SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Mersey Ferries

141K views 806 replies 133 participants last post by  Howie_P 
#1 ·
Sorry if this has already been raised, or if the issue should have been posted elsewhere, but I was wondering what people's views are on transport spanning the Mersey.

Apart from tight, congested tunnel crossings and an equally unsatisfactory bridge way down river, the obvious solution of increasing public transport through new, affordable ferries has not been invested in (AFAIK).

The current Mersey ferries are expensive, old and only really hold novelty value - but you only have to look at other cities around Europe to see how effective ferry transportation could be.

Venice has its Vaporetto service, which is hugely popular and can haul thousands of commuters and tourists around the city quickly and easily. Even visiting in late November I found myself propped up by shear mass of people squashed together while hitching rides on the service.

Istanbul has a similar system crossing the Bosphorus and is preparing to introduce a new water taxi service to add efficiency and comfort on journeys.

With a growing trade in tourism and many other sectors anticipated, surely a much more modern, afforable and efficient system connecting Liverpool to the Wirral suburbs is necessary? Park and ride schemes from Woodside/Seacombe and perhaps even a small car ferry (as in Plymouth Sound?) could benefit transportation to and from the city.

I'd say enough people drive to/from Liverpool a day from Wirral to suggest there would be demand for such a service.
 
See less See more
#58 ·
Hi folks, the DP article implies that the owner of the building *has* been consulted and there's no reason to think that he won't sell.

However, the owner of the business currently operating *in* the building reportedly has not been informed of the plans. I'd say that it is his landlord, the owner of the building, that has some kind of obligation, even if its only a moral one, to let the Shanghai Palace guy know that he's likely to get his marching orders soon, not the council's. I don't think that this represents too massive a hitch, after all tenants always need to be shifted when new developments occur.

It's not as if a CPO will even be needed - the Shanghai Palace restaurant owner doesn't own the building. He does claim to have a long lease on the property. However, I'm no expert on the legal aspects of such leases but whenever I've rented a property, there's been some kind of notice period built in that allows the landlord to give you fair notice to get out before a certain date. The Shanghai dude might just be blowing off. Naturally, he's pissed that his business is about to be made homeless but there might not be anything that he can do about it.
 
#60 ·
Its never that easy.............

. I don't think that this represents too massive a hitch, after all tenants always need to be shifted when new developments occur..
I know were you are coming from Awayo, but Shanghai "lease" holder Joe Farly only has to look at the couple of shop keepers in front of Lime St Station to see that he does have rights and could put this super new terminal in doubt. When it comes down to paying out compensation both sides will have a very different idea on what the site valuation. ( ask the residents along Edge Lane :eek:hno: ) .

Another surprise in todays DP, that this guy has planning permission to turn this tied looking 60`s block into a "pagoda", now thats a very appropriate building slap bang in the middle of the WHS. Just what were our planners thinking about when they passed his plan:eek:hno:
 
#59 ·
Like the new ferry terminal, the canal link looks great. Hope the Shanghai fella is only blowin off wind, after all is he that oblivious to what is going on around.

I would prefer the resteraunt not to be on the ground floor, as it is unusable space at the moment, should be cafe's, with tables and chairs to sit all around the building.

Also get rid of the piss stench, or remove/fine the people causing the problem, noticed tramps sleeping in St-Nicks churchyard also, stinking the place out.
 
#62 · (Edited)
Oh Wayne... :eek:hno:

Somebody should have a word with him - this "trashy tarts" business really isn't doing him any favours.

Why do I get the impression that he still lives with his mother?

I keep on imagining him erecting his one-man demonstration stand on Mathew Street on a Saturday night and, whenever any of the posses of scantily clad girlies walk past, shouting: "Trashy tarts! Brazen hussies! Shameless trollops! Wanton harlots! Indecent strumpets!" With one hand down his trousers...
 
#64 ·
Awayo, that image will stay with me far longer than I want it to...

Tut tut, Wayne is in serious danger of pissing off the people at UNESCO - I'm sure they already have a 'special inbox' for his numerous letters of complaint. The trouble with people like Wayne (and others not so far from here) is that their obession clouds their judgement and they loose the ability to choose which battles are worth fighting, and just oppose everything in sight, eventually alienating themselves from the very people who might have supported them in the first place.

I even note that the Echo's tone has become a little less reverential and a bit more casual towards Mr Colquhoun:

The man who complained to the World Heritage Centre about high-rise building projects close to Liverpool's Pier Head last night condemned the latest plans for a new ferry terminal on the waterfront.

That's his label now 'the man who complains'...
 
#70 ·
On the Pier Head thread Cambrian said he'd spotted some workmen laying flags, I wonder if it has something to do with this.

From this mornings DP.





Passengers for the ferry are going to have to take a detour after the closure of the footbridge over the floating roadway cutting. The footbridge is to be removed to allow Balfour Beatty to continue with the work on the cruise liner facility.

Merseytravel said "The temporary pedestrian route we are having to put in place to the ferries isn't ideal but we have no choice but to work around this closure. We accept the reasons that Balfour Beatty give for the closure, they must continue work on the new treminal"


Is this the first definite sign that the cruise liner berth is about to start construction?? looks like.
 
#71 ·
. We accept the reasons that Balfour Beatty give for the closure, they must continue work on the new treminal"


Is this the first definite sign that the cruise liner berth is about to start construction?? looks like.
Doug, it looks like the first part of the job is the construction of the canal tunnel, the new access down onto the cruise liner berth could well pass over this tunnel. Lets hope were are right, Balfour Beatty are the main contractors for the Cruise Liner berth ,and maybe because the canal crosses their site they are also building the canal?
 
#73 ·
Cheers Martin, that does make sense. Agree there is a hell of a lot of work to be done in the next 14 months if the Pier Head is to be finished for 2008, but I cannot see the new Mersey Ferry building being completed in that time.
 
#74 · (Edited)
Even though great things are starting to move on this site the fact that the old ferry landing stage due to be removed last August is still there and now to use the ferry is a long trek round from the ticket office will probably mean a long bleak winter for the mersey ferry.
If only the temporary landing stage was placed on the site of the sunken one in the first place then it would not have been affected by the developments.
 
#75 ·
They probably make more from a 70s disco night or a Rocky Horror themed night than they do from a month of regular sailings. The last time I went on the M'cr Ship Canal cruise it was almost standing room only - we were well packed in and the queue for a plastic cup full of nescafe seemed to be never ending. I particularly liked the choice of kit-kat on offer from the ship's cafe - melted or stale.
 
#84 ·
Very calm on the river today - bit grainy as I'm no photographer but the ferry did a nice little turn for me as I was walking along Prince's Dock.:)

Also I reckon the steam plume in the background on the first one is from the power station at Queensferry, visible due to the very high air pressure at the moment I think



 
#86 ·
Here we go again!

Ferry terminal delayed after call for rethink

Dec 22 2006
By Larry Neild
Liverpool Daily Post

A NEW ferry terminal at Liverpool's world-famous Pier Head is being delayed as planning managers seek more details. Last night, Wayne Colquhoun, chairman of Liverpool Preservation Trust, said the hitch should pave the way for a complete rethink of the £15m project to save the view of the majestic Three Graces.

Merseytravel have submitted plans for a three-storey building to replace the Mersey Ferry terminal built almost 30 years ago. The scheme involves demolition of the terminal with its tented roof, as well as the adjoining Shanghai Palace Chinese restaurant.

The replacement building has already attracted comments from a city design panel, which quizzed why the building needed to be so high, and why a roof terrace faced away from the river.

Merseytravel submitted the scheme to Liverpool's planning department last month with the hope it would be put before the planning committee early in the New Year for a decision.

But the plan has now been invalidated at the request of the city planning manager Nigel Lee. He has called for supporting information about access to the proposed building as well as design issues. When the project is restored to the planning process, a new consultation exercise will be launched.

Last night a city council spokesman said the invalidation process was being used to enable more information to be sought on conservation area matters.
The project had not been scheduled on to a planning committee agenda, with the council insisting it did not believe the scheme should be delayed.

But Mr Colquhoun said: "If they are to restart the consultation exercise once the extra information is supplied it is bound to be delayed. I am hoping this will enable us to convince heritage bodies and Unesco such a scheme in the middle of a World Heritage Site is completely unacceptable.

"We think the current building is a leftover from an era of madness when we had a bus station at the Pier Head, but what is the point in coming up with a worse design?

"Why do we need anything there other than a small entrance to the ferries that does not impinge on the historic architecture of the Three Graces and, rather than build an extra storey above, it should be lower than what is there at present. Why not a single storey? This would be easily accommodated by going subterranean thus leaving our gently ageing Edwardian beauties their full majesty. Considering the different heights of the sea level and the Pier Head it seems a bit of common sense is needed here."

A spokesman for Merseytravel said: "We are working closely with Liverpool City Council's planning department and we will supply any additional information that is needed."
 
#88 ·
Merseytravel have submitted plans for a three-storey building to replace the Mersey Ferry terminal built almost 30 years ago. The scheme involves demolition of the terminal with its tented roof, as well as the adjoining Shanghai Palace Chinese restaurant.
So the Shanghai Palace is actually going? The only render I ever saw of this was the one where the terminal backed right upto the Shanghai Palace but it was still there. Visually it looked crap to me. Has the design since been revised?
 
#90 ·
Yet another re-design, one day we may get it right...

Three stories does seem to be one too many, but it makes a lot of sense having an observation area facing inland, not least because it might offer just a tad of protection from the vicious, cold wind. ]
I agree poli, I like the revised design, but maybe 3 storey`s is to high, I thought winging wayne :nuts: would be happy that we could all admire the three graces whilst sipping our latte`s or in Bunnymans case ,a pint of Cains:cheers:
 
Top