THREE competing visions for a new road network in West Sussex have been unveiled.

Yesterday morning Highways England has released its shortlist of three possible routes for a major new section of dual carriageway on the A27, to run either around, or through, the picturesque centre of Arundel.

The proposed roads will cost anywhere from £135m to £260m and, subsequent to a public consultation this summer, could begin as early as 2021 with works expected to take around two years.

Highways England programme manager Valerie Stephens described the single-carriageway through Arundel as a “missing link” along the east-west A road which serves a population of three-quarters of a million people.

She said: “Arundel has a special environment and a unique cultural heritage and, while building any new road will have an impact, we are committed to delivering the improvements responsibly and have developed our proposals with the environment very much in mind. “

Funding for the scheme comes from the Department for Transport’s £15 billion Roads Investment Strategy fund, which is also funding upgrades on the A27 between Worthing and Lancing and to the east of Lewes.

The first consultation into an Arundel bypass began with a scheme assessment report undertaken in 1985, with a public consultation published in 1987, so these latest proposals are thirty years in the making.

The scheme was criticised from further along the A27, where Adur District Council leader councillor Neil Parkin told The Argus: “They’re talking about £250 million just to get around Arundel - it makes our £65m look rather sad, doesn’t it.”

The public consultation will end just before midnight on October 16.

To review the scheme and to comment, go to http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/a27-arundel-improvement. Arun District Council promised to study the proposals and respond, and encouraged residents to contribute to the consultation.

1: DUAL THROUGH ARUNDEL

OPTION 1, illustrated in orange, would drive a dual carriageway through the centre of Arundel.

A small spur of new road would bypass the existing A27 to the south, avoiding the station, but then rejoin the existing road for almost the whole length of the scheme.

The proposed new dual-carriageway would start at Crossbush junction, passing to the south west of Arundel railway station, and re-joining the existing A27 east of Ford Road, which will be widened to a dual carriageway.

This option also includes improvements at Crossbush junction, new bridges over the railway line and the River Arun and a new pedestrian/cycle path from Crossbush junction.

Analysis suggests it would draw traffic from local roads - the A29 would see a 5 per cent reduction and the A284 a 13 per cent drop.

But it would increase traffic flows through Arundel by 62 per cent.

By 2023, the average peak hour journey time would be two to five minutes shorter than projected time without any road changes.

By 2041 the savings would be four to seven minutes, depending on time of day and direction of travel..

The improvements to safety and accessibility are slight when compared with the other two options - this is the only option which would perpetuate the division of the town.

This option will have a smaller effect on the South Downs National Park than the two others, but is still expected to make a “major adverse” effect.

The scheme is projected to cost £135 million.

3: THROUGH THE DOWNS

OPTION 3, illustrated in red, would build a stretch of dual-carriageway westwards under Arundel to the South, before winding up through Downland to rejoin the existing road just to the west of the town.

The dual-carriageway would run from Crossbush junction, south of the current A27, rejoining the A27 at a new junction near Havenwood Park.

This option also includes improvements at Crossbush junction, new bridges over the railway line and the River Arun and a new pedestrian/cycle path between Crossbush junction and Yapton Lane.

Analysis suggests it would draw traffic away from Arundel, with a 60 per cent reduction in the volume of cars and vans going through the town in comparison with the “do nothing” situation.

It would cause traffic elsewhere in the Park to drop off , but there would be a 24 per cent increase in traffic where the new road joined up with the existing A27.

By 2023, the average peak hour journey time would be three to four minutes shorter than projected time without any road changes. By 2041 the savings would be four to eight minutes.

This scheme is more highly rated than Option 1 with regard to capacity, because it allows for greater traffic increases in the future. The improvements to safety and accessibility are also better.

However this option would cause “significant impact” on the Downs, whereas Option 1 would only impact the setting and views.

Option 3 is projected to cost £260 million.

5A: THE SOUTHERN ROUTE

OPTION 5a, illustrated in aqua, calls for a long stretch of approximately six miles of new dual carriageway, running south of the town and largely skirting the Downs.

(The options are not called 1, 2, and 3 because there were other proposed routes mooted at previous points in the consultation process which have since been withdrawn.) The new dual-carriageway would follow the same route as Option 3 between Crossbush junction and Ford Road.

From Ford Road the route continues west passing between the South Downs National Park and Binsted Woods, re-joining the existing A27 at a new junction near Yapton Lane.

This option also includes improvements at Crossbush junction, new bridges over the railway line and the River Arun and a new pedestrian/cycle path between Crossbush junction and Yapton Lane.

Analysis suggests it would draw 62 per cent of the traffic away from Arundel, and reduce traffic through the Downs on the A29 by 33 per cent. Traffic at the Western end would increase by around 15 per cent.

By 2023, the average peak hour journey time would be four to six minutes shorter than projected time without any road changes. By 2041 the savings would be five to 10.

This is the most highly rated scheme in terms of road safety and reduction of accidents, although both 5A and 3 are rated higher than 1 due to traffic reduction in Arundel.

Like Option 3 this would cause “significant impact” and “damage” to the National Park, although it does not traverse as large a swathe of it. Projected cost: £250 million.

AN INEVITABLE TRADE-OFF BETWEEN DRIVERS AND THE SOUTH DOWNS

ALL three of these schemes are illustrated with broad swathes of red under the headings “environmental impact” and “respect the South Downs” in the Highways England consultation document - to denote “major adverse effect”.

The town of Arundel is situated at the edge of the sweeping hills of Sussex’s national park.

Short of relocating its residents and buildings to the West Midlands, there is no way of alleviating its profound traffic problems without adversely affecting its beautiful surroundings.

But better that, in the eyes of many, than to drive a coach and horses through the centre of the town.

Arun District Councillor Paul Dendle who represents the Arundel and Walberton ward, said: “Arundel residents don’t want a dual carriageway going through the middle of the town.”

He rejected Option 1 out of hand and predicted residents would vote overwhelmingly for Options 3 or 5A.

He added: “I think 3 is the least-worst option.

“The road does go through the South Downs National Park, but the other route does too. That’s where the town is.

“And 3 takes all the traffic away from the town.”

He said nearby towns like Torrington would also benefit from the new route, because at present canny drivers use “rat runs” on minor roads to avoid the congested single-lane A27, causing a major problems in the area.

Several pages of the consultation brochure are devoted to the environmental impacts of the schemes, which will be significant.

Options 3 and 5 have been predicted to bring positive outcomes for air quality, and neutral outcomes for noise and vibration, because they take traffic away from residences.

But on all other measures - cultural heritage, landscape, nature conservation, geology, materials, communities, and drainage - all three schemes are predicted to have negative effects.

Option 3 would cause the greatest harm to landscape and nature, removing 24 hectares of mature ancient woodland from Binstead Wood.

CONSULTATIONS

THE Highways England project team will share plans and answer questions from the public on eight occasions through the consultation.

In Arundel:

August 22, Arundel Town Hall, 4pm - 8pm August 31, Arundel Town Hall, 2pm - 8pm September 5, Cathedral Centre, 2pm - 8pm September 9, The White Swan, 10am - 2pm October 5, Fontwell Racecourse, 2pm - 8pm October 14, Cathedral Centre, 10am - 5pm

In Littlehampton: September 19, Look and Sea Centre, 2pm-8pm September 27, Manor House, 2pm - 8pm.

Copies of the brochure and consultation questionnaire can also be picked up from the following locations during their normal hours of business: Arundel Town Council, Arundel Library, Littlehampton Library, Angmering Library, Rustington Library, East Preston Library, Bognor Library.

And from West Sussex County Council’s mobile library on routes 3 and 4A on Wednesdays, August 30, September 13 and 27, and October 11, and on Thursdays, August 31, September 14 and 28, and October 12.