Appraisal of Options

This final chapter sets out the high-level appraisal of the remaining options for Cowal and Rosneath. The appraisal is largely qualitative and is focused on the five STAG criteria, namely: environment; climate change; health, safety and wellbeing; economy; equality and accessibility. It is undertaken to a level broadly equivalent to that produced in a ‘Preliminary Appraisal’ (i.e., it does not consider the relevant sub-criteria or include a significant degree of quantification as would occur in a ‘Detailed Appraisal’).

The appraisal also considers the performance of each option in terms of: cost to government; feasibility, affordability and public acceptability; the National Transport Strategy 2 (NTS2) hierarchies; the National Islands Plan; and risk and uncertainty.

In the interests of brevity, the appraisal is focused on the main differentiators between options. For both Cowal and Rosneath, the ‘Do Minimum’ used for comparative purposes is the current service provided on each route(Options C1 and R1) (i.e., the appraisal of all options is relative to the present-day service).

Cowal

This section appraises the shortlisted Cowal options – to recap, these are:

• Option C1: Continue the service on the current basis (the effective ‘Do Minimum’)
• Option C2: Continue to operate the current length of operating day but reduce service frequency
• Option C3: Two vessel operation at peak times only
• Option C4: Two vessel operation at peak times only, single crew day
• Option C5: Single vessel operation all day
• Option C6: Single vessel operation, single crew day

STAG Criteria

The table below summarises each option against the five STAG criteria, using the following seven-point scale:

• major positive impact
• moderate positive impact
• minor positive impact
• neutral
• minor negative impact
• moderate negative impact
• major negative impact

Table 6.1: Appraisal of Cowal options against STAG criteria based on the impact scale noted previously

Criterion	C1: Current service	C2: 2-vessels, current operating day, reduced frequency	C3: 2-vessel operation at peak times only	C4: 2-vessel operation at peak times only, single crew day	C5: Single vessel operation all day	C6: Single vessel operation, single crew day
Environment	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral
Climate change	Neutral	Minor positive	Minor positive	Moderate positive	Moderate positive	Major positive
Health, safety and wellbeing	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral	Minor negative	Neutral	Minor negative
Economy	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral	Minor negative	Moderate negative	Major negative
Equality and accessibility	Neutral	Minor negative	Minor negative	Minor negative	Moderate negative	Major negative

As defined by the service levels framework, the options presented for the CFL Dunoon – Gourock route are incremental, in this case reducing from a two-vessel double-crewed service to a single vessel, single crewed service. This is reflected in the qualitative appraisal against the STAG criteria where the impacts of each option, positive and negative, gradually increase in scale the further away from the current service the option moves. Key points of note from the above table are as follows:

• As the options do not involve physical infrastructure works, there would be no notable physical environmental There could though be local congestion and noise impacts in the Hunters Quay area if current CFL passengers switched to getting dropped off at Hunters Quay or taking a car on the ferry.
• From a climate change perspective, the current service is emission intensive on a per passenger basis, with two vessels operating over an extended operating day, often with very few passengers onboard. Iterative reductions in the frequency of the service would therefore have a corresponding impact on emissions, with the major step changes coming in reducing the service to a single crew day (Options C4 and C6) and / or a single vessel service (Option C5 and C6), which would also reduce the embodied carbon associated with the future build of a second vessel. It should be noted that there could be a minor offsetting disbenefit if a proportion of the foot passenger market switched to travelling by car instead, but further research would be required to determine the likelihood and scale of any such effect. Any options which involve compensating bus services would also offset these benefits unless operated by zero-emission buses.
• Reducing the length of the operating day to a single crew day (Options C4 and C6) would record (very) minor disbenefits in terms of health, safety and wellbeing by reducing the amount of time that can be spent in Inverclyde, Glasgow etc. on any given day. This could be a particular issue for any Cowal resident returning home from a late afternoon hospital appointment. The above said, there is an alternative route to Cowal offered by Western Ferries.
• As the ferry services support commuting, personal business and visitor travel, progressive reductions in frequency and the length of the operating day would have a negative impact on economy. The scale of this disbenefit would need to be considered relative to the ongoing cost of operating the route at its current level.
• There would also be an equality and accessibility impact, particularly for Dunoon residents who are non-car available or who would prefer not to use their car. The scale of this impact would be dependent on the behavioural response to reducing the service in terms of either: (i) continuing to travel as a foot passenger, either via CFL or Western Ferries and experiencing an overall longer journey time; (ii) switching to travelling by car, which would have cost and societal impacts; or (iii) choosing not to make the journey, which would again have negative societal impacts.

Cost to Government

Whilst reducing the frequency and / or length of operating day on the CFL Dunoon – Gourock route would have negative impacts in relation to certain STAG criteria, the counterweight would be a reduction in the cost to government of funding the service. The table below summarises the cost to government impact by major cost component for each option – the main costs on the CFL Dunoon – Gourock route are crew, fuel and berthing, in that order. It should be noted that the table is presented in largely qualitative terms and considers full crews only, although it is acknowledged that the practical position will be more nuanced.

Table 6.2: Cost to government impacts based on options noted previously

Criterion	C1: Current service	C2: 2-vessels, current operating day, reduced frequency	C3: 2-vessel operation at peak times only	C4: 2-vessel operation at peak times only, single crew day	C5: Single vessel operation all day	C6: Single vessel operation, single crew day
No. of vessels	2	2	2	2	1	1
No. of crews	8	8	6	4	4	2
Reduction in fuel	None	Minor	Moderate	Moderate	High	Very high
Reduction in dues	None	Minor	Moderate	Moderate	High	Very high

The main points of note from the above table are as follows:

• As almost all (if not all) sailings on the route are loss making, any reduction in the number of sailings will reduce the operating subsidy. This is common across most of the CHFS network and indeed is the reason that such services are in receipt of a subsidy in the first place.
• The major saving to be gained is through reducing the route to a single vessel service (Options C5 and C6). In the short-term, this would allow one of the current vessels to be sold and the realisation of its residual value. The more prominent impact though is in the medium-term in that only one rather than two vessels would be required for the Dunoon route as part of the Gourock, Dunoon and Kilcreggan Infrastructure Programme.
• By extension, a single vessel service would reduce the required crew complement on the route from the current eight to: (i) four if operating an extended day; or (ii) two if operating a single-crew day. The reduction in sailings would of course also offer significant reductions in fuel and berthing costs.
• With the retention of a two-vessel service, major cost reductions could only be achieved by running one or both vessels over a shorter day (Option C3 and C4), thus reducing the crew complement, as well as the fuel and berthing costs associated with e.g., evening sailings.
• Continuing to operate a two-vessel service over the current length of operating day but at reduced frequency (Option C2) would only offer a very minor reduction in costs associated with reduced fuel burn and berthing dues for sailings no longer operated.

Public Acceptability, Feasibility and Affordability

The STAG guidance requires the public acceptability, feasibility (can the option be implemented?) and affordability (can the option be afforded even if it represents good value for money?) of the options to be tested.

Public Acceptability

The outcomes of this study have not yet been presented to the public or stakeholders. Public acceptability associated with the different options therefore remains to be tested.

Feasibility

There are no feasibility issues associated with the options presented, although operational changes would be required if the service was scaled back.

Affordability

There are no affordability issues associated with the options presented as each represents a reduction in costs relative to the present day. However, it is important to note that the current service arguably faces affordability challenges, with revenue only covering 15% of operating costs and utilisation being very low. Moreover, the Gourock, Dunoon and Kilcreggan Infrastructure Programme would represent a significant capital outlay on the route which does not currently have funding.

NTS2 Hierarchies

• In February 2020, Transport Scotland published its National Transport Strategy 2 (NTS2) which outlines a vision for Scotland’s transport system over the next 20-years to 2040, including a contribution to achieving net zero by 2045.
• The NTS2 establishes two hierarchies which define how future transport investment decision making and services should be planned. The Sustainable Travel Hierarchy defines the priority which will be given to each mode of transport in future investment planning and is shown on the right. It prioritises walking, wheeling and cycling, with the private car being the lowest priority.
• The Sustainable Travel Hierarchy is complemented by the Sustainable Investment Hierarchy, which establishes a structured set of steps to be followed when planning investment in transport provision. This hierarchy focuses on how to reduce unsustainable travel, where journeys must be made.

Sustainable Travel Hierarchy

1. Walking and wheeling
2. Cycling
3. Public Transport
4. Taxis and shared transport
5. Private car

The CFL Gourock – Dunoon service in its current guise is well aligned with the Sustainable Travel Hierarchy in that it is passenger only, has a significant walk-in catchment and is well-connected with bus and rail services at Gourock.

The impact of any diminution of the CFL Dunoon – Gourock service on the Sustainable Travel Hierarchy would again depend on the behavioural response to the reduction in services. On the one hand, it may lead to reduced travel overall, which could be positive from an environmental perspective (depending on how connecting journeys are made) but at the same time could have negative equalities impacts. On the other hand, it may encourage increased car-based travel from Cowal, either by road or via Western Ferries. The extent of these behavioural responses could only be determined through further primary research.

Sustainable Investment Hierarchy

1. Reducing the need to travel unsustainably
2. Maintaining and safely operating existing assets
3. Making better use of existing capacity
4. Targeted infrastructure improvements

As noted above, the implications of reducing the frequency and / or length of operating day on the CFL Dunoon – Gourock route are not yet understood. However, what is evident is that there is significant spare capacity on the route and thus there is a question as to whether this could be used more fully through rationalising the number of services, in line with the principle of ‘making better use of existing capacity’.

On similar lines, ‘targeted infrastructure improvements’ are at the foot of the sustainable investment hierarchy. This should inform, through the relevant business case, the timing of investment in vessel replacement and port upgrades, taking into account asset life expiry but also reliability, as described earlier in this report.

National Islands Plan

The National Islands Plan (NIP) was published in 2019 and provides a framework for action aimed at improving outcomes for island communities, based around 13 Strategic Objectives. As Cowal and Rosneath are peninsular communities, they are out of scope from an NIP perspective. However, the reliance on a ferry service means that they share several characteristics with island communities and it is thus worth reflecting on the NIP here. Three of these objectives are specifically relevant to this CNA, as outlined in the table below:

Table 6.3: Relevant National Islands Plan Strategic Objectives

List	Strategic Objective	Relevance to the CNA
1	To address population decline and ensure a healthy, balanced population profile.	The quality of an island or peninsular community's connections to services, including health facilities, is an important factor in determining how attractive that location is to live, work and do business.
2	To improve and promote sustainable economic development.	Ferry services play an essential role in connecting labour-to-employment; suppliers to customers; students to education; and residents to personal business and leisure opportunities.
3	To improve transport services.	The quality of ferry services is evidently a key determinant to Strategic Objectives 1 and 2 outlined above.

With regards to the CFL Dunoon – Gourock route, it is evident that any diminution of that service would be negative in the context of the above strategic objectives and the NIP more generally.

Risk and Uncertainty

Uncertainties are potential external factors which could impact on a policy or project and are thus difficult to control for. Risks are low-level uncertainties where the potential outcome can usually be defined and therefore the risk more easily quantified. In an appraisal and subsequent business case, a risk register and uncertainty log would be developed and monitored. However, for the purposes of this piece of work, the focus is on identifying risks and uncertainties only.

Risk

The primary risks relevant to the options are as follows:

• At present, there is little to no understanding of the behavioural response that would be prompted by a change in frequency or length of operating day, apart from revealed (but likely atypical) behaviour during and immediately after the pandemic when the route was operated by a single vessel. To mitigate this risk, any service change should be preceded by a data collection exercise intended to elicit potential behavioural responses to service changes.
  • It should though be noted that, when the CFL Dunoon – Gourock route was suspended for five full days in July 2023, a replacement shuttle bus to connect with Western Ferries’ service was offered. CFL maintained a record of the number of passengers using the bus - whilst only a temporary change, this provides an insight into the passenger response to the absence of the service. By comparing the days on which the service was suspended with the equivalent day of the previous year, it is estimated that only 32% of Dunoon passengers used the bus, with the equivalent figure of 57% for Gourock. What is not known is whether the passengers who did not use the bus chose not to travel or travelled by car instead (either getting dropped off at the ferry terminal or taking the car on the ferry).
• The ‘cost to government’ section simplistically assumes that reductions in frequency and / or length of operating day would allow for a reduction in crew complement. Whilst this is true, CFL has a ‘no compulsory redundancies’ policy and thus crew displaced from the route would need to be found alternative roles within the business or incentivised to take voluntary redundancy. This could make the change process longer and more expensive.
• Reducing the Dunoon route to a single vessel would present a resilience As well as the need to cover scheduled drydocking, relief arrangements would need to be put in place in the event of a breakdown. Whilst the Kilcreggan vessel could potentially cover (assuming compatibility with the infrastructure), this would lead to a reduction in service on that route. An alternative solution would be to offer a bus replacement service via Western Ferries, akin to the situation on the railways and as happens now when the CFL service is cancelled / suspended (see above).
• The switch of some CFL foot passenger journeys to car trips by Western Ferries could put increased pressure on capacity on that route.

Uncertainties

The primary uncertainty is that any reduction in service on the CFL Dunoon – Gourock route, particularly a reduction in the length of the operating day, would be undertaken on the assumption that passengers that would have used the withdrawn service(s) could travel on another CFL sailing or via Western Ferries. As a commercial company, Western Ferries is at liberty to change its frequency, length of operating day, fares etc at any time, and thus there is uncertainty over how that route could change in future.

However, it is important not to exaggerate the likelihood of this occurring: Western Ferries is a successful operator, long-established on the route. It operates an intense service over a long operating day and thus there appears little risk of any major change in service provision whilst it continues to be profitable. Moreover, if any reduction in the operating day ever did occur, this could be compensated by scaling-up the length of the CFL operating day, albeit there may be a lead-in time.

Rosneath

To recap, the options still in play are:

• Option R1: Continue the service on the current basis (the effective ‘Do Minimum’)
• Option R2: Operate a Sunday Kilcreggan – Gourock service
• Option R3: Operate Kilcreggan service via Dunoon in ‘peak’ hours (‘V’ option)

Note that Option R3 could be delivered in tandem with Option R2.

STAG Criteria

The table below summarises the appraisal of the three options against the five STAG criteria, using the same seven-point scale as that adopted for Cowal:

Table 6.4: Appraisal of Rosneath options against STAG criteria

Criterion	R1: Current service	R2: Sunday service	R3: 'V' service
Environment	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral
Climate change	Neutral	Minor negative	Neutral
Health, safety and wellbeing	Neutral	Neutral	Minor negative/Minor positive
Economy	Neutral	Minor positive	Minor negative/Minor positive
Equality and accessibility	Neutral	Minor positive	Minor negative/Minor positive

Key points of note from the above table are as follows:

• The operation of a Sunday service would have a (very) minor negative climate change impact equal to the marginal emissions generated by the additional sailings. It would however generate minor economy and equality and accessibility benefits for Rosneath. As well as facilitating seven-day commuting to HMNB Faslane and RNAD Coulport, it would allow Rosneath residents to access Inverclyde and Glasgow by ferry and train on a Sunday and would also allow daytrippers to access the peninsula by ferry. Indeed, given that there are few other public transport services on the Rosneath Peninsula on a Sunday, this option could be of particular benefit to those who are non-car available.
• The option of running a ‘V’ service (Option R3) in peak hours would have differential impacts on Cowal and Rosneath. There would be benefit for Cowal in terms of mitigating the reduction to a single vessel service (albeit this would be worse than the present-day position). However, there would be an offsetting disbenefit for Rosneath.

Cost to Government

Our analysis suggests that the current Kilcreggan – Gourock service could be expanded to offer a limited Sunday service within the existing crew complement (i.e., no additional crew members would be required). The marginal costs would therefore be limited to additional crew salaries to operate the service, fuel, dues and any required Argyll & Bute Council pier staff to meet the ferry.

It is likely that on most if not all sailings, costs will exceed revenue and the difference between the two would be borne as additional subsidy by Transport Scotland.

On Option R3 (the ‘V’ route variant), there would be minimal, if any, change in the cost to government. Whilst the route structure would change for part of the day, the operational hours of the service would be broadly the same and any revenue difference would be marginal.

Public Acceptability, Feasibility and Affordability

Public Acceptability

The outcomes of this study have not yet been presented to the public or stakeholders. Public acceptability associated with the different options therefore remains to be tested.

Feasibility

Detailed engagement would be required with CFL and the crew to establish the operational mechanics of expanding the service to include a Sunday. Whilst our analysis suggests that additional sailings could be operated within the regulations on crewing hours, it is important to note that these are regulatory maximum hours rather than contracted hours. The difference in hours relative to current contracts and the steps required to deliver the service would need to be subject to further detailed work with the operator.

Moreover, consideration could be given as to whether to adopt an annualised hours approach, operating a longer Sunday service in the summer months and a reduced or no Sunday service in the winter months, although it is our understanding that CFL does not routinely do this.

On Option R3, the ‘V’ route variant, the optimal timetable would need to be established to serve peak demand at Kilcreggan whilst also complementing the Dunoon service.

Affordability

There are no affordability issues associated with the options presented beyond payment of any additional subsidy, which is likely to be modest.

NTS2 Hierarchies

Sustainable Travel Hierarchy

The expansion of the Kilcreggan – Gourock service to include a Sunday is likely to align with the Sustainable Travel Hierarchy. Whilst there is a risk that this could generate journeys that would not otherwise be made, it would also significantly improve Sunday public transport connectivity in the Kilcreggan area, which is otherwise very limited.

Option R3, the ‘V’ route variant would have little impact with regards to the Sustainable Travel Hierarchy.

Sustainable Investment Hierarchy

Option R2 would have no notable implications for the Sustainable Investment Hierarchy.

Option R3 would support the Sustainable Investment Hierarchy in so much as it would maximise the use of the two vessels over the two routes.

National Islands Plan

As with Cowal, there is some value in considering how the options would support the NIP, even though Rosneath is a peninsular community. The provision of a Sunday service for the Rosneath Peninsula (Option R2) would support the NIP, particularly in terms of Strategic Objective 3: to improve transport services.

The impact of the ‘V’ route variant (Option R3) would have differential impacts on the Rosneath and Cowal communities. These impacts would need to be explored further with communities to fully understand how such a change would impact on the NIP Strategic Objectives.

Risk and Uncertainty

Risk

The primary risks relevant to the Rosneath options are as follows:

• Option R2: Sunday sailings
  • Whilst there are in theory benefits from operating a Sunday Kilcreggan – Gourock service, the market is not well understood beyond the limited online research undertaken to inform this study. Evidence from the previous trial suggests that demand would be limited but, equally, we do not know how this was promoted and the trial nature of it would certainly have prevented any longer-term change in travel patterns. Moreover, the pilot was undertaken at a time when reliability was poor and may therefore have further suppressed demand.
  • As previously alluded to, the operational mechanics of scaling-up the service would need to be worked through in detail with CFL and the crew. Any scaling-up of the service beyond the current crew complement would lead to significant marginal costs for likely small marginal benefits.
• Option R3, ‘V’ route variant
  • The key risk with this option is that the timetable changes make ‘commuter’ services unattractive / unviable for one or both communities.

Uncertainties

There are no significant uncertainties which would impact the Rosneath options.