Renfrew Ferry Glasgow we need to keep this open if we can

jackthelad

HI Guys, It was on the front page of the Glasgow Herald,Strathclyde Partnership for Transport want to stop the Renfrew Ferry due to operational costs costing £430000.

Surely the Goverment need to subsidise this service.There are no trail paths on the Renfrew side.People use the ferry to get to Yoker then the trail upto Glasgow or down to Balloch.People who cycle regular to areas like Paisley.Renfrew,and Inchinnan Industrial Estate,will find that their cycle route could disappear,leaving no choice but to stop cycling and use the car,as the nearest cross over point is the Erskine Bridge, or double back towards the Clyde Tunnel which people may find intimidating.I feel we need to do something to keep this route open.Below is the link to their site and any views on the above highly appreciated.

http://www.spt.co.uk/ferry/renfrew.aspx


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/tran ... y-1.998532 article from the herald

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/tran ... y-1.998529 the article yesterday

Jackthelad

Wallace1492

Jeebus!! I was going to post this yesterday.

I used the crossing quite a lot last year as a longer journey home, and really like it. Best £1.20 public transport charge you can have, superb views up and down the river and very quick crossing. I know it is used by a lot of other cycle commuters as it links up well with the Glasgow to Dumbarton cycle route and the Forth and Clyde canal is not far away.

It would be a sad day if this was ceased.

I would be happy to write to someone, sign a petition or join a facebook group to support this.

Jack, you going to start a Facebook - Friends of Yoker Ferry?

spen666

In the current economic climate, when cuts are being made, why should the powers that be spend all this public money to run an uneconomic ferry?

Perhaps the cost to the user of the ferry should increase to cover the shortfall?

Its all to easy to expect someone else to subsidise your leisure

spen666

SPT is being forced to subsidise every passenger by £2.69 since last year, compared to 97p in 1996.

Passenger numbers have fallen by 41,000 to only 141,361 a year

Not very popular then is it?

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

In the current economic climate, when cuts are being made, why should the powers that be spend all this public money to run an uneconomic ferry?

Perhaps the cost to the user of the ferry should increase to cover the shortfall?

Its all to easy to expect someone else to subsidise your leisure

It be uneconomic, it may have to be subsidised, however there is often a lot more to these sort of services than pure cold, accountant's eyes can see.

They can link places that have been cut off since bridges, bypasses, and tunnels have been built, keep communities together and prove a vital link for some people. This is not just a Leisure Ferry, it keeps a connection between the communities north and south of the river that have been linked for hundreds of years with a ferry.

It is used by shoppers, workers, tourists, cyclists, families and travellers alike. Do away with it and they will find another route, sure, but that is not the point.

rolf_f

spen666 wrote:

In the current economic climate, when cuts are being made, why should the powers that be spend all this public money to run an uneconomic ferry?

Perhaps the cost to the user of the ferry should increase to cover the shortfall?

Its all to easy to expect someone else to subsidise your leisure

In Holland the ferry would be free. Certainly a cost rise might be worth considering but that might be compensated by loss of passenger numbers. If you use the phrase 'in the current economic climate' to cut anything that makes a loss you can kiss goodbye to museums, theatres, many rail services, many bus services, libraries, road repairs etc etc.

Ultimately, we don't pay enough taxes for a good standard of public services so we are bound to lose some things. However, whilst I can't see me ever needing to use this ferry it is pretty obviously the right thing to subsidise it and keep it going and I certainly wouldn't begrudge any of my tax money going into it. If this location was in London, a bridge would have been built.

deptfordmarmoset

Rolf F wrote:

spen666 wrote:

In the current economic climate, when cuts are being made, why should the powers that be spend all this public money to run an uneconomic ferry?

Perhaps the cost to the user of the ferry should increase to cover the shortfall?

Its all to easy to expect someone else to subsidise your leisure

In Holland the ferry would be free. Certainly a cost rise might be worth considering but that might be compensated by loss of passenger numbers. If you use the phrase 'in the current economic climate' to cut anything that makes a loss you can kiss goodbye to museums, theatres, many rail services, many bus services, libraries, road repairs etc etc.

Ultimately, we don't pay enough taxes for a good standard of public services so we are bound to lose some things. However, whilst I can't see me ever needing to use this ferry it is pretty obviously the right thing to subsidise it and keep it going and I certainly wouldn't begrudge any of my tax money going into it. If this location was in London, a bridge would have been built.

And where a bridge is unrealistic, there's a free ferry over the Thames at Woolwich (bikes are let off the boat first). And you can take the free lift down to the free foot tunnel if you don't want to sail. If you don't fancy either of these, you can go downstream to Dartford Bridge where they will load your bike onto a truck and drive you over. For free.

Most of our cities are situated on rivers and river crossings are an integral part of what keeps a city, north and south or east and west together. The river crossing in fact is most likely to be the reason there's a city there in the first place.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

SPT is being forced to subsidise every passenger by £2.69 since last year, compared to 97p in 1996.

Passenger numbers have fallen by 41,000 to only 141,361 a year

Not very popular then is it?

What about rural bus services? What about pretty much ANY train service?
What about roads? Who pays for them to be built? Bridges?

Explain why a ferry service in a place where there are no other options, should be singled out as not worthy of investment in the same way as almost all other transport options?

Wallace1492

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

spen666 wrote:

In the current economic climate, when cuts are being made, why should the powers that be spend all this public money to run an uneconomic ferry?

Perhaps the cost to the user of the ferry should increase to cover the shortfall?

Its all to easy to expect someone else to subsidise your leisure

In Holland the ferry would be free. Certainly a cost rise might be worth considering but that might be compensated by loss of passenger numbers. If you use the phrase 'in the current economic climate' to cut anything that makes a loss you can kiss goodbye to museums, theatres, many rail services, many bus services, libraries, road repairs etc etc.

Ultimately, we don't pay enough taxes for a good standard of public services so we are bound to lose some things. However, whilst I can't see me ever needing to use this ferry it is pretty obviously the right thing to subsidise it and keep it going and I certainly wouldn't begrudge any of my tax money going into it. If this location was in London, a bridge would have been built.

And where a bridge is unrealistic, there's a free ferry over the Thames at Woolwich (bikes are let off the boat first). And you can take the free lift down to the free foot tunnel if you don't want to sail. If you don't fancy either of these, you can go downstream to Dartford Bridge where they will load your bike onto a truck and drive you over. For free.

Most of our cities are situated on rivers and river crossings are an integral part of what keeps a city, north and south or east and west together. The river crossing in fact is most likely to be the reason there's a city there in the first place.

Where it is would be unrealistic for a footbridge. There are a few shipyards upstream of it (yes, they still build ships on the Clyde, and the new Aircraft Cariiers are being partly built in these yards) so, a Ferry is the best option. I do hope it is kept!

suzyb

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

SPT is being forced to subsidise every passenger by £2.69 since last year, compared to 97p in 1996.

Passenger numbers have fallen by 41,000 to only 141,361 a year

Not very popular then is it?

What about rural bus services? What about pretty much ANY train service?
What about roads? Who pays for them to be built? Bridges?

Explain why a ferry service in a place where there are no other options, should be singled out as not worthy of investment in the same way as almost all other transport options?

Rural bus services are a life line. Getting rid of the ferry wont stop people who can't drive from getting to the supermarket. Which getting rid of many of the rural bus services around here would. Same with the ferry services that run from the mainland to the islands (afaik SPT subsidises them).

OK it may be a longer trip and it would be lovely to avoid that trip by keeping the ferry. But there always seem to be plenty of buses driving around Glasgow and tons of taxis and if not subsidising the ferry means a subsidised service somewhere that has no alternative gets to keep it then sorry but bye bye boat.

rolf_f

Wallace1492 wrote:

Where it is would be unrealistic for a footbridge. There are a few shipyards upstream of it (yes, they still build ships on the Clyde, and the new Aircraft Cariiers are being partly built in these yards) so, a Ferry is the best option. I do hope it is kept!

I was meaning a big bridge - eg Dartford!

Wallace1492

Rolf F wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Where it is would be unrealistic for a footbridge. There are a few shipyards upstream of it (yes, they still build ships on the Clyde, and the new Aircraft Cariiers are being partly built in these yards) so, a Ferry is the best option. I do hope it is kept!

I was meaning a big bridge - eg Dartford!

There is a big Bridge downstream - Erskine, and a Tunnel upstream. This is seen by those that use it regularly as an important link. It used to be one of the main crossing points for cars by Ferry till the Bridge and Tunnel were built, now it is passenger only. It carries about 400 people per day, every day, maybe not a huge number in the grand scheme, and it is maybe not a "vital life link", but there are plenty of other things that should go before this.

There are not many pedestrian and cycle friendly links across the river, and this being the best I have seen has to be saved. The nearest alternatives are The Clyde Tunnel - a darkend, foul smelling mile of unattractive tunnel, or the Erskine Bridge - 5 miles further downstram, and it has a cycle lane, but the on and off ramp are shared with fast moving, busy traffic lanes.

suzyb

Wallace1492 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Where it is would be unrealistic for a footbridge. There are a few shipyards upstream of it (yes, they still build ships on the Clyde, and the new Aircraft Cariiers are being partly built in these yards) so, a Ferry is the best option. I do hope it is kept!

I was meaning a big bridge - eg Dartford!

There is a big Bridge downstream - Erskine, and a Tunnel upstream. This is seen by those that use it regularly as an important link. It used to be one of the main crossing points for cars by Ferry till the Bridge and Tunnel were built, now it is passenger only. It carries about 400 people per day, every day, maybe not a huge number in the grand scheme, and it is maybe not a "vital life link", but there are plenty of other things that should go before this.

Like what?

(I assume you mean in Glasgow which is why I'm asking)

Wallace1492

-null- wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Where it is would be unrealistic for a footbridge. There are a few shipyards upstream of it (yes, they still build ships on the Clyde, and the new Aircraft Cariiers are being partly built in these yards) so, a Ferry is the best option. I do hope it is kept!

I was meaning a big bridge - eg Dartford!

There is a big Bridge downstream - Erskine, and a Tunnel upstream. This is seen by those that use it regularly as an important link. It used to be one of the main crossing points for cars by Ferry till the Bridge and Tunnel were built, now it is passenger only. It carries about 400 people per day, every day, maybe not a huge number in the grand scheme, and it is maybe not a "vital life link", but there are plenty of other things that should go before this.

Like what?

(I assume you mean in Glasgow which is why I'm asking)

This for starters: http://www.spt.co.uk/culture/poetry/introduction.aspx

The SPT have a poet in residence. Great comfort for the Yoker Ferry passengers...

suzyb

Wallace1492 wrote:

This for starters: http://www.spt.co.uk/culture/poetry/introduction.aspx

The SPT have a poet in residence. Great comfort for the Yoker Ferry passengers...

WTF!! :roll:

Wallace1492

-null- wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

This for starters: http://www.spt.co.uk/culture/poetry/introduction.aspx

The SPT have a poet in residence. Great comfort for the Yoker Ferry passengers...

WTF!! :roll:

When you are doing the Clyde walkway to Glasgow, go past the city centre, out past Govan, allong past Braehead, and then over the Ferry. Honestly, you will see why it should be saved.

cee

weegies.....

Is this the same ferry that is used for gigs and things as well?

Wallace1492

cee wrote:

weegies.....

Is this the same ferry that is used for gigs and things as well?

That ferry, now docked near the city centre did indeed ply the same route as a car ferry many moons ago. Then they built the Erskine Bridge and the Clyde Tunnel, and the car ferry was no longer needed. It was retired and converted to the venue it now is, and two smaller passenger only ferries took its place.

A ferry has been crossing at this point for around 500 years.

There endeth today's history lesson.

suzyb

Wallace1492 wrote:

-null- wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

This for starters: http://www.spt.co.uk/culture/poetry/introduction.aspx

The SPT have a poet in residence. Great comfort for the Yoker Ferry passengers...

WTF!! :roll:

When you are doing the Clyde walkway to Glasgow, go past the city centre, out past Govan, allong past Braehead, and then over the Ferry. Honestly, you will see why it should be saved.

er would that require cycling along the road of is it all off road cycle paved. Not sure if I'm ready to cycle in city traffic. Cars whizzing past at 60mph, not a problem but multi lane roads with lots and lots of traffic...scary

Wallace1492

-null- wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

-null- wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

This for starters: http://www.spt.co.uk/culture/poetry/introduction.aspx

The SPT have a poet in residence. Great comfort for the Yoker Ferry passengers...

WTF!! :roll:

When you are doing the Clyde walkway to Glasgow, go past the city centre, out past Govan, allong past Braehead, and then over the Ferry. Honestly, you will see why it should be saved.

er would that require cycling along the road of is it all off road cycle paved. Not sure if I'm ready to cycle in city traffic. Cars whizzing past at 60mph, not a problem but multi lane roads with lots and lots of traffic...scary

Virtually all off road, or on very quiet roads:

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/leaflets/CLYDE%20LOCH%20LOMOND%202004.pdf

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/leaflets/clyde_corridor.pdf

The big city cycling is fun.... and we have horseless carriages up here, so avoid all that messy stuff.

will3

Could the problem be that the 'customers' have been unwilling to pay the going rate for the service over the years and so it's become uneconomic? In Scotland? Hmmmm

Wallace1492

will3 wrote:

Could the problem be that the 'customers' have been unwilling to pay the going rate for the service over the years and so it's become uneconomic? In Scotland? Hmmmm

The customers have not even been charged the going rate as it has been subsidised. Not sure what the "In Scotland" means however. A lot of transport throughout the UK is subsidised.

suzyb

Wallace1492 wrote:

will3 wrote:

Could the problem be that the 'customers' have been unwilling to pay the going rate for the service over the years and so it's become uneconomic? In Scotland? Hmmmm

The customers have not even been charged the going rate as it has been subsidised. Not sure what the "In Scotland" means however. A lot of transport throughout the UK is subsidised.

He means we've got a name for being stingy.

Even though we actually aren't.

And thanks for the links.

Eau Rouge

Always Tyred wrote:

Explain why a ferry service in a place where there are no other options, should be singled out as not worthy of investment in the same way as almost all other transport options?

Two obvious things spring to mind. It's quite likely rural buses, loss making as they may be, still aren't as loss making as this ferry to operate. This ferry was fine when it was costing £1 per passenger, but it's now costing nearly 2.5 times that.
That's operating costs. The other is capital costs. Buses aren't cheap, but I bet they cost a good deal less to buy and keep running than a ferry. It sounds like it's been there since the Bridge and Tunnel were built. It might well be that it's near the end of it's life. Replacing it would be an expensive cost.
At £1 a go it was a worthwhile investment. at £2.50, maybe less so. Transport isn't the only thing a budget should be spent on.
Or it might not be that bleak.

spen666

Rolf F wrote:

spen666 wrote:

In the current economic climate, when cuts are being made, why should the powers that be spend all this public money to run an uneconomic ferry?

Perhaps the cost to the user of the ferry should increase to cover the shortfall?

Its all to easy to expect someone else to subsidise your leisure

In Holland the ferry would be free.

2 little things that may have slipped your mind
1. This is not Holland
2. The ferry would not be free, it would have to be paid for by someone. What you are wanting is someone to subsidise a service that the public are increasingly choosing not to use.

Certainly a cost rise might be worth considering but that might be compensated by loss of passenger numbers. If you use the phrase 'in the current economic climate' to cut anything that makes a loss you can kiss goodbye to museums, theatres, many rail services, many bus services, libraries, road repairs etc etc.

Ok, then I want to continue to dine out at l;arridges every day for lunch- in this economic climate, i presume I can carry on doing it and you will subsidize me as well

Ultimately, we don't pay enough taxes for a good standard of public services so we are bound to lose some things.

I pay quite enough tax thank you and do not want to pay more so an increasingly unpopular service can be retained and its decreasing numbers of users can avoid paying the real cost of the transport you want to use..

Iif the ferry is something the public want then why are so few people using it and numbers fell nearly 25% last year alone

However, whilst I can't see me ever needing to use this ferry it is pretty obviously the right thing to subsidise it and keep it going and I certainly wouldn't begrudge any of my tax money going into it. If this location was in London, a bridge would have been built.

Why pour increasing amount of public funds into something the public are voting against with their feet.

As for your unfounded remarks about London- there has been attepts to get an East London River crossing for many years now and no public funds are avsailable to build it which seems to show up your remark

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

SPT is being forced to subsidise every passenger by £2.69 since last year, compared to 97p in 1996.

Passenger numbers have fallen by 41,000 to only 141,361 a year

Not very popular then is it?

What about rural bus services? What about pretty much ANY train service?
What about roads? Who pays for them to be built? Bridges?

Explain why a ferry service in a place where there are no other options, should be singled out as not worthy of investment in the same way as almost all other transport options?

Why?

Try the fact that passengers numbers are falling at nearly 25% per annum

This is with the fares subsidized to less han 1/3 of the cost.

The cost of subsidizing it is not justified

rolf_f

spen666 wrote:

2 little things that may have slipped your mind
1. This is not Holland
2. The ferry would not be free, it would have to be paid for by someone. What you are wanting is someone to subsidise a service that the public are increasingly choosing not to use. blah blah blah

Not slipped my mind.

Otherwise :roll: eg where do you get 25% passenger number drop per annum from?

spen666

Rolf F wrote:

spen666 wrote:

2 little things that may have slipped your mind
1. This is not Holland
2. The ferry would not be free, it would have to be paid for by someone. What you are wanting is someone to subsidise a service that the public are increasingly choosing not to use. blah blah blah

Not slipped my mind.

Otherwise :roll: eg where do you get 25% passenger number drop per annum from?

from the links in the opening posts

Numbers fell by cicra 40,000 passengers last year to 140,000 passengers per annum

Edit


Link in opening post is this one


Re reading article, the 41,000 drop in passengers may be over a period of over 1 year- the article is not clear

Wallace1492

Rolf F wrote:

spen666 wrote:

2 little things that may have slipped your mind
1. This is not Holland
2. The ferry would not be free, it would have to be paid for by someone. What you are wanting is someone to subsidise a service that the public are increasingly choosing not to use. blah blah blah

Not slipped my mind.

Otherwise :roll: eg where do you get 25% passenger number drop per annum from?

It has dropped by 25% in last year. That is a shame. It is not particularly publicised well. However I would be willing to pay more for a crossing. I would like it kept, marketed better, and this will lead to more use, and less subsidy. Just because figures don't add up knee jerk and kill it off.

Put it this way, it gets a hell of a lot more use than the arsenal of nuclear weapons we have had since the 1950's, yet we have spent 10's of billions on them. And we have chosen not to use them. At least 400 people a day use the Ferry.

rolf_f

spen666 wrote:

from the links in the opening posts

Numbers fell by cicra 40,000 passengers last year to 140,000 passengers per annum

No you don't get that from the links; you just assumed it. It makes no comments on year on year reductions. All it says is that numbers dropped by 40,000 to 140,000 over an indeterminate period with no mention of year on year numbers. The only realistic assumption over that period is that it is from 1996. This makes the annual drop more like 2%.

Of course, sloppy reporting doesn't help - v badly written article.

Wallace1492

Rolf F wrote:

spen666 wrote:

from the links in the opening posts

Numbers fell by cicra 40,000 passengers last year to 140,000 passengers per annum

No you don't get that from the links; you just assumed it. It makes no comments on year on year reductions. All it says is that numbers dropped by 40,000 to 140,000 over an indeterminate period with no mention of year on year numbers. The only realistic assumption over that period is that it is from 1996. This makes the annual drop more like 2%.

Of course, sloppy reporting doesn't help - v badly written article.

Agreed, links are bad, looked like a drop of 25% in last year, when in fact it is over a decade.

KEEP THE FERRY!