A27 Lewes - Polegate

[Phil]

I'm not suggesting there *was* a plan for a south cost motorway - but that there *should be* a plan for one.

That it is quicker and easier to get from Dover to Southampton via the M20, M25, M3 is utterly absurd.

Is it ?

Via the A20/M20/M25/M3 its 150 miles
Via the M20/A27 its 151 miles
Via the A20/A259/A27 its 145 miles

Its a bit shorter if you take the unclassified roads across Romney Marsh but its a lot slower and I dont think anyone will try and build a motorway there.

When they were looking at options for upgrading the A259 in the 1990's the only acceptable way they could find to get past Rye and Winchelsea was by a series of very expensive tunnels.
Hastings was also a big issue as the only viable route was across the Marline Valley Nature Reserve.

That combination killed the project stone dead.

See
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ind ... 3_Pevensey

There are some opportunities for upgrading A259 local hot spots but a south coast motorway is not going to happen , if nothing else much of it would have to encroach on the South Downs NP and there are very sensitive points such as Rye and Winchelsea. Solve all that and you still have the problems of Worthing and Chichester on the A27.

I seem to recall at some point over the past 20 years there was a National Highway (whatever they were called at that point) study that looked into those type of proposals but unsurprisingly nothing ever came from it. I suppose the point here is improving the road such as happened at Brookland, probably 30 years ago, is only going to place pressure on Rye. But there's no justification for expensive improvements at Rye such as the proposed estuarial tunnel without the route being improved as a whole and that was kicked into touch by the mid '90s cull of he road programme with the death nail being the cancellation of the Bexhill and Hastings Bypass earlier this century.

Thats no excuse for not progressing more minor improvements (while retaining the S2 standard) - smoothing out right angled bends between Brenzett and Rye for example. Its what they do as the norm in other developed nations....

[Gareth Thomas]

I'd say it would probably be "A27" - it isn't an extension of the M27

Since the thread has been resurrected, cough, A1... A1(M)... A1... A1(M)... A1

So what's wrong with M27... A27... M27... A27 ?

But the A1 and A1(M) are technically the same road - except bits of it are under motorway restrictions and bits of it aren’t. Whereas the A27 and M27 are two completely separate roads.

[Micro The Maniac]

But the A1 and A1(M) are technically the same road - except bits of it are under motorway restrictions and bits of it aren’t. Whereas the A27 and M27 are two completely separate roads.

You will be telling me that the A14, M6, A74(M) and M74 are different roads, next? They just happen to run, continuously, into each other...

Edit for navigational incompetence... A/M74 not 73

[JammyDodge]

But the A1 and A1(M) are technically the same road - except bits of it are under motorway restrictions and bits of it aren’t. Whereas the A27 and M27 are two completely separate roads.

You will be telling me that the A14, M6, A73(M) and M73 are different roads, next? They just happen to run, continuously, into each other...

While they are all differently designated, yes there certainly is a continual dual carriageway all the way from the Dock Spur Roundabout in Felixstowe to the M8 in Glasgow
Its actually:
A14, M6, M42, M6 Toll, M6, A74(M), M74
Due to the shenanigans that happen at Birmingham with the Toll
Edit: Roughly 447 miles of continuous DC

[Bryn666]

Is it ?

Via the A20/M20/M25/M3 its 150 miles
Via the M20/A27 its 151 miles
Via the A20/A259/A27 its 145 miles

Its a bit shorter if you take the unclassified roads across Romney Marsh but its a lot slower and I dont think anyone will try and build a motorway there.

When they were looking at options for upgrading the A259 in the 1990's the only acceptable way they could find to get past Rye and Winchelsea was by a series of very expensive tunnels.
Hastings was also a big issue as the only viable route was across the Marline Valley Nature Reserve.

That combination killed the project stone dead.

See
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ind ... 3_Pevensey

There are some opportunities for upgrading A259 local hot spots but a south coast motorway is not going to happen , if nothing else much of it would have to encroach on the South Downs NP and there are very sensitive points such as Rye and Winchelsea. Solve all that and you still have the problems of Worthing and Chichester on the A27.

I seem to recall at some point over the past 20 years there was a National Highway (whatever they were called at that point) study that looked into those type of proposals but unsurprisingly nothing ever came from it. I suppose the point here is improving the road such as happened at Brookland, probably 30 years ago, is only going to place pressure on Rye. But there's no justification for expensive improvements at Rye such as the proposed estuarial tunnel without the route being improved as a whole and that was kicked into touch by the mid '90s cull of he road programme with the death nail being the cancellation of the Bexhill and Hastings Bypass earlier this century.

Thats no excuse for not progressing more minor improvements (while retaining the S2 standard) - smoothing out right angled bends between Brenzett and Rye for example. Its what they do as the norm in other developed nations....

Yes, it's called sustainable safety in other developed nations. We seem to ignore this in favour of nebulous tEcHnOlOgY fixes.

[Gareth Thomas]

But the A1 and A1(M) are technically the same road - except bits of it are under motorway restrictions and bits of it aren’t. Whereas the A27 and M27 are two completely separate roads.

You will be telling me that the A14, M6, A73(M) and M73 are different roads, next? They just happen to run, continuously, into each other...

While they are all differently designated, yes there certainly is a continual dual carriageway all the way from the Dock Spur Roundabout in Felixstowe to the M8 in Glasgow
Its actually:
A14, M6, M42, M6 Toll, M6, A74(M), M74
Due to the shenanigans that happen at Birmingham with the Toll
Edit: Roughly 447 miles of continuous DC

No, the continuous dual carriageway now goes to the North Circular as it would be .....M6/A14/M11.

Beforehand it stopped near Huntingdon when it met the A1 at a roundabout, so the continuous dual carriageway never made it to Felixstowe without a few interruptions along the way.

[alderroad]

The A259/A27 between Folkestone and Eastbourne has been part of my life since childhood - and it's effectively a road of two halves: Lewes to the western edge of Bexhill, and from there to Brenzett and Folkestone.
All the talk in the 1960s of a 'South Coast Route' (Folkestone to Honiton) has gone out of the window, for the reasons mentioned above (mainly cost) and with the consequences that we've gone through above. But the reasoning seems to be to keep the route primarily for local and regional traffic, despite the economic benefits that Hastings and Eastbourne would gain from better links to the Channel Tunnel and Dover. NH clearly don't want to advertise it as a through route to Brighton and Southampton because it's inadequate (two HGVs cannot pass at East Guldeford, near the Camber Sands turn), and that is presumably also why they haven't continued the A27 numbering eastwards from Pevensey along the A259 and A2070 to Ashford and the M20. But it's a circular argument: if they can avoid it being seen as a major through route then they don't need to spend money on bypasses and tunnels and a proper safety-conscious scheme for the A27 between Polegate and Lewes, where the authorities seem to imagine that erecting blue signs reminding drivers that they could get a train from Lewes to Eastbourne is going to seriously reduce congestion and the number of accidents caused by impatience and frustration. (Crashmaps show 23 fatalities between Polegate and Lewes in the last 22 years; for 25 years my parents lived just off Wilmington crossroads and we were constantly taking our lives in our hands at that junction and we lost count of the number of crashes there.)
The A2070 has made a huge difference both to connectivity in SE Kent and to taking out most of the through traffic in New Romney, Dymchurch and Hythe, but NH haven't yet taken the obvious step of detrunking the A259 between Folkestone and Brenzett and downgrading it from primary route status. It's encouraging that signs on the M20 no longer signpost Hastings traffic to come off at jct 11, through Hythe, but instead to come off at the new jct 10A down the A2070 - and Brenzett is on its way out as a primary route destination.

[SouthWest Philip]

NH haven't yet taken the obvious step of detrunking the A259 between Folkestone and Brenzett and downgrading it from primary route status.

It has been detrunked. I agree it should lose it's primary status too.

[jervi]

Getting back on topic of A27 Lewes - Polegate, this weeks newsletter for the "A27 East of Lewes" works announced that some survey work will be taken place over the next few months for the Lewes-Polegate offline scheme.

The scheme is now also added to the Pipeline of Future Schemes Page https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/ ... e-schemes/

[RichardEvans67]

by Micro The Maniac » Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:16

I'm not suggesting there *was* a plan for a south cost motorway - but that there *should be* a plan for one.

One of my 1st jobs was for some engineering consultants designing the Lewis-Polegate scheme in the early 90's. Many times I heard them mention that it was part of a future Folkestone - Horniton trunk road.

[Chris5156]

One of my 1st jobs was for some engineering consultants designing the Lewis-Polegate scheme in the early 90's. Many times I heard them mention that it was part of a future Folkestone - Horniton trunk road.

Worth saying that - certainly in those days - trunk roads all had names and were not necessarily reflections of any ambition for them. The A27 was part of the Folkestone-Honiton Trunk Road but that did not mean there was any aspiration to create a single route of consistent standard throughout its length. Is there a chance that there was some confusion following on from its name?

[RichardEvans67]

Is there a chance that there was some confusion following on from its name?

Very possibly, bearing in mind that this is something I'm remembering from about 30 years ago. So I may well have some details wrong. I just wanted to point out that the idea did seem to exist.

Also I've read about how people in Kent and East Sussex objected to what they described as a possible motorway stile road along the south coast. They may well have been wrong about it being a motorway, but it was presumably a pretty big road.

I don't want to get into the argument about whether such a road would have been right or wrong, but I'm fairly sure it was at least a long term plan at some point in the past.

[RichardEvans67]

by Phil » Sat Oct 02, 2021 00:42

Thats no excuse for not progressing more minor improvements (while retaining the S2 standard) - smoothing out right angled bends between Brenzett and Rye for example. Its what they do as the norm in other developed nations....

I'd like to agree, but I think the A259 is a dilemma.

The more you fix the route, the more attractive it becomes as an alternative to going M20/M26/M25 etc. Hence the more though traffic you will get. So there would then be more bits that need sorting out. If you sort everything out, you could get hugely more through traffic, and end up needing a D2.

I think it comes down to a choice between putting up with the way it is now, or ending up with a D2.

[Phil]

by Phil » Sat Oct 02, 2021 00:42

Thats no excuse for not progressing more minor improvements (while retaining the S2 standard) - smoothing out right angled bends between Brenzett and Rye for example. Its what they do as the norm in other developed nations....

I'd like to agree, but I think the A259 is a dilemma.

The more you fix the route, the more attractive it becomes as an alternative to going M20/M26/M25 etc. Hence the more though traffic you will get. So there would then be more bits that need sorting out. If you sort everything out, you could get hugely more through traffic, and end up needing a D2.

I think it comes down to a choice between putting up with the way it is now, or ending up with a D2.

Not so!

While a big D2 upgrade etc is obviously a non starter, its a fact that getting rid of 90 degree bends and level crossings on its own wouldn't make the route significantly more attractive to through traffic (you would need by-passes of Rye etc to do that) but it would improve safety and make things easier for those whose journey actually starts / finishes in Rye or Hastings - for whom going the Great way Round via the M25 is a non starter.

Its what they do across Europe and the world hasn't fallen in as a result!

The problem here is (1) The national Government don't fund local authorities anything like as much as they should do, (2) The national Government (or their directly controlled Agency) have a total blind spot when it comes to anything that isn't a motorway or mostly dual carriageway already and (3) It seems to be general policy that money for road improvements will only be forthcoming if its accompanied by lots of development, something that isn't going to happen given the environmental restrictions.

[Herned]

The A27 was part of the Folkestone-Honiton Trunk Road but that did not mean there was any aspiration to create a single route of consistent standard throughout its length. Is there a chance that there was some confusion following on from its name?

Back in the 1980s I can remember when schemes like Langstone flyover were built that the signs said something along the lines of "building the Folkestone to Honiton trunk road" or words to that effect. It was worded in some way that implied the whole route would be improved.

[RichardEvans67]

by Phil » Sun Nov 07, 2021 17:08

While a big D2 upgrade etc is obviously a non starter, its a fact that getting rid of 90 degree bends and level crossings on its own wouldn't make the route significantly more attractive to through traffic (you would need by-passes of Rye etc to do that) but it would improve safety and make things easier for those whose journey actually starts / finishes in Rye or Hastings - for whom going the Great way Round via the M25 is a non starter.

I tend to agree that a D2 is a non starter. (at least for now).
However I do think that removing 90 degree bends etc. would eventually lead to needing more improvements.

What about for example journeys between Brenzett and Hastings. Wouldn't the A259 become more attractive if it was less hazardous. I'm not saying that this alone would cause a big increase in traffic, but I think a significant number of medium length journeys would then end up moving on to the A259. I think it could cause enough of an increase for other places to now need improving. Improving those would lead to other places needing improvements. And so it would gradually go on.

I understand your point about no by-passes at places like Rye. I've thought about this myself. Wouldn't a moderate increase in traffic, (because of all the other improvements) increase congestion in places like this. So wouldn't there eventually become justification to actually start by-passing places like this. I read there are already problems at Winchelsea, so wouldn't a bit more traffic increase the need for a by-pass there. It wouldn't happen over night, but over the years, you could end up needing more and more improvements. So you end up with a pretty good S2 route, that then has more traffic that it can cope with.

To clarify, my instinct is not against improvements. However I still think that trying to sort out the route would eventually lead to needing a good D2. It wouldn't happen quickly. It would probably happen over many decades. But I don't really think you can keep fixing the issues without eventually ending up at D2.

[Phil]

by Phil » Sun Nov 07, 2021 17:08

While a big D2 upgrade etc is obviously a non starter, its a fact that getting rid of 90 degree bends and level crossings on its own wouldn't make the route significantly more attractive to through traffic (you would need by-passes of Rye etc to do that) but it would improve safety and make things easier for those whose journey actually starts / finishes in Rye or Hastings - for whom going the Great way Round via the M25 is a non starter.

I tend to agree that a D2 is a non starter. (at least for now).
However I do think that removing 90 degree bends etc. would eventually lead to needing more improvements.

What about for example journeys between Brenzett and Hastings. Wouldn't the A259 become more attractive if it was less hazardous. I'm not saying that this alone would cause a big increase in traffic, but I think a significant number of medium length journeys would then end up moving on to the A259. I think it could cause enough of an increase for other places to now need improving. Improving those would lead to other places needing improvements. And so it would gradually go on.

I understand your point about no by-passes at places like Rye. I've thought about this myself. Wouldn't a moderate increase in traffic, (because of all the other improvements) increase congestion in places like this. So wouldn't there eventually become justification to actually start by-passing places like this. I read there are already problems at Winchelsea, so wouldn't a bit more traffic increase the need for a by-pass there. It wouldn't happen over night, but over the years, you could end up needing more and more improvements. So you end up with a pretty good S2 route, that then has more traffic that it can cope with.

To clarify, my instinct is not against improvements. However I still think that trying to sort out the route would eventually lead to needing a good D2. It wouldn't happen quickly. It would probably happen over many decades. But I don't really think you can keep fixing the issues without eventually ending up at D2.

Oh come on...

Are you seriously telling me that building these little bits of road is going to cause significant traffic increases.

[RichardEvans67]

by Phil » Sun Nov 07, 2021 18:59

Oh come on...

Are you seriously telling me that building these little bits of road is going to cause significant traffic increases.

You are just highlighting one area. If they fixed that, then wouldn't somebody else be saying that other things need fixing. Such as the hairpin bend at Winchelsea. Also what about all the parts that are too narrow.

Besides, not having to slow down for the crossing and the bends, would improve the flow of traffic, which I actually would expect to lead to a small but significant increase. You might not consider it a significant increase, but it all puts a bit more pressure on the other problems.

Edit :
I'm not sure what the answer is. As I originally said, I think it's a dilemma. Although it is probably academic, as there seems to be no sign of any improvement schemes.