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
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

It appears that a further round of consultation which was scheduled for Autumn 2021 has been pushed back to Early January 2022.
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
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

The statutory consultation is open and the design is still very good IMO.

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... n-january/
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

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.

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.

SteveA30
Member
Posts: 6015
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 12:52
Location: Dorset

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by SteveA30 »

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.
Roads and holidays in the west, before motorways.
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

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.
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).
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by JammyDodge »

jackal wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:51 The northern rbt is teadropped, which is good, but the southern one isn't for some reason (services access seems unchanged).
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
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Fluid Dynamics »

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.
The current arrangement is a temporary arrangement, albeit 30 years old and the current design has always suggested a dumbbell arrangement.
Phil
Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Phil »

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.
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).
Phil
Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Phil »

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.
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.
Attachments
Screenshot 2022-01-12 062410.jpg
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

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.
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.
Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Fluid Dynamics »

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.
Having used this road regularly since Fontwell was improved, I have never found it causes any problems with regards significant congestion.

A bit surprised about the 50mph limit, not sure that’s warranted.
Phil
Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Phil »

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.
Which is a rather damming indictment of UK long term planning!

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.
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.
Yes but what if Chichester is sorted out at some point in the future? or Worthing?

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....
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

Phil wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 06:20
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.
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 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.

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).
Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Fluid Dynamics »

Phil wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 08:33
Yes but what if Chichester is sorted out at some point in the future? or Worthing?
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.
Richardf
Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Richardf »

Not sure what can happen at Fontwell. Looked at it a few times. Best I can work out is moving the roundabouts and bypassing them on the mainline, making the roundabouts LILOs, and somehow connecting them to make a split GSJ? Not sure how it could work and provide all movements for the A29 though.

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.
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Truvelo »

Richardf wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 19:30 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.
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
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
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.

... Read More
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jervi »

Richardf wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 19:30 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.

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

... Read More
Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by Fluid Dynamics »

Truvelo wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 19:33
Richardf wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 19:30 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.
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
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.

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.

... Read More
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A27 Arundel Bypass

Post by jackal »

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?
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
Post Reply