Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

According to the North Somerset Times article bradshaw referred to, local MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) Liam Fox thinks XR^▸ (Crossrail) and Insulate Britain will try to block the reopening:

"It appears that there is no specific reason for the delay on environmental grounds and, indeed, it would be possible to go ahead with the DCO^▸ (Driver Controlled Operation) (development consent order) immediately except for one potentially serious factor.

"Government advisers believe that there is a strong chance that environmental activist groups might seek a judicial review over the whole project on 'environmental grounds'.

Meanwhile North Somerset leader (and FoSBR^» (Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways - site) member) Don Davies says:

I would say that we are now becoming extremely sceptical that the project will ever move forward to completion, so leaving our second largest town with entirely inadequate sustainable transport links."

[johnneyw]

Have XR^▸ (Crossrail) and Insulate Britain responded to this?

[Bmblbzzz]

It also mentions a campaign to replace the railway with a 'busway'.

The Portishead Busway Campaign, headed by Barry Cash, proposes that the railway line be repurposed to allow buses to follow the route to the Cumberland Basin before joining the road network.

The name Barry Cash rings a bell as one that crops up regularly in local news, though I don't know it's the same Barry Cash. Anyway, how does Mr Cash and his Busway Campaign propose that buses run along an active freight railway?

[bradshaw]

Is this the one?
https://bishopstonbarry.net/2020/02/26/portishead-railway-line/

The Twitter thread is here
https://twitter.com/respros/status/1458718247352680450?s=21

[Red Squirrel]

Here is Liam Fox's full statement (dated 1st Nov):

Thank you for your letter about the delay to Portishead railway. Like you, I am extremely disappointed by this course of events.

Since the explanation given in the written ministerial statement about “environmental reasons” for the delay was very vague, I asked for further ministerial information.

It appears that there is no specific reason for the delay on environmental grounds and, indeed, it would be possible to go ahead with the DCO^▸ (Driver Controlled Operation) (development consent order) immediately except for one potentially serious factor.

Government advisers believe that there is a strong chance that environmental activist groups might seek a judicial review over the whole project on “environmental “grounds. While this may seem absurd given the clear benefits that the railway would bring, we have seen from recent events with groups like Extension Rebellion and Insulate Britain that they are far from rational in their decision taking. It is entirely possible that they would object to any new transport project.

The six-month delay that has been announced is to allow for a full environmental impact to be undertaken to the extent that the government believes it would be able to resist any calls for a judicial review.

It is, perhaps, worth explaining exactly what a judicial review could mean in terms of time delay.

The time between filing a judicial review application and getting a decision from the court on permission is about 3 to 5 months. If permission is granted and the government decides to defend the claim (as they obviously would in this instance) then the full hearing generally take as somewhere between 9 to 15 months.

If this were to happen, the opening of the railway could be sent back for a considerable length of time.

My own opinion is that it is becoming too easy for pressure groups to challenge every decision by a democratically elected government in the courts and I expect legislation to be brought forward to deal with this issue shortly.

Meantime, the current six-month delay, while unwelcome, looks like the least unacceptable way to proceed with the minimal chance of substantial delay to the opening of the Portishead line that we all want to see.

[Bmblbzzz]

Is this the one?
https://bishopstonbarry.net/2020/02/26/portishead-railway-line/

Looks like it. From reading that, it's not a totally crazy nor off the wall idea. But the solution to running alongside the freights to and from the docks is going to require careful timetabling. Or maybe not, as he only envisages a peak-hours service:

The recent IPCC report once again highlighted the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels. When all fossil fuel use is included, a full bus is by far the most efficient and least polluting form of transport.* However, a nearly empty bus is the worst. This is a good reason to only run the service during the rush hours.

[Red Squirrel]

Is this the one?
https://bishopstonbarry.net/2020/02/26/portishead-railway-line/

Looks like it. From reading that, it's not a totally crazy nor off the wall idea. But the solution to running alongside the freights to and from the docks is going to require careful timetabling. Or maybe not, as he only envisages a peak-hours service:

The recent IPCC report once again highlighted the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels. When all fossil fuel use is included, a full bus is by far the most efficient and least polluting form of transport.* However, a nearly empty bus is the worst. This is a good reason to only run the service during the rush hours.

I'll leave it to others to argue whether it's a good idea to run buses along (not alongside!) railway tracks. I think we have discussed this before, the last time Mr Cash's ideas surfaced.

Cash refers to a 'recent IPCC report', but the report he cites is a 2009 report published by the IOP (Institute of Physics) in the USA. This seems to say that trains are (or rather were) the same as or better than buses to operate, but other factors such as the need to build stations and other rail infrastructure tip the balance towards buses. Without being able to drill down into the underlying figures (the link's broken) it's hard to know how true this is in 2021, or for a line which was mostly completed in 1867.

[Bmblbzzz]

Is this the one?
https://bishopstonbarry.net/2020/02/26/portishead-railway-line/

Looks like it. From reading that, it's not a totally crazy nor off the wall idea. But the solution to running alongside the freights to and from the docks is going to require careful timetabling. Or maybe not, as he only envisages a peak-hours service:

The recent IPCC report once again highlighted the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels. When all fossil fuel use is included, a full bus is by far the most efficient and least polluting form of transport.* However, a nearly empty bus is the worst. This is a good reason to only run the service during the rush hours.

I'll leave it to others to argue whether it's a good idea to run buses along (not alongside!) railway tracks. I think we have discussed this before, the last time Mr Cash's ideas surfaced.

Cash refers to a 'recent IPCC report', but the report he cites is a 2009 report published by the IOP (Institute of Physics) in the USA. This seems to say that trains are (or rather were) the same as or better than buses to operate, but other factors such as the need to build stations and other rail infrastructure tip the balance towards buses. Without being able to drill down into the underlying figures (the link's broken) it's hard to know how true this is in 2021, or for a line which was mostly completed in 1867.

Sloppy language on my part, sorry. I was using "alongside" in the sense of "in conjunction with" not "geographically adjacent to".

[ellendune]

Here is Liam Fox's full statement (dated 1st Nov):

Thank you for your letter about the delay to Portishead railway. Like you, I am extremely disappointed by this course of events.

Since the explanation given in the written ministerial statement about “environmental reasons” for the delay was very vague, I asked for further ministerial information.

It appears that there is no specific reason for the delay on environmental grounds and, indeed, it would be possible to go ahead with the DCO^▸ (Driver Controlled Operation) (development consent order) immediately except for one potentially serious factor.

Government advisers believe that there is a strong chance that environmental activist groups might seek a judicial review over the whole project on “environmental “grounds. While this may seem absurd given the clear benefits that the railway would bring, we have seen from recent events with groups like Extension Rebellion and Insulate Britain that they are far from rational in their decision taking. It is entirely possible that they would object to any new transport project.

The six-month delay that has been announced is to allow for a full environmental impact to be undertaken to the extent that the government believes it would be able to resist any calls for a judicial review.

It is, perhaps, worth explaining exactly what a judicial review could mean in terms of time delay.

The time between filing a judicial review application and getting a decision from the court on permission is about 3 to 5 months. If permission is granted and the government decides to defend the claim (as they obviously would in this instance) then the full hearing generally take as somewhere between 9 to 15 months.

If this were to happen, the opening of the railway could be sent back for a considerable length of time.

My own opinion is that it is becoming too easy for pressure groups to challenge every decision by a democratically elected government in the courts and I expect legislation to be brought forward to deal with this issue shortly.

Meantime, the current six-month delay, while unwelcome, looks like the least unacceptable way to proceed with the minimal chance of substantial delay to the opening of the Portishead line that we all want to see.

So he wants to use this as an excuse to make the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) into a dictatorship.

[Bmblbzzz]

As with so much, these changes to judicial review are a re-announcement.

[TonyK]

For "environmental groups" read "Barry Cash". HIs pet idea is to lay rubber along the length of the railway, so that First Bus and others can run buses along it. I don't think for a moment that he has even the remotest chance of changing anyone's mind about passenger trains, even though he is supported in principle by First Bristol's former MD James Freeman.

If he, or anyone else for that matter, launched a judicial review against the scheme, I see no reason why it couldn't be dealt with within a couple of months, nor why work could not start before the hearing. DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) taking extra time on the DCO^▸ (Driver Controlled Operation) should ensure an easy passage through the court. I wonder if it protesters or fear of protesters that is causing the nervousness.

I also think Don Davies could have used more supportive words, rather than saying that

he and other senior executives are 'extremely sceptical' that the project will come to fruition, despite £25million of taxpayers money already being spent on it.

[ellendune]

As with so much, these changes to judicial review are a re-announcement.

I think rather that they a drip drip of the idea in the hope that we forget that they are seeking to make it impossible to challenge any decision of the government. After all they tried t5o prorogue Parliament on one occasion to prevent it from acting against their will.   

[TonyK]

While this may seem absurd given the clear benefits that the railway would bring, we have seen from recent events with groups like Extension Rebellion and Insulate Britain that they are far from rational in their decision taking.

Extension Rebellion is a new one on me, presumably formed to stop conservatories, unless, of course, insulated?

So he wants to use this as an excuse to make the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) into a dictatorship.

Hard cases make for bad law. I find it hard to think that a law could be drafted to stop protests against an infrastructure project ending up before a court, but that wouldn't have a bad effect somewhere else. After all, a judicial review isn't about whether an idea is a good one or a bad one, but a review of whether the person making the decision has done so properly, within the limits of his/her powers, and in accordance with the law of the land. Our judiciary is fiercely independent of the executive, and would quickly find ways around such an arrangement.

[eightonedee]

There's a confusion here between two different things.

Judicial review is the process for challenging a decision of a public sector or other decision making body,  normally on procedural grounds.  That though is very widely interpreted as a result of its wider use in the last 50 years or so. So many decisions have been challenged on the broad basis that they did not take some important consideration into account ( such as environmental issues) or that an aggrieved party to a decision making process reckons that what they have said has not been adequately considered.

The so-called right to protest is a matter of criminal law. The reality is that most who claim to exercise it know that they will be breaking the law.

[Red Squirrel]

North Somerset council has responded to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s request for further information by updating it's Environmental Statement (again). Among other things, N Som say we don't need to worry about the 4th Carbon Budget any more because that applies to a timeframe that will have passed by the time work starts on the railway...

The DfT has invited comments on N Som's response.

Barry Cash's 'Portishead Busway Campaign' have submitted a lengthy response. The dates on the Planning Inspectorate website are a bit hard to follow, but this may be to the DfT's invitation.

And so it goes on.