Based on the survey evidence (127 respondents) from 2015-2016 regarding the Strangford Ferry service, below is analysis relevant to the current Strangford Lough Crossing (SLC) proposal:
Key Supporting Evidence for SLC:
- Service Limitations & Economic Impact:
- The ferry’s restricted operating hours (ending at 22:30/22:45) were highlighted as significantly limiting economic activity and social connectivity
- 49.6% of surveyed users reported being directly negatively affected by limited evening service
- Business owners noted impact on hospitality trade from early last sailing
- Survey demonstrated ferry is critical infrastructure for:
- Work commuting (57 of 127 respondents)
- Business travel (34 of 127)
- Education access (19 of 127)
- Community Isolation:
“…increases rural isolation and reduces people’s opportunity and quality of life…” – Strangford Lough and Lecale Partnership response
- Limited access to:
- Emergency services
- Evening classes/community events
- Family visits
- Healthcare
- Tourism Constraints:
“…reducing the evening ferry service is a blow to the developing tourism industry affecting not just Portaferry but Strangford, the Ards Peninsula and the tourism Destination.” – SLCP response
- Early last sailing discouraged overnight stays
- Limited evening dining/entertainment options
- Restricted access to cultural venues
- Current Service Reliability Issues:
- Annual 6-8 week service disruption for maintenance
- Reduced capacity during maintenance periods causing delays
- Weather-related cancellations (fog etc)
- Regular overcrowding on peak services
Challenges to Address:
- Environmental Considerations:
- Noise pollution concerns were raised by residents regarding early operations
- Current ferry creates diesel emissions and water pollution
- Cost Recovery:
- Ferry service operated at significant deficit:
2020-21 figures show: - Operating costs: £3.52m
- Income: £1.43m
- Cost recovery: only 41%
- Infrastructure Capacity:
From 2015-16 data:
- Regular overcrowding on peak services
- Limited vehicle capacity
- Queuing issues during tourist season
Recommendations Based on Historical Evidence:
- A fixed crossing would address the key issues identified in 2015-16 that remain unresolved:
- 24/7 accessibility
- Removal of weather-related disruptions
- Elimination of capacity constraints
- No annual maintenance closures
- Economic Benefits:
- Enable extended business hours
- Support tourism growth
- Improve access to employment/education
- Reduce transport costs for regular users
- Community Benefits:
- Enhanced access to healthcare/emergency services
- Greater social connectivity
- Improved quality of life
- Better access to public services
- Environmental Gains:
- Reduced emissions compared to diesel ferry
- Elimination of water pollution
- Integration of renewable energy potential
The 2015-16 consultation demonstrates long-standing connectivity issues that remain unaddressed by incremental ferry service changes. This strengthens the case for a transformative solution through a fixed crossing that would resolve the fundamental limitations of a ferry-dependent connection.
Failure to implement changes. Based on the TransportNI consultation response documents, changes to provide earlier sailings were not implemented for several key reasons:
- Resource & Cost Constraints
- The early sailing could only be provided by either:
- Extending crew working hours (requiring changes to employment terms & increased costs), or
- Reducing sailings at other times to offset costs
- TransportNI was unable to fund extended hours within existing budgets
- Strong Community Opposition to Service Reduction
- While 67% supported early sailings, 70% opposed losing late evening sailings
- Consultation showed evening sailings were essential for:
- Family visits
- Social activities
- Work patterns
- Community connectivity
- Alternative Solutions Not Viable
- Suggestion to suspend afternoon sailings was rejected because:
- Daytime passenger numbers higher than evening sailings
- Would cause greater disruption than evening reductions
- Would impact peak commuter times
- Would increase congestion in Strangford
- Operational Constraints
- Early sailing would reduce preparation time:
- Increased risk of delays from mechanical issues
- Potential knock-on effects to later sailings
- Noise restrictions between 23:00-07:00 limited options
- Staffing Requirements
- Minimum crew of 4 required by law at all times
- Current staffing levels only provided minimum cover for:
- Meal breaks
- Holiday coverage
- Existing schedule
The failure to implement relatively minor timetable changes due to resource constraints and operational limitations demonstrates the fundamental inflexibility of the ferry service to meet changing community needs. This strengthens rather than weakens the case for considering alternative fixed crossing solutions.
Shift in opinions since 2015. Below is an analysis of the key survey findings from 2015 and 2024:
2015 Ferry Survey (127 respondents)
Usage Profile:
- Work: 57 (45%)
- Leisure: 55 (43%)
- Business: 34 (27%)
- Education: 19 (15%)
(Note: Multiple purposes could be selected)
Key Findings:
- 88.3% supported additional early sailings
- 57.4% opposed reducing late sailings
- 49.6% directly affected by service limitations
- Focus was on operational improvements rather than fundamental change
2024 SLC Survey (458 respondents)
Usage Pattern Comparisons:
Direct comparisons cannot be made as different questions were asked, but both surveys showed high proportion of work/business users demonstrating critical infrastructure role.
Key Differences:
- Scale of Response
- Nearly 4x more respondents in 2024 (458) vs 2015 (127)
- Suggests greater public engagement with infrastructure issues
- Wider community awareness and interest in connectivity solutions
- Scope of Issues
2015:
- Focused on operational timetabling
- Incremental service improvements
- Maintaining existing service levels
2024:
- Strategic infrastructure needs
- Long-term economic development
- Fundamental connectivity solutions
- Environmental concerns
- Regional development
- Nature of Response
2015:
- Defensive (protecting existing service)
- Operational focus
- Short-term view
2024:
- Strategic outlook
- Recognition of limitations of current system
- Future-focused development perspective
- Broader economic/social considerations
Conclusion:
The 2024 survey demonstrates:
- Significantly greater public engagement
- Wider understanding of infrastructure limitations
- Stronger appetite for transformative change
- Recognition that incremental ferry improvements cannot address fundamental connectivity needs
The comparison provides evidence that community perspectives have evolved from protecting existing services (2015) to seeking comprehensive infrastructure solutions (2024).
This strengthens rather than weakens the case for SLC as it shows:
- Growing public recognition of need for change
- Increased community engagement in infrastructure planning
- Evolution from operational to strategic thinking
- Recognition that ferry limitations persist despite attempted improvements
The significantly larger response rate in 2024 adds weight to the validity of current findings compared to 2015 data.