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
owen b
Member
Posts: 9859
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by owen b »

Berk wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 19:00 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.
Maybe so, but you can't tell me that a brand new dual carriageway A road won't generate a lot of light pollution (simply because of the traffic using it)!
Owen
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

owen b wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 19:37
Berk wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 19:00 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.
Maybe so, but you can't tell me that a brand new dual carriageway A road won't generate a lot of light pollution (simply because of the traffic using it)!
Light pollution is only an issue at night (obviously). Currently at hours of dark (except evenings around winter where it gets dark early) the A27 at Arundel is not a bottleneck, and the amount of traffic on it at the moment will not change noticeably after the bypass is built.

Traffic on current A27 @ Arundel at 10pm = Traffic on bypassed A27 @ Arundel at 10pm

The only difference is that the light is being taken away from the SNP, and Rewell/Binsted Woods and put on the outside of the park. And it will be a whole lot safer and faster...
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9859
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by owen b »

jervi wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 22:23
owen b wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 19:37
Berk wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 19:00 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.
Maybe so, but you can't tell me that a brand new dual carriageway A road won't generate a lot of light pollution (simply because of the traffic using it)!
Light pollution is only an issue at night (obviously). Currently at hours of dark (except evenings around winter where it gets dark early) the A27 at Arundel is not a bottleneck, and the amount of traffic on it at the moment will not change noticeably after the bypass is built.

Traffic on current A27 @ Arundel at 10pm = Traffic on bypassed A27 @ Arundel at 10pm

The only difference is that the light is being taken away from the SNP, and Rewell/Binsted Woods and put on the outside of the park. And it will be a whole lot safer and faster...
I'm not arguing against an Arundel bypass. But if you have traffic on a new Arundel bypass on a new alignment there will be light pollution where there wasn't before, and Arundel itself will still be lit.
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 »

That argument can be written as large as you like. “With every new baby there will be a lifetime’s CO2 emissions where previously there would not have been any”.

And so on. It’s a very straw man argument (the authority’s argument). :?

Actually, by the same token I would imagine the A284 will become much darker without all that trunk traffic, as it too is not particularly well-lit.
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 24, 2019 22:59 That argument can be written as large as you like. “With every new baby there will be a lifetime’s CO2 emissions where previously there would not have been any”.

And so on. It’s a very straw man argument (the authority’s argument). :?

Actually, by the same token I would imagine the A284 will become much darker without all that trunk traffic, as it too is not particularly well-lit.
And so will many other roads in the national park. Which is great for wildlife, especially those bats that are apparently scared to cross 4 lanes of traffic according to the tree huggers.
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 »

I am of course assuming the current route via The Causeway will become part of the A284.
User avatar
Johnathan404
Member
Posts: 11478
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:54

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Johnathan404 »

I'm not sure there is much understanding if light pollution here. Totally missing the point of concerns raised is a good way to ensure the road never gets built.
I have websites about: motorway services | Fareham
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 »

Alright, so you are potentially introducing some light pollution into a former woodland area, where a new road has been built. But that has to be at the expense of removing light pollution from an adjacent road.

Unless you’re expecting a surge in local traffic volumes... I don’t believe there would be a net increase in light pollution.
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9859
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by owen b »

Berk wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 00:13 Alright, so you are potentially introducing some light pollution into a former woodland area, where a new road has been built. But that has to be at the expense of removing light pollution from an adjacent road.

Unless you’re expecting a surge in local traffic volumes... I don’t believe there would be a net increase in light pollution.
You're introducing light pollution on a new road on a new alignment where there was none before. Sure you're removing some traffic from Arundel, but Arundel will remain lit and there will still be some traffic in Arundel on the existing roads and hence light pollution. The net result is light pollution over a greater area than before.
Owen
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

owen b wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 07:46
Berk wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 00:13 Alright, so you are potentially introducing some light pollution into a former woodland area, where a new road has been built. But that has to be at the expense of removing light pollution from an adjacent road.

Unless you’re expecting a surge in local traffic volumes... I don’t believe there would be a net increase in light pollution.
You're introducing light pollution on a new road on a new alignment where there was none before. Sure you're removing some traffic from Arundel, but Arundel will remain lit and there will still be some traffic in Arundel on the existing roads and hence light pollution. The net result is light pollution over a greater area than before.
True, but that would obviously be the case with literally every new bit of road built. I'd personally say that the benefit of reduction in both light and noise pollution is the woodland and town outweighs the new negative impact of light & noise pollution through farmland and over a floodplain.
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 »

The Causeway and the current bypass are lit - but they are urban roads, makes sense.

Again, I do not believe the new road will be lit except at junctions.
User avatar
Johnathan404
Member
Posts: 11478
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:54

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Johnathan404 »

So after 15 posts we have concluded that... there will be an increase in light pollution.

It is possible to accept that this is a negative which is important to some people while still believing that the overall benefits will outweigh the costs.
I have websites about: motorway services | Fareham
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 »

The authority are still assuming that the new road will be lit; I would suggest they have exaggerated that.
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9859
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by owen b »

I'm sure that there are some good reasons to build the Arundel bypass, but let's not kid ourselves that light pollution is one of them.
Berk wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 16:18 I do not believe the new road will be lit except at junctions.
I give up 8-) . Obviously the light that will be cast by thousands of vehicles on a new road on a new rural alignment doesn't count as light pollution and therefore doesn't matter.
Johnathan404 wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 16:26 So after 15 posts we have concluded that... there will be an increase in light pollution.
:)
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 »

I’m not denying the vehicles will shine some (very little from dipped beam) light back on to the surrounding area.

But when has that been counted towards light pollution?? That’s usually measured in terms of static appliances, surely. Not moving ones.

Otherwise you’d be including signs lit for safety reasons, traffic signals and so on. Oh I forgot, the last ones are exempt from CO2 emissions as well, because they regulate speeds... 🙄
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9859
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by owen b »

Berk wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 18:38 I’m not denying the vehicles will shine some (very little from dipped beam) light back on to the surrounding area.

But when has that been counted towards light pollution??
Here you go :roll: :
"Light pollution, also known as photo pollution, is the presence of anthropogenic and artificial light in the night environment. It is exacerbated by excessive, misdirected or obtrusive uses of light, but even carefully used light fundamentally alters natural conditions. As a major side-effect of urbanization, it is blamed for compromising health, disrupting ecosystems and spoiling aesthetic environments." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution

Light from vehicles at night time is both "anthropogenic" and "artificial". It's light pollution.
Owen
User avatar
Pendlemac
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:58
Location: Pendle, Lancashire

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Pendlemac »

owen b wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 18:54
Berk wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 18:38 I’m not denying the vehicles will shine some (very little from dipped beam) light back on to the surrounding area.

But when has that been counted towards light pollution??
Here you go :roll: :
"Light pollution, also known as photo pollution, is the presence of anthropogenic and artificial light in the night environment. It is exacerbated by excessive, misdirected or obtrusive uses of light, but even carefully used light fundamentally alters natural conditions. As a major side-effect of urbanization, it is blamed for compromising health, disrupting ecosystems and spoiling aesthetic environments." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution

Light from vehicles at night time is both "anthropogenic" and "artificial". It's light pollution.
I can only assume that part of the Wikipedia entry was written by an ardent environmentalist who is ignoring that the three items being blamed on light pollution happen where there is concentrated all-night lighting without any dark periods to reset natural rhythms which is not the case out in the country.

As someone who helps out at public outreach events at an astronomy center I can say that overspill from badly setup fixed lighting has much more effect on what we can show people than cars going past our site. Given the natural variability of 'dark' conditions due to the phase of the moon, cloud coverage and maximum angle the sun reaches below the horizon, only in a cave will you get true dark. For example, for about 8 weeks around the summer solstice we never reach true 'astronomical dark' here in the UK as the sun never goes as low as 18 degress below the horizon.
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 »

In my area, streets with lights provided by the county council (most cul-de-sacs and back streets) have an overnight switch off. I can’t say exactly when it’s supposed to be, each appliance can do its own thing, especially if it’s disrupted by power cuts.

But in general, most lights are off between 12 and 5-30 am. I wasn’t 100% about it at first, it does make it difficult driving home very late; I need to reverse into my driveway, and it’s a good bit harder without any lights on.

But that said, I have adjusted to it, and it does make sleeping easier when there’s no lights on out there. You could make the same argument about a lot of non-essential road lighting (anywhere except junctions could be off after 12).

I even question whether you need a morning switch on, even in winter (they don’t come on again in summer). Perhaps if winter lighting was cut back, there’d be more of an emphasis on spreading commuting times and working hours.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

https://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/ ... -1-9221801

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... rrections/

Another consultation, due to errors in the previous one. Open until 01 March.
Although they are only minor, and seems to only effect the background documents, and not the designs.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Preferred Route Announcement for the A27 Arundel Bypass
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... ouncement/

The new route is the "Grey" option, which is the most expensive & longest of them all. However it does completely avoid the imaginary boundary of the South Downs National Park (SDNP), which I'd presume makes it significantly easier to proceed with subsequent stages of planning, design & construction.

This is the YouTube route flyover from the 2019 consultation.

Once this scheme is implemented it is likely something will happen at the Fontwell Roundabouts, especially since the Grey route is almost practically touching the Fontwell Bypass, unlike the other routes. In a HE Route Strategy Document in 2017, it did highlight Fontwell as an issue
The A27 RIS1 scheme at Arundel, and local growth pressures may increase the need for future capacity enhancements at the Fontwell junction (A27/A29).
However I'd say there may be a possibility for the current scheme to extend to include signalisation (and maybe enlarging) of the current roundabouts at Fontwell since there is no mention of this in the RP2 looking ahead for RP3.
Post Reply