Ashton gate halt and the Portishead rail line (Merged)

[Dave L]

When I was last involved with this a couple of years ago, the planned site for the AG station was just behind the car showroom on the Winterstoke Rd. But there were real doubts at the time as to whether there would be a station there as part of the first phase of the new line development. Not sure how up to date this site is, but you can get full info here: http://ashtongatestation.org.uk/?page_id=82

 

[eardun]

1 hour ago, Dave L said:

When I was last involved with this a couple of years ago, the planned site for the AG station was just behind the car showroom on the Winterstoke Rd. But there were real doubts at the time as to whether there would be a station there as part of the first phase of the new line development. Not sure how up to date this site is, but you can get full info here: http://ashtongatestation.org.uk/?page_id=82

 

Thanks. Fingers crossed!

[Robbored]

Stopping at Pill, Parsons Street and Bemmy.

Shortfall in funding supplied my the government 

If it all goes smoothly it could be up and running by 2022.......

About bloody time to!

[CyderInACan]

4 hours ago, alandicks said:

If there was an Ashton Gate stadium and it ran on Saturdays I expect, knowing this country, the last train home would leave at16.15 !!

That’ll suit the Dolman fine then 

[Lord Northski]

Wonder which we’ll see first:

Trains to Portishead?

Rovers in a New Stadium?

City in the Premiership?

Anna Soubry Prime Minister?

Red Trousers back as Mayor?

Edited April 8, 2019 by Lord Northski

[RedLionLad]

8 hours ago, eardun said:

Positive news. Where was Ashton Gate station precisely - interested to know how far away from the ground it would be compared to Parson St?

 

[Lord Northski]

If the news has taught us anything over the last three years, it’s  “Beware of Politicians bearing gifts prior to an election”. For after the vote, you don’t see them or their promises for dust. 

Vote in haste, repent at leisure. Or in this case, sit in traffic on the Portbury  hundreds for years to come. 

[pillred]

As someone that lives only 50 metres from the station, on a purely selfish note hope to god they bring in a resident parking scheme as people will flood into the village from Portbury, Easton in Gordano, and ham green, it's bad enough trying to park now god knows what it will be like when the station opens.

[Dr Balls]

From my understanding for phase 1 of this scheme, there was no station at Ashton Gate. Obviously that decision was made some time ago, possibly before the upgrade of the stadium and certainly before the arena was proposed. There could be a station if there was a stipulation for Section 106 funding from the arena development to build one or potentially if SL pushed hard enough and offered funding anyway. 

However knowing Bristol (actually the whole of the UK), don't expect sensible, logical joined up thinking, instead a expect piecemeal, not properly thought through bodge that satisfies no one. In other words, even if there was a station, services wouldn't run  at times to make it of any use for most people going to and from the stadium or arena. Cynical? Maybe. Realistic? Absolutely!!

[CyderInACan]

4 hours ago, TomF said:

If you look to your left on A370 going into Bristol you’ll see if just as the A369 traffic joins.

Theres still platforms down by the old A&S police and dogs unit as well which was Clifton Bridge station. Lot more disused stations (ie closed before line closed) along the line that you’d imagine 

I'll have a single to Paradise Bottom please! 

[Bristol Rob]

1 minute ago, CyderInACan said:

I'll have a single to Paradise Bottom please! 

Well it's been written on the wall of the gents that you prefer it up the Sandstone Tunnel.

[Monkeh]

18 hours ago, Robbored said:

Stopping at Pill, Parsons Street and Bemmy.

Shortfall in funding supplied my the government 

If it all goes smoothly it could be up and running by 2022.......

About bloody time to!

it's local elections in north somerset, it will die a death again once thats finished

[JasonM88]

Just thinking about it, the new ‘Cumberland Village’ that SL is building has 500 homes in it. It’s a very short distance from both the P&R and what would be the location of the Ashton Gate Station. More the reason for a station to be there 

[CotswoldRed]

14 hours ago, Lord Northski said:

If the news has taught us anything over the last three years, it’s  “Beware of Politicians bearing gifts prior to an election”. For after the vote, you don’t see them or their promises for dust. 

Vote in haste, repent at leisure. Or in this case, sit in traffic on the Portbury  hundreds for years to come. 

People don't worry about stuff like that. Look at the Tory manifesto from 2010, then look at what they actually did. 

Didn't stop them being re-elected as the majority don't vote on deeds but words. 

[eardun]

14 minutes ago, JasonM88 said:

Just thinking about it, the new ‘Cumberland Village’ that SL is building has 500 homes in it. It’s a very short distance from both the P&R and what would be the location of the Ashton Gate Station. More the reason for a station to be there 

Yes the station was mentioned when the Ashton Gate phase 2 plans (which also included those houses) were announced.  See from 4.40 on this video:

 

[Hillzider]

16 hours ago, pillred said:

As someone that lives only 50 metres from the station, on a purely selfish note hope to god they bring in a resident parking scheme as people will flood into the village from Portbury, Easton in Gordano, and ham green, it's bad enough trying to park now god knows what it will be like when the station opens.

The obvious way around this would be to build an new park and ride  station next to the Portbury motorway junction.

Drop down off the motorway park up, and in the middle of Bristol in twenty minutes.

Just as needed as a new station at Ashton Gate but far to forward thinking for our transport planners.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Hillzider

[winsaw]

Reading it that's the cheep proposal I talked about earlier in the thread, deffenalty not a stop at Ashton gate, 

Only one train an hour on the line no passenger trains passing at Pill, looks like to only tweek if the post is right is that they have found the money to make temple meads to Parson Street 4 track so that the new trains will be able to stop at Parson Street and bedminster, 

[pillred]

2 hours ago, Hillzider said:

The obvious way around this would be to build an new park and ride  station next to the Portbury motorway junction.

Drop down off the motorway park up, and in the middle of Bristol in twenty minutes.

Just as needed as a new station at Ashton Gate but far to forward thinking for our transport planners.

thought exactly the same myself, don't even know why they need to extend the line as far as Portishead, a park and ride at Portbury would kill two birds with one stone be handy for Portbury and Easton in Gordano, and is less than 10 minutes from Portishead, would slash millions off the overall cost as well ,if you and me can see it beats me why the people responsible for the project can't.

[phantom]

Portishead Railway Group:  April 2019 statement

How the funding was agreed and what happens now

Portishead Railway Group (PRG) Committee have prepared this paper so that residents of Portishead, Pill and the surrounding villages can understand the process that got us here and also the lengthy process that should eventually lead to the reopening of the railway.

It is really important that as many people as possible understand why rebuilding the railway can’t simply start immediately. They can then spread the word – expectations must be realistic to avoid further disappointment.

 

A recent history of the completion of the funding jigsaw

About a year ago it became clear to PRG Committee that it was unlikely there would be sufficient local money to reopen the line. Therefore, central government was the only other source.

o PRG Committee decided that ‘being nice’ with central government wouldn’t result in additional funding.

o PRG therefore adopted a strategy that can be summarised as ‘firm insistence’.

 

Some of PRG Committee met with Dr Fox in June 2018, with follow-up correspondence sent to him as a record of the discussion.

o A further letter was sent in September 2018, reminding Dr Fox that the railway wouldn’t go ahead unless central government released some funding.

Dr Fox, Tim Bowles of the West of England Combined Authority (WECA) and Nigel Ashton, leader of North Somerset Council (NSC) have individually met with Chris Grayling and Department for Transport (DfT) officials, on several occasions.  MetroWest have also had several meetings with DfT officials.

 

Chris Grayling wrote a letter, insisting that WECA and NSC must work together on solving the wider Bristol area transport issues, and that local funding sources must be fully exhausted.

o WECA and NSC issued ‘working together’ undertakings.

o A further £16m of local funding was identified.

 

To complete its strategy, PRG Committee had an article entitled ‘Why is Portishead still waiting for its railway to reopen?’ published in the Railwatch quarterly magazine on 2 April 2019. The article:

o Made it clear that the remaining funding shortfall of £32m could now only be provided by central government.

o Proposed a combined national and local funding solution for future railway reinstatement schemes up and down the country.

On Monday 8 April, central government stumped up the missing piece of the funding jigsaw: £31.9m

 

PRG wasn’t the only organisation trying to prise open central government’s purse –  NSC, WECA, MetroWest, as well as PRG, have all played their part.

o The release of £31.9m of additional funding will have resulted from pressure applied by all of these organisations, not just by one particular organisation or individual.

o  As a result, no single organisation or individual should claim sole ‘bragging rights’.

 

Why rebuilding the railway can't just start immediately

Railway reinstatement is governed by the need for planning permission, just like almost all ‘build something’ projects.

More importantly, the Planning Act 2008 sets out a specific protocol for approval to spend public money on public infrastructure projects such as Hinckley Point ‘C’, or reopening the Portishead-Bristol line.

o These projects are known as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

 

Why is reopening the Portishead line deemed to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project?

o Because between Portbury Junction and Portishead more than 2km of track will be built (the main criterion for railways within the Planning Act 2008).

That may seem an astonishingly short length of track to be Nationally Significant but please bear in mind that the on-going cost of upkeep (maintenance and replacement) falls to central government in future years.

o Therefore any track built and added to the rail network forever increases the cost of maintaining the rail network.

This ongoing increased upkeep funding commitment must be properly authorised and accepted, via a Development Consent Order.

The Planning Act 2008 mandates the approval of the relevant Secretary of State before work can start on a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.

o This is achieved by a Development Consent Order (DCO).

The application for a DCO has to be submitted by MetroWest to the Planning Inspectorate (the government body charged with assessing DCO applications) who then make a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State.

A huge number of documents have to be written to support a DCO application.

o One of them is a Full Funding Statement which obviously couldn’t be written until central government had stumped up the final piece of the funding jigsaw: £31.9m.

PRG understands that MetroWest hope to submit the DCO application to the Planning Inspectorate in June or July but there is still a massive amount of work to do.

 

The DCO process and why it is important

For Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, obtaining a DCO is the equivalent of obtaining planning permission, but at a national level.

o Because reinstating the Portishead railway is classed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the criteria set out in the Planning Act 2008, a DCO is required.

Therefore, it is a legal requirement that an application for a DCO has to be made to the Planning Inspectorate, under a process that is published and maintained by the Planning Inspectorate.

o MetroWest has the responsibility for preparing and submitting the DCO application –  hopefully in June or July.

The process operated by the Planning Inspectorate takes a standard 18 month period, regardless of the topic or the size of the project.

o Assuming the application is received by the Planning Inspectorate by the end of July, a decision could reasonably be expected in Q1 2021.

o There are circumstances which could lead to a longer assessment period, or possibly a shorter assessment period, but it seems these rarely occur.

 

A possible overall programme

The railway works are complicated:

o Construction compounds and temporary roadways have to be built first.

o Much of the line through the Avon Gorge is in a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), with almost no access.

o The line has to be sufficiently available for Royal Portbury Dock rail traffic to run.

Very little work can start until the DCO has been signed off by the Secretary of State although NSC may start some roadway works ahead of the DCO being signed.

o These could be separately authorised locally, if that is seen as advantageous.

However, with a railway works programme of around 21 months, plus time for testing (signals, points control, and the necessary safety interlocks) it seems likely that the roadway infrastructure works can be carried out in parallel with the railway works.

 

So a possible overall programme from a July 2019 DCO application could look like this:

o DCO process, to signature   18 months (end Jan 2021)

o Contracts start-up time       6 months (end Jul  2021) See Note *

o Railway and road works      21 months (end Apr 2023)

o Testing period                   4 months (end Aug 2023)

 

Possible total:  approximately 49 months from DCO submission

This sort of programme is little more than a reasoned guess at this stage, based on provisional information.

o Unexpected geological issues uncovered during the works in the Avon Gorge could extend the railway works period.

o As a counterbalance, the railway and road works period and the final test period could both be slightly shorter.

Trains could therefore be running as early as the end of Q2 2023 but a more realistic estimate might be by the end of Q3 or possibly the end of Q4 2023.

 

* A note regarding the contract start-up period

No contracts should be signed until after the DCO has been signed.  

Contractors will then require reasonable contract start-up times – the period during which they will marshal materials, machinery and labour, perhaps also placing subcontracts on other organisations. This all takes time.  

Even then, very little ‘rail’ work can be carried until the various compounds and temporary roadways have been built, and these cannot be built until the DCO is signed off.

In the programme estimate above, PRG Committee has assumed a start-up period of six months. This is generous; the start-up period could be shorter if there is a will to make it so.

PRG Committee hopes the reader now has a good grasp of why these things have been, are, and will be, this complex, and therefore why work cannot start for around another two years.  

[kit]

These things take time. 

[Parkwaymom]

On 09/04/2019 at 08:28, TomF said:

If you look to your left on A370 going into Bristol you’ll see if just as the A369 traffic joins.

Theres still platforms down by the old A&S police and dogs unit as well which was Clifton Bridge station. Lot more disused stations (ie closed before line closed) along the line that you’d imagine 

I'd love to know where this map and milages came from?

[Never to the dark side]

For those who may be interested,the last two numbers of those quoted are CHAINS used on the railway.

80 chains is one mile

and one chain is 22 yards

22 yards  is the length of a cricket pitch

[CyderInACan]

1 hour ago, Never to the dark side said:

22 yards  is the length of a cricket pitch

Surely you mean wicket, not pitch

[Never to the dark side]

Your right,should really stick to football or even trains.

[Roger Red Hat]

17 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Surely you mean wicket, not pitch

Them's the tallest wickets I ever seen.............

1 hour ago, Never to the dark side said:

22 yards  is the length of a cricket pitch

 

[BCFCadam]

35 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Surely you mean wicket, not pitch

think he means the cricket square

[phantom]

May be of interest to some on here (especially @Never to the dark side )

This is the presentation that was given by Peter Maliphant the Membership Secretary of the Portishead Railway Group at a recent meeting with North Somerset council https://www.portisheadrailwaygroup.org/The Next Four Years.pdf

Also the full report to the council following that meeting http://apps.n-somerset.gov.uk/cairo/docs/doc29672.pdf

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

May be of interest to some on here (especially @Never to the dark side )

This is the presentation that was given by Peter Maliphant the Membership Secretary of the Portishead Railway Group at a recent meeting with North Somerset council https://www.portisheadrailwaygroup.org/The Next Four Years.pdf

Also the full report to the council following that meeting http://apps.n-somerset.gov.uk/cairo/docs/doc29672.pdf

Blimey! Just reading that report makes you wince! If Brunel had had to live with that I reckon the GWR would never have got further than Saltford. 

[bcfcredandwhite]

This is one of the drawbacks to living in a modern democracy. 

When I was in China 2 years ago, our guide in Shanghai was quite ‘political’ and he said ‘you westerners value your democratic system where everyone has a say, but we built Shanghai into a huge metropolis in 30 years with fully functional everything. In your west you would still be arguing over where the first stone should be laid.’

although I wouldn’t swop his regime for ours quite yet (getting close recently) he has a point. 

[Monkeh]

9 hours ago, TomF said:

All this fuss about trying to shoe horn in an hourly service around the freight running from Portbury and yet right now pretty much *nothing* is going down the line. Nearly all the daily paths are cancelled each day.  All the coal trains have stopped due to the coal fired power stations all closing, they've built a cargo/container system in Avonmouth and about 99% of the cars coming in are going out on transporters.  The only thing that's run down the line lately is new rolling stock that was collected by rail operations group. The lines getting overgrown its barely being used! 

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/PTBRLOP/2019/07/17/0000-2359?stp=WVSC&show=all&order=wtt 

The slots are in place, cancelled on the day doesn’t mean they could suddenly fit in a passenger train,

its cheques and balances, reduce the amount of slots for the foc’s (Freight operating companies) won’t happen until a year after the time table is published imo,

(I’m not on the time table planning section thankfully)

just getting passenger trains to run is the only aim at the moment, we can always increase services later (if the infrastructure around parson street allows it)

 

[CyderInACan]

4 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

This is one of the drawbacks to living in a modern democracy. 

When I was in China 2 years ago, our guide in Shanghai was quite ‘political’ and he said ‘you westerners value your democratic system where everyone has a say, but we built Shanghai into a huge metropolis in 30 years with fully functional everything. In your west you would still be arguing over where the first stone should be laid.’

although I wouldn’t swop his regime for ours quite yet (getting close recently) he has a point. 

At what human cost was Shanghai built up though. Nowadays you only have to look at their treatment of the Euighurs (sp?) to realise they are a million miles from any sort of accountability. 

[bcfcredandwhite]

2 hours ago, CyderInACan said:

At what human cost was Shanghai built up though. Nowadays you only have to look at their treatment of the Euighurs (sp?) to realise they are a million miles from any sort of accountability. 

The Euiighurs live up in the north - but I get what you are saying - hence my comment about not wanting their regime.  I think there is a balance to be struck and the Chinese and ourselves are the extremes when it comes to engineering projects. 

[italian dave]

I read recently that North Somerset Council are now giving "serious consideration" to residents parking zones, and particularly mentioned were Long Ashton and Leigh Woods. 

So we'll have a 28000 seat venue that's virtually surrounded by RPZs in both Bristol and NS, a metrobus system that passes the ground but doesn't run when half our games are played and (by its own admission) wasn't designed for that amount of use, a huge car park at the P&R that for some reason can't be opened, and now a rail line that will run right past the ground but won't stop. 

If SL still owns Ashton Vale, how about a huge car park and shuttle buses? 

[phantom]

8 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I read recently that North Somerset Council are now giving "serious consideration" to residents parking zones, and particularly mentioned were Long Ashton and Leigh Woods. 

So we'll have a 28000 seat venue that's virtually surrounded by RPZs in both Bristol and NS, a metrobus system that passes the ground but doesn't run when half our games are played and (by its own admission) wasn't designed for that amount of use, a huge car park at the P&R that for some reason can't be opened, and now a rail line that will run right past the ground but won't stop. 

If SL still owns Ashton Vale, how about a huge car park and shuttle buses? 

and amazingly NSC still stand in the way of the Long Ashton park and ride area being used on a matchday

[RedRaw]

7 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I read recently that North Somerset Council are now giving "serious consideration" to residents parking zones, and particularly mentioned were Long Ashton and Leigh Woods. 

So we'll have a 28000 seat venue that's virtually surrounded by RPZs in both Bristol and NS, a metrobus system that passes the ground but doesn't run when half our games are played and (by its own admission) wasn't designed for that amount of use, a huge car park at the P&R that for some reason can't be opened, and now a rail line that will run right past the ground but won't stop. 

If SL still owns Ashton Vale, how about a huge car park and shuttle buses? 

He's building 520 houses on that land

[Never to the dark side]

No Ashton Gate halt in the plans

https://travelwest.info/projects/metrowest

[myol'man]

No surprise there NTTDS

This is Bristol, where joined up travel plans is right up there with space travel and magic beans 

[Simon bristol]

Just now, myol'man said:

No surprise there NTTDS

This is Bristol, where joined up travel plans is right up there with space travel and magic beans 

We wont need an ashton gate halt when the new underground metro starts up

[CodeRed]

9 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

We wont need an ashton gate halt when the new underground metro starts up

...or simply wait for the hover transportation system to arrive ........we don't need roads!..or rail !  (Sorry John)

[marmite]

We have a huge park and ride car park which we cant use, why does anyone think they will let us use Ashton Halt. Transport plan, joined up thinking, don't make me laugh!  The only thing holding Bristol back from being a really great city...…………………………………………………….is the Council.

[italian dave]

34 minutes ago, myol'man said:

No surprise there NTTDS

This is Bristol, where joined up travel plans is right up there with space travel and magic beans 

 

34 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

We wont need an ashton gate halt when the new underground metro starts up

 

22 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

...or simply wait for the hover transportation system to arrive ........we don't need roads!..or rail !  (Sorry John)

Tele-portation will have become the norm before Bristol gets a joined up public transport system.

[Midlands Robin]

I guess it's academic at the moment but a while ago the powers that be finally opened a long planned but very overdue station to serve the Rico Arena in Coventry. Unfortunately the Rail Franchise that ran on that part of the network didn't have the rolling stock to serve match day demand therefore stopped no trains on match days for several hours either side of kick off. The station was effectively useless because no one wanted it outside of matches and no on could use it when there was one. 

Utterly inept, incompetent and useless local authorities and transport plans aren't just limited to Bristol. 

[myol'man]

Not forgetting that we have a new Metrobus system with a gurt big flyover and a Ashton Gate stop*

 

 

*not suitable for football supporters

[winsaw]

The station at Ashton gate was dropped from the plans back in the spring, sure I posted on here back then, they have basically cut the plan back to the bear minimum to run a train service, 

There will be no passing loop for passinger trains at Pill so it will only be one train an hour on the line , the loop will be there but only for fright train use as only putting 1 platform back into use, the plan now is to make the platform's at the 2 stations on the line able to take 6 coach trains for peak times, 

No parking planned for Pill as they don't want people coming off the M5 and using it as a park and ride, 

They have now agreed the Portishead trains can stop at bedminster as they are going to put the slow line back into use but only between temple meads and bedminster so the trains will still not be able to stop at Parson Street,

So really the new trains will be no help at all in getting us to the football, 

[Fiale]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

 

 

Tele-portation will have become the norm before Bristol gets a joined up public transport system.

 

 

Teleportation - that is tech not we really don't want.

[Snufflelufagus]

2 hours ago, CodeRed said:

...or simply wait for the hover transportation system to arrive ........we don't need roads!..or rail !  (Sorry John)

It's on its way 

Will certainly be here quicker than Marvins underground

[slartibartfast]

Pull the communication cord !

[RedRock]

1 hour ago, myol'man said:

Not forgetting that we have a new Metrobus system with a gurt big flyover and a Ashton Gate stop*

 

 

*not suitable for football supporters

** and won’t pick football supporters up at Cumberland Basin either.

*** next attempt will be from Long Ashton P&R itself

 

Truly pathetic local Council(s) - almost as if they are actively trying to encourage the use of private cars. 

[Frenchay Red]

6 minutes ago, RedRock said:

 

 

Truly pathetic local Council(s) - almost as if they are actively trying to encourage the use of private cars. 

Then restrict parking in most of the streets around the ground!

Edited August 29, 2019 by Frenchay Red

[Port Said Red]

I thought SL was paying for a station as part of the transport plans in the new development?

If that was the case they wouldn’t need to include it in the Metro West plans if they aren’t paying for it.

[James54De]

8 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I thought SL was paying for a station as part of the transport plans in the new development?

If that was the case they wouldn’t need to include it in the Metro West plans if they aren’t paying for it.

From how little we’ve heard about the new development, you have to think whether the council have been making life difficult. 

[The Bard]

It will make sod all difference.  It's a one track railway and the trains have limited capacity for humans (as opposed to freight).  All the stations on the line would have to be quite long for a decent sized train to stop there.   Parson Street is really not that far away - Worst Great Western should sort out more regular trains there and actually publicise them...

[The Bard]

30 minutes ago, James54De said:

From how little we’ve heard about the new development, you have to think whether the council have been making life difficult. 

Its called the planning process. If the people AG Ltd have employed know their stuff it shouldn't be a problem. 

[CyderInACan]

@SuperDziek does this mean it’s possible to still miss getting off at Parson St coming back from Burnham? Asking for a friend. 

[CyderInACan]

1 minute ago, The Bard said:

Its called the planning process. If the people AG Ltd have employed know their stuff it shouldn't be a problem. 

Did you go to the drop in sessions  at AG re the new plans? They’re very confident of “stuff happening “. I’m not so sure 

[bpexile]

4 hours ago, winsaw said:

There will be no passing loop for passinger trains at Pill so it will only be one train an hour on the line , the loop will be there but only for fright train use as only putting 1 platform back into use, the plan now is to make the platform's at the 2 stations on the line able to take 6 coach trains for peak times, 

All the supporters trains I have dared to enter have been "Fright Trains" .

[James54De]

2 hours ago, The Bard said:

Its called the planning process. If the people AG Ltd have employed know their stuff it shouldn't be a problem. 

Very long planning process. If I remember correctly the initial redevelopment went through very quickly. 

[Galway Red]

7 hours ago, myol'man said:

Not forgetting that we have a new Metrobus system with a gurt big flyover and a Ashton Gate stop*

 

 

*not suitable for football supporters

Why is it not suitable for football supporters? I've used it many times

[Port Said Red]

7 hours ago, TomF said:

Don’t think it’s that simple - there wouldn’t be enough capacity on the line to actually run matchday trains.

oh and A&S are absolutely against it and don’t want to have to police it 

I don’t understand why it requires anymore policing than the P&R? I catch that from Shire and it regularly has away supporters on it with no problems.

[italian dave]

9 hours ago, TomF said:

Don’t think it’s that simple - there wouldn’t be enough capacity on the line to actually run matchday trains.

oh and A&S are absolutely against it and don’t want to have to police it 

You're having a laugh.......public transport with the capacity to meet public demand? Public services that provide services the public need. Whatever next?

 There are far more important things the public needs its money spent on. The bottomless pit that is Brexit. Tax cuts for the rich. Dozens more members of the House of Lords to fund. These are the things that matter.....

[myol'man]

6 hours ago, Galway Red said:

Why is it not suitable for football supporters? I've used it many times

When the M1 Metrobus was launched they stated that it wouldn't have the capacity to cope with hundreds (not thousands) of fans at the same time.

Have you ever been to the AMEX in Brighton by public transport? That's the way to do it.

[Drew Peacock]

2 hours ago, myol'man said:

When the M1 Metrobus was launched they stated that it wouldn't have the capacity to cope with hundreds (not thousands) of fans at the same time.

 

Wasn't that something to with insufficient buses, as only certain buses can go through those short, pointless, wanky bits of self driving road and they are expensive and they don't have many of them?

[Galway Red]

3 hours ago, myol'man said:

When the M1 Metrobus was launched they stated that it wouldn't have the capacity to cope with hundreds (not thousands) of fans at the same time.

Have you ever been to the AMEX in Brighton by public transport? That's the way to do it.

Caught the train from Brighton to the Amex, as you say, easy

[phantom]

The matter was discussed in Parliament yesterday. . . .

16 October 2019 Volume 666

 8.34 pm

Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
 
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, especially during the week of the Queen’s Speech. I am also grateful for the dogged and outstanding support that the Portishead railway project has had from the residents of the town itself, from North Somerset more widely, and from the wider region. I am also grateful to my fellow Bristol MPs for being here this evening. I single out and pay tribute to the Portishead Railway Group, whose contribution has been utterly invaluable.

When I last raised this issue in an Adjournment debate in this House, in January 2005, I spoke about the increase in population in Portishead. In the mid-1950s, the town had a population of around 9,000, which had risen to some 15,000 by the time I was first elected in the early 1990s. The population now stands at around 25,000. The power station and the phosphorus works that used to sit on the dock are long gone, with the last stacks having been brought down in 1992. In their place, we now have one of the country’s finest marinas, and we have contributed more than most to the rise in the country’s housing stock.

That housebuilding has not been without controversy. John Prescott, as Housing Minister, ordered that the housing density be doubled, so almost twice as many homes as originally intended were built on this land. That inevitably had consequences for the traffic in the town and parking has been a particular problem. Although the housing density was doubled, the number of parking spaces per home was allocated at the national average of 1.6 per household, when the average in North Somerset, even at the time, was 2.76. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out that the inevitable consequence was a huge deficit in the number of parking spaces available compared with what was needed.

The increased population in what I described back in 2005 as the most overcrowded cul-de-sac in the country—a phrase that has been widely deployed since—has inevitably put pressure on our road system. The A369 is the only A road out of the town, and junction 19 of the M5 is a regularly miserable experience for Portishead commuters, particularly at peak times. The answer to many of our problems, but by no means all, is to reopen the railway line to Portishead, providing additional capacity to our overstretched transport network.

The reopening of Portishead railway is part of the MetroWest project, which was given the go-ahead in July 2012 as part of the city deal under the coalition Government led by David Cameron. Portishead railway was part of MetroWest phase 1, but it has been beset by delays and cost overruns. In 2017, the planned date of the Portishead opening was 2020, yet by then the original cost of £50 million had mushroomed to £116 million. It became quickly clear that it would be beyond the financial scope of North Somerset Council or, indeed, the partnership of four councils to absorb such an increased cost. We were therefore pleased that the former Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), came to visit North Somerset and indicated that this Government would ensure that additional money became available. I wish to focus on that area and some of the technical issues around it so that the Minister can give us categorical assurances where there remain some anxieties.

The proposed allocation of £31.9 million by the Department exactly closed the funding gap. It did not reduce it; it closed it. The four local councils and the West of England Combined Authority have spent, and continue to spend, millions of pounds on the design of the reinstatement of the railway, the necessary environmental studies, and in preparing the development consent order application. For those who may not be familiar with the process, let me describe what this entails. The development consent order process is based on many submission items, one of which is a full funding statement. The statement has had to be generated on the assumption that the Department’s £31.9 million funding share will not be withdrawn. Another item is the business case, which is strong. Its benefit-cost ratio of around 3:1 is almost unheard of for a public infrastructure project. In other words, we know the reinstatement would be an efficient and effective use of public funds to produce a defined benefit. That is a lot more than we can say for many projects funded with taxpayers’ money.

Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
 
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, both for securing this debate and for allowing me to intervene. He will be aware that, in addition to the football and the rugby, Ashton Gate stadium has hosted a number of entertainment events this year. Investment in transport to and from the ground is critical. As the line goes through south Bristol, it provides an opportunity to open up more local transport provision, so it is not just about what we can get now. We are very supportive of this opportunity, which is critical to us in south Bristol.

Dr Fox
 
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, and she is right that we deserve better public transport in the Bristol area. Bristol is one of only two cities in the United Kingdom, outside London, that produce a net benefit to the economy, and we deserve a level of spending commensurate with that level of economic contribution to the UK economy.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
 
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He was very good to us in Strangford on many occasions in his former position as a Minister, so I wanted to come along to support him tonight.

The right hon. Gentleman has outlined the need for the Portishead railway to be encouraged and rebuilt, based on the population trends, the extra traffic and the pressure on our roads. Does he agree that perhaps it is time for the Government to look at sustaining public transport, be it railways or buses, to take pressure off the roads?

Dr Fox
 
It is not simply a specific case; it is also a generic one. We need to see major improvements in our railway capacity for exactly those reasons and for the environmental benefits that will come from not having the pollutants from slow-moving traffic congesting our towns and villages.

As a result of the Department for Transport announcing its £31.9 million funding share, the four local councils and the West of England Combined Authority have now committed to their £84 million share of the funding for the railway project. I make it clear that the railway reinstatement cannot be completed without the Department’s £31.9 million, so can the Minister make a clear commitment tonight that the Department’s funding will be solely on the basis of there being a good business case?

Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
 
I am pleased to be here to support the right hon. Gentleman’s case for the Portishead line. Does he agree it is part of what should be a much broader rail network? It is about commuter traffic into and out of Bristol. My Bristol North West constituency is adjacent to his, and there should be a connection to the Henbury loop line so that people can travel between the major areas of employment, as well as travelling into and out of the city.

Dr Fox
 
I completely agree. Our transport network is now an economic rate-limiting step in the Bristol area. I know, and my colleagues will know, of companies that want to grow but are incapable of doing so. We are fortunate to have low levels of unemployment in our area, but it is difficult to get people to come into those areas where growth could occur because our public transport network is so inadequate.

The second issue I would like the Minister to address tonight is the Department’s rail network enhancements pipeline. As the House will know, the RNEP is a multistage process that could lead the Department to adjust its priorities such that its £31.9 million funding share could be either reduced or cancelled. This railway reinstatement is widely accepted as a no brainer in the region and beyond. It has a strong business case, and it is viewed as being of the highest priority in the wider Bristol area. The Department for Transport itself seems to think that the reinstatement of the Portishead line is a major improvement to our railways overall, and so do I. A ministerial commitment on this issue would be most welcome, so will the Minister confirm that the RNEP process will be used only to assure the Department that it is using its money wisely, rather than being used to generate a reason to reduce or cancel the Department’s funding contribution?

The Portishead reinstatement will upgrade 8 km of existing Network Rail freight line to Pill and reinstate the track along 4 km of existing permanent way from Pill to Portishead. Given the length of time it has taken and the amount of money spent, it must be one of the greatest investments in one of the smallest increases in railway track that the House has seen.

Unfortunately, despite the extremely modest nature of this particular project, the reinstatement is subject to the weighty process that applies to major rail improvements. Why? Because the criterion set out in the Planning Act 2008 is pegged at more than 2 km of track on non-railway land. The only reason why more than 2 km of the reinstatement track is on non-railway land is that North Somerset Council wisely decided to purchase the Portbury to Portishead section to ensure future reinstatement. In other words, we are being penalised because of the council’s foresight and confidence that this most worthwhile project would eventually be brought to fruition.

I understand that, unfortunately, the processes operated by the planning inspectorate for the DCO and by the Department for the RNEP clearly have to be followed, despite the non-major nature of the reinstatement. I want from the Minister an assurance that everything possible will be done to ensure that the process is as speedy as possible, within the constraints of the law.

Given the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions, which has been widely discussed recently, will the Minister confirm that he and his officials will do everything they can to speed up the processes, so that the long-standing congestion and environmental pollution that afflict the 50,000-plus people who will directly benefit from the railway and the 130,000-plus people who will indirectly benefit from the railway, can be reduced at the earliest opportunity?

I wish to raise two other brief points. There has been much speculation locally that, rather than a traditional railway, a hybrid of bus, tram and train might be introduced. What is the Minister’s understanding of the likely outcome of any such proposals currently under consideration? There has been a great deal of debate about the relative merits of a range of different alternatives, but we are now seeking an end to the indecision, and clarity about the timescale and nature of the transportation system itself.

When I visited the North Somerset summer show this July, I gave my word that I would raise the issue of Sustrans. I am sure the Minister will be aware that Sustrans has been instrumental in the creation of a national network of cycle routes on quiet roads and traffic-free paths that now extends to more than 17,000 miles. I hope that he and his Department can look into the potential for a dual-use path alongside the planned railway, to see whether we can improve our local facilities further, with all the benefits that that will bring to recreation, transport and health.

As I have said, this project is a no-brainer. It fulfils all the Government’s criteria for reducing road congestion, improving our environment and improving the functioning of our local economy. We are keen to give the Government all those things—if they give us reassurance, clarity and the necessary funding. After all the delay, I would be proud if this Government gave the people of Portishead what they deserve and what they have waited so long to get.

 8.49 pm

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
 
It is a pleasure to answer the debate of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). I thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion, including the Bristol massif, who are lined up on the Opposition Benches—the hon. Members for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and for Bristol South (Karin Smyth)—ably assisted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his support for his old right hon. Friend. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate on the future of the Portishead railway line and, indeed, the railway group that he named in his speech.

My right hon. Friend has always been an advocate of this important proposal and for improved transport links in and around his constituency. He describes the town of Portishead as one of the fastest growing in the south-west. Its population has risen by more than 3,000 since 2001 and is expected to increase by another 8,000 in the coming decade.
Reopening the Portishead line is an important part of the MetroWest scheme. This is a project that is led by North Somerset Council and the West of England Combined Authority, which have been leading on devolved matters in the area since 2017. I understand that good progress is being made—the business case for the Portishead line is being developed, and North Somerset Council will very shortly be taking a big step forward by submitting a development consent order for reopening the line to the Planning Inspectorate. I am very confident that our decision to provide £31.9 million of funding, subject to a satisfactory business case, provides the necessary commitment for North Somerset Council to submit the application and supporting funding settlement.

As my right hon. Friend knows, it is the Planning Inspectorate’s responsibility to assess and decide on whether to grant the consents necessary for construction to commence, and he mentioned that in his speech. Once the outcome is known, we expect to carry out a full assessment of the business case for the scheme. He asked me to be as speedy in that process as I possibly can, and I give him the guarantee that my Department will be.

Although the development and delivery of MetroWest and the Portishead route are ultimately the responsibility of the local authorities and have been since their inception, the Government are committed to working closely with Network Rail, North Somerset Council and the West of England Combined Authority to support the reopening of the line and all elements of MetroWest, because improving rail services for the people in the Bristol area and the west of England has been, and will remain, one of the Government’s key priorities. The importance that we place on the Greater Bristol area is demonstrated, I hope, by the recent investments that we have made. For example, we are investing £5 billion into the electrification and upgrade of the Great Western main line, from Paddington through to Bristol Parkway and Cardiff, delivering better services and new trains with thousands more seats.

Modernisation of the line will improve more than 100 million rail journeys each year and stimulate economic growth from London, through the Thames valley, to the Cotswolds, the west country and south Wales. It includes major rail infrastructure projects in the Greater Bristol area, such as the four-tracking at Filton Bank. This, combined with the biggest signalling renewal of its kind undertaken by Network Rail in the Bristol area, has increased capacity and contributed to reducing end-to-end journey times for Bristol to London Paddington services.

Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
 
I wish to reaffirm my support for what the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said in his speech. I remember back in 2005, when I was first elected, that we talked about the urgent need for the Portishead line to be reopened. And here we are some 14 years later still waiting. All these rail improvements for Bristol are a really good thing, but we do also need to look at the very short local journeys on the suburban branch line, because they are as important for getting people around as the commuter services.

Chris Heaton-Harris
 
Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right in what she says. As a Minister in the Department, I welcome the cross-party nature of the support that is being given to my right hon. Friend and this proposal.
These services that I was talking about when I took the hon. Lady’s contribution will ensure that the rail network can meet the growing passenger demand and will allow more trains to run in the future. My officials are working with Network Rail to secure funding to upgrade Bristol East junction to support future service enhancements and, importantly, to enable the capacity needed to run the second phase of MetroWest services. These works will also improve the resilience of the network, so passengers in the area will benefit from a more reliable railway.

As my right hon. Friend knows, the coming December 2019 timetable change will bring a significant increase in services making use of this new infrastructure, which is already providing performance benefits along the route.

The investments that we are making in the area are not just on the railways. As I am told by many people who live in and around Bristol, it is an exciting time for Bristol and the wider area. There are plans to develop the Bristol Temple Quarter enterprise zone, including Bristol Temple Meads station, for business, housing and education, including a new university campus. That work is progressing and is being led by the West of England Combined Authority and Bristol City Council. The combined authority will also receive £103 million from the Government through the transforming cities fund to transform connectivity in the city region.

On roads, the area has benefited from £36 million through the local highways maintenance challenge fund. Three separate awards provided by the Government, totalling £113 million, have been provided towards the metrobus scheme, which will provide a 50 km bus rapid transit network in the greater Bristol area.

Then, of course, there is MetroWest. The Government continue to be highly supportive of its development and recognise the benefits it will bring to the area. The plan is that MetroWest will help to reduce congestion in the centre of Bristol, get people out of their cars and create a cleaner environment for people in the city with a decrease in carbon emissions. That demonstrates the Government’s commitment to decarbonisation through moving journeys from road to rail and helps to meet our ambitious, legally binding target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Darren Jones
 
Does the Minister recognise that the Mayor of Bristol is doing some extraordinarily important work in trying to meet our air pollution targets? As we have been discussing this evening, the delivery of public transport is a vital part of that. Can the Minister commit to continued support from the Department to help us to meet our air pollution targets in Bristol?

Chris Heaton-Harris
 
I do recognise the work of the Mayor of Bristol that the hon. Gentleman details and I can give him that commitment.

Matt western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
 
Bristol and that area is a fabulous part of the country—I used to live there. The Portishead line is a microcosm of the problem in many regions across the country. Does the Minister agree that one of the great challenges, as we have just heard, is that if we are to improve air quality in our urban areas—our city centres and so on —improvement in sub-regional transport, as exemplified by this project, is critical? Does he see that as a greater priority than HS2?

Chris Heaton-Harris
 Share
I will deftly pass on answering the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I do absolutely see that as critical—100%. That is why we stepped in to provide £31.9 million to bridge the funding gap for the Portishead line element of the project after costs increased.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset for acknowledging that that support was over and above what was expected from the Government, which I hope shows our commitment to seeing the line reopened. That support is, obviously, subject to my Department receiving a full business case that demonstrates the benefits for passengers and successfully passes through the Department’s rail network enhancements pipeline process, as he described. That is a process, not an excuse to cancel. I assure him that it will be used as it would be for any other scheme.

I am pleased to say, as my right hon. Friend notes, that the business case for the scheme is looking positive. It is currently at the outline business case or design level. Work is under way by North Somerset Council and the West of England Combined Authority to develop the scheme further to a full business case.

Once that work is concluded and the outcomes of the development consent order are known, the business case will be assessed to ensure that it delivers sufficient passenger benefits and offers value for money for the taxpayer, to inform the Department’s final investment decision. That approach will ensure that we are confident in our decision making, and it is in line with the Government’s approach to funding all major improvements to our railways.

My right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that outline designs for the project are being been completed and feasibility works are under way to look at timetabling and how the new Portishead services will fit around existing train services in Bristol. Network Rail is continuing to develop strategies for the construction and future maintenance of the line. My officials and I will continue to work closely with the West of England Combined Authority and North Somerset Council to support the delivery of all elements of MetroWest as quickly as possible and to ensure the best possible outcomes for the Greater Bristol area.

Our transport investment in the Greater Bristol area, and our work with local authorities to improve transport in the area, does not stop there. My Department last year committed to jointly fund the Greater Bristol area rail feasibility study with the combined authority, which will conclude shortly. The purpose of the study is to address transport priorities in the area, assess the feasibility of a number of proposals and support delivery of a local transport network that can be locally run and sustainable.

The study is looking at a wide range of areas such as station improvements, light rail and tram-train options in the Bristol area and a passenger demand study. That is a positive step towards developing a shared long-term vision for transport in the area and determining how best to meet the needs of passengers, the rail industry and all interested stakeholders. We will continue to support local authorities in the area, again because rail in the Bristol area and the west of England is a priority for the Government and the subject of significant investment.

I am aware of the benefits of reopening the railway to Portishead and of the need for an improved local rail service in the area. I look forward to continuing to work with the combined authority and North Somerset Council to support the scheme’s delivery.

My right hon. Friend asked whether other options such as light rail could be considered. No, this is a rail solution—a heavy rail solution. He also mentioned the Sustrans plans for the local area. I met the chief executive officer of Sustrans today, and I look forward to developing all the proposals with that organisation that will get people out of cars and on to bicycles and, we hope, walking as well.

I should conclude, before I am timed out, by thanking everybody who took part in the debate. I thank my right hon. Friend again for securing this debate on the future of Portishead railway. I hope that, like me, he feels it has a very bright future indeed.

[swampy]

Say's Law states that 'supply creates its own demand' ... but I doubt most of you have no idea what that means. It happened with Yate ... 

[CyderInACan]

16 minutes ago, phantom said:

Bristol is one of only two cities in the United Kingdom, outside London, that produce a net benefit to the economy

Wow. I didn't know that. I did hear in the Clown's presentation at the university last night that we were a net benefactor to the economy but I didn't realise it was such an exclusive group. 

Which is the other City?

[Port Said Red]

17 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Wow. I didn't know that. I did hear in the Clown's presentation at the university last night that we were a net benefactor to the economy but I didn't realise it was such an exclusive group. 

Which is the other City?

Manchester I believe. Although I did read a report recently that London itself had dropped into a negative figure in the last year, which is worrying. 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Port Said Red

[Lord Northski]

Well, everyone seems to be in agreement, which has been the case for years. So FFS start f*(king building it. 

[CyderInACan]

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

London itself had dropped into a negative figure in the last year, which is worrying

Very! Probably various socio-political & economic reasons but all the uncertainty of the last 3yrs can't have helped. 

Anyway. Back on topic, the Pozzet line just needs to be built. It really is a no brainer - as well as serving AG. 

[pillred]

And the earliest it will be running is January 2024, that's Bristol for you.