embankment would impact on, for instance, the view from the Arun valley railways as it makes it way north from Littlehampton/Barnham.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

Phil wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 20:44
jackal wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:06
Land cost is small fry compared to millions for an unnecessary bridge.
Not in the South East of England it isn't!
Another zombie idea that just won't die. Average sale price in SE England for 2016-2018 was £10,100/acre for arable and £8,200/acre for pasture. It's miniscule compared to the cost of an extra skewed bridge and associated earthworks.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/markets- ... price-area
Post Reply