Understanding connectivity needs and integration

Looking at how integration with onward and connecting travel can be promoted will enable Transport Scotland to provide opportunities for better connectivity and ferry user access via active travel, public transport, and other more sustainable transport modes.

Satisfaction with public transport to or from NIFS terminals

Responses to Question 9(a) and (b) are set out in Charts 3 and 4 below with a full numerical breakdown by respondent type set out in Annex 2.

Aberdeen had the highest level of satisfaction, with 69% of respondents either fairly or very satisfied with public transport to the terminal, and 8% either fairly or very dissatisfied. This was followed by Stromness where 55% of respondents were either fairly or very satisfied, and 12% either fairly or very dissatisfied. For Kirkwall Hatston, 41% of respondents were either very satisfied or fairly satisfied with public transport to the terminal, and 22% either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. For Lerwick, 37% were either fairly or very satisfied and 25% either fairly dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Highest levels of dissatisfaction were seen in relation to Scrabster, where 49% of respondents were fairly or very dissatisfied with public transport to and from the terminal, with 23% either fairly or very satisfied.

Satisfaction with active travel infrastructure to or from NIFS terminals

Aberdeen again had the highest level of satisfaction, with 63% of respondents either fairly or very satisfied with active travel infrastructure to the terminal, and 9% either fairly or very dissatisfied. This was followed by Stromness where 55% of respondents were either fairly or very satisfied, and 7% either fairly or very dissatisfied, and Lerwick, with 55% fairly or very satisfied, and 10% either fairly or very dissatisfied.

The highest levels of dissatisfaction was seen in relation to Kirkwall Hatson and Scrabster where 29% and 28% of respondents respectively were fairly or very dissatisfied with active travel infrastructure. Those who were fairly or very satisfied equated to 33% and 26% respectively.

Supporting integration with public transport

Around 550 respondents answered Question 10(a).

A frequently made point, particularly among residents of Shetland, was that in general the integration between the ferries and public transport seems to be reasonable or works well and/or that they do not experience any problems themselves.

There were also a smaller number of respondents who reported that this is not an issue with which they are familiar as they do not need to use public transport, including because they chose to travel by car or live near to the ferry terminal they use.

There were also some references to integration with public transport not really being the NIFS operator’s responsibility, with a ‘Freight company or representative body’ respondent commenting that integration with wider public transport is ultimately a matter for the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland, given their responsibility for national transport policy and funding. However, they did note that the NIFS operator can still play a supporting role by sharing timetable requirements, providing real-time data to bus and rail operators, and highlighting where connections are not working well.

General suggestions

The most frequently made suggestion was that the NIFS operator should engage with other relevant transport providers, such as train and bus companies, to align ferry and other public transport timetables. Orkney residents were particularly likely to see this as a priority.

A ‘Voluntary sector organisation’ respondent called for the NIFS operator to work with bus and rail operators to ensure that ferry, bus and train timetables are linked, so that using public transport to reach the ferry and then for onward travel is made easy, convenient, reliable and affordable. A ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent was looking for the NIFS operator to maintain proactive liaison with ScotRail, bus operators, and transport authorities to review timetables, highlight conflicts, and seek solutions. Another suggested improving real-time journey planning tools.

Other timetabling suggestions made included:

• working with communities and visitor representatives to understand their needs and how timetables could be adjusted to make use of public transport more appealing and practical for communities and visitors.
• promotion of onwards connectivity at ferry terminals and on board the ferry, with ferry operator staff able to assist with onwards connectivity information.
• more daytime sailings, making it easier to connect with other public transport options.
• better alignment between inter-island ferries and the NIFS operator sailing times.
• ensuring there are always bus or train options to accommodate the needs of passengers before the first ferry and after the last ferry.
• building in reasonable flexibility to allow for unforeseen delays, so that customers are not left stranded.

Other suggestions for how the NIFS operator could support integration with public transport, or how better integration could be achieved included the introduction of smart ticketing and, in particular, allowing booking across multiple modes – ferry, bus and rail – on one platform. A ‘Public body’ suggested that this would support the uptake of sustainable travel options instead of private car use, and a ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent called for the next NIFS contract to include clear requirements for the operator to work with national partners to develop integrated ticketing and journey planning solutions.

Respondents also made a number of suggestions around how terminal facilities could be improved to help support integration with public transport. These included more long-stay parking or park-and-ride facilities and considering the needs of older or disabled passengers. This latter issue is returned to at Question 11.

There were also calls from a ‘Trade union’ respondent to consider the needs of the crew and shoreside staff, including by providing secure and adequate facilities for crew changeovers and/or shore leave.

Route/location specific suggestions

In addition to a small number of general comments about more shuttle buses between ferry terminals and town centres or other transport hubs, respondents made a range of location specific suggestions, which are set out in turn below.

Shetland

• more local buses.
• introducing a shuttle bus from the terminal to Lerwick town centre and the bus station.
• better pedestrian access to the terminal.
• more long-stay parking at the terminal.

Orkney

• working with Orkney Islands Council to identify improvements to on island public transport connectivity and support their implementation.
• earlier ferry arrival time into Kirkwall, to allow for onward connections with inter island ferries.
• public transport options for passengers arriving on the late (11pm arrival) sailing.

Scrabster

• introducing a shuttle bus or establishing dedicated bus links between Scrabster and Thurso station.
• better bus and train connectivity from Scrabster to Inverness.

Aberdeen

• introducing a shuttle bus from the terminal to the train and bus stations or to the hospital.
• more direct bus services from the ferry terminal to the airport.
• better bus and rail onward connectivity in the early morning.
• improved pedestrian routes from the ferry terminal to the train and bus stations.

Event Feedback

Feedback from participants at the Stromness event included:

“Have a bus service from Scrabster to Thurso to connect with train times.”

“Bus right from ferry at Scrabster to Inverness. Electric bus. The train connection doesn't work as well.”

Supporting integration with active travel infrastructure

Around 320 respondents answered Question 10(b), albeit a small number to note that they only travel by car. Small numbers of respondents also commented on the barriers to active travel, including that it is not a practical option in remote rural areas or when people are travelling with significant luggage.

Most frequently, however, respondents suggested that the current situation seems to be good enough or that it is hard to see what more can be done to support integration with active travel infrastructure. Shetland residents were more likely to be of this view than Orkney residents.

As at the previous question, some respondents commented that in any case any issues were not or should not be for the NIFS operator to resolve. However, a ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent commented that the NIFS operator can advocate for improvements with local authorities, harbour authorities and Transport Scotland, ensuring that walking, wheeling, and cycling infrastructure is embedded in wider active travel, port and terminal upgrades.

General suggestions

There was also a range of suggestions for practical changes or improvements that could be made. These included ensuring there are safe and adequate end-to-end active travel routes that link the ferry terminals with town/city centres/rail or bus hubs, both on the islands and also on the mainland. There was also reference to a general lack of active travel provision across ferry terminals, and it was suggested that it would be beneficial if funding were provided to support improvement projects going forward. Other suggestions included:

• ensuring there is adequate provision of parking at terminals and specifically disabled parking, so that passengers do not need to take their cars on the ferry and can instead walk/ wheel or cycle when they reach the isles, should they wish to
• producing and maintaining high-quality, accessible information on active travel routes at each terminal, available online and at point of travel
• incentivising people to use active travel mode, for example by waiving fares or providing a significant discount for foot passengers

In relation to walking specifically, suggestions included improving the standard of footpaths within port areas, for example with better/even surfaces, step free routes and improved lighting. Other walking-specific suggestions included:

• having enclosed walkways on piers.
• clear signposting of walkways.
• having more road crossing points.
• improving walking routes to town centres.

It was also suggested that there should be more and better wheelchair accessible routes.

Cycling-related suggestions included having better cycle lanes in and around terminals and:

• introducing better and secure bike shelters/parking at terminals.
• having designated onboard cycle storage areas.
• offloading cycles first.
• introducing cycle hire options at terminals.

There were also calls for cycles to be allowed on buses and trains, with a specific suggestion that the NIFS operator should work with bus and train operators to ensure that bicycles can be transported on services that take ferry passengers to the terminal.

Location specific suggestions

Location specific suggestions are set out in turn below.

Shetland

• upgrading of pavements and pedestrian crossings in Lerwick, including to make wheeling of suitcases easier.
• introducing cycle lanes in Lerwick.

Orkney

• better active travel options between Stromness and Kirkwall.

Scrabster

• a cycle path between Scrabster and Thurso.

A ‘Port/harbour authority’ respondent also called for investment in active travel routes to the Scrabster terminal. They commented that improved pedestrian and cycle and E-bike access, lighting, and storage would align with low-carbon goals and community accessibility objectives.

Aberdeen

• a better footpath between the ferry terminal and the bus and train stations/Union Square area.

Event Feedback

Feedback provided by attendees at the Stromness community event included:

“Walk from car park at Hatston port unsafe – truck, containers, cars moving etc very unsafe.”