I've have read with interest the proposals for Portishead and in particular the resurrection of the existing railway line. I note that there are 3 options for the siting of the train station and as I live on the Village Quarter, the outcome of this decision is of particular interest to me. I have a few questions in this regard and I wonder if you could provide me with some answers.
 
1. Has any market research been carried out as to who and how often the railway link would be used? Speaking to commuter friends, they have told me that they would not use the line as they work nowhere near Templemeads. In order to get to their place of work, they would need to either get a bus or cab from the Bristol train station, both of which would add to the expense and time of their journey to work which would negate the time savings made on the A369. They have concluded that they would prefer to continue to drive.

2. Could you please tell me when the chosen site for the station will be formally agreed?

3. If option 1 or 2 is chosen, I notice that a footbridge will be erected at the back of Trinity school fields. Can you tell me why? Surely if the station was sited either on Harbour Road or Quays Avenue, there would be no need as passengers would be easily able to walk to Quays Avenue from the Village Quarter or the Vale with no need for such an intrusive bridge. I believe that the bridge would compromise the privacy of the houses and gardens that back onto the school and I am concerned that late at night, when the passengers are groups of people who have been out drinking in Bristol, the garages and fences of those houses - as well as the bridge - would provide an excellent canvas for graffiti, litter and urination. Such a bridge would not ensure a connection between the Vale and the Village Quarter either as there are further ditches and rivers to cross. Surely a better site for such a bridge would be the other side of Trinity School where schoolchildren currently cross to access Trinity, St Peter's, St Joseph's and Gordano schools without forcing them to use the main roads.

4. If option 3 is chosen, a footpath will be built through a residential area which will compromise the security and privacy of residents in that area. Surely, passengers would not want to walk down a narrow path and out of the station at night either as this represents a security risk to them also.

5. The fact that option 3 is so far out of town as to make walking to it seriously unlikely, any congestion in the Quays Avenue, Harbour Road and Sheepway areas will be exacerbated rather than alleviated. Added to this the fact that parking will become an issue for residents of the Village Quarter (already something of a problem) with commuters wishing to avoid the station car park costs or the journey to the car park simply parking on the Village Quarter and cutting through.

When considering the position of a train station, surely the accessibility for its passengers is the most important factor. Compromising the standard of living of those in the immediate area should be actively avoided. The overriding decision should certainly not be based purely on cost.  The original site (option 1) was chosen for its accessibility and suitability for the town as a whole. The decision to find alternative sites to option 1 appears to be based purely on cost whilst Village Quarter and Vale residents are viewed as acceptable collateral damage. We disagree.
 
On that note, the reinstatement of the railway appears to be being completed on a shoestring. I understand that the track is currently being investigated to check its condition as there is no contingency to have it completely replaced. Also, as the cost of new trains is not a viable option, old rolling stock is planned for use. The council has already admitted that the line will be a loss leader and with old trains being used, this raises the question as to how reliable the service is actually going to be.
 
To summarise, the track and trains are old, the line is never going to make money and the security, privacy and rights of way of residents will be compromised. There is no persuasive evidence that congestion will be reduced within Portishead nor indeed that anyone will actually use the trains consistently enough to reduce congestion on the A369.
 
If the railway is to go ahead, there needs to be real involvement with the community ^ including those both for and against it ^ so that opinions can be heard, research can be made and proper planning can be drawn up and worked on. Up until this point, there has been a strong feeling by many residents of finger-in-the-air planning by North Somerset Council and the pro-Railway Group, which will not serve to benefit the community as a whole, successfully. There is no need for one area of the town to be used as collateral damage in the ruthless pursuit of a plan that has not been properly thought through.