HOW NOVEMBER 2024 SURVEY RESPONDENTS WOULD RESPOND TO THE TOWN HALL COMMENTATOR FEBRUARY 2026
Drawn from SLC Comments Summary 458, 6th November 2024, and Survey for Strangford Lough Alternative Crossing (Rev 0), September–November 2024
Group 1: The Large Majority — The Need for Change Is Urgent and Cannot Wait for Further Study
The dominant voice across the 458 responses is one of profound frustration that the question of a bridge has been studied, discussed, and deferred for decades already. The Town Hall commentator’s call for a full and detailed study before proceeding would be met by this group with weary recognition rather than agreement.
These respondents spoke in direct terms:
“A bridge is LONG overdue and something the local community has wanted for years. It would open the peninsula up so much more never mind helping commuters and school children. I hope this doesn’t fall on deaf ears.”
“Should have had a bridge years ago.”
“I feel there should have been a bridge built 20 years ago.”
“Get a bridge built we are in the 21st Century.”
“We have 1960s solution to a 21st century problem at the minute.”
“It is time to move into the future and build a bridge.”
“Needs sorted ASAP… Stop wasting time on surveys and take politics out of it.”
“Lack of money will be quoted at government level as a reason for not pursuing alternative crossings. A bridge was suggested many years ago — had it been built, it would have long since been paid for.”
This group would not reject the commentator’s call for study outright, but would challenge the premise that caution and further delay constitute responsible governance given the decades already elapsed. They would argue that the study has, in effect, been conducted through lived experience across a generation.
Group 2: The Practicality of Daily Life — Real Harm Is Happening Now
A substantial proportion of respondents described concrete, daily harms caused by the current service. For this group, the Town Hall commentator’s concern about the potential bypass effect of a future bridge would appear abstract against the documented reality of missed work, late children, medical access difficulties, and mental health impacts they attributed directly to the existing service.
Respondents recorded:
“The ferry has negatively impacted my mental health. I have been late to work and family events, despite arriving 20 minutes before the next crossing. I unfortunately don’t see my family as regularly as I would like to due to the sailing times, high cost of vehicle crossings and long queues.”
“I work every day in Downpatrick and the ferry service is completely unreliable. From having to leave the house half an hour early to beat queues, to the ferry being called off on short notice, and the extortionate pricing, I have started to look for alternative work for the primary reason that the ferry causes me so much hassle.”
“The amount of times per year that kids don’t get to school is a disgrace.”
“Ambulances need a more consistent pathway to answer emergency calls!”
“Our nearest hospital is 7 miles away if a bridge were to be built.”
“Freedom to use a crossing whenever you want is essential for all.”
“Service stops at 10.30 so if you miss that last boat it’s a good hour drive around to your destination.”
“For far too long, the people of Strangford and Portaferry have been highlighting the inadequacies of the ferry service. This service is a crucial connection for our community — many of us rely on it for jobs, education, and day-to-day life. Yet, time and again, we find ourselves cut off from essential routes.”
“I am extremely unsatisfied with the Ferry boat service. It is a service that is not fit for purpose with frequent delays, cancellations and long waiting queues.”
This group would respond to the commentator by pointing out that the bypass risk is a prospective concern about a proposed future infrastructure, while the harms they describe are actual, present, and measurable. They would argue that the comparison to Kyle of Lochalsh, a Scottish community whose primary challenge arose after bridge construction, does not address the harms being experienced now.
Group 3: Those Who Directly Addressed the Tourism and Character Question
A minority of respondents did engage directly with the concern the Town Hall commentator raised — that a bridge could alter the character and feel of the villages, or divert rather than attract trade. This is the group whose views are most directly relevant to the Kyle comparison. Their responses fell into two positions.
Those who accepted some concern but did not oppose the bridge:
“I think the loss of the Ferry in Portaferry would alter the whole feel of the town.”
“The entire approach to tourism and public service needs to improve. This is a public service and a key part of the tourism infrastructure, not something that is being provided as a favour to users.”
“Keep ferry for tourists.” (expressed by multiple respondents as a suggested compromise rather than an objection to the bridge itself)
“The current service is not fit for service. The ferry could remain as a tourist attraction, but for more regular users a bridge or tunnel is essential.”
“Careful planning concerning entrance and exit areas so as not to impact on village/town too much.”
“Access roads on each side.” (expressed as a planning concern to be addressed, not a reason to oppose the crossing)
Those who rejected the tourism concern directly:
“There would be no detriment to tourism in the area if the ferry service ceased to operate.”
“The ferry service is polluting our lough and is very unreliable in all weathers. A bridge would bring more tourism and there are still a lot of foot passenger private boats available for tourists.”
“A bridge is the best solution and would be a new tourist attraction.”
“In my view, it’s not about the tourists…. It’s about the local community, the people who have to cross the Lough on a daily basis. It’s the locals who will be negatively impacted by the non-running of the ferry service for 5 weeks next month.”
“It’s majority tourists that use it, hence the locals being unable to access it.”
“Yes, it would mean far easier access… It would be a great boost to tourism and make easier access to other towns on the south Down side.”
“An alternative crossing appears to be the preference for the majority on the Ards Peninsula regarding access to hospital appointments, ambulance waiting times, work, school and daily life. The ferry is an outdated mode of transport that just does not meet the demand required.”
Group 4: Those Who Raised Environmental and Visual Concerns Aligned With the Commentator’s General Position
A small but articulate minority expressed views which, whilst not referencing Kyle of Lochalsh specifically, aligned in substance with the caution the commentator expressed — that change brings irreversible consequences that deserve careful thought.
These respondents stated:
“I do not want a bridge, it will spoil the area forever.”
“Don’t build a bridge it would be an eye sore across the Lough.”
“The bridge would ruin the view and make it harder to sail boats in the lough.”
“A major infrastructure project would inevitably impact on the environment…. The very thing which makes the town and area unique…attractive…special would HAVE to be compromised. In changing the environment you change the people/community!! Consideration beyond an economic spreadsheet MUST be given.”
“Is the infrastructure suitable, given we live in an AONB?”
This group would support the Town Hall commentator’s instinct and would likely endorse the call for a full study precisely because they wish to establish the scale of impact before any decision is made. They represent a minority voice within the survey data but one that is clearly articulated and deserves acknowledgement.
Group 5: Those Who Identified Solutions That Address the Bypass Concern Directly
Several respondents, without using the term bypass, instinctively identified the design and planning mitigations that would prevent the Kyle of Lochalsh outcome — suggesting these concerns are present in community thinking even if not explicitly framed in those terms.
“Careful planning concerning entrance and exit areas so as not to impact on village/town too much. The cost of toll could reflect the cost of current ferry prices to take a car over. A pedestrian pathway as well as motorway would be icing on the cake.”
“Sustainable energy should be harnessed to help us be net zero and pay/maintain the crossing. Bridge and tunnel may work best for everyone, as you wouldn’t want to hold up any boats. A pedestrian/cycle pathway should be included.”
“Is there anyway a bridge could be designed in such a way to not only be a benefit to community re travel, but also to generate electricity.”
“Fife peninsula supports three bridges one rail and two road without impact on nature and serves small communities well.”
“An alternative crossing would boost local economy and trade. It would alleviate congestion in both Portaferry and Strangford.”
“I believe an alternative crossing would allow a lot of people to grow in terms of employment.”
Summary Assessment
Reading the November 2024 survey comments in their totality against the Town Hall commentator’s position, the weight of respondent opinion falls into four broad positions in response to the Kyle caution:
The largest group — expressing urgency and frustration — would acknowledge the concern but argue that forty years of inaction have already demonstrated the cost of excessive caution, and that the Kyle comparison describes a risk to be planned against rather than a reason to delay further. A second group, focused on daily practical harms, would argue the caution is misplaced in its priorities — the harm from the status quo is documented and immediate, whereas the bypass risk is prospective and manageable. A third group, focused on design and planning, would agree with the commentator that careful study of road alignment, access, and village character is essential, but would frame this as part of the feasibility work rather than a reason to defer it. Only a small minority would endorse the commentator’s position in full, on the grounds that the unique character and environment of the area is at genuine risk from any major infrastructure change.
The single respondent who stated directly that the loss of the ferry would alter the whole feel of Portaferry stands as perhaps the most considered articulation of the Town Hall commentator’s concern from within the survey sample — and notably, that respondent did not express opposition to a bridge, only concern about what would be lost alongside it.