Progress on work packages Ferry Review Steering Committee 20 May 2009

WP Progress Vessels Ports and Harbours Accessibility

‘ “We will involve the PTUC or MACS in our steering group, to provide the views of disabled users of ferry services. We will identify scope for bringing existing ferries and infrastructure up to modern standards wherever possible” Scottish Ferry Review – Objectives of the Review 2008

Accessibility Andrew Flockhart – WP leader CMAL Jean Dunlop – DPTAC Alasdair Henderson – Calmac Ferries Ltd Greame Fletcher – Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd Capt Alam – Orkney Ferries Ltd David Polson – Shetland Council John Ballantine – Person with Restricted mobility Douglas Gilroy – Gilroy Disability Training Met on 5 occasions so far

Accessibility Data Gathering Accessibility audits – 7 carried out on a range of routes Accessibility operator self assessment – 5 operators (public and private) returned assessments Detailed discussion at sub group meetings

Accessibility Initial Findings Above average age profile on Scottish Islands – Likely to increase with consequential increase in more PRMs using network Training is viewed as being the cheapest and most effective way to reduce PRM barriers Large modern ferries tend to follow best practice. Changes identified from audits relatively minor or low cost (better signage, induction loops, visual displays) Smaller and older ferries present more barriers and require significant investment to make improvements (e.g. access lifts, removing obstructive bulk heads)

Accessibility Initial Findings Modern ferry terminals are better equipped for PRMs, and any improvements tend to be of a minor nature Old harbour infrastructure tend to require more major work to reduce barriers for PRMs e.g. lack of facilities, steep inclines for access and regress from the ferry, disabled parking bays Better ‘classification’ of the harbour and ferry facilities based on a Star rating system would make planning journeys easier, and less stressful e.g. 3 stars is highly accessible, 1 star has a number of barriers for PRMs

Accessibility Next Steps Collating data Writing draft report Agree recommendations and identify investment requirements “There is an estimated one million disabled people in Scotland of which 96,000 are wheelchair users and 233,995 Blue Badge Holders.” Equality and Human rights commission 2009

Vessels Methodology Gather data on all the vessels. Group these into different types. Generate basic general particulars for each type of vessel Generate general arrangement drawing for each type of vessel Estimate replacement costs on a thirty year replacement basis Estimate replacement costs using various different scenarios Make some estimates of operating costs of different types of vessels

Vessels Initial Findings 9 different vessel classes around – accepted that there will always be ‘one offs’ Cost of replacing vessels on 30 year life is £931m Smart procurement could reduce this to £753m Scope for reducing through life costs by investing in new tonnage Significant environmental impact in investing in new tonnage

CLASS ‘I’ TYPE

CLASS ‘H’ TYPE

CLASS ‘G’ TYPE

CLASS ‘F’ TYPE

CLASS ‘E’ TYPE

CLASS ‘D’ TYPE

CLASS ‘C’ TYPE

CLASS ‘B’ TYPE

CLASS ‘A’ TYPE

Vessels Next Steps Test against different route scenarios Test against different procurement options Provide ‘toolbox’ of ships Still awaiting data from some operators Draft report

Ports and Harbours Physical Infrastructure Port Operations and Ownership

Infrastructure Detailed information now received from approx 50% of ports covered. Still awaiting data sets from some authorities Determined replacement and maintenance costs (based on Port Ellen/Kennacraig cost estimate rates) or lump sums for individual items to be used to calculate like-for-like replacement costs. Applied to data sets received Once remaining information received relatively simple to populate database and generate investment requirements over lifetime of strategy Findings can then be tested against route strategy including cost of any new ports. Draft report completed once data received – June 2009

Port Ownership and Operations Methodology Data specification prepared Questionnaires sent to organisation covering over 100 ports and harbours – still awaiting some responses Meetings held with 5 local authorities, 6 ‘key’ trust ports, CMAL, CFL and HITRANS to discuss key issues

Ports Ownership and Operations Initial Findings – Governance Trust Ports – Most are complying or developing compliance IAW Trust Ports Review. Uncertainty as to SG position on TP moving forward Municipal Ports – Seen as core function of LA in Scotland as opposed England and Wales. Most Las keen to learn from E&W Municipal Ports Review and identify benefits including governance and funding. SG policy review? CMAL – Principals of TPR and MPR could be applied to CMAL but lacking at present

Ports Ownership and Operations Initial Findings – Port ‘best practice’ and PMSC Smaller organisations struggling to implement ‘best practice’ and need support All report compliance however some confusion over PMSC roles (Duty Holder/Designated Person) and CMAL/CFL responsibilities and accountability issues

Ports Ownerships and Operations Initial Findings – Funding Municipal Ports – Dues generally only cover day to day running costs. Need for big and infrequent investment to specific projects and concern whether SOA now provides this. Trust Ports and CMAL – Similar findings regarding harbour dues. Uncertainty over availability of funding of major projects. GMG prioritising projects but this can lead to conflict and subjectivity. ‘Use it or lose it’ philosophy makes planning more difficult Ports have to funded somehow – grants or user charges. Need for consistent approach Issues where both Port Operator and Ferry Operator are the same

Next Steps Remaining Data by middle of June Preperation of draft report based on findings

Questions