Capacity and demand

The consultation paper notes that the space for vehicles on busy ferry routes fills up quickly at popular times, especially in summer. This makes it difficult for residents of those islands, and visiting key workers, to travel with a vehicle at short notice. Transport Scotland explained that they propose to address ferry capacity issues by: 

• Using refreshed Community Needs Assessments to identify different options for service frequencies and vessel size.
• Collaborating with operators and communities to identify ways of using existing and planned capacity better.
• Identifying the key ‘pinch points’ on the CHFS and NIFS networks and considering options for additional vehicle capacity where this is practical, beneficial, and affordable.

Responses to Question 10 by respondent type are set out in Table 12 below.

Table 12: Responses to Question 10 by respondent type

Respondent	Yes	No	Total
Community Council, Development Trust or Transport Forum	6	1	7
Energy related business or group	3	2	5
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	4	1	5
Local Authority, RTP or CPP	5	3	8
Port or harbour authority	1	1	2
Public Body	3	0	3
Third sector or campaign group	1	1	2
Tourism organisation or business	4	0	4
Trade Union	1	0	1
Other private sector business or group	2	2	4
Total organisations	30	11	41
% of organisations	73%	27%	100%
Individuals	88	43	131
% of individuals	67%	33%	100%
All respondents	118	54	172
% of all respondents	69%	31%	100%

A majority of respondents – 69% of those answering the question – agreed with approach set out for dealing with ferry capacity due to increased demand. Organisations were more likely to be in agreement than individuals, at 73% and 67% respectively.  

Around 140 respondents made a comment at Question 10.

There were references to the planned approach looking like a good solution, and support for having a better understanding of capacity issues. However, it was also noted that extra capacity has been mooted for a number of years without apparent progress, and that it would not be acceptable to leave things unchanged.

As in comments on a number of other questions, many commented on the scale of the challenge, as well as the critical importance of tackling capacity problems. It was stated that capacity constraints impose costs on island communities, with the negative impact on local visitor economies, including harming vulnerable tourism and hospitality businesses. An energy business respondent reported always experiencing problems during busy periods, albeit they did not identify the route(s) involved.

In terms of the impact on island residents, it was reported that:

• Arran residents have reduced their ferry usage as it is perceived to be impossible to purchase tickets for the services that would facilitate movement on and off the island at suitable times.
• For passengers travelling to and from Shetland, even when booking well in advance, securing a cabin and a vehicle space on the same sailing is reported as being often difficult, and sometimes impossible.

For some respondents, the solution lay in increasing capacity, rather than seeking to manage demand, and it was suggested that any move to disincentivise cars on ferries must be subject to a rigorous Island Community Impact Assessment (ICIA) for each island community. However, there was also an alternative view that the focus should be on optimising current capacity rather than necessarily increasing it. For example, with reference to Arran it was reported that if vehicle traffic increased at the same rate as over the last 10 years, this would result in an increase of 50,000 car journeys on Arran’s roads by 2032.

Community Needs Assessments

A number of respondents commented specifically on the plan to use refreshed community needs assessments to identify different options for service frequencies and vessel size, with some specifically noting that they agreed with this proposal.

With regard to the how the refreshed Community Needs Assessments should be undertaken, there was a concern that the Routes and Services Methodology used (for the 2012 Ferries Plan) has since been updated from a ‘crossing times’ model to a ‘crewing model’ but that, in practical terms, this amounts to the same thing; namely that communities at most distance from the mainland will receive a lower crossing frequency than those closer. In terms of how the Assessments should be framed, suggestions included enabling community involvement in the design and delivery as critical to success, and that they should be based on metrics and assessment criteria defined in close partnership with island communities across Scotland.

Other comments and suggestions included that:

• It is important that the methodology is fully robust and fully “island proofed”.
• Assessments must be done in advance of when increased demands are expected in order to properly plan and accommodate these. Identifying bottlenecks early will be critical.
• The assessments should be led by experts who are independent of the organisations that fund ferry connections, primarily the Scottish Government and local authorities.
• They should be reviewed regularly to ensure that the social and economic needs of communities can be adequately serviced by transportation.

In relation to the focus of the Assessments, it was suggested that they should:

• Include a measure for constrained/unmet demand for each route, so as to fully reflect current and future community needs.
• Consider the economic impact and benefits brought to island communities by visitors.
• Be cognisant of how planned future developments and activity in local economies will affect demand for ferry services.

There were also a small number of specific suggestions regarding who should be involved in or consulted with as part of the Needs Assessment process. As well as the wider community, these included ferry committees and the local and national business community.

Using existing and planned capacity better

Irrespective of their views on extra capacity being required, many respondents thought there are opportunities to use existing and planned capacity better, with a number of suggestions made. These included that engagement with islanders and communities needs to be meaningful, and there were calls for:

• Regular communication between ferry operators and users to be a requirement and informed by regular transport capacity studies linked to estimates of future demand from industry and residents.
• Operators to commit to implementing the communities’ suggested solutions to capacity challenges.
• Meaningful stakeholder engagement with tourism and hospitality businesses, particularly accommodation providers, to identify ways of using existing and planned capacity better.

In terms of existing activity, it was reported that CalMac has an ongoing programme of engagement with their commercial customers to track the customer experience; it was suggested that this type of engagement should be utilised as much as possible to provide detailed insights on current and future requirements.

Respondents also made their own suggestions as to how capacity could be managed better. These ideas included:

• Incentivising hauliers to travel on off-peak sailings.
• Running freight only services (covered in detail at Question 11). A particular issue raised here was that, as the Western Isles become home to more renewable energy developments and other infrastructure projects, the volume of commercial vehicles and equipment seeking to use ferry services will also increase and this has the potential to exacerbate existing capacity challenges. It was suggested that one solution would be to provide additional freight services, particularly on busy routes.
• Introducing a campervan surcharge.
• Having Car Hire or Car Club options available at either side of ferry crossings, with costs set at road equivalent to incentivise travellers to use these options.

In relation to booking and/or capacity management systems or processes there were references to:

• As at Question 8, formalising the prioritisation of islanders travelling for medical purposes and appointments.
• Advertising the need to book in advance at peak times.
• Reintroducing waiting lists.

Other suggestions related to responses to delays or cancellations and included that there needs to be a published protocol which allows for a next day relief sailing in the event of a service being cancelled for any reason. If all else fails, the use of replacement charter flights should also be a possibility.

‘Pinch Points’ and Options for Additional capacity

As noted above in response to earlier questions, many respondents took the view that additional capacity is required. With specific reference to the proposal on identifying the key pinch points, a private sector respondent expressed a view that, on the NIFS network, these are already well known to the operator and community, but that they saw little serious action being taken by Transport Scotland to alleviate the issues experienced.

There were also queries about what is meant by being ‘practical, beneficial and affordable’ and how this relates to what is delivered to island economies and communities. It was noted, for example, that the priorities of different communities may clash; a query posed was what would happen if an additional Sunday sailing was requested by the Tiree community, but the ferry was being used on another route, thus leaving any request null and void.

A general point made a local authority respondent was that pinch points need to be identified across all ferry services which are fully revenue funded by Scottish Government, not just the CHFS and NIFS networks; it was suggested that an ‘Islands Connectivity Plan’ needs to consider this aspect of connectivity for all islands.

Some comments identified specific routes which the respondent(s) saw as experiencing pinch points, along with suggestions to address these pinch points. Examples included that:

• Communities in the Western Isles have previously made requests for additional sailings across both the Sounds of Barra and Harris. Specifically suggesting that there should be a two-ferry service on the Sound of Harris.
• Where Colonsay shares a service with Islay, Colonsay travellers report often being unable to utilise the services because Islay travellers are booking the capacity long in advance; it is expected to be relatively straightforward to have allocated spaces for Colonsay users and a standby system for potential ferry users on other islands if, for some reason, the Colonsay allocation is not fully utilised.
• Colonsay’s winter timetable is suggested to give the impression that the island is almost unreachable, and many visitors and trades are reported to not risk being stuck for days longer than planned. Extra services could remedy this and build in resilience.
• Islay’s need for more services on Fridays; current services are heavily booked well in advance by workers leaving the island at that time.

In addition to looking at current pinch points, respondents also highlighted the importance of looking to the future and, in particular, to economic developments that will require capacity and resilience to be improved. Examples given included: ScotWind; the Western Isles Interconnector; EDF onshore wind farm; the Stornoway Deep Water Port development; further growth of the whisky industry on Islay; a number of major infrastructure schemes in Shetland, including offshore and onshore wind, space, and decommissioning projects; and further growth of Orkney’s aquaculture sector.

In terms of existing plans, it was reported that the currently unfunded plan to replace the freighters on the NIFS route would partially reduce the constraints on the NIFS routes, particularly if the conclusion of the business case is that replacement vessels are ‘freighter plus’ i.e. inclusive of additional passenger capacity. However, it was also argued that, if the solution is limited to freight only, then the benefits will be significantly fewer and passenger demands will not be met.

New opportunities

In addition to comments on existing services, respondents also identified new opportunities, including for:

• Services to open up a market for day-trip visitors to the Western Isles; the local authority respondent highlighting this issue reported that this opportunity could have been exploited already had local advice been heeded.
• The construction of more fixed links. There were references to bridges and tunnels, and there were calls to explore the merits of these alternative options, particularly where current ferry services are not meeting demand. Although relatively few respondents highlighted specific locations, those that did so were most likely to refer to inter-islands fixed links for Shetland. There were also references to links between the mainland and Mull, across the Sounds of Harris and Barra, between Islay and Jura, and to replace the Corran Ferry.

Concerns about the approach

Although the majority of respondents agreed with the proposed approach to addressing capacity issues, some respondents did think Transport Scotland’s proposal is either focusing on the wrong issues, or that it, and the system more widely, will simply not be able to deliver.

There were also concerns that the intention behind the proposals does not address the underlying issues. Respondents tended to see these as being either about the way RET has been implemented (see Questions 16 to 19) or simply about the need to increase capacity in the network.