Ferry fares - the current RET principles

A key aim of the Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) system of fares was to allow ferry users to pay a fixed element plus a rate per mile travelled, which is linked to the cost of the equivalent journey length by road in a private vehicle. The three key principles of RET are: simplicity and transparency; comparability and consistency; and public sector affordability versus community sustainability.

A majority of respondents – 66% of those answering the question – agreed with retaining the current RET principles as the basis of a ferry fares structure.

The most frequently made point was that RET fares should be retained, with the importance of affordability for island residents often highlighted. Some respondents suggested that fares for island residents could be reduced further.

Some respondents who disagreed with retaining the current RET principles referenced the potential to introduce different levels of fares, for example calling for RET fares to be available only for island residents.

Other respondents highlighted the unintended consequences arising from RET fares, such as increased use of private vehicles creating capacity constraints on some routes; potential loss of business for island shops in such cases where it is cheaper for residents to shop on the mainland; as well as busier roads on islands adding to the pressure on local authority budgets for maintenance.

Few respondents commented specifically on the principle regarding simplicity and transparency although it was suggested that initiatives to standardise and simplify fare structures would be welcome.

With respect to comparability and consistency, there were views that RET fares should be applied to all routes, notably to the Northern Isles where both residents and visitors are perceived to currently face higher travel costs.

Most respondents who commented on the third principle emphasised the importance of community sustainability or argued that affordability for residents – and hence community sustainability – should be of greater importance than public sector affordability.