Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft

Comment ID 6686305//1
Document Section Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft Clevedon, Nailsea and Portishead PH3 View all on this section
Respondent ch View all by this respondent
Response Date 18 Apr 2013
Comment

Recent events have proven why unmanned automated level crossings are not a suitable option for the rail line to cross Quays Avenue. I realise this is a matter of policy for Network Rail these days and fully support it, especially as the road crossing is a school route which children walk along.  I have read comments which call for the council to urge Network Rail to reconsider this for Quays Avenue, but in my mind there is no question that children would climb the barrier to 'beat the train' – especially with the lengthy delays always implicit with these kinds of crossings. The only option is for a bridge or for an alternate station location as outlined in this consultation.

 

Like the majority of respondents I support option 1. It’s the station location that is most easily accessible for the whole town, it’s the station location that would give the railway the greatest chance of success, and it’s the location that has the least impact on residents and the ‘look’ of Portishead. A road-over-rail bridge may seem expensive on paper, but in the grand scheme of road and transportation costs (and this project overall) is quite insignificant. I don’t feel the council should cause the railway to fail for the sake of a small budgetary issue.

 

Option 2 would not be best for the railway, would turn a rather large part of green land into a car park, and would cause hundreds of people to walk across Quay’s avenue at peak-travel times causing traffic chaos on the local roads. Down the line we will have traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, and even more congestion down Phoenix Way and back into the Village Quarter and The Vale estates. Local residents know how bad it is already - imagine it with hundreds of people drip-feeding from a carpark to a station.

 

Option 3 should be completely discounted. If you are going to site the railway there, it may as well be at J19 of the motorway. Once people are in their cars and half way down Sheepway, they will simply continue on their journey to Bristol. It is not realistic to assume people will walk to the station, it is not realistic to assume people will be motivated enough to drive, park, pay for parking, pay for the train, and then walk at the other end. You may as well not reinstate the railway.

 

Additionally the plans for Option 3 show a footbridge from the Village Quarter to the train station. This will cause people to park on residential roads instead of paying for the station car park  causing pandemonium on the local roads such as Fennel Road, Marjoram Way and the other surrounding roads. These roads have not been designed for through-traffic and certainly were not designed as a ‘free park and ride car park . Trinity School falls within this area and both people walking past the school to get to the station, as well as driving past the school to park on local roads is a serious security concern for any parent of children attending that school.

 

The only realistic option for the station is Option 1. The bridge is an unfortunate but necessary expense.

Attachments