Capacity and Demand

The consultation paper reported that previous feedback has highlighted the high demand for ferry services during summer. This means there is a requirement to consider the balance between capacity and demand to ensure car spaces are available to make essential or urgent travel. The consultation paper also noted that, while the Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) has reduced fares and made Scottish Islands more accessible, it is necessary to strike a balance between vessel capacity and passenger demand, and to find a better way to manage the number of users and the available space.

RET fares are calculated such that the price of a single journey is based on the cost of driving the same distance, plus an element to cover fixed costs such as maintaining vessels and harbour infrastructure.

Responses to Question 3 by respondent type are set out in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Responses to Question 3 by respondent type

Organisations	Yes	No	Total
Community Council or Development Trust	5	0	5
Farming or land management organisation	3	0	3
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	5	0	5
Haulage company or representative body	2	0	2
Local Authority or HSCP	3	0	3
Public Body	2	0	2
Tourism business	2	0	2
Trade Union	1	0	1
Transport Partnership	2	0	2
Voluntary sector organisation	2	0	2
Other business or representative body	2	0	2
Total organisations	29	0	29
% of organisations	100%	0%	Not Applicable
Individuals	301	61	362
% of individuals	83%	17%	Not Applicable
All respondents	330	61	391
% of all respondents	84%	16%	Not Applicable

A majority of respondents – 84% of those who answered the question – said they had suggestions connected to reducing vehicle space demand.

Around 360 respondents made a comment at Question 3, including a small number who either said they did not have any suggestions or who did not answer the closed question.

General observations about capacity and demand

A general point, and reflecting comments made at later questions, was that increased capacity, rather than managed, and by extension potentially reduced demand, needs to be the focus, with Community Council or Development Trust and Ferry Board, Committee or Group respondents amongst those raising this point. Also, reflecting a cross-cutting theme across the consultation, there were general references to more sailings (both regular, and especially at night and in response to seasonal pressures), increasing capacity on sailings, and replacement sailings to clear backlogs when there have been cancellations. One suggestion was that operators could be allowed to operate services out with the specified contract timetable, at their own cost, should they feel it is profitable to do so.

There was also a recognition that each community has different needs and an associated view that a one size fits all approach to, for example, managing vehicle space would not be advisable. Giving the Isle of Bute as an example, it was reported that while the impact of high demand on residents and supply chains can be considerable at peak tourism times, many local businesses depend on visitors to remain viable. Other examples included the commuting needs of Mull residents, and the distillery-specific business needs of Islay. Connected to these varying needs, there was a call for a balance to be struck to ensure that the needs of all ferry users are fully considered.

Demand-based Pricing

The most frequently made point, and one most likely to have been made by individual respondents, was that some form of demand-based pricing is required, with a premium paid on higher demand services and/or for larger vehicles. It was suggested that this could help encourage users, and in particular visitors, to opt for lower demand services.

Further suggestions included:

• Reduced fares for off peak sailings and services running at unsocial hours.
• An advance vehicle booking discount.

However, a note of caution was also struck, with a Local Authority respondent commenting that changing of ticketing prioritisation, linked to measures such as peak demand fares, may be a way to manage demand but that potential negative impacts of this approach should be assessed. Examples included consideration of whether more expensive ticketing during commuting times might deter local residents from accessing work opportunities, and whether additional costs might deter visitors to islands that are in close competition with mainland coastal destinations. Transport Partnership respondents suggested that any consideration of surge or peak pricing should be taken forward in collaboration with local authorities, ferry committees, the Ferries Community Board, Ferry Stakeholder Groups and key stakeholders, and that a sailing should only be considered for seasonal peak tariff application on routes with multiple alternative journeys on the same day.

Road Equivalent Tariff

It was noted that the introduction of RET pricing has seen significant success in growing demand for travel on the CHFS networks, but that delays with new vessels and issues with capacity have left a perception that this increased demand for travel on the network is a bad thing. The Transport Partnership respondent raising this issue went on to comment that, before any changes to policy are introduced, the impact of introducing six new major vessels into the CHFS fleet should be understood; in line with other comments about meeting rather than managing demand, they saw it as important that demand is not suppressed at a point that capacity is increased with a consequent economic cost to fragile island economies.

Nevertheless, a frequently made point, particularly among Individual respondents, was that the RET should be for residents only, and should be removed or reduced for tourists. In terms of some of the problems or challenges that have resulted from RET fares being available to visitors to islands there was reference to low fares encouraging visitors to travel to some destinations by car, equipped with all the provisions they need, rather than using public transport and spending locally.

Although many of those commenting focused on the impact of visitors being able to access RET fares, it was also noted that not all island communities have benefited. For example, a Ferry Board, Committee or Group respondent reported that the Cumbrae RET fare is at the same level that people could already buy multi journey tickets.

Moving forward, in addition to the general suggestion that tourists should not be able to take advantage of RET fares, it was suggested that RET fares should be removed for:

• Mobile homes and campervans.
• Rental cars and non-UK vehicles.
• Tourist vehicles during the peak, summer holiday period.

However, it was also stressed that if RET fares were to be removed for some, islanders and regular travellers should not be penalised in any way as a result.

Managing freight traffic

Although the potential to manage freight traffic at busy times was noted, the more frequently made point was that freight traffic is key to supporting the local economy and residents and needs to be given a degree of priority.

Nevertheless, in terms of possible approaches, and including those that could be considered in the short-term, suggestions included:

• Additional freight only services, possibly sailing overnight or early in the morning, could be an option. However, it was also suggested that while dedicated freight services may assist on some high-volume routes, they will not be a solution for all routes.
• Offering price incentives to use dedicated, freight only sailings or less popular sailings.
• Developing a baseline for each vessel against which the utilisation is measured and ‘dead space’ to allow for cargo shipping is quantified.
• Flexibility to introduce space and weight saving measures, such as drop trailers for HGV loads, to alleviate short-term pressures. Also, restricting high vehicles on some sailings to optimise the space offered by mezzanine floors.
• Considering consolidating deliveries of small freight.

Managing tourism traffic

Respondents tended to make similar points relating to managing tourism traffic as they did regarding freight; the importance of tourism to the local economy of a number of island communities was noted, and again it was suggested that the primary focus needs to be on increased overall capacity, and, in particular, increased capacity during the busiest periods.

In terms of specific approaches, suggestions included:

• The addition of smaller, passenger only services.
• Encouraging more visitors to Park and Sail, potentially linked to the provision of additional sailings at peak times.
• An amended ticketing policy for campervans, for example by limiting the number on any one sailing or by allowing same day booking only. An associated point was that there should be flexibility to extend the campervan restrictions that are currently applied on some routes to others where required.

A Trade Union respondent suggested monitoring the volume of coaches, motorhomes, caravans and other non-freight private transport, especially during peak travel times; they noted that these types of vehicles take up more than the vehicle space allocated for an average car and that the economic benefit from tourist revenue is mitigated by socio-economic impacts locally, damage to harbour and road infrastructure and disproportionate environmental impact.

Booking approaches and systems

Respondents also highlighted some issues related to booking approaches and systems that could be looked at. For example, there was reference to service data (individual service data captured by The Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership (HITRANS), in partnership with Outer Hebrides Tourism) showing that the ability to book in advance risked impeding travel to the islands served by CHFS. It was noted that when sailings were shown to be full when people were planning leisure or business travel, spaces often became available closer to sailing time; it was suggested that the next CHFS contract should see greater emphasis on reducing this issue.

Other booking system-related suggestions included introducing a more efficient and fair approach to block bookings.

Improved and integrated public transport

Although encouraging and incentivising travellers, and especially visitors, to travel by public transport was generally seen as desirable, improved and integrated public transport services were often seen as a vital precursor (discussed further at Questions 4 and 14 in particular). Local Authority, Trade Union and Public Body respondents were amongst those highlighting this need. In terms of how to deliver wider improvements, suggestions included:

• Developing a regional/national Mobility as a Service (MaaS) system that coordinates all forms of transport.
• The provision of funding for on-island transport improvements, including to island and ferry terminal cycling infrastructure.

With specific reference to reducing vehicle demand, especially for peak sailings, suggestions included:

• Improving the quality and availability of bus, coach and train connections at either end of the ferry service; co-ordinating/joining up the ferry timetables with those for connecting buses and trains.
• Building provision and responsibility into the contract for onward travel for foot passengers if there are delays.
• Improving Park and Sail facilities. It was noted, for example, that the long-term parking at the Oban Ferry Terminal is very limited.
• Providing information on public transport to and from the ports on the CalMac website.
• Increasing the availability of demand-responsive transport services on islands and introducing Car Clubs at ferry terminals.
• The introduction of a discounted ticket for a combined public transport and ferry travel to incentivise sustainable travel journeys, and seasonal or discounted tickets for foot passengers.

Other suggestions

Other suggested ways to reduce vehicle space demand included:

• Waiving or reducing fares for passengers travelling without cars.
• Charging single occupancy car premiums.
• Providing a loading facility (in the form of free, lockable containers or luggage vans) on the car deck with an earlier check-in time so that people could stow whatever items they wanted to take with them ahead of the sailing.

Responses to Question 4 by respondent type are set out in Table 12 below.

Table 12: Responses to Question 4 by respondent type

Organisations	Yes	No	Total
Community Council or Development Trust	0	4	4
Farming or land management organisation	1	2	3
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	0	6	6
Haulage company or representative body	0	2	2
Local Authority or HSCP	0	2	2
Public Body	0	1	1
Tourism business	1	2	3
Trade Union	1	0	1
Transport Partnership	1	0	1
Voluntary sector organisation	2	0	2
Other business or representative body	0	2	2
Total organisations	6	21	27
% of organisations	22%	78%	Not Applicable
Individuals	120	245	365
% of individuals	33%	67%	Not Applicable
All respondents	126	266	392
% of all respondents	32%	68%	Not Applicable

A majority of respondents – 68% of those who answered the question – said they would not be willing to travel to and from a port using public transport in order to reduce the number of cars on deck at peak times.

Around 340 respondents made a comment at Question 4, including some who said they would be willing to travel to and from a port using public transport or who did not answer the closed question. There were also comments, including from a number of organisations, about the barriers and opportunities around using public transport to get to and from ports.

Reasons for not being willing to use public transport

Those who said they would not be willing or able to travel to and from a port using public transport were most likely to comment on either the practicalities preventing them from using public transport or on the suitability/adequacy of those services.

Personal, practical barriers

A frequently made point amongst Individual respondents was that it would not be possible or practical to use public transport because of the type of journey they are making, both relating to purpose for travelling or the specifics of the journey itself.

On the former point, examples given included:

• Needing a vehicle to transport goods or equipment, including shopping or luggage. There were also references to transporting pets or livestock.
• Travelling in a work vehicle, including a vehicle that needed to be used for work purposes on the destination side of a crossing.
• Having a disability or mobility issue that makes use of public transport difficult and/or impossible. Also, potentially needing to take equipment or aids on that journey.
• Using a touring vehicle, with the whole purpose of a motorhome/ campervan being that it travels with you.

Very much reflecting the overall profile of respondents, these issues, including the final example, were raised by people who live in the CHFS area.

With regard to tourist traffic more generally, it was also observed that those travelling to island locations in particular are very likely to need their car once they reach their destination.

Current public transport services

The other most frequently referenced barrier was the reach and reliability of existing public transport services. Associated comments included that current services are either not fit-for-purpose or simply do not exist; this latter point was raised with particular reference to some island locations, including by Community Council or Development Trust respondents who noted that there are no public transport services to their port.

In terms of what would be needed to make the use of public transport a more viable choice, respondents tended to raise similar points to those already highlighted at the previous question. In particular, there were calls for services to be more reliable and frequent, and for ferry and bus and train timetables to be coordinated. This included public transport services continuing to run after ferries have arrived; an example given was that on late sailings from Coll to Oban, the only public transport option can be to travel on to Glasgow and that those wanting to travel to any other destination are likely to require an overnight stay.

It was also suggested that any measures to increase demand for public transport services to and from ports need to be supported by increased capacity to meet that demand.

Cost and time implications

Associated in part with concerns relating to the quality and coverage, respondents also highlighted resource-related barriers to using public transport to travel to and from ports. They included that it can be:

• Financially costly and, if not more expensive, is unlikely to be cheaper than travelling by car.
• Time consuming, especially on multi-stage journeys that require waits for connections etc.

On this latter issue, some respondents noted that they may live in, or be travelling to remote locations, and that such journeys will always be challenging when using public transport.

Nature of the journey

Connected to the coverage of the public transport network, and the time taken, were comments about the nature of some of the journeys being undertaken. Respondents referred to living in remote locations and/or travelling to equivalently remote locations.

In terms of the journey from the port to the final destination, respondents noted that before needing to take their vehicle on the sailing, they would also need to use it to travel to the port. A Ferry Board, Committee or Group respondent commented that, from an islanders’ perspective, the availability or otherwise of public transport has little bearing on whether travellers will take their car on to the ferry. They went on to suggest that the decision take a car on to the ferry is entirely dependent on the nature of the mainland portion of the journey, and the availability / suitability of public transport for that portion. They also suggested that the question itself is mainland-centric and fails to recognise the lifeline nature of the service from an island perspective.

Another Ferry Board, Committee or Group respondent reported that in their area the practicality of travelling to and from a port on public transport can be very route dependent. They cited the Colintraive-Rhubodach crossing as being almost totally impractical, with public transport links that are very limited on both sides of the crossing. However, they reported that on the Wemyss Bay-Rothesay service, matters are significantly better, with direct rail connections and frequent bus services.

Points made by those willing to use public transport

Those who said they would be willing to use public transport sometimes noted that they already did so. Otherwise, they were most likely to raise similar points relating to the quality and coverage of public transport services as those who would not be willing or able to use them. These included that services need to be (more) reliable and better planned to allow people to make connections between ferry, bus and train services. There were also references to it needing to be cost effective and more affordable. Specific suggestions often mirrored those already set out at the previous question.

Further issues relating to improving public transport services and increase their use are covered at later questions, including Questions 14 to 16.

Responses to Question 5 by respondent type are set out in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Responses to Question 5 by respondent type

Organisations	Yes	No	Total
Community Council or Development Trust	1	4	5
Farming or land management organisation	1	2	3
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	0	6	6
Haulage company or representative body	0	2	2
Local Authority or HSCP	0	2	2
Public Body	0	1	1
Tourism business	1	2	3
Trade Union	1	0	1
Transport Partnership	0	0	0
Voluntary sector organisation	1	1	2
Other business or representative body	0	2	2
Total organisations	5	22	27
% of organisations	19%	81%	Not Applicable
Individuals	72	299	371
% of individuals	19%	81%	Not Applicable
All respondents	77	321	398
% of all respondents	19%	81%	Not Applicable

A majority of respondents – 81% of those who answered the question – said they would not be willing to travel to and from a port using active travel modes in order to reduce the number of cars on deck at peak times.

Around 315 respondents made a comment at Question 5, with a number of those comments raising similar issues as at the previous question.

The majority of comments addressed the various barriers, both personal and geographical, that would make active travel an impractical option for many people. In broad terms, these barriers were often similar to those which led people to conclude that public transport would not be an option. The most frequently made points were that:

• Active travel options can be impractical or impossible because of someone’s age or because they have mobility issues.
• People may need a vehicle to transport shopping, luggage, pets or livestock.
• Even if able to travel to the port by active travel, they may need a work vehicle at their destination. For example, a Farming or land management organisation respondent noted that they travel with business equipment and goods. They also noted that time pressures, including after a potentially long ferry journey, mean they need to move around as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Respondents also noted that the Scottish weather, and short hours of daylight, are likely to make active travel an unsafe, difficult or unappealing option at some times of year.

Reflecting some of the comments about viability of public transport options for remote locations, some respondents also noted the considerable distance they travel to or from the port they generally use and noted that walking or cycling would simply not be an option.

In terms of changes that could possibly encourage or enable active travel when it might be viable, there were references to existing roads and pathways, and even tailored active travel routes, not being fit-for-purpose and there were calls for investment in the active travel infrastructure. An example given was the lack of a dedicated cycle route from the ferry to Cumbrae into the town of Millport; it was noted that cyclists currently share narrow roads with buses, cars and lorries.

In line with this challenge, a Transport Partnership respondent suggested that, to encourage active travel, a focus on improving the infrastructure on the journey for those walking or wheeling to / from every ferry terminal to the nearest population centre should be considered as a priority in the planning of investment. However, a Local Authority respondent reported that the challenging fiscal climate has placed considerable pressure on Local Authority budgets, and that this is making it increasingly difficult to invest in sustainable transport infrastructure projects.

As with public transport, there were calls for an integrated transport system that would make it possible/easier for people to include an active travel element where possible. It was also suggested that free passage for bikes, electric bikes and cyclists could be an incentive, particularly if targeted at essential users of the service.

Responses to Question 6 by respondent type are set out in Table 14 below.

Organisations	Yes	No	Total
Community Council or Development Trust	6	0	6
Farming or land management organisation	2	1	3
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	1	5	6
Haulage company or representative body	1	1	2
Local Authority or HSCP	2	0	2
Public Body	3	0	3
Tourism business	2	1	3
Trade Union	1	0	1
Transport Partnership	0	0	0
Voluntary sector organisation	2	0	2
Other business or representative body	2	0	2
Total organisations	22	8	30
% of organisations	73%	27%	Not Applicable
Individuals	333	39	372
% of individuals	90%	10%	Not Applicable
All respondents	355	47	402
% of all respondents	88%	12%	Not Applicable

A majority of respondents – 88% of those who answered the question – thought Operators should be required to hold dedicated vehicle deck spaces on busy routes for the use of island residents and key worker personnel required to travel at short notice. Individuals were more likely to support the idea than organisations, at 90% and 73% respectively.

Around 175 respondents made a comment at Question 6.

In addition to broad statements of support with the proposition, the most frequently made point was that island residents should be prioritised as the ferries represent a lifeline service for them including, for example, when needing to attend hospital appointments.

Suggested conditions or parameters

Although the overall approach was generally thought to be the right one, respondents sometimes commented that certain conditions would need to be put in place. General suggestions included:

• A requirement to make advanced bookings on a bookable route.
• Places being held/available up until a certain set time before sailing; examples given included when check in opens or 24 hours before sailing. Any unused places should then be released as standbys.
• The approach could be applied to a pre-determined/designated number of spaces; an associated suggestion was that the existing reserve of six or so slots to cater for emergencies seems to be adequate on most occasions.

Suggestions relating to island residents specifically included:

• Priority should only apply if travelling for an important reason, such as attending medical appointments. There was also reference to health, education or employment appointments affording priority.
• It should not apply to second homeowners.

In relation to key workers, suggestions included that:

• A definition of key worker should be provided so as not to exclude certain professions. However, it was also suggested that who is considered a key worker will be service and area-specific and would depend on need.
• For people delivering medical care of any kind, there should be a guarantee that they will be carried on the sailing of their choice; enabling health service delivery is the very definition of ‘lifeline service’. This should not negate the need to book, but if the sailing of their choice is not available, there should be a second-line response allowing them to board ahead of all un-booked traffic; and in extremis (which will be rare), ahead of booked traffic too.
• Key workers could be issued with passes to prove eligibility.

In addition to island residents and key worker personnel, a Public Body respondent suggested that consideration should also be given to unplanned commercial traffic, such as that relating to urgent maintenance and repair work. A Farming or land management organisation respondent suggested that key worker status should not be restricted to public sector employees and commented that business travel can also be essential. A Ferry Board, Committee or Group respondent called for all island residents and frequent users (delivery vehicles, tradespeople) to be given preferential access to vehicle tickets.

There were also calls for any approach to be trialled before its full introduction to avoid any unintended consequences, and Ferry Board, Committee or Group and Transport Partnership respondents were amongst those calling for any introduction to be route-specific and at the request of, or in collaboration with, the community. An associated point was that any approach must be considered on a route-by-route basis and not predetermined in contract conditions. Rather, it was suggested that any approach should be data driven to recognise those individual sailings where capacity is likely to be constrained at short notice.

Concerns about holding vehicle space

Although relatively few respondents disagreed and went on to explain why, points raised did include that it should simply be fair and equal for everyone, and that, as at Question 3, the focus should be on increasing the capacity of the network, rather than having to hold space which may or may not be used.

In terms of constrained capacity, there was a concern that holding back capacity in an already constrained environment risks having an impact on the wider economy if visitors who might have holidayed on islands visit mainland destinations instead. It was noted that the visitor economy is very important for the future sustainability of island communities and that it is important to remember the visitor season is short. There were concerns that keeping more tourist traffic in standby lanes until the last minute to ensure space was available for local / urgent use could result in considerable uncertainty, missed bookings with island businesses, and corresponding complaints from both disappointed visitors and businesses unable to secure income.

A specific suggestion was for a 10% reservation of space for residents as the fleet is transitioned to meet demand or to change the timetable to provide more services.

Other points made included that:

• Turn up and go routes have considerable advantages for users, including in terms of flexibility; this should not be diminished in any way.
• The definition of key workers could be challenging, especially on routes where a large number of vans cross to provide daily services.
• There could be difficulties of prioritisation on a turn up and go route. It was suggested that the learning from trials of prioritisation approaches could be of benefit here.