It's a bit of a process even so. Orders made by ministers will still need careful drafting, with all manner of studies into the usual environmental and equality stuff. When made, they are subject to judicial review. Incredible though it may seem, I bet someone will object to the reopening of the Portishead line, although only time will tell how far they will take it. It is unlikely to have a rough passage once started, though, something that probably won't be true of Bristol's BRT^▸ (Bus Rapid Transit) plans.
To have truly comprehensive public transport needs a totalitarian regime, usually communist, happy to ride roughshod over anyone who objects.

Taking an axe to the Acts? Why not? Repealed acts of Parliament are still there for researchers, and there's no chance of us ever running out of laws.
I'm not even an armchair anarchist, but some of these regulations do seem to slow down projects and add expense. Locally, reopening the Portishead line is a case in point. There must have been a Transport and Works Act when it was first built. The TWA obtained to reopen the line to Portbury Dock did not include powers to operate a railway. The GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) 3 report into reopening wasn't sure exactly what may still be needed, even though the route is intact, and a lot of rail is still in situ, albeit not fit for purpose.
So we need men with shovels, men with theodolites, and men in wigs to reopen a railway.* I suppose the original intention of the legal framework was to stop any old Tom, Dick or Isambard building railways wherever they wanted, but that's not a problem today. Maybe a reform of the Railways Act to take out a layer of unnecessary hindrance to new projects would be a good idea, but somehow I doubt it. Better the devil you know.

(*If this looks a bit sexist, don't worry. Section 6(a) of the Interpretation Act 1978 is on my side)

I can't fart and chew gum at the same time. My friend tells me his son sat watching the Man Utd game on Sky Sports Monday, with another game running on his iPhone, and discussing both (and other) through Farcebook or something on a laptop. All this whilst listening to his iPod. This wasn't on a train - he doesn't get out much.

For the welcome, many thanks. I had forgotten about that minister, and you're right, he did put the argument well, albeit without success. Or was it without success? He may have done more of the groundwork than meets the eye. Also, could North Somerset DC^▸ (Direct Current)'s failed application for funds to reopen Portishead have been a tactical move to remove the excuse for yet another rejection this time? I don't know enough about the way this works.

What seems remarkable to me is the strength of support for extra rail around Bristol that is building across party lines, both in local government and amongst the region's MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament). Hopefully, that pressure will lead to action, and not before time. I am aware, though, that everywhere has its own list of urgent projects. I remain optimistic.

Seems we have a choice. If the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) pays half, they will get it back by charging a premium on the ticket sold to the passenger (us). If central government pays it all, they will get the money from the taxpayer (us). If the local council, or group of local councils pay, they will get the money from the council tax payer (guess who!). National government paying spreads the cost over a greater number of people. But we are all already paying for Crossrail and a lot of other projects. Ticket prices rising to pay for it means only passengers pay, but may deter others if the cost is to high. Local government paying means those who do not travel by rail, but enjoy the resulting reduction in traffic and boost to the local economy, also pay.

My preferred solution? I don't care where the bl**dy money comes from, just get on with it for crying out loud! If a government minister lived in Portishead, it would have been done years ago.