Option Generation

Revenue measures

Revenue measures could be used to address identified gaps with respect to connectivity. 

The following potential ‘gaps’ exist from a connectivity perspective and should be considered for both the summer and winter timetable periods (note that, for each of the below ‘gaps’, the opposite could also be true in the event of ‘over-provision’ being identified – e.g., the operating day is too long):

  • The service operates on too few days.
  • The operating day is too short.
  • The first sailing of the day is too late.
  • The last sailing of the day is too early.
  • The service is not frequent enough.
  • Different timetables operate on different days / weeks etc.
  • The timetable is inconvenient / does not support socially or economically beneficial travel.

Whilst not connectivity issues per se, the following ‘gaps’ can be a product of the level of connectivity (and in particular frequency) offered:

  • Insufficient (or excessive) passenger, vehicle or accommodation capacity.
  • Poor punctuality, where there is evidence that delays are caused by extended vessel turnaround due to high-capacity utilisation (primarily on the vehicle deck).
  • Poor / no integration with onward public transport connections.

Step 1 of the process defined ‘Route Service Levels’ based on the number of vessels operating on a route and how these vessels are crewed. Having allocated a route to the appropriate level, the option generation and development should therefore identify:

  • Potential variations within the levels, where appropriate.
  • Whether there is an evidence-based case to progress through one or more additional ‘levels’ (up or down).

For each option, an indication of the impact on the following should be established:

  • Number of vessels.
    • As new vessels enter the fleet, there may periodically be opportunities to increase frequency through cascading vessels to a route without significant capital expenditure – such opportunities are however irregular.
  • Number of crew shifts required and associated crew complement.
  • Qualitative description of the change in operating costs and carbon emissions
  • Number of connections per day / week.
  • Length of operating day.

With respect to potential over-provision, the only realistic available indicator of over-provision is low usage on successive sailings, particularly on the same day, i.e., a revealed preference that the sailings are perhaps unnecessary.

Capital measures

Whilst ‘gaps’ in terms of capacity could potentially be addressed through a change in ‘Route Service Level’ (i.e., a revenue funded measure which provides more capacity through additional sailings), it may also become evident that the ‘gap’ can only be closed through a capital investment in vessels and / or associated infrastructure. Where this is the case (and significant investment is implied), the CNA should not attempt to resolve this but should scope the necessary business case work (incorporating STAG) to progress a solution.

It is important to note that the case for any investment in new vessels to address capacity or reliability issues should align with the Transport Scotland Sustainable Investment Hierarchy established in the National Transport Strategy 2 (see image inset), which is a key part of STAG. This hierarchy establishes a structured set of steps to be followed when planning investment in transport provision, with ‘targeted infrastructure improvements’ the final step once all other options have been exhausted.