In 2015 Labour suggested they'd scrap A27 upgrades if elected

[8ace]

FFS what do we pay our road taxes for

 

[Yoda]

FFS what do we pay our road taxes for

Nothing as there are no road taxes.

 

[Gwylan]

I'd like to know what Labour voters in Brighton and Worthing who use the A27 every day think about this.

I wouldn't have thought that it would make too much difference, can't see it as much of deciding factor but it may well be a few hundred more votes off Labour votes. Bit of a boost for Caroline Lucas though - certainly can't see many of her supporters suddenly switching to Labour because of it

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I'm trying to find it, but I found a link that had detailed plans for each junction and there were no new by-passes in it.

the PDF included:

A27 Arundel bypass – a new dual carriageway bypass to link together the two existing dual carriageway sections of the road. The starting point will be the previous preferred route, subject to consultation with the National Park Authority, local government and the public on this and alternative options

The diagram also shows a Chichester bypass, and is described as a 'committed scheme' so maybe that will go ahead anyway?

 

[Yoda]

the PDF included:



The diagram also shows a Chichester bypass, and is described as a 'committed scheme' so maybe that will go ahead anyway?

I know that one does, but when the study reports were first announced last year, there was a link posted on here that went into full detail for every junction of the recommended improvements. I don't remember any new bypass roads being mentioned on that report.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I know that one does, but when the study reports were first announced last year, there was a link posted on here that went into full detail for every junction of the recommended improvements. I don't remember any new bypass roads being mentioned on that report.

Ah sorry. As far as Arundel is concerned, I can't see any other way to do it.

 

[skipper734]

It's OK they have already started collecting for the improvements.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ands-new-owners-caught-tax-disc-loophole.html

 

[Peter Grummit]

the PDF included:



The diagram also shows a Chichester bypass, and is described as a 'committed scheme' so maybe that will go ahead anyway?

Chichester already has a bypass (the A27). There are already schemes funded and going ahead to improve some of the junctions on this existing bypass. I would be surprised if these are part of Labour's delay plan, but they could be.

Arundel also has a bypass. It needs a bypass of the bypass, which some may point to as an indication of the futility of road building. This was delayed because it goes across the SDNP and AONB of the Arun river valley and would have significant environmental impact. Many would argue (and I would be one) that the serious bottleneck it represents makes this impact worthwhile. Likewise the Worthing/Lancing online improvements, which would have a much more modest environmental impact.

PG

 

[Diablo]

between beddingham and Polegate surely dualling is neccessary...Is this what Labour want to put on hold

 

[Peter Grummit]

between beddingham and Polegate surely dualling is neccessary...Is this what Labour want to put on hold

This isn't currently being proposed.

PG

 

[Diablo]

This isn't currently being proposed.

PG

Oh dear thought it was, however I do agree Worthing is worse, is this due improvement or by pass?

 

[Peter Grummit]

Here is the transport bit from the Labour Manifesto. I can find no reference to delaying the A27.

Living standards have been hit by fare increases on public transport. Since
2010, rail fares have risen by 20 per cent, leaving passengers paying the highest
fares in Europe. Similarly, bus fares have risen by 27 per cent while at the same
time 2,000 bus routes have been cut.
Labour will reform our transport system in order to provide more public control
and put the public interest first. We will review the franchising process as a
priority to put in place a new system and avoid a repeat of the Conservatives’
franchising fiasco. A new National Rail body will oversee and plan for the
railways and give rail users a greater say in how trains operate. We will legislate
so that a public sector operator is allowed to take on lines and challenge the
private train operating companies on a level playing field.
Rail fares will be frozen next year to help commuters while we implement
reforms. A strict fare rise cap will be introduced on every route for any future
fare rises, and a new legal right for passengers will be created to access the
cheapest ticket for their journey.
City and county regions will be given more power over the way buses are
operated in their area. They will be able to decide routes, bear down on fares,
drive improvements in services, and bring together trains, buses and trams
into a single network with smart ticketing.

PG

 

[Brovion]

Just out of interest what are the Worthing and Lancing improvements?

 

[Superphil]

Nothing as there are no road taxes.

Whooosh

 

[Pavilionaire]

Here is the transport bit from the Labour Manifesto. I can find no reference to delaying the A27.

Living standards have been hit by fare increases on public transport. Since
2010, rail fares have risen by 20 per cent, leaving passengers paying the highest
fares in Europe. Similarly, bus fares have risen by 27 per cent while at the same
time 2,000 bus routes have been cut.
Labour will reform our transport system in order to provide more public control
and put the public interest first. We will review the franchising process as a
priority to put in place a new system and avoid a repeat of the Conservatives’
franchising fiasco. A new National Rail body will oversee and plan for the
railways and give rail users a greater say in how trains operate. We will legislate
so that a public sector operator is allowed to take on lines and challenge the
private train operating companies on a level playing field.
Rail fares will be frozen next year to help commuters while we implement
reforms. A strict fare rise cap will be introduced on every route for any future
fare rises, and a new legal right for passengers will be created to access the
cheapest ticket for their journey.
City and county regions will be given more power over the way buses are
operated in their area. They will be able to decide routes, bear down on fares,
drive improvements in services, and bring together trains, buses and trams
into a single network with smart ticketing.

PG

It doesn't appear that the financing for Labour's policies have been spelled out in the Manifesto itself but it's all over the net that when asked about the financing they've said as follows:

"...the £200 million cost of capping rail fares would be paid for by "delaying road projects on the A27 and A358, for which the economic case is still uncertain".

So let's get this right. Labour aren't clear whether clearing bottlenecks is going to help the economy, but the Tories and Lib Dems ARE clear and so have committed to upgrades.

There's no doubt the upgrades will smooth traffic flow which has to benefit the local economy. So for Labour to say the economic benefits are uncertain must mean the national economy. Does this mean they think if the Sussex economy does well then somewhere else in the UK is going to suffer disproportionately more?

 

[pb21]

I guess they may be saying that there is a greater economic benefit to be had by spending money on the trains than the roads?!

 

[Cosmic Joker]

Labour now seem to be narrowing down their delay to A27 schemes to just the Arundel Bypass.

http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/new...intention-to-delay-a27-improvements-1-6686630

“Labour intends to go ahead with all the works that have been designated for the A27 with one exception - the Arundel bypass. It’s been probably one of the most controversial aspects for some time because it is down to cut through the national park and raises a number of issues Labour will seek to resolve with local people and groups before it will be given the go ahead. It will be a short review of that element of the design.”

 

[southstandandy]

I do love Labour - they preach Socialist values but their former PM (Tony 'I love Capitalism really' Blair) is now the richest former PM ever milking it in from his business dealings at home and abroad.

It's a bit like being at school - 'Do what I say, don't do as I do'!

 

[Cosmic Joker]

So let's get this right. Labour aren't clear whether clearing bottlenecks is going to help the economy, but the Tories and Lib Dems ARE clear and so have committed to upgrades.

There's no doubt the upgrades will smooth traffic flow which has to benefit the local economy. So for Labour to say the economic benefits are uncertain must mean the national economy. Does this mean they think if the Sussex economy does well then somewhere else in the UK is going to suffer disproportionately more?

No this seems to be about the level of benefits for individual schemes and whether they represent value for money. The DfT feasibility studies are available online - but without any detailed maps or plans - and these showed that Arundel only had medium to low VfM, but Worthing had very high VfM (for the options without a tunnel) and that when the two were combined there was high VfM overall. Generally, major transport projects only get taken forward when the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) is over 2.0 but Arundel when assessed on its own has only just been scraping that level. As Worthing gets a BCR of at least 6 for two of the options looked at, when the two schemes are examined together the result is, no surprises, a BCR of 4.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a27-corridor-feasibility-study-overview

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a27-corridor-feasibility-study-technical-reports

From the overview report:

"West Sussex
6.4 A27 Arundel bypass - the analysis showed that a new bypass at Arundel could generate journey time and accident savings and could have beneficial impacts on journey time reliability. In terms of air quality and noise levels, there could be adverse impacts owing to traffic increases, but beneficial impacts including in villages such as Storrington which are currently affected by traffic diverting to avoid the problems on the A27. All bypass options would have adverse impacts to varying degrees on environmental assets, existing communities, landscape, biodiversity and the floodplain south of Arundel.
6.5 Of the two bypass options evaluated:
a. Option A, based on the previous preferred route announced in 1993,
would directly affect land designated as part of the South Downs National Park. The assessment indicated a good strategic fit against the intervention specific objectives and medium VfM.
b. Option B, to avoid land designated as National Park as far as possible, would have less adverse impact on the National Park and sensitive habitats within the park. This option would adversely impact the landscape and heritage of Binsted and Walberton which is valued by local communities. The assessment indicated a good strategic fit but low VfM owing to the higher cost of this option.
6.6 A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements - the analysis showed that the prioritised interventions at Worthing and Lancing could generate journey time and accident savings and have a beneficial impact on journey time reliability and air quality as a consequence of reducing congestion. The different options would - to varying degrees - impact on small areas of the South Downs National Park adjacent to the A27 route as well as the townscape in Worthing. 6.7 Of the alternative improvement options evaluated: • Option A, based on maximising tunnelling through both Worthing and Lancing, would require tunnel portals and junctions within Worthing to accommodate the interaction with north-south traffic flows via the A24. The assessment indicated a good strategic fit but poor to low VfM.
• Option F, based on a previous on-line dualling proposal, would be challenging to deliver due to the requirement of online construction within the urban area. The assessment indicated a good strategic fit and very high VfM.
• Option G, based on localised widening and junction improvements, could be less challenging to deliver than option F. The assessment indicated a good strategic fit and very high VfM.
6.8 West Sussex combined A27 investment case - the study also assessed the case for combining both the A27 Arundel Bypass Option A and A27 Worthing online Option F. This demonstrated journey time savings, with benefits and adverse impacts as described above. The assessment indicated good strategic fit and high VfM.
6.9 On the evidence available, initial business cases were prepared for a dual carriageway bypass at Arundel - based on the previous preferred route - and online improvements at Worthing"

The actual BCRs are in tables in the more detailed technical report.

 

[Yoda]

Ah sorry. As far as Arundel is concerned, I can't see any other way to do it.

Found it!

https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/1599/a27_route_strategy_presentation_v2.pdf

This is a 150 odd page detailed study from Atkins consulting engineers. From page 97 onwards it gives detailed drawings of the proposed improvements along the route. No by-passes in site, which is what all 3 really need.