Stop the Arundel Bypass - Save Arundel's Countryside
2,356 Comments
M
Margaret Morris
8 years ago
Why choose the most damaging option? It does not make sense.
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
Please do not let ancient woodland be destroyed - it is irreplaceable, older than many historic monuments and ecologically valuable.
S
Sally Phillips
8 years ago
Development can only be considered to BE development if it is sensitive to the environment and gives people without cars support as well as supporting people not to use their cars needlessly. Otherwise this so-called-development is actually irresponsible destruction and support of global warming.
C
Caroline Morgan
8 years ago
I think that air pollution is so bad that we need better public transport, not more facilities for private car drivers.
H
Heather Rainbow
8 years ago
Building more and bigger roads is not the solution to road congestion problems. Evidence from bypasses elsewhere show they just increase the problem for example by encouraging more and longer distance commuting In most cases there is no alternative to the car, so we need real infrastructure for cycling (like Holland and Denmark) and an efficient public transport system to reduce motor travel. Putting roads through national parks is raping the countryside for short term gain. It is not just destroying the sanctuary of the countryside but also rural communities.
P
Peter Fischer
8 years ago
This option would destroy some of the finest landscape in southern England
D
Deborah Stevenson
8 years ago
This must not be allowed to happen! Building more roads is not a solution to our traffic problems anyway. It will require a new and more enlightened attitude towards transport, and a real shift in values, if we want to properly protect the environment and preserve it. We have already lost too much of our beautiful countryside and wildlife and suffered irreparable damage to what were once peaceful hamlets and villages. Option 5A would have a devastating impact on Binsted, Tortington and the entire area affected by this proposed route.
C
Clive Strutt
8 years ago
No ancient woodland should have to be destroyed in order to build a bypass road.
S
Steven Meigh
8 years ago
With all the new houses coming on stream, it will fill up soon after it opens. We need an integrated transport solution.
G
Gordon Stevenson
8 years ago
This route is environmental vandalism and will only move jams to other hotspots.
D
David Lyons
8 years ago
Why destroy so much countryside for such a flawed scheme?
J
Jon Evans
8 years ago
Save Binstead Woods
M
max childs
8 years ago
What happened to everyone being equal under the law? how can they get away with destroying part of a national park? doesn't that mean it's supposed to be protected? i wouldn't be allowed to do that on land i don't even own let alone through a supposed national park. option 3, and 5a shouldn't even exist . There is already a road through arundel improve it and use it, if you don't like commuting then work closer to home
C
Chris Lowe
8 years ago
Car use is declining so no need for more raod schemes like this
G
Grant Lewins
8 years ago
Why are we considering destroying even more of our countryside just to speed up vehicle journeys?
G
Graham Read
8 years ago
Country railways can help to improve the beauty, character and accessibility of our land - especially for less-advantagd citizens without motor transport of their own.
C
Cliff Lomas
8 years ago
The motor car has been king for too long, it’s time to dethrone it
J
Joan Havemann
8 years ago
Please preserve the South Downs National Park for future generations, and reject Arundel Bypass Option 5A! There are less damaging alternatives that would preserve the beauty of the woodland, the peace of rural villages, the habitat of wildlife, and active communities and rural businesses.
I
Ian C L Thompson
8 years ago
The Government sees ever-increasing car traffic as both a sign and a generator of "economic" growth. The reality is that it eventually destroys everything: life, health, landscape, farmland and--through self-congestion--the very economy that it is supposed to stimulate. If yearly road tax and insurance were abolished and replaced by pay-by-the-mile taxation, motorists would no longer perceive the car as the cheapest way to travel. Each occupant of a car demands seven times the amount of roadspace needed by a bus passenger and burns three times as much fuel. The only way to silence these constant calls for more, wider, faster roads is to move people at peak hours by bus and train at affordable fares, and to discourage peak-hour car use.
Why choose the most damaging option? It does not make sense.
Please do not let ancient woodland be destroyed - it is irreplaceable, older than many historic monuments and ecologically valuable.
Development can only be considered to BE development if it is sensitive to the environment and gives people without cars support as well as supporting people not to use their cars needlessly. Otherwise this so-called-development is actually irresponsible destruction and support of global warming.
I think that air pollution is so bad that we need better public transport, not more facilities for private car drivers.
Building more and bigger roads is not the solution to road congestion problems. Evidence from bypasses elsewhere show they just increase the problem for example by encouraging more and longer distance commuting In most cases there is no alternative to the car, so we need real infrastructure for cycling (like Holland and Denmark) and an efficient public transport system to reduce motor travel. Putting roads through national parks is raping the countryside for short term gain. It is not just destroying the sanctuary of the countryside but also rural communities.
This option would destroy some of the finest landscape in southern England
This must not be allowed to happen! Building more roads is not a solution to our traffic problems anyway. It will require a new and more enlightened attitude towards transport, and a real shift in values, if we want to properly protect the environment and preserve it. We have already lost too much of our beautiful countryside and wildlife and suffered irreparable damage to what were once peaceful hamlets and villages. Option 5A would have a devastating impact on Binsted, Tortington and the entire area affected by this proposed route.
No ancient woodland should have to be destroyed in order to build a bypass road.
With all the new houses coming on stream, it will fill up soon after it opens. We need an integrated transport solution.
This route is environmental vandalism and will only move jams to other hotspots.
Why destroy so much countryside for such a flawed scheme?
Save Binstead Woods
What happened to everyone being equal under the law? how can they get away with destroying part of a national park? doesn't that mean it's supposed to be protected? i wouldn't be allowed to do that on land i don't even own let alone through a supposed national park. option 3, and 5a shouldn't even exist . There is already a road through arundel improve it and use it, if you don't like commuting then work closer to home
Car use is declining so no need for more raod schemes like this
Why are we considering destroying even more of our countryside just to speed up vehicle journeys?
Country railways can help to improve the beauty, character and accessibility of our land - especially for less-advantagd citizens without motor transport of their own.
The motor car has been king for too long, it’s time to dethrone it
Please preserve the South Downs National Park for future generations, and reject Arundel Bypass Option 5A! There are less damaging alternatives that would preserve the beauty of the woodland, the peace of rural villages, the habitat of wildlife, and active communities and rural businesses.
The Government sees ever-increasing car traffic as both a sign and a generator of "economic" growth. The reality is that it eventually destroys everything: life, health, landscape, farmland and--through self-congestion--the very economy that it is supposed to stimulate. If yearly road tax and insurance were abolished and replaced by pay-by-the-mile taxation, motorists would no longer perceive the car as the cheapest way to travel. Each occupant of a car demands seven times the amount of roadspace needed by a bus passenger and burns three times as much fuel. The only way to silence these constant calls for more, wider, faster roads is to move people at peak hours by bus and train at affordable fares, and to discourage peak-hour car use.
Ancient woodland can never be replaced