Add Comment

Yes but things are supposed to progress in 500yrs!

I don't know how they could have even contemplated a pedestrian bridge anyway given that big ships coming up from Govan and Scotstoun yards would have to pass under it!

Some aspects of a community's life and history are worth preserving. In terms of West of Scotland transport infrastructure I'd claim this is one of them. Rather than simply replacing and subsidising the Renfrew Ferry, however, I'd like to see the SPT challenged to find creaive and innovative ways to attract new business and raise the profile of the service. What about setting yourself some targets SPT...say doubling or trebling the average crossing headcount from 4 or 5 to somewhere between 8 and 15? There will also be a finite demand for a crossing at this point on the river but it is a small and perfectly formed service; come on SPT, prove you are worthy of managing larger projects and budgets by doing the small ones properly!!

First point:- Bridges tend to get in the way of ships. Second point:- Since when did a bridge only cost £15m Third point:- If the ferry is so heavily subsidised, when it carried 4 peeople when it has a capacity of 50, get a smaller boat. Fourth point:- DO we really need a ferry? Fifth point:- Anyone thought about a tunnel?

[quoteFifth point:- Anyone thought about a tunnel? quote] Sorry to say that will never happen. The ferry links two councils, Glasgow and Renfrewshire. Neither will opt for a road that will ultimately drive people from one council region into the next. The ferry works at the moment because it is only people on foot, and the numbers are small. I would love to see a tunnel or a road bridge (I realise the problem that would be caused by a brdige). More vehicle access from one side of the clyde to the other is always welcome.

Maybe they could use the £15M they've saved to expand the subway instead of having stupid subway festivals and resident poets etc. etc.

A bridge was never going to work for reasons of river traffic- look at the height the Erskine 3 miles downstream is! And a road bridge is a no-go either- masses of traffic using sub-standard roads either side through a congested Renfrew. Tunnels are out- hard to build in soils- hard to get to suitable depth in time- on approaches. Plus ask how many people willingly enjoy a cycle or walk via the Clyde Tunnel, the isolation and dark means people fail to use them, hence subways under roads going out of fashion too. The only option is a ferry which perhaps could go to Braehead as well. With better terminals and more economic operation at either end, it would do fine.

Wasn't the bridge plan for a lifting/swing bridge? I think that's still the best option - free to users, no hold-ups (except for passing ships), open 24/7, etc.

For how long has Renfrew been both "on the south bank of the Clyde" and "on the north" of the river?

I think flyingscot has made a good point. The Mersey ferry calls at several terminals and seems to work well

[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote: Wasn't the bridge plan for a lifting/swing bridge? I think that's still the best option - free to users, no hold-ups (except for passing ships), open 24/7, etc.[/quote] Free to users but very expensive to operate and maintain, probably more so than the boats. You have to ensure the mechanism works at all winds speeds, and is quick and efficient. The Bells Bridge constantly had problems with it's rotation and indeed was up for removal. Rotating bridges are useful where you need a bridge for traffic but a rotating bridge for pedestrians is perhaps extravagant.

So which yard is going to get the order or is it another Polish job like the two useless ferries we have here on Bute which are off more than on.

[quote]to operate and maintain, probably more so than the boats[/quote] More than £400,000/yr? I doubt it. The Bells Bridge isn't a great advert, that's true, but it was designed as a temporary (25yr?) structure.

what about a cable car?

A swing bridge ,catalevered from both sides and meeting in the middle. Open it up for the big ships free of charge and make the wee boats pay for it !

[quote][bold]Southside[/bold] wrote: First point:- Bridges tend to get in the way of ships. Second point:- Since when did a bridge only cost £15m Third point:- If the ferry is so heavily subsidised, when it carried 4 peeople when it has a capacity of 50, get a smaller boat. Fourth point:- DO we really need a ferry? Fifth point:- Anyone thought about a tunnel? [/quote] First point: - If bridges tend to get in the way of ships ( or boats with larger masts - why the crazy idea being thrown about ofa Marina on the Clyde, in the city centre ? Second point:- Yes, £15 million may be highly under-estimated, but when do any costs for such plans ever fall within budget ? Third point:- If the ferry is so heavily subsidised, when it carried 4 people, when it had a capacity of 50 - maybe it is time to seriously promote the use of it ( like the subway) over the car. Fourth point:- Yes, we DO really need a ferry. The need for an alternative access point accross the Clyde ( for more local traffic is always needed.) Lke the "Squinty Bridge" or Clyde Arc - the volume of traffic on it was never intended to replace that of the Kingston Bridge, but its useage has probably cut some traffic that would of ordinarily of used the Kingston Bridge. Similarly - a bridge ( if designed, or build with enough thought / skill & sensitivity.) would be an excellent link for Braehead & Scotstoun / Yoker. Fifth point:- The excavation costs of a tunnel would be as high, if not higher. And, despite the sense of one - SPT clearly do not do "common sensical" moves like this. (I digress with the last 2 points - but they have been ignored for far too long.) Sixth point:- If the Clyde has to be fully utilised, and all parts of it are to have crossings of some sorts then a serious investment plan is needed to ensure it is not just private housing developers who swallow up all the land along its banks, at the expense of the river itself falling derelict and unused. Seventh point: Where are the jettys, piers, and sailings other than the Waverely ? Let us see the Clyde being fully utilised in all senses. Fully signposted, and linked up cycle tracks / walkways along it, and watercraft on the river itself.

[quote]Let us see the Clyde being fully utilised in all senses. Fully signposted, and linked up cycle tracks / walkways along it, and watercraft on the river itself.[/quote] You'll be waiting a while!

[bold] "The best comes to those who wait"[/bold] If all those moaners, and groaners used all their negative energy towards direct action and campaigning for the common good we'd be praising not criticising. [bold]Also[/bold] If the apathy of our people could be disposed of as a useless tactic maybe then people would develop more skills of how to get around the political system, not evade, avoid, and ignore what is done by it. We have precious little democracy left in this sodding city, lets use it, don't lose it ....

Just read the the story regarding the Renfrew ferry. I just wwonder if the SPT know something we don't know. I refer to the suggestion of replacing the ferry with a foot bridge..?? I know it says the plan for the bridge were ditched, suggests to me SPT have or had been told the last remaining upper clyde ship yards were about to disappear...Hmmmm!! Like to see the Renfrew ferry remain,as i would be one of many over the years,that have riden on the old chain pulled ferry and on the replacements Renfrew Rose and Yoker star.A large part of Renfrew and Yokers history.

I have always pressed for a resurecton of the Erskine ferry. there is no really safe cycle route out of Erskine to accomodate the young and in my case elderly, and that includes the bridge access both sides of the river, however, the old existing ferry accesses still exist and the cycle track on the north bank is about 200yards from the ferry slip. further to that since the boundaries commision has decreed that Clydebank (north of the river)should be amalgamated with the towns of Renfrewshire on the south, I would say all the more reason for ready access to either side of the river

A cheaper and more efficient option would be an express bus service from Yoker to Renfrew via Clyde Tunnel with limited stops. The huge savings could be used to regenerate and make the area places you might want to actually visit! But alas, the romatics will have their day.

Some make comment of why the renfrew ferry is used so little?!! It's for foot passengers so presumably they would need a bus etc at either end?....it's a clue..geddit!