Presentation on theme: "The Scottish Ferries Review Consultation Document 2010 Oban – 27 July 2010 Judith Ainsley."— Presentation transcript:
The Scottish Ferries Review Consultation Document 2010 Oban – 27 July 2010 Judith Ainsley
Introduction General presentation on Ferries review Q&A Workshop on routes and services methodology Opportunity for final questions
The Consultation Consultation Document, not a Plan Runs to 30 September 2010 Questionnaires to complete and return 33 key questions firstname.lastname@example.org 0131 244 1539 Documents available on our website
Commitment to Ferries Essential part of our transport network Essential for access to vital services Enable movement of freight Encourage sustainable and growing communities Must provide a safe, sustainable system Quality employment
Summary of the Review: Inform a long term Ferries Strategy – to 2022 Influence next round of tendering for services Investment programme for vessels and ports and harbours All publicly funded ferries included – Scottish Government and local authority funded No potential routes excluded Needs of passengers, cars, commercial vehicles and freight all to be considered
Lack of consistency Funding services Funding vessels Funding harbour infrastructure Responsibility for delivery What routes and what level of service Tendered services Provision of vessels
What we’ve done so far Been helped in forming opinions by project groups Consultants and CMAL carried out specific pieces of work to inform us Public consultation events last year Extensive data collection
Challenges Less money available to invest in and support ferries Ageing fleet and need for investment Ageing harbour infrastructure and need for investment Escalating fuel and crew costs Subsidy levels increasing
Funding and Procurement To 2022 need £604m for vessels To 2022 need £180m for ports and harbours replacement To 2022 need £7.5m p.a. annually for ports and harbours maintenance The services also need to be funded - 2007/8 cost for all c. £103m, 2008/9 for DML c.£90m We are asking you to consider options
Funding Options The status quo CMAL to access funds through alternative structural or financing routes Ports and harbours could be self-funding Users of the service to pay more Open the market up to greater competition
Procurement Options for services Tender some routes singly with the option for operators to bring their own vessel(s) to the tendered routes? Specific routes are suggested Allow single routes to be “bundled” or stagger the tenders? Leave remaining routes within the 2 large bundles? Loosen the tender requirements, specifying only the minimum level service to allow operators the flexibility to innovate? What should be specified?
Fares Options Increase all fares Increase visitor fares Reduce fares for island/peninsula residents Reduce fares for commercial vehicles RET or other distance based To manage demand Mixed approach
Fares Questions Asking you to consider what the rationale for/purpose of the fares policy should be. Should fares differentiate between islanders/residents of peninsular communities and other ferry users? One fares policy across Scotland or different policies dependant on needs of communities?
What services should be funded? We have developed a methodology – based on Summer timetables - for determining what routes and services are needed We will now do the same for Winter timetable
How should services be provided? Who should be responsible for providing ferry services that need public subsidy? Should there be central procurement expertise regardless of who is responsible for the provision of the service?
Options Status quo – inconsistent approach Scottish Government becomes responsible for all Local Authorities/RTPs become responsible for all A more consistent split of responsibility for example….
How responsibility could be split? SG responsible for services between mainland and islands, LAs or RTPs responsible for all others Dependant on administration at either end of the route Dependant on whether the route is classed as a “sea” route or one with less onerous conditions
Accessibility Disabled people, those travelling with children or luggage, PRMs Equalities Impact Assessment at Draft Plan stage Accessibility Assessments carried out Recommendations from this work in the consultation document and you are asked for your views
Accessibility Should they be implemented now? Included in future tender requirements? Accessibility improvement fund? Information system indicating the degree of accessibility?
Environmental Issues Some questions regarding reducing emissions aimed at operators Question 33, would you support longer journey times as part of a CO 2 emissions reduction programme? Do you have any other suggestions to reduce emissions?
Part 2 - Workshop session Opportunity to explore and discuss our initial findings for Lismore, Kerrera, Luing and Easdale. So far we have considered: 1.what you need your ferry services for 2.what a service would look like to meet these needs 3.where the gaps are We have still to consider options to address the gaps and prioritise future spending
Checking we’ve got this right? Aware that in defining the needs of the community and defining a ferry service to meet those needs there might be things we haven’t got quite right. We need you to tell us what you think – have we described your community correctly? do we need to change anything?
Current Issues Kerrera, Luing & Easdale – limited sailings; winter timetables and inconsistent timetables/sailings Lismore – fixed links plus bus, number of services (ro-ro and passenger)
Household survey results Of those who use the ferry most: 78% of people in Lismore 40% of people in Kerrera (very limited sample size) Approx 55% of people in Luing and Easdale, (Jura also included in sample size) are either quite or highly satisfied with their current services. Average satisfaction for the network is 73%.
What you need your ferry for - 1.Commuting - importance of ferry to enable regular commuting and business travel to and from community. 2.Personal – if people are dependent on basic services and facilities from the mainland 3.Supply chain - where communities have good access to public amenities and shopping – these amenities need supplying 4.Export/Import - where an island requires the ferry to cope with high levels of freight transit. 5.Tourism – how dependent is the island on tourism.
Initial findings Kerrera – Commuting and Tourism equally important followed by Personal, Supply Chain and Export/Import Lismore –Commuting is important followed by Personal, Export/Import, Supply Chain and thenTourism Luing - Commuting and Supply Chain both moderately important followed by Personal, Export/Import and then Tourism Easdale – Commuting is important and Tourism is moderately important. Personal, Supply Chain and Export/Import are not thought to be important. Does this feel right?
How did we assess this? Commuting –We used household survey data. We looked at the % of people who said their principle use was commuting or business travel; Personal - We considered the population density of the island and weighted this against factors such as whether the community has access to local healthcare/school facilities etc;
How did we assess this? Supply chain –The measure for this dependency was the population size of the island; Export/import –The measure for this dependency is commercial vehicle lane metres; Tourism - measured by the average number of people employed in tourism for the community and the ratio of summer and winter patronage.
Defining a service In defining a service to meet these needs we have considered: 1.Crossing time; 2.number of sailings per day; 3.length of operating day; and, 4.the number of days per week the service runs
Initial analysis Kerrera –A longer operating day but no change to crossing time, sailings per day and days per week Lismore – A reduced number of sailings per day and no change to crossing time, operating day or days per week Luing – A reduced number of sailings per day and no change to crossing time, operating day and days per week. Easdale – A reduced number of sailings per day along with a longer operating day. No change to crossing time and days per week. However, we will take account of consultation responses and Steps 5 and 6 yet to be applied
Steps 5 and 6 Identify options to address proposed changes at Step 4 STAG based appraisal Objectives to take account of current issues Prioritise future spend across the Scottish ferries network
What happens next? Public consultation to 30 September 2010 43 events within this period Draft Ferries Plan with more detailed Strategic Environmental Assessment and an Equalities Impact Assessment Further minimum 6 week consultation period Final Ferries Plan