Why should it make it more difficult?? So far as Chichester goes, nothing has yet been decided. Including whether to build an offline route linking into the bypass.
Given how much opposition there has been to previous proposals, I would’ve thought aiming for an offline route would be the least of any worries.
If the southern half of the Chichester bypass was grade-separated, I can actually see this being a winner.
A27 Arundel Bypass
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Well if you built a route that links into the southern bypass but it turns out only the northern route can get public support (or vice versa) then you're snookered.
Also, as Fluid Dynamics says, an offline route is unnecessarily expensive compared to a few GSJs and gap closures on the existing road.
Also, as Fluid Dynamics says, an offline route is unnecessarily expensive compared to a few GSJs and gap closures on the existing road.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
A traditionally penny-pinching solution, but one that's easier to build. It just strikes me that there are several problems along the route, not just a single one. Which might mean a change of route could be easier to gain public support for, if it steers away from sensitive historical or woodland areas.
The current/old route could remain as it would be a natural LAR route.
Has there actually been any opinion polling or focus groups showing support for a northern route?? I wouldn’t be opposed to it in principle, but with a certain landowner set dead against it, it might need a very strong political resolve to push it through.
The current/old route could remain as it would be a natural LAR route.
Has there actually been any opinion polling or focus groups showing support for a northern route?? I wouldn’t be opposed to it in principle, but with a certain landowner set dead against it, it might need a very strong political resolve to push it through.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
If we assume the desired end-state is a grade-separated expressway, then I wonder. Fontwell would need a new bypass, then all the other roundabouts would need replacing. With all the traffic management costs that implies, and the extended build programme, I wouldn't be surprised if an offline solution is at least competitive with 'a few GSJs and gap closures'
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Exactly. Also, an offline route has the benefit of allowing the existing carriageway to stay open 24/7 until the new build has opened.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Well, you're looking at 8 miles for the direct route from west of Arundel, which would cost something in the region of £400m-£800m (much more of course if you start east of Arundel). On the other hand you need only three GSJs and gap closures between the new Arundel bypass and Chichester. At Fontwell alone would it need to be offline, for a few hundred metres (westbound carriageway of existing bypass could be used as link road so only one GSJ needed there). So £100m-£200m at most (and that's if you go a bit over the top on link roads etc). It's not close in cost terms.
If the Chichester southern bypass were already selected for upgrade then there would be much more to be said for the direct route, because you create a more direct trunk road and can factor in the saving from not having to grade separate the eastern roundabouts of the bypass. But the southern bypass has already been rejected, with the northern route now favoured locally (see relevant thread).
As an aside, there's an interesting passerby on the satellite image for Fontwell! https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Fon ... -0.6536281
If the Chichester southern bypass were already selected for upgrade then there would be much more to be said for the direct route, because you create a more direct trunk road and can factor in the saving from not having to grade separate the eastern roundabouts of the bypass. But the southern bypass has already been rejected, with the northern route now favoured locally (see relevant thread).
As an aside, there's an interesting passerby on the satellite image for Fontwell! https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Fon ... -0.6536281
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Ahh, you found the daddy plane. but have you found the baby plane yet?
Its near, and flying
Its near, and flying
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Fontwell wouldnt be that hard to sort out. The A27 mainline could be made freeflow by moving the roundabouts and creating LILO roundabout junctions. To cross the A27 a simple GSJ could be built just to the east of the village and the northern A29 diverted to it. Alternatively the southern A29 could be rerouted along the B2233 to the crossroads at Crockerhill (which would need a GSJ anyway) and provide access that way, although this option would be less beneficial for Fontwell itself.
The rest of the A27 between Westhampnett and Fontwell needs improving to remove the central reservation gaps, poor alignments and right hand turns. I would fix this with a new carriageway on a better alignment, leaving one of the old ones as a local access road, meaning less (GSJed) junctions needed (Tangmere and Crockerhill should do it).
The rest of the A27 between Westhampnett and Fontwell needs improving to remove the central reservation gaps, poor alignments and right hand turns. I would fix this with a new carriageway on a better alignment, leaving one of the old ones as a local access road, meaning less (GSJed) junctions needed (Tangmere and Crockerhill should do it).
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Or Arundel, or Worthing!
But it leaves options for Chichester which offline ideas possibly wouldnt. TBH Fontwell to Chichester would be just about the easiest to fix of all the West Sussex A27 'problems', assuming anyone at HE considers it a problem section, which is unlikely as there are higher priorities along the route.
But if you sorted out Chichester, Arundel and even Worthing, the Fontwell bit would soon become an obvious problem.
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Even then, I don’t think it flows that badly - although I’ve never been there at peak times.
Chichester is bad because of the number of flows - the bypass is showing its age, grade separation hadn’t really caught on back then.
Arundel is just sub-standard, though may have become more pronounced with increased traffic flows. Same with Worthing, they should’ve grasped the nettle there many years ago.
Chichester is bad because of the number of flows - the bypass is showing its age, grade separation hadn’t really caught on back then.
Arundel is just sub-standard, though may have become more pronounced with increased traffic flows. Same with Worthing, they should’ve grasped the nettle there many years ago.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Can i ask what would be wrong with improving the existing Bypass (the red route?). The preferred offline route looks nice but has its issues.
I think part of Arundel's problem is that it already has a bypass of sorts, albeit an inadequate one. It would be a different story if it had never existed and the A27 had to go through the town for longer. A proper bypass would have come much sooner.
I think part of Arundel's problem is that it already has a bypass of sorts, albeit an inadequate one. It would be a different story if it had never existed and the A27 had to go through the town for longer. A proper bypass would have come much sooner.
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Well the last few posts have been all about the difficulty you’d have linking Arundel to Chichester if you have to tackle all the elements in one go.
You have to accept that Chichester is a good deal further south that the towns to the east (until you get to Worthing), and the road line reflects this.
In some ways a northern route would make perfect sense: it would be purpose built for long-distance traffic, you could make the junctions with the current bypass limited access (so people find it difficult to turn off to Bognor/the Witterings etc). And it’s much more on the same line as the rest of the road.
The current bypass has a lot of full-access junctions, and seeing as they haven’t been closed before, you’d have to work out acceptable new routes for the Witterings and Bosham/Selsey. And some opposition to that as well.
It’s often forgotten, but there’s also some lakes near the Bognor Road junction too.
So no, it’s not impossible to fix, but a northern route would be easier to build as a second bypass, whereas the current bypass is easier to adapt to an offline route (but maybe more expensive to adapt).
You have to accept that Chichester is a good deal further south that the towns to the east (until you get to Worthing), and the road line reflects this.
In some ways a northern route would make perfect sense: it would be purpose built for long-distance traffic, you could make the junctions with the current bypass limited access (so people find it difficult to turn off to Bognor/the Witterings etc). And it’s much more on the same line as the rest of the road.
The current bypass has a lot of full-access junctions, and seeing as they haven’t been closed before, you’d have to work out acceptable new routes for the Witterings and Bosham/Selsey. And some opposition to that as well.
It’s often forgotten, but there’s also some lakes near the Bognor Road junction too.
So no, it’s not impossible to fix, but a northern route would be easier to build as a second bypass, whereas the current bypass is easier to adapt to an offline route (but maybe more expensive to adapt).
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Well the last few posts have been all about the difficulty you’d have linking Arundel to Chichester if you have to tackle all the elements in one go.
You have to accept that Chichester is a good deal further south that the towns to the east (until you get to Worthing), and the road line reflects this.
In some ways a northern route would make perfect sense: it would be purpose built for long-distance traffic, you could make the junctions with the current bypass limited access (so people find it difficult to turn off to Bognor/the Witterings etc). And it’s much more on the same line as the rest of the road.
The current bypass has a lot of full-access junctions, and seeing as they haven’t been closed before, you’d have to work out acceptable new routes for the Witterings and Bosham/Selsey. And some opposition to that as well.
It’s often forgotten, but there’s also some lakes near the Bognor Road junction too.
So no, it’s not impossible to fix, but a northern route would be easier to build as a second bypass, whereas the current bypass is easier to adapt to an offline route (but maybe more expensive to adapt).
You have to accept that Chichester is a good deal further south that the towns to the east (until you get to Worthing), and the road line reflects this.
In some ways a northern route would make perfect sense: it would be purpose built for long-distance traffic, you could make the junctions with the current bypass limited access (so people find it difficult to turn off to Bognor/the Witterings etc). And it’s much more on the same line as the rest of the road.
The current bypass has a lot of full-access junctions, and seeing as they haven’t been closed before, you’d have to work out acceptable new routes for the Witterings and Bosham/Selsey. And some opposition to that as well.
It’s often forgotten, but there’s also some lakes near the Bognor Road junction too.
So no, it’s not impossible to fix, but a northern route would be easier to build as a second bypass, whereas the current bypass is easier to adapt to an offline route (but maybe more expensive to adapt).
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
As in Crimson? Very indirect route, fails to grade separate B2132 Yapton Lane/Shelbridge Rd, and has very high woodland impact. It essentially spends its time zigzagging around in the woods and therefore achieves less transport benefit for more environmental damage compared to the offline options.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Think they are talking about the Chichester bypassjackal wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 21:19As in Crimson? Very indirect route, fails to grade separate B2132 Yapton Lane/Shelbridge Rd, and has very high woodland impact. It essentially spends its time zigzagging around in the woods and therefore achieves less transport benefit for more environmental damage compared to the offline options.
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
I was talking about Arundel, which is what the thread is about. Not sure how we got onto Chichester!jervi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 21:40Think they are talking about the Chichester bypassjackal wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 21:19As in Crimson? Very indirect route, fails to grade separate B2132 Yapton Lane/Shelbridge Rd, and has very high woodland impact. It essentially spends its time zigzagging around in the woods and therefore achieves less transport benefit for more environmental damage compared to the offline options.
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
-
Micro The Maniac
- Member
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
- Location: Gone
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
The buget for HS2 is currently approximately £80 BILLION - I suggest one percent of that being spent on the A27 would be more effective than HS2 will ever be!
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
Hear! Hear! Totally agree.Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:34The buget for HS2 is currently approximately £80 BILLION - I suggest one percent of that being spent on the A27 would be more effective than HS2 will ever be!
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
Re: A27 Arundel Bypass
The MP for the area has made another statement about the bypass, can't agree with him more.
https://www.nickherbert.com/news/2019/1 ... del-bypass
He's now calling it the "National Park Bypass", mostly due to it (an offline option) reducing the roads length through the national park from 2km to 0.25km. Although the A27 does run through the National Park for considerable lengths elsewhere.
For some reason the National Park Authority are against any bypass option, which is extremely odd due to the amount of accidents (and deaths) on national park roads, which are typically narrow, bendy and under-maintated when compared to most other regions of the country.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1794659 ... el-bypass/
They are saying that "every option would impact negatively on the park", which I'd argue extremely against.
Anyway the consultation is due to end in 22 days, anyone know how long it typically takes for HE to publish information and then produce their Preferred Route?
https://www.nickherbert.com/news/2019/1 ... del-bypass
He's now calling it the "National Park Bypass", mostly due to it (an offline option) reducing the roads length through the national park from 2km to 0.25km. Although the A27 does run through the National Park for considerable lengths elsewhere.
For some reason the National Park Authority are against any bypass option, which is extremely odd due to the amount of accidents (and deaths) on national park roads, which are typically narrow, bendy and under-maintated when compared to most other regions of the country.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1794659 ... el-bypass/
They are saying that "every option would impact negatively on the park", which I'd argue extremely against.
Anyway the consultation is due to end in 22 days, anyone know how long it typically takes for HE to publish information and then produce their Preferred Route?