Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

Taken almost year after your picture (16 Sept 2012), this shows little if any change:



I may be that way Friday, and will look around if I am.

[trainer]

I've looked down on this scene (FTN's picture) over the past few years and wondered whether the re-instated railway will increase or decrease the value of this ex-station building.  Since the M4/A369 roar is constant, being only metres away, noise won't be an added issue, but D/EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) enthusiast might find it the perfect abode. They might fall over each other to acquire it.

Further up the line there is already controversy in Pill about the movement of coal and other freight trains since the Portbury Dock line was (re-)opened.  Poor old Portbury village (FTN's picture is of the old station) has been much put upon by new infrastructure over the years with mixed results for residents.  No new station is planned immediately, I think.

[TonyK]

I've looked down on this scene (FTN's picture) over the past few years and wondered whether the re-instated railway will increase or decrease the value of this ex-station building. 

Tricky one to answer. If there is an expert on property values in my household, it is Mrs FTN, and I have sought her counsel. She doesn't know either, but between us we feel the effect will be neutral on that property. Because:
a) As you rightly point out, the hum from the M5 is audible 24/7/365
b) The property is in Portbury, which is accessible only by foot over the M5 bridge without a drive
c) There is no prospect of a CPO to reopen Portbury station
d) The trains running through the back yard will be of no profit to the householder, who will have lost a safe haven for the cat, unless he she is a train buff

BUT:-
a) A train every half hour each way at a relative low speed is an interest rather than an imposition, and will guarantee no further homes being built at the bottom of the garden, where fairies currently reside
b) Although the station will not reopen, it will not be a long walk to the new Portishead station, with its projected 17 minutes journey time to Temple Meads, given that it can take that long to get across the M5 and into the queue at Abbots Leigh for Bedminster
c) A new rail link is now always seen as a plus by estate agents.
d) The reopening of the Portishead railway, although long overdue, has been long campaigned for, long anticipated, and long awaited. It was still used for freight until 1981, and was the subject of a campaign to reopen from the day in 1964 that the last scheduled passenger train ran. It can hardly have come as a bolt from the blue, especially given the many thousands of home built since, a number curtailed only by our glorious country's recent fiscal troubles.

Adding the good and subtracting the bad, I reckon the overall effect will be neutral, possibly slightly beneficial.

[trainer]

Thanks FTN.  An excellent and, as always, thoughtful reply.  You kindly don't draw attention to my misnumbering of a road I drive on every day!  I think you and Mrs FTN could have a future in Estate Agency. 

[swrural]

Indeed, compliments. 

If you look at what is left of Station Road on Google SV, the 369 bus is waiting patiently outside the front gate!

I don't know about not reopening the station.  The footbridge link is a great traffic free route for cyclists and peds in dear old Portbury to get on the train?

What amazes me is why no one planted a row of cypress all along the A369 between that and the M5 (is that why the bus is called 369?).

[TonyK]

Indeed, compliments. 

What amazes me is why no one planted a row of cypress all along the A369 between that and the M5 (is that why the bus is called 369?).

I am obliged. It was the 369, and the Weston super Mare bus was the 370 when the buses were green, and I think for a time after. Certainly, the route numbers paid homage to the roads. In latter years, though, Portishead has been served (badly, some say) by the 357, 358, and 359. You have to move with the times though, and you have less than a fortnight to ride one of services, before they are replaced by the faster-sounding X2, X3, and the 23 (eh?). I think this is tied to Comic Relief, and is being done so that we can all laugh at puzzled passengers who don't get on. What chance of a fare rise?

[JayMac]

Where's this 369 bus on Google Street View? I've had a look at Station Road in Portishead and can't see it.

[swrural]

I accessed mine through GE not GM, but I thought you ended up at the same place (??).  You need to go down from the bridge to the road junction before it suddenly appears, parked next to a very convenient bus shelter (see another sales advantage for those occupants of the station; it's always easier to catch a bus at its terminus)..

[JayMac]

Ahaha. My apologies. I got a bit geographically confused. I was looking at Station Road in Portishead, not Station Road in Sheepway/Portbury. Found the errant bus now. 

http://goo.gl/maps/0mBWM

[chuffed]

To clear up any confusion ....

the bus should be showing 359...its on the A369

Not been double deckered for a few years now. They were the cast offs when First lost the Long Ashton P&R^▸ (Park and Ride),and had spent their working lives entirely on the flat and when confronted with Avon Way in Portishead, the poor dears simply couldnt cope!

Were famous for having carpeted ceilings on the lower deck and dodgy welding on the chassis so you got your internal shower when aquaplaning along sheepway which is mostly below sea level !

The new x2 and x3 projected buses are said to be ALMOST new...so where have they been cascaded from ....? Hope we can at last see the end of weekend jaunts for the  despised  disablity unabled Dennis Darts!

[chuffed]

Is it time to challenge Network Rail's policy on 'no new level crossings ?

A response from a Mr L J Summerfield to the North Somerset consultataion on the 3 options for the site of Portishead station. I think he has made the points very well and I am sorry I could not contact him to ask permission to bring this to a wider audience.

Siting of Portishead Rail Station.

I have studied the recent ^Evidence Policy reference PH3 document^ regarding the potential siting of the Portishead Rail station and would like to comment as follows.

^ The site 3 at Moor gate is clearly a non starter and only just reaches the Portishead town border. Building new access roads and entering via Sheepway is unacceptable.

^ The site 2 at Quays avenue is a better solution but fails to address the fact that the station and car parking are on opposite sides of Quays avenue requiring 200 people to cross the road. Passengers who are late will run across the road and it will become a significant highway safety problem.

^ The best solution is site 1 at Waitrose which is at the best geographical location and central to the town. I acknowledge the problem for trains to cross Quays avenue but it is now time to challenge network rail on their policies regarding level crossings.

Network policies regarding level crossings.

In 2002 during my time as a Portbury Councillor I challenged the outline plans which showed Quays Avenue breaching the Rail line and suggested that a 106 agreement should be applied to provide funds for future opening of the rail track. Few other Councillors shared my concerns and felt that it was an easy solution requiring moderate funds to accomplish at the pre-requisite time.

In the following years Network rail suddenly declared that it was a company policy not to develop any new level crossings. Had this been known in 2002 the road layout in the vicinity of Quays Avenue would have been done differently.

It is now apparent that there is no longer a sensible affordable modification to the Quays Avenue road layout and the Portishead Station is now being denied entry to the centre of the town. This is nonsense!

Discussion of Network Rail policy.

It is quite clear to me that not providing any new level crossing is a ^policy strategy.^ It is not UK^▸ (United Kingdom) or European law.

It is also my view that whereas it may be an inherently sensible carte blanche policy as a starting position, there may be special extenuating circumstances under which there may be justifiable exceptions.

In my view Portishead now falls within this exception category and should be challenging network rail with the following issues.

1/. There are hundred s of level crossings in successful safe operation in the UK.

2/. Accidents are most prevalent on high speed stretches of the rail network where inadequate pedestrian and traffic control are in place.

3/. There are hundreds of level crossings adjacent to stations where low speed train operation makes them significantly safer.

4/. Portishead Waitrose station is unique in so far as it is a terminus where every train stops and the level crossing would be just a couple of hundred yards away for this halt. It would be perfectly acceptable to get every train to STOP at the Quays avenue crossing and wait for the cars and pedestrians to stop at traffic lights before it proceeds with caution. This could reduce the risks to better than basic road safety levels.

5/. By preventing the station being built at Waitrose, Network rail may have eliminated their safety issues but shifted them to a significantly higher road safety issue at Quays Avenue with pedestrians crossing between the station and the car park. Is being injured or killed by a train any worse than enduring the same fate under a car?

Conclusions

1/. The Network rail policy of ^No new level crossings^ is a carte blanche policy which is denying Portishead of a central station.

2/. The Network rail policy takes no account of specific difficulties in providing an alternative crossing or the specific circumstances under which a level crossing may be acceptable.

3/. The policy eliminates Network rail risk but produces a larger risk for the Highways.

Recommendation

Network Rail should be encouraged to carry out a specific risk review of the Quays Avenue location and suggest ways in which a level crossing risk can be made tolerable and no worse than hundreds of commuters crossing the road if the alternative station site 2 were adopted.

[JayMac]

Getting Network Rail to give Portishead a derogation is, I fear, going to be an uphill task.

And I think they'd take issue with this statement:

2/. Accidents are most prevalent on high speed stretches of the rail network where inadequate pedestrian and traffic control are in place.

Is that backed up by facts and figures? Are the traffic controls really inadequate at level crossings on high speed stretches of line? There have been and continue to be accidents and incidents at level crossings of all types and on lines of varying speeds. Nobody can know for certain whether a LC^▸ (Level Crossing) on Quays Avenue will be any safer than one in any other location. The many valid points this correspondent brings to the debate are somewhat overshadowed by this rather disingenuous statement.

I also think it is somewhat disingenuous to make the argument for a level crossing because some passengers who are late will run across the road. If that is to be a factor that has to be considered by Network Rail, then it is one they should consider at all locations were a station is regularly accessed by crossing a road. That would be a little impractical. If there is going to be a significant highway safety problem then that is for the highways department to sort out. Does every developer need to consider people running across a road because they are late?

I like the comment, "In the following years Network rail suddenly declared that it was a company policy not to develop any new level crossings." I think it highly unlikely there was anything sudden about that policy. Incidentally that was a policy that wasn't wholly decided by Network Rail. The Office of Rail Regulation had arguably the greater input and it was they who drew up the policy document.

Finally, why, in this response, is there no mention of the road bridge over the railway at Quays Avenue that would go hand-in-hand with the option 1 site for the station? Does this respondent live near the Quays Avenue junction with Phoenix Way? That may explain his desire to see a level crossing built.

[TerminalJunkie]

Is it time to challenge Network Rail's policy on 'no new level crossings ?

No.

[TonyK]

Chuffed - I take your points entirely, and have indeed argued most of them myself. However, I have to agree with BNM and TJ - Network Rail and any other powers that be will not make an exception, however unfair that may seem. Safety is probably not the only reason. The bean counters will have an opinion. A level crossing costs a packet to install, another packet to operate, yet a further packet to maintain, and still it doesn't always separate railway and other traffic in an entirely successful fashion. Some of the same people who will run across a road will vault a level crossing barrier or drive under a descending barrier, and the slower the rail traffic, the more likely that is. A bridge costs money to build, but not NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s money. Once built, it is largely passive, needing no monitoring and only occasional maintenance.

I agree with you also regarding the site of the station - it must be behind Waitrose (or if you don't have much money opposite Lidl) if the main aim of the rebuilding of the railway is to be achieved. Even the Quays Avenue location will decrease the number of passengers willing to walk to the station, and siting it off Sheepway with a car park will positively encourage driving from home to station. However big a car park is provided, it will quickly seem too small. Levy a charge to park, and suddenly taking the train to work seems less of an economic proposition. After all, you've driven from, say, Nore Road, past the Windmill, the car park's full, the weather's not so good: may as well carry on in the car.

So which way forward? I am absolutely certain of one thing - the station must be built on the site behind Waitrose to achieve the maximum benefit. To do that, a road bridge over the railway will be needed at Quays Avenue. Or will it? North Somerset DC^▸ (Direct Current)'s only option for the original station site requires a road bridge in Quays Avenue, over the railway, and very close to a roundabout. That will be costly, unsightly, and potentially hazardous. I have two alternatives for consideration.

The first is to offset the road bridge. It could go over the railway from a new exit off the roundabout, passing behind the small trading estate to a new junction on the main road.

More radical, but cheaper, is my second suggestion. Shut Quays Avenue to traffic at the railway, and reinvent it as a cul-de-sac. Instead, build a foot / cycle bridge over the railway. For people living in the small housing estate off Quays Drive to the south of the railway, this will mean that the intrusion of railway noise will be offset by the cessation of passing traffic. For people living in the not inconsiderable new residential area to the north of the railway, it will not be a major imposition. By cycle or on foot, one will find a bridge to cross if heading to the Co-op or the secondary school (or the Black Horse in Clapton in Gordano, for that matter). By car, the journey to Bristol from that northern enclave would be extended by - what? - 600 metres? All the more reason to take the train!

I would suggest this scheme to North Somerset DC but for two things:
a) I don't live in North Somerset, so have no right to comment on their consultations; and
b) I retain a simmering anger towards Councillors Elfan ap Rees and Nigel Ashton over their stance on the awful BRT2 route in Bristol - see Bristol Connections thread for reasons why. That said, I should give them credit for their proactive position on the clearance of the Portishead railway corridor, but what they propose for Bristol, where they have less right to comment than I have in Weston, is close to unforgivable.

[trainer]

Four Track, Now! says:

'More radical, but cheaper, is my second suggestion. Shut Quays Avenue to traffic at the railway, and reinvent it as a cul-de-sac.'

North Somerset don't tend to do radical, but they do like cheap (probably not unique as a Local Authority in that respect).  I know these roads well and although as a non-resident I think BNF has an interesting idea, I suspect the prospect of sending all traffic for the Marina development and so-called 'Village Quarter' (and of course the new station) through the edge of the town centre will not go down well with the good (and vociferous) folk of Portishead.  Those roads are already heavily congested at peak times and would need a thorough re-organisation.  North Somerset councillors have already tangled with this town recently over the handling of traffic management.  I'm given to understand that there is an anti-rail lobby forming (are they mad?!) so radical solutions appealing to the pro-rail lobby (including me) which impinge even more on a changed visual landscape and add traffic to the already controversial Cabstand junction will probably be difficult to sell politically even if there was a desire to do so - which I'm sure there isn't.

Apologies for those who don't know this area, but to discuss the issue, we need to get down to this kind of detail.  Although I don't agree with FTN's specific proposal, he exemplifies the kind of radical thinking needed.