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

deptfordmarmoset

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.

That's how I read it too. The immediately preceding comparison was for subsidy costs over 13 years or so - it's the only yardstick in the text for comparing the subsequent passenger numbers. Given the increase in car-ownership over the same period, the drop in passenger numbers looks very modest.

I don't always buy the narrowly defined ''economic'' argument anyway. It's a long stretch of the Clyde without other convenient crossings to link the conurbations. Meanwhile, downriver Thames, there are free foot tunnels, free ferries and a shuttle service over the Dartford bridge. None of these, in strict economic terms, is justified: their role is primarily a civic one - that of getting travellers without cars across the river.

Wallace1492

What I find funny about it is the infighting that it is now causing.
Labour are blaming the SNP as the ruling party in the Scottish Parliament, who in turn are blaming Labour they control the majority of councils that are part of the SPT that run the ferry. Everyone else's fault, no-one to blame.

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

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!

Its stil la massive drop and shows ferry is not needed by the majority and is becoming more and more uneconomical and not justifiable

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Its stil la massive drop and shows ferry is not needed by the majority and is becoming more and more uneconomical and not justifiable

It is a drop, but would not call it massive. Obviously not needed by the majority, as it is a niche local service, but over 400 use it every day. Obviously also not economical or we would not be having this debate, and the STP would not be considering axeing it.

However, I think it is a superb service, would be willing to pay more to cross it. It could be marketed more on walker/cyclist sites, leaflets - get the numbers up.

It would be a real shame to lose such a service.

Just imagine getting on the Ferry after 10 miles, being able to have a breather, get a swig from your drink bottle, have a moment to wipe the sweat off your sunglasses, feel the fresh air on your face as you gazed up and down the River, with views of the hills in the distance. Just 90 seconds later it lands on the other side and you are off again on your merry way home.

rolf_f

spen666 wrote:

Its stil la massive drop and shows ferry is not needed by the majority and is becoming more and more uneconomical and not justifiable

'Not needed by the majority' means nothing. The M4 isn't needed by the majority; I presume you wouldn't recommend closing that. All the newspaper article indicates is a decline in use - unless it is determined why the use is declining, who doesn't need it any more, there isn't really a good case to close it.

As for it becoming more uneconomical - all capital assets become more uneconomical with time by definition; the capital value of any object decreases as it becomes older whilst maintenance costs increase but the justification to retain or otherwise should be made on overall life costs. Do you decide not to replace your old car because it is unreliable?

'Not justifiable'? On whose criteria? Unless you undertake a cost benefit analysis for all river crossings, how can you justify getting rid of this one? And if you did such an analysis and it turned out that the worst case was, for example, Tower Bridge, would you support closure of that?

spen666

Rolf F wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Its stil la massive drop and shows ferry is not needed by the majority and is becoming more and more uneconomical and not justifiable

'Not needed by the majority' means nothing. The M4 isn't needed by the majority; I presume you wouldn't recommend closing that. All the newspaper article indicates is a decline in use - unless it is determined why the use is declining, who doesn't need it any more, there isn't really a good case to close it.

As for it becoming more uneconomical - all capital assets become more uneconomical with time by definition; the capital value of any object decreases as it becomes older whilst maintenance costs increase but the justification to retain or otherwise should be made on overall life costs. Do you decide not to replace your old car because it is unreliable?

'Not justifiable'? On whose criteria? Unless you undertake a cost benefit analysis for all river crossings, how can you justify getting rid of this one? And if you did such an analysis and it turned out that the worst case was, for example, Tower Bridge, would you support closure of that?

So on your logic, the decline in numbers continues- no one is using the ferry now- it has had no passengers for 20 years, but it can't be scrapped because no one has decided why people aren't using it

The reason people aren't using it is not the point

What is relevant is that people are stopping using it in a big way and it is no longer econonic to run- to subsidize it by a factor of 2.69:1.2 at present is simply not justifiable

jackthelad

The Ferry basically has not been sold to the public properly

when you come over the ferry,just along the road is one of the biggest shopping complex in Scotland" Braehead".The xscape has its own indoor skiing and cinema along with many restaurants etc.Kids on the Yoker side will loss out on this as it would take several buses to get to braehead.Poorer families without a car would loose out as well as taking a family to these pursuits would highly increase the costs with say about 2/3 buses to get to braehead.Inchinnan industrial estate might not be a viable place to work for youngsters from across the water who are using their bike to work as they would need to get several different transports to get to Inchinnan.Braehead also employs younger people as most of the retail pay minimum wages.So how many people would go back on the unemployment saying that they cant get to their place of work on time or it is not cost effective when trasport is involved.I feel a look at the bigger picture was needed before the cut was decided.

jackthelad

el_presidente

I would like to buy this ferry and run it as a private concern

rolf_f

spen666 wrote:

So on your logic, the decline in numbers continues- no one is using the ferry now- it has had no passengers for 20 years, but it can't be scrapped because no one has decided why people aren't using it

The reason people aren't using it is not the point

What is relevant is that people are stopping using it in a big way and it is no longer econonic to run- to subsidize it by a factor of 2.69:1.2 at present is simply not justifiable

You're deliberately mis-interpreting me aren't you

Seriously though - of course the reason that numbers are declining (people are using it - presumably you don't really consider 140,000 journeys to be 'no-one') is the point, is that once you know that, you can determine if something can be done to mitigate the circumstances - eg what jackthelad says above.

spen666

jackthelad wrote:

The Ferry basically has not been sold to the public properly

when you come over the ferry,just along the road is one of the biggest shopping complex in Scotland" Braehead".The xscape has its own indoor skiing and cinema along with many restaurants etc.Kids on the Yoker side will loss out on this as it would take several buses to get to braehead.Poorer families without a car would loose out as well as taking a family to these pursuits would highly increase the costs with say about 2/3 buses to get to braehead.Inchinnan industrial estate might not be a viable place to work for youngsters from across the water who are using their bike to work as they would need to get several different transports to get to Inchinnan.Braehead also employs younger people as most of the retail pay minimum wages.So how many people would go back on the unemployment saying that they cant get to their place of work on time or it is not cost effective when trasport is involved.I feel a look at the bigger picture was needed before the cut was decided.

jackthelad

Hmm people going to shopping centre- would rather use car to carry luggage etc

People without cars are unlikely to be able to afford costs of the leisure activities

The numvber of people using the ferry clearly shoews its rapidly declining need

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Its stil la massive drop and shows ferry is not needed by the majority and is becoming more and more uneconomical and not justifiable

'Not needed by the majority' means nothing. The M4 isn't needed by the majority; I presume you wouldn't recommend closing that. All the newspaper article indicates is a decline in use - unless it is determined why the use is declining, who doesn't need it any more, there isn't really a good case to close it.

As for it becoming more uneconomical - all capital assets become more uneconomical with time by definition; the capital value of any object decreases as it becomes older whilst maintenance costs increase but the justification to retain or otherwise should be made on overall life costs. Do you decide not to replace your old car because it is unreliable?

'Not justifiable'? On whose criteria? Unless you undertake a cost benefit analysis for all river crossings, how can you justify getting rid of this one? And if you did such an analysis and it turned out that the worst case was, for example, Tower Bridge, would you support closure of that?

So on your logic, the decline in numbers continues- no one is using the ferry now- it has had no passengers for 20 years, but it can't be scrapped because no one has decided why people aren't using it

The reason people aren't using it is not the point

What is relevant is that people are stopping using it in a big way and it is no longer econonic to run- to subsidize it by a factor of 2.69:1.2 at present is simply not justifiable

The size of the factor is not relevent. It is a niche service.
In 2001-2 London buses were subsidised by £53.60 per year per head of London Residential population.

People have gradually stopped using it. Yes, by all means review it, then market it better, get the numbers up. If that doesn't work in a few years time, then review again and maybe close. But don't act in a knee jerk reaction now.

spen666

Its not a knee jerk reaction when as you say numbers have been falling for the last 10 years at least

jackthelad

spen666 wrote:

jackthelad wrote:

The Ferry basically has not been sold to the public properly


Hmm people going to shopping centre- would rather use car to carry luggage etc

not kids,

People without cars are unlikely to be able to afford costs of the leisure activities

what snobbery.

The numvber of people using the ferry clearly shoews its rapidly declining need

the decline is due to closing the ferry several years ago, and when they reopened the ferry crossing they did not promote the service to the masses, a lot of people still think the ferry crossing is closed.I dont know how many people have said when I tell them i came across the Renfrew Ferry "oh I thought that shut down"

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Its not a knee jerk reaction when as you say numbers have been falling for the last 10 years at least

Numbers watching the BBC have been falling for 10 years yet we still subsidise it by whatever the cost of the license. Should we close the beeb if figures go down 25% in 10 years?

You are just being negative about it rather than thinking about ways we could retain a 500 year old link. Bet you have never been over it, seen it or heard about it before this thread.

I for one have been over it a number of times, and it is my favourite way home. I am even encouraging others to use it, and would be ready and willing to campaign to save it. However, I understand the economics, and the cost should go up, and have it marketed more.

Get a look at this link: http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/renfrew/ferry/index.html even shows a cyclist!

jackthelad

Basically once something goes thats it ! it is gone for ever.

I wonder with the increase in traffic to Glasgow, would this ferry not become an asset in say about 10 years from now.The roads are already jam packed trying to get into glasgow,its now we need to look at the problem not then.

Jackthelad

-spider-

Wallace1492 wrote:

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.

I used to use the old ferry in the early '80s. I did a Cathcart to Clydebank daily commute (about 12 miles via Pollok). This was quicker than public transport. Even in thise days it wasn't that busy - but absolutely essential. Since they took off the ability for cars to use the ferry those that use it have no real alternative.

KEEP THE FERRY!

Also used to use the Finnieston Ferry on my way home (to Govanhill) at night after a few pints in the West End.

Only vaguely remember any of the others (of which there were many)

Wallace1492

There is a Facebook page for this now, join up, and let them know it should be saved!!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=search&gid=255488920671#/group.php?v=info&ref=search&gid=255488920671

jackthelad

Wallace I have never used facebook,I have signed up to facebook now but dont know how to leave a comment on the renfrew ferry page,any help or advice would be appreciated

thanks

jackthelad

suzyb

Go to the Wall tab and there will be a box you can enter a comment.

jackthelad

thanks null

jackthelad

Wallace1492

There is also an online petition to save the Ferry, so if you would like to see a 500 year old link preserved, please sign, it will only take a few moments.

It is a superb cycle connection as well, far better than any cycle lane.
It links the north and south of the river at the west side of Glasgow.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-renfrew-ferry/

suzyb

And your address is there for everyone to see :shock:

deptfordmarmoset

-null- wrote:

And your address is there for everyone to see :shock:

That unfortunately is part of being a citizen. If you vote, your details appear on the electoral roll. If you are worried by ID theft or harassment, etc, you can give an approximate address.

There was some earlier dispute about the percentage decline in passenger numbers. The Evening Times is clearer than the first link. It states the loss of 400 users did not happen over a year but over a decade. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/editor-s-picks-ignore/could-this-be-the-end-for-the-renfrew-ferry-1.998359 The article also gives some clues as to why passenger use has declined.

Personally, I won't be signing the petition - because I've never been on it and, until yesterday I'd never even heard of it. But I do live close to a major river, downstream of the numerous and free bridges, and I know how valuable river crossings are in my neck of the woods.

Wallace1492

-null- wrote:

And your address is there for everyone to see :shock:

My name and address are in the phone book too. I have no problem with that at all.
I give out my address everytime I buy stuff online, over the phone, and almost to anyone that wants it. I do not expect the Anti Renfrew Police to come calling.....

Wallace1492

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

There was some earlier dispute about the percentage decline in passenger numbers. The Evening Times is clearer than the first link. It states the loss of 400 users did not happen over a year but over a decade. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/editor-s-picks-ignore/could-this-be-the-end-for-the-renfrew-ferry-1.998359 The article also gives some clues as to why passenger use has declined.

Personally, I won't be signing the petition - because I've never been on it and, until yesterday I'd never even heard of it. But I do live close to a major river, downstream of the numerous and free bridges, and I know how valuable river crossings are in my neck of the woods.

That's fair enough, I cross it a lot and know it is well used and liked by cyclists, so I would hope that the cycling community would back this. It could be coming to a cycling facility near you soon!!

suzyb

Wallace1492 wrote:

-null- wrote:

And your address is there for everyone to see :shock:

My name and address are in the phone book too. I have no problem with that at all.
I give out my address everytime I buy stuff online, over the phone, and almost to anyone that wants it. I do not expect the Anti Renfrew Police to come calling.....

But those people have a reason for needing your address (I assume you don't just give it out randomly). And it is different from it being easily available on the internet and easily linked to you yourself (as opposed to all the other people with the same name that live in Glasgow). For example what if someone, someone slightly unhinged came across your comments in the god exists thread, takes offence and decides to track you down

(and before you ask, yes I probably am slightly paranoid)

Wallace1492

-null- wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

-null- wrote:

And your address is there for everyone to see :shock:

My name and address are in the phone book too. I have no problem with that at all.
I give out my address everytime I buy stuff online, over the phone, and almost to anyone that wants it. I do not expect the Anti Renfrew Police to come calling.....

But those people have a reason for needing your address (I assume you don't just give it out randomly). And it is different from it being easily available on the internet and easily linked to you yourself (as opposed to all the other people with the same name that live in Glasgow). For example what if someone, someone slightly unhinged came across your comments in the god exists thread, takes offence and decides to track you down

(and before you ask, yes I probably am slightly paranoid)

Well, i see where your thoughts are on the does god exist thread!!
But I do get your point, and see where you are coming from. But I think if someone really wants to track you down they can, yes the internet makes it easier, but I would like to think that no-one would take any offence from on here. If however I was a celebrity or politician, then I would probably be much more careful.

As an aside to it, I know that in the 60's Stan Laurel had his name and number in the local phone book, and fans would turn up, amazed that he was in it.

Like your smiley!

spen666

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

-null- wrote:

And your address is there for everyone to see :shock:

That unfortunately is part of being a citizen. If you vote, your details appear on the electoral roll. If you are worried by ID theft or harassment, etc, you can give an approximate address.

There was some earlier dispute about the percentage decline in passenger numbers. The Evening Times is clearer than the first link. It states the loss of 400 users did not happen over a year but over a decade. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/editor-s-picks-ignore/could-this-be-the-end-for-the-renfrew-ferry-1.998359 The article also gives some clues as to why passenger use has declined.

Personally, I won't be signing the petition - because I've never been on it and, until yesterday I'd never even heard of it. But I do live close to a major river, downstream of the numerous and free bridges, and I know how valuable river crossings are in my neck of the woods.

loss of 400?

The op linked to article stating numbers were down 41,000.

A huge difference

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

-null- wrote:

And your address is there for everyone to see :shock:

That unfortunately is part of being a citizen. If you vote, your details appear on the electoral roll. If you are worried by ID theft or harassment, etc, you can give an approximate address.

There was some earlier dispute about the percentage decline in passenger numbers. The Evening Times is clearer than the first link. It states the loss of 400 users did not happen over a year but over a decade. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/editor-s-picks-ignore/could-this-be-the-end-for-the-renfrew-ferry-1.998359 The article also gives some clues as to why passenger use has declined.

Personally, I won't be signing the petition - because I've never been on it and, until yesterday I'd never even heard of it. But I do live close to a major river, downstream of the numerous and free bridges, and I know how valuable river crossings are in my neck of the woods.

loss of 400?

The op linked to article stating numbers were down 41,000.

A huge difference

Yes it is 41,000 but I still think it is worth saving. It is a great cycle link, and carries foot passengers, the figure of 400 is the amount of people it carries every day. Uneconomic, yes but there are lots of uneconomic and wasteful things that are built and maintained, a lot of cycle lanes are a waste, but this is an excellent link. I would be happy to pay more or if they found another way to save it by linking up busses with it or publicising it more, I would be more than happy. I only started using it last year, and it would be a shame to see it go.

mzungu74

Oh dear..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8473322.stm

The Renfrew Ferry is historically and environmentally hugely important. It is by far the safest crossing over the Cyde upstream- the Clyde Tunnel is downright scary.

I'm a big fan of the Ferry and gutted that it will be withdrawn...understand that it is loss making but so are many many other things in this country!

Signed the petition, joined fscebook....what next?!
M74