Ferry size is what we don’t like over here

By - Friday, December 18, 2009

Search iwcp.co.uk:

LettersFrom Dr Donald Mackenzie, Lymington, Hants:
I write concerning the Wightlink Lymington to Yarmouth ferry route.

I, for one, and many other people I know, are categorically not against there being a ferry on the Lymington to Yarmouth route.
We have lived with the ferry service operating for many years. We all fully appreciate the route’s importance to the people and traders living and working in the western part of the IW and also the importance to Lymington’s retailers of IW residents shopping here.
However, this cannot be at any cost to the safe recreational and business use of the river and to the environment of the protected habitats nearby.
Bearing in mind that the frequency of the ferry service has now increased to more than 22,000 trips a year (or 72 every day) it is vitally important that all the impacts of the ferry service are properly assessed — which so far they definitely have not been.
If, as many suspect, the impact of these new ferries on the internationally important EU-protected habitats nearby is not sustainable, Wightlink must be asked to design and build new ferries which can be safely accommodated in the river rather than the monsters that have imposed on the river and on river users.
In the opinion of many people in Lymington, the new W Class ferries are simply too large to be safely accommodated in the river, despite the assertions of the Lymington Harbour Commiss-ioners.
Evidence is already suggesting a rapid acceleration of the loss of the supposedly protected habitats since they arrived.
On the practical side they are so large that they cannot even keep to the normal timetable due to the need to go so slowly at low tide and have been actually providing a much worse service to Island residents.
Hopefully Wightlink will eventually see that it is everyone’s interest if they are brave enough to bite the bullet and start the process of replacing these ferries with ones that can be sustainably used for the future while maintaining a viable service to the IW.


Research backs firm’s view on Lymington

By - Thursday, December 24, 2009

Search iwcp.co.uk:

LETTERS

From John Burrows, general manager operations, Wightlink, Gunwharf Road, Portsmouth:
I WRITE following the letter (CP, 18-12-09) from Dr Donald Mackenzie regarding our new ferries operating on the Lymington to Yarmouth route.
Sadly, his letter seems to ignore all the studies carried out by a significant number of extremely reputable and independent experts.
Before the new ferries arrived there were two main concerns being expressed:
1. The new vessels were too large to operate safely in the Lymington River and would cause a reduction in the number of visitors to the river.
2. The new vessels would cause loss of the protected habitats that border the navigation channel.
With regard to the first point, Lymington Harbour Commissioners appointed BMT Seatech to carry out reviews of the safety of the operation of the ferries. They observed our operation from on the vessels, from small boats in the river and from the shore.
Some visits were pre-announced and some were carried out without our knowledge to ensure our actions were consistent. During the review, BMT consulted with all river users, including the Lymington River Association (LRA), and fully considered their comments.
It is perhaps interesting to note that BMT felt compelled in one of their reports to note some of the comments made by the LRA could be read as threats.
BMT made a number of recommendations and, following a review of the full summer’s operation, their final conclusion was "that the low level of marine risk on the Lymington River had not been compromised by the introduction of the W Class ferries".
In terms of visitor numbers, the chairman of the harbour commissioners confirmed in his Update to Stakeholders, issued on August 6, that visitor numbers were actually up by 15 per cent on the same period last year.
With regard to the second point, Natural England, which is the statutory nature conservation adviser, takes the view that "an adverse effect on the natural sites’ ecological integrity due to the ferries is not likely in the period between February 25, 2009, and the spring of 2011".
This view has been supported by monitoring that has taken place since the introduction of the new ferries.
Wightlink have been working with a number of bodies and in conjunction with them have drawn up a proposed mitigation scheme whereby we will recharge the block of salt marsh directly to the east of the mouth of the river.  Natural England’s current view is "once delivered the risk of adverse effect will have been avoided".
As a layman it seems to me that a significant body of independent experts have concluded that both of the understandable concerns initially expressed, have proven to be unfounded.
I should also point out the statement made by Dr Mackenzie that sailings have increased to more than 22,000 trips a year is incorrect. In 2009 we will complete fewer than 15,500 trips.

From James Wilson, Newport:
Go upstream: I read with interest Dr Mackenzie’s letter and as a regular commuter on the Yarmouth to Lymington route, I am usually the first person to criticise Wightlink. However, on this occasion, I am of a different opinion.  
I, for one, am a complete champion of a fixed link but while this debate remains on the back burner, we should make the best of what we have and I like the new boats.
The wash from these vessels is considerably less than most of the fishing boats and leisure craft which use Lymington river on just as frequent a basis, so it is these people who should be the subject of a judicial ruling, not the ferries.
Apart from a handful of people, who really cares about the mud flats surrounding the river? For a large percentage of the time they are submerged under water at high tide anyway.
All the LRA has succeeded in doing is infuriating me and the other commuters traipsing back and forth to the mainland each day by having to go at a snail’s pace in the river while fishing boats, RIBS and pleasure boats speed past with their wash.
There are far more pressing things to worry about in this life. If preserving a riverbank is all you have to worry yourselves about, go upstream, north of the bridge and you have unspoilt reed beds and wildlife to look at with no danger of the ferries.

From Robert Hall, East Cowes:
No change: While I accept that the EU-protected habitat of the Lymington River is important, I also see Dr Mackenzie admits the ferry is vital to the Island, as well as Lymington retailers.
He accepts the boats go very slowly down the river, this, I believe, is to protect the habitat as well as for safety reasons.
I accept the ferries cannot keep to a former timetable, as he says, but a lot of this is caused by the fact Wightlink is unable to unload and load people and vehicles at the same time, due to the opposition at Lymington, making it impossible, at the moment, for a new ramp at Lymington.
Yes, these ferries are a lot taller, but are not much larger or wider than the older ones, and I seem to remember an 'outcry’ when the old ferries were introduced about 30 years ago. Do things ever change?