Fares structure

A majority of respondents – 74% of those answering the question – agreed with the option to create different levels of fares for different types of users, such as island and non-island residents. Individuals were more likely to agree than organisations, at 79% and 58% respectively.

Among respondents who supported different levels of fares for different types of users, the most frequent comments related to the possibility of an island resident fare, with reasons for supporting this option including the high cost of living on islands, and the lifeline nature of the service. In contrast it was argued that using the ferry service is a choice for visitors, who will generally make only one return journey and can probably afford to pay more. However, there were also suggestions that fares for visitors must remain affordable to ensure the tourism economy is not damaged.

Among respondents who did not support different levels of fares for different types of users, the most frequent comments were that such an approach would be difficult to define and complicated to enforce. Some respondents highlighted potential alternatives to different fares for different types of users, including a frequent user scheme, either as a season ticket or books of discounted tickets.

The draft Strategic Assessment paper proposed free foot passenger travel for residents who are under 22 within the Outer Hebrides, Orkney, and Shetland Island groups. There was support for this position but also calls for such a concession to be extended to cover travel between all islands and the mainland and for ferries to provide the same access to free travel for those aged under 22 as is currently available on bus services.

In terms of which groups should be eligible for islander fares, respondents were asked to select as many options as they wished from seven options. Overall, 90% of respondents chose ‘Permanent residents’ (almost all of those who made a choice other than ‘None’), with 81% supporting eligibility for ‘Island residents who are currently students and living at mainland addresses during term-time’. There was lower, but approximately equal support for ‘People who work but do not live on islands’ and ‘Service providers’ at 54% and 52% respectively, followed by 29% support for ‘nominated friends and family’ and only 8% in favour of islander fares being available to second homeowners.

A majority of respondents – 59% of those answering the question – agreed with a fares structure that both encourages passengers to travel without a private vehicle and incentivises travel at quieter periods.

Although there was support in principle for encouraging travel without a private vehicle, the most frequent comments concerned availability of public transport or connectivity between ferry services and other modes of transport. For some the absence of adequate public transport in rural areas or lack of integration between different forms of public transport were seen as making travel without private cars impractical for most people, and as a reason for disagreeing with the proposed fares structure.

Points in support of incentivising travel at quieter periods included that variable pricing is a sensible way to try to encourage better use of quieter services, but that encouraging travel at quieter times should not be achieved by increasing fares on busier sailings. It was suggested that it would be unfair to penalise those who need to travel at a particular time – for example for work.