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.
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).
Unfortunately that conflicts a bit with the proposed Eastergate, Westergate and Woodgate development-fuelled "bypass", which we discussed before
There's just barely enough room that a road could be squeezed in between Fontwell and Westergate, but it would be extremely circuitous to get to the A29 north and A27 east, meaning everyone using those movements would just go through Fontwell. The space around both sides of the A27 west of Fontwell isn't enough to get an LAR through to push the junction west, either. Assuming that sending the A29 along the old A27 through Fontwell and buying the northern bit of the racecourse aren't options, perhaps the services on the east side could be relocated, allowing a westbound-only flyover, with eastbound being served by a freeflow lane on the north side?
Just your average mapper, bringing you a map-focused take on today's world
Been reading through the documents in more detail, and nothing at all suggest that additional technology would not be installed (such as VMS, AMI etc). However in the PEIR Volume 4a technical appraisal it does say
"Solar flares can interrupt radio and other electronic communications. The increased reliance on roadside technology could mean the proposed scheme is more vulnerable than the existing route." as well as
"The increasing reliance on roadside technology could render the proposed scheme more vulnerable to a cyber-attack."
This suggest to me that the new route is somewhat reliant on additional roadside technology (compared to existing), rather than it will just have more roadside technology.
Glad to see they seem to have opted for a viaduct, rather than an embankment across the Arun. It always occurred to me that an embankment across a flood plain, might end up behaving a bit like a dam during flooding events.
Mapper89062 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 18:39
The space around both sides of the A27 west of Fontwell isn't enough to get an LAR through to push the junction west, either.
Only because of the racecourse (and by that I mean the actual track the horses run on)! Otherwise there is room for a LAR from the Fontwell roundabout westwards to a potential junction site clear of the housing.
Unfortunately there is insufficient room to shift the course southwards (its right up against a local road that end too) - but a temporary closure to drop the A27 into a trench and put a LAR on top for a short distance would be possible with the added bonus of removing noise and visual intrusion issues. Yes I accept it wouldn't be cheap - but this isn't some developing nation we are talking about and its about time UK citizens understood that living in a relatively crowded 'developed country' means infrastructure doesn't come cheap!
jackal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:49
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).
Yup that would be the most elegant solution. Something like this perhaps...
jackal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:49
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).
Yup that would be the most elegant solution. Something like this perhaps...
West Sussex Council have already given planning consent of an A29 Westergate realignment https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/roads-and ... ent-scheme but which goes the other way around westergate. Work on Phase 1 to start shortly. Another development led proposal.
Mapper89062 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 18:39
The space around both sides of the A27 west of Fontwell isn't enough to get an LAR through to push the junction west, either.
Only because of the racecourse (and by that I mean the actual track the horses run on)! Otherwise there is room for a LAR from the Fontwell roundabout westwards to a potential junction site clear of the housing.
Unfortunately there is insufficient room to shift the course southwards (its right up against a local road that end too) - but a temporary closure to drop the A27 into a trench and put a LAR on top for a short distance would be possible with the added bonus of removing noise and visual intrusion issues. Yes I accept it wouldn't be cheap - but this isn't some developing nation we are talking about and its about time UK citizens understood that living in a relatively crowded 'developed country' means infrastructure doesn't come cheap!
At Wetherby they just took the land anyway I think
Hdeng16 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 23:44
At Wetherby they just took the land anyway I think
I dont think they took much if anything from the racecourse land at Wetherby, when the first Wetherby bypass was built the land it ran through was largely agricultural. https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 0,-1.38600,
Hdeng16 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 23:44
At Wetherby they just took the land anyway I think
I dont think they took much if anything from the racecourse land at Wetherby, when the first Wetherby bypass was built the land it ran through was largely agricultural. https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 0,-1.38600,
I meant the first half of the motorway upgrade I think - when the bridge next to it was replaced. I thought they took a small slice of land at the time. May well be wrong but I thought aerial mapping agreed at the time.
Hdeng16 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 23:44
At Wetherby they just took the land anyway I think
I dont think they took much if anything from the racecourse land at Wetherby, when the first Wetherby bypass was built the land it ran through was largely agricultural. https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 0,-1.38600,
I meant the first half of the motorway upgrade I think - when the bridge next to it was replaced. I thought they took a small slice of land at the time. May well be wrong but I thought aerial mapping agreed at the time.
IIRC the racecourse track itself was hard up against the A1 and the conversion to motorway required the track to be shifted slightly. The difference with Fontwell is that the racecourse at Wetherby is surrounded by fields and as such was easy to modify.
Hdeng16 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 23:44
At Wetherby they just took the land anyway I think
I dont think they took much if anything from the racecourse land at Wetherby, when the first Wetherby bypass was built the land it ran through was largely agricultural. https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 0,-1.38600,
I meant the first half of the motorway upgrade I think - when the bridge next to it was replaced. I thought they took a small slice of land at the time. May well be wrong but I thought aerial mapping agreed at the time.
At the most it would be 20m or so, the bridge actually moved north as I recall but a small section of land west of the course was taken. The Wetherby bypass went through several changes but before the new bypass was opened the old A1 uas pressed back into use . This was memorable as it caused traffic chao during construction. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.93435 ... 6656?hl=en
The main thing that happened at the time was that they built a fancy new millenium stand and conference centre, presumably with the money they got from the purchase
Last edited by KeithW on Sat Jan 22, 2022 14:01, edited 1 time in total.
jackal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:49
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).
Yup that would be the most elegant solution. Something like this perhaps...
West Sussex Council have already given planning consent of an A29 Westergate realignment https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/roads-and ... ent-scheme but which goes the other way around westergate. Work on Phase 1 to start shortly. Another development led proposal.
Wouldn't stop them extending it northwards to a new junction on the A27 as shown below.
If a way could be found to get a LAR past the north end of the racecourse linking Fontwell village with the new junction then it would be entirely possible to get rid of the A27 roundabout
The whole of the A27 between Fishbourne Roundabout (Western side of Chichester) & the Adur is really substandard and heavily constrained by the SDNP immediately to the North, and by towns & villages along its length meaning that any small section improvements (like tackling Chichester, Fontwell, Arundel & various junctions) is expensive and then reinforces the existing route which means that further improvements happen online, being expensive - and finally ending up with a non-desirable route like it is today.
What I think is really needed is a proper offline (expressway/motorway) route stretching from Chichester to Worthing, where by it is not constrained by the SDNPA (the NP isn't the problem, its the Authority). Then of course an expressway to pass under Worthing then connecting onto Shoreham Bypass at a later date.
Something like the route below I believe to be a better route through the area. It does mean that Chichester wouldn't get its Northern Bypass, but that is a local issue that doesn't need to be solved by a Nationally Strategic Network.
Then the current A27 can return to a single carriageway (East of Tangmere) with substantive NMU and/or bus provision. Doing this would also likely minimise the works needed on the A259 between Bognor & Littlehampton which WSCC are currently looking at doing.
The Route above is about 125% of the length of both the proposed Chichester Northern bypass & selected Arundel Bypass combined. Arundel & Chichester bypasses are about £0.9b-£1b combined, so this route may cost around £1.25b.
I drew a very similar map in one of these threads, it seems a rather obvious solution to a large number of problems. I read the options reports for the Arundel and previous Chichester plans and it was never considered, even vaguely. A new road along that sort of route would be ~13 miles long which isn't out of the ordinary
jervi wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 17:33
The whole of the A27 between Fishbourne Roundabout (Western side of Chichester) & the Adur is really substandard and heavily constrained by the SDNP immediately to the North, and by towns & villages along its length meaning that any small section improvements (like tackling Chichester, Fontwell, Arundel & various junctions) is expensive and then reinforces the existing route which means that further improvements happen online, being expensive - and finally ending up with a non-desirable route like it is today.
What I think is really needed is a proper offline (expressway/motorway) route stretching from Chichester to Worthing, where by it is not constrained by the SDNPA (the NP isn't the problem, its the Authority). Then of course an expressway to pass under Worthing then connecting onto Shoreham Bypass at a later date.
Something like the route below I believe to be a better route through the area. It does mean that Chichester wouldn't get its Northern Bypass, but that is a local issue that doesn't need to be solved by a Nationally Strategic Network.
arundel-min-min.PNG
Then the current A27 can return to a single carriageway (East of Tangmere) with substantive NMU and/or bus provision. Doing this would also likely minimise the works needed on the A259 between Bognor & Littlehampton which WSCC are currently looking at doing.
The Route above is about 125% of the length of both the proposed Chichester Northern bypass & selected Arundel Bypass combined. Arundel & Chichester bypasses are about £0.9b-£1b combined, so this route may cost around £1.25b.
While I agree that a completely new offline route like the one you suggest would be the optimum solution, quite frankly that ship has sailed many decades ago as gradual improvements have been made to the existing route making the justification for 'spoiling' more virgin countryside a significantly harder sell as well as rendering those previous improvements a waste of money.
It a classic case of British short term thinking - There is undoubtedly a need for a proper east west Expressway / Motorway right along the south coast from Kent to Dorset to improve connectivity and avoid everyone finding the fastest route is to pile onto the M25. However as with many such strategic routes (e.g. the A34) what we got was a series of small, easy to build localised improvements focusing on individual site specific issues and no coherent plan which has ended up leaving a hodge podge of different standards (not to mention the most expensive / difficult sections till last (and a time when roadbuilding inevitably draws large protests too)
One detail I don't think we discussed much was the lack of a junction at Ford Rd. It seems this has not been ruled out, though it's unlikely:
3.5.4 As part of the continuing dialogue with stakeholders regarding the Scheme
proposals, it has been suggested that a junction at Ford Road should be
included as part of the Scheme. This possibility is currently the subject of
ongoing options appraisal. However, initial findings suggest that its
inclusion as part of the Scheme is not justified. Should that options
appraisal conclude that a junction at Ford Road is required as part of the
Scheme, a further targeted consultation will be undertaken on that
proposed inclusion. Detail on the options appraisal undertaken and its
conclusions will be presented in the ES.
I would guess the issues with the junction are cost and rat running off the bypass and into Arundel along Ford Rd, though on the other hand Ford and Tortington traffic would not need to traipse through town.
The Ford Rd bridge is currently designed as some 9.6m high, which would add to costs of a junction, though it's mentioned that this could be reduced to 5.7m. Ford Rd is also the start of the Arun Valley viaduct, though they could fold the slips to the west to avoid that.
Not to hijack this thread, but my proposed M30 may be of interest, as it serves as a partial replacement to the inadequate A27 for longer-distance traffic.
Wasn't sure where to post this but it seems traffic lights are being installed on the A27/A29 roundabout due to a 400 home development being built in Fontwell! Really don't see the need for this, I've found the below from 2015 when Highways England stated traffic lights were a requirement of planning permission:
GeekyJames wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 22:07
Wasn't sure where to post this but it seems traffic lights are being installed on the A27/A29 roundabout due to a 400 home development being built in Fontwell! Really don't see the need for this, I've found the below from 2015 when Highways England stated traffic lights were a requirement of planning permission:
I saw there were works due to "improve" the roundabouts at Fontwell at one.network , but didn't know what works were going ahead.
Personally I've never had an issue with traffic at Fontwell roundabout, nor do I believe that adding traffic signals here will help anyone or traffic at all, except if they added pedestrian crossings (which I doubt they will).
Until Arundel gets bypassed and/or Chichester fixed there will not be enough traffic here to justify the lights
