7. OPTION APPRAISAL
7. OPTION APPRAISAL
Introduction
7.1. This Chapter presents our Part 1 STAG-based appraisal of the options described at Chapter 6. A Part 1 Appraisal is an initial appraisal of the options generated during Pre-Appraisal. It involves a qualitative assessment of each option's likelihood of meeting the transport planning objectives. It is usually followed where by the more detailed Part 2 STAG Appraisal.
7.2. STAG states that the Part 1 Appraisal should comprise an initial appraisal of the:
- Likely impacts of the options against transport planning objectives.
- Likely impacts of the options against the five STAG criteria.
- Options against established policy directives.
- Feasibility, affordability and likely public acceptability of the options.
7.3. These four elements form the basis of this Chapter. The depth of analysis provided is proportionate to the overall scale of this study.
7.4. The option packages that have been appraised were defined at Chapter 6. They are reproduced at Table 7.1.
Reference |
Basis |
Description |
|---|---|---|
Do Minimum |
Existing vehicle ferry route |
1. Longer operating day |
A |
Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
1. Longer operating day |
B |
Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
1. Longer operating day |
C |
Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
1. Use of slipway at north of Kerrera |
D |
Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
1. Use of slipway at north of Kerrera |
7.5. As in the earlier Chapters the assessment is based on a seven point scoring scale. This is as follows:
√√√ strong positive impact
√√ good positive impact
√ some positive impact
/ neutral
x slight negative impact
xx negative impact
xxx strong negative impact
Appraisal against Transport Planning Objectives
Introduction
7.6. This section appraises each of the option packages against the defined transport planning objectives. As noted at 7.1 each of the four option packages are assessed in respect to how much they satisfy the transport planning objectives compared to the do minimum option package.
7.7. The transport planning objectives were defined at Chapter 5. They are as follows:
1: Develop community and economic links within and between Kerrera and the mainland.
2: Allow all residents to benefit from improved access to mainland-based services and facilities.
3: Improve the quality and accessibility of the complete journey from home to destination.
4: Secure for all users affordable and assured means of access to support economic activity and quality of life.
7.8. Please note that the numbering used above is simply for reference. It does not indicate any order of priority between the four transport planning objectives.
7.9. The appraisal outputs are shown at Table 7.2, over. Overall, the "with road" options (A and C) have a high degree of fit with the transport planning objectives and notably higher than the other three options.
7.10. Each of the options would positively contribute to meeting transport planning objective 1. There is much greater improvement with options A and C which include road links in order that all residents are able to properly access the island as a whole and the scheduled vehicle ferry service to the mainland. There is no discernible difference between options A and C. This is because with road connections all are able to achieve good internal and external links regardless of where the ferry service landfall is located.
Option/Transport Planning Objective |
1- Develop community and economic links… |
2- Allow all residents to benefit from improved access… |
3- Improve the quality and accessibility of the complete journey…. |
4- Secure for all users affordable and assured means of access |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Do Minimum |
√ | √ | / |
√√ |
A: Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
√√√ | √√√ | √√√ | √√√ |
B: Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
√ | √√ | √ | √√ |
C: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
√√√ | √√ | √√ | √√√ |
D: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
√ | √ | √ | √√ |
7.11. For transport planning objective 2 Options A and C provide the greatest ease with which any resident of Kerrera can gain access to a wider range of mainland-based opportunities. This reflects a relatively long operating day and the removal of tidal related constraints. These benefits are present under all of Options A-D. However, A and C score the highest because the road investment (including the enhanced south road) allows these benefits to be available to all residents. As a specific example, Option A and C would satisfy well residents' concerns regarding emergency resilience. This would be by providing those requiring medical attention wherever they are on Kerrera to be retrieved with a vehicle and transported off the island at any state of the tide.
7.12. Option B scores higher than Option D because the current middle island ferry terminal is closer to most of the Kerrera population than would be a terminal at the north end.
7.13. For transport planning objective 3 Option A provides the greatest improvement. All residents would have good, vehicular access to the slip on Kerrera, and then convenient access to their car on the mainland side (at Gallanach).
7.14. For those without access to a car on the mainland side, then Option C would be more attractive, providing direct access into Oban. That said, no residents were identified that did not have a vehicle either in Oban or at Gallanach for their use on the mainland. Furthermore, Option C is limited by the current lack of nearby parking within Oban that makes interchange between ferry and personal car more inconvenient than is the case at Gallanach under Option A. Hence Option C scores less well than Option A for transport planning objective 3.
7.15. Option B and D make only modest improvements in quality and accessibility. This is primarily through the operation of a non-tidal service, making journeys more reliable.
7.16. In terms of transport planning objective 4, Options A and C provide the most assured means of transport for everyone travelling to and from Kerrera. Options B and D do, however, both make a sizeable contribution however through securing sea links that are available at all states of the tide. This will provide a significant benefit compared to the Do Minimum. This is particularly in respect of moving goods and livestock and dealing with emergency situations.
7.17. Fares would be based on RET under all of the options. This would mean that they will be affordable. However, given the basis of RET it is to be expected that fares would be higher under Options C and D, reflecting the longer crossing distance between the north end of Kerrera and Oban than between the middle of Kerrera and Gallanach.
Appraisal against STAG Criteria
Environment
7.18. Table 7.3 shows our appraisal against the Environment criterion.
Option |
Appraisal |
|---|---|
Do Minimum |
/ |
A: Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
/ |
B: Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
/ |
C: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
X |
D: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
/ |
7.19. The main types of potential environmental impacts would be:
- On-island vehicle traffic-in terms of increased movements under Options A and C.
- Potential change in the character of the island in relation to increased visitor activity.
- The physical environment of the island depending on the nature of any new north-south link road.
7.20. Most of the options are expected to have a neutral impact on the environment. This largely reflects the continuing restriction on visitors bringing their cars to the island, with any increase in other's vehicle movements likely to be slight in absolute terms.
7.21. The exception is Option C. Here the number of visitors that could be attracted by a direct, well-marketed service from Oban with access across the whole of the island could change the "remote" feel of Kerrera which is a key part of its overall environment. In contrast, we would expect the increase in visitor numbers under Option A to be comparatively modest.
7.22. Overall, the increase in visitor activity under Options A and C assumes that there is some form of wheeled transport provided on Kerrera, at least to allow some visitors to visit both the north and south of the island. We would expect this to be bikes for hire, and cars/minibus operated by one or more local residents or a social enterprise.
7.23. The scores for Options A and B assume that an environmentally acceptable north-south road design can be achieved. As noted in Appendix A, for example, at least one of the routes could have "a fairly significant visual impact leaving a scar clearly obvious from the mainland".
Safety
7.24. Table 7.4 shows our appraisal against the Safety criterion.
Option |
Appraisal |
|---|---|
Do Minimum |
/ |
A: Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
√ |
B: Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
√ |
C: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
√ |
D: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
√ |
7.25. Given their nature, there is not expected to be any material impact on passenger security from any of the options. Therefore, the assessment is based solely on the likely impact of each option on accidents.
7.26. We expect a modest impact on all but the Do Minimum option. This would be through a reduction in accidents-and perhaps perceived risk of such-caused by passengers embarking or disembarking the vehicle ferry at certain states of the tide, and improvement in access compared to that currently provided for the marina services. These benefits may be of particular relevance to the young, old and/or infirm.
7.27. It is possible that Options A-D could see an increase in on-island accidents because of a greater number of vehicle movements. However, we would expect any such increase to be very modest given the overall numbers involved. The potential for this was not mentioned by consultees, unlike references to the shortcomings of current ferry accessibility.
Economy
7.28. Given the small level of economic activity on Kerrera and, indeed, the wider Oban area Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) through agglomeration effects are not relevant.
7.29. Therefore the assessment is based on two sub-criterion. First, Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE). In this case we have considered journey time, ferry fares, ferry service reliability, cost of using other transport modes and service frequency/length of operating day.
7.30. Table 7.5 shows the scoring for the various aspects for TEE.
Residents |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Option/Sub-criterion |
Overall Journey Time |
Ferry Fares |
Reliability |
Other Travel Costs |
Ferry Frequency |
Do Minimum |
/ |
x |
/ |
/ |
√ |
A: Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
x |
x |
√ | / |
√√ |
B: Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
xxx |
x |
√ | x |
√√ |
C: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
xx |
xx |
√ | x |
√√ |
D: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
xxx |
xx |
√ | xx |
√√ |
Visitors |
|||||
Do Minimum |
/ |
x |
/ |
/ |
√ |
A: Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
xx |
xx |
√ | xx |
√√ |
B: Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
xxx |
xx |
√ | xx |
√√ |
C: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
x |
xxx |
√ | x |
√√ |
D: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
x |
xxx |
√ | x |
√√ |
7.31. For residents, all options see a positive impact on ferry frequency-and particularly so for the extended operating day under Options A-D. There is also a positive impact on service reliability, through operations at all states of the tide, for Options A-D.
7.32. Under all Options passenger ferry fares for residents increase. While there is a decrease in car fares as shown at Chapter 3 very few resident car trips are made. The fares increase would be greater under Options C and D. This is because, as the fares would be RET-based, and there would be a longer crossing from Oban to north Kerrera than between the middle of the island and Gallanach.
7.33. There would be an overall negative impact on journey time. Residents towards the north end of the island would now have to travel to the middle island and then on to Oban via Gallanach, rather than direct to Oban as at present, under Options A and B. Similarly, the much greater number of residents would have to travel to the north of the island under Options C and D. The journey times would be even more extended in the absence of a north-south road-and such journeys may, in fact, not be practical.
7.34. With travel up and down the island required to access a single ferry service, there would be the costs of undertaking this by vehicle (or by some other means if no proper road is built). These costs would be offset to an extent for some residents who may use their own boat less with provision of a more frequent ferry service operating at all states of the tide.
7.35. Similar issues exist for visitors. However, there are significant impacts on ferry fares for the majority of them who presently travel from Oban for free. With most visitors currently travelling to/from the north of Kerrera, then journey times would increase if they had to route via Gallanach-particularly if no north-south road was created. Again, such journeys may, in fact, not be practical. This would also increase their other transport costs on the island-assuming they would have to pay to get some form of transport from the middle to the north end of the island.
7.36. Table 7.6 shows the overall appraisal against the Economy criterion.
Option/Sub-criterion |
TEE |
EALI |
|---|---|---|
Do Minimum |
/ |
/ |
A: Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
/ |
√√ |
B: Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
x |
√ |
C: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
x |
√√√ |
D: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
x |
√ |
7.37. The TEE score is based on the scores shown at Table 7.5-by simply averaging the scores shown for both visitors and residents across the five measures used. The result is that the various positive and negative impacts largely cancel out one another. For Options B-D there is a slight negative impact, mainly reflecting increased ferry fares and extended journey times.
7.38. However, it is highly questionable as to the practicality of some current trips to/from Kerrera still being made if there was only one ferry service in operation and no north-south link road.
7.39. The scores at Table 7.6 for the Economic Activity and Location Impacts (EALIs) are, in this context, simply the net impacts for Kerrera itself. This is because it is extremely unlikely there will be net Scottish level impacts.
7.40. Also, net regional impacts would depend on visitors extending their stay in the region in order to visit Kerrera. However, any such impacts would be very slight at the regional level. This reflects the comparatively modest number of visitors to Kerrera even under enhanced transport provision, plus that the options are unlikely to lead to new-as opposed to slightly extended-trips to the region.
7.41. Option C scores highest in terms of EALIs. It would support commuting by offering a longer operating day, make the island more attractive as a business location by offering an all states of the tide operation. In particular, the visitor market could be well developed through a suitably marketed service direct from Oban with a road on the island that would open up the whole of Kerrera for visitors.
7.42. Option A scores slightly less well because visitors would still have to travel to Gallanach rather than the service being directly accessible from Oban. Otherwise the benefits would be same as Option C.
7.43. The two "without road" options provide some benefits. However, these would not equally be for all island residents. They would also leave the island not functioning as a single integrated economic unit in terms of visitor activity and access to on-island employment opportunities.
Integration
7.44. Table 7.7 shows our appraisal against the Integration criterion.
Option/Sub-criterion |
Transport Integration |
Transport and Land-Use Integration |
|---|---|---|
Do Minimum |
√ | √ |
A: Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
√√ | √√√ |
B: Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
√ | √ |
C: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
√√ | √√√ |
D: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
√ | √ |
7.45. In this instance we have not included the third sub-criterion of Policy Integration. This is because, in the current context, this is adequately covered in the appraisal against established policy directives.
7.46. Option A and C score highest under the Transport Integration sub-criterion. For Option A this reflects better opportunities for public transport connections through the extended operating day and these being available for travel to/from all points on the island given the north-south road. Option C scores well because it would offer a direct service to/from Oban with its connections with a range of bus, train and ferry services.
7.47. However, with the bulk of residents and visitor facilities away from the north end of the island there would still be travel involved on Kerrera itself to access a ferry terminal in the north of the island.
7.48. The other three options score less well because access to improved connections would not be easily available to all residents and visitors, due to the lack of a north-south road.
7.49. Similarly, Options B and D score highest for the Transport and Land-Use Integration sub-criterion. The north-south road, plus the improvements to the south road, make the island an integrated whole. They would allow those in the north end to access employment opportunities in the rest of the island and vice versa. They would also connect all residents to an enhanced ferry service-including a longer operating day-which would better connect with employment opportunities and leisure and social facilities that are in Oban.
Accessibility and Social Inclusion
7.50. Table 7.8, over, shows the assessment of the options in respect to Accessibility and Social Inclusion.
Option/Sub-criterion |
Public transport network coverage |
Access to local services |
Distribution of impacts by people group |
Distribution of impacts by location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Do Minimum |
√√ | √ | √ | √ |
A: Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
√√√ | √ | √√ | √√ |
B: Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
√√√ | / |
√ | √ |
C: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
√√√ | √√ | √√ | √√ |
D: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
√√√ | √ | √ | √ |
7.51. In terms of community accessibility and specifically public transport network coverage, all four options make a similar improvement in accessibility through providing a ferry service that is no longer constrained by tidal conditions compared to the Do Minimum option.
7.52. All the options-including the Do Minimum-provide significantly enhanced public transport network coverage for the community by providing early enough ferry connections to connect with first departures from Oban to Glasgow by train and coach. Also of importance is the provision of earlier and later crossings which will facilitate improved access to facilities in Oban and also employment opportunities for those who live on Kerrera. These will be more extensive under the longer operating day in Options A-D. Therefore, these are scored higher than the Do Minimum under this sub-criterion.
7.53. In respect to access to local services by walking and cycling, Options C and D provide some advantages in terms of providing a direct link into the centre of Oban. It should be highlighted however that they will generally require vehicular access on Kerrera in the first place to access the ferry, which is very restricted in Option D given that it does not include the provision of a north south road on Kerrera. Option A and B see the ferry landing at Gallanach some two miles outside of the centre of Oban, and with no bus connections requires either a car journey or a taxi ride.
7.54. In terms of distribution of impacts by people group our consultations revealed various concerns regarding the physical accessibility of vessels and access to vessels from the shore. Options A and C would particularly provide benefits for people who are older, people travelling with young children and people with mobility problems, who will all be assisted through road access to the ferry crossing. Across Options A-D, all will benefit the above mentioned people groups through easier vessel access as a result of removing the tidal constraints at the slips.
7.55. Any more detailed development of options should consider physical accessibility aspects for people with reduced mobility as well as people travelling with children or heavy/awkward luggage. In addition there are the issues of:
- Lighting at piers.
- Means of communicating service changes, including delays and cancellations.
- Seating and protection from the weather at piers and on board.
7.56. In terms of distribution of impact by location all options provide a benefit to the very small population of Kerrera, which can be considered a policy sensitive area due to its remote location and the policy focus across local and national policy to secure the sustainability of remote communities.
7.57. However, without improved road connections on Kerrera, some benefits will be more fully derived by those who live closer to the relevant ferry terminals. Thus, Options B and D can be considered to have a lesser benefit as fewer people within the community are able to attain a significant benefit.
Summary
7.58. Most options have a neutral impact on the environment. Option C could, however, significantly increase the number of visitors to Kerrera, which has the potential to change the "remote" feel of the environment. Options A and C assume that an environmentally sensitive design solution for a north south road could be achieved.
7.59. All of the options-bar the Do Minimum-are expected to deliver a modest impact on passenger safety.
7.60. In terms of economy, the TEE impacts are either neutral, or slightly negative because of increased fares and extended journey times. Options A and C score highest in terms of EALI impacts. The road investments in particular help to produce good positive impacts in supporting commuting and presenting opportunities for development of small-scale businesses, while a direct Oban service would have the strongest potential positive impact on visitor activity.
7.61. Options A and C perform best against the integration criterion. This reflects their providing an enhanced service by which all residents can access employment and social opportunities throughout both Kerrera and Oban.
7.62. All options, bar the Do Minimum, make a similar improvement in accessibility through removing the tidal constraint to services. All options, including the Do Minimum, provide enhanced public transport network coverage. Accessibility benefits for Kerrera will provide a positive distribution of impact by location as Kerrera can be considered as a policy sensitive area due to its remote location.
7.63. Overall, Options A and C generally score highest. The plus point of Option A is that it provides a service to/from the main current location of residents and visitor facilities, plus the shortest crossing with lower fares than would pertain on an Oban service. The main plus point of Option C is direct access to the regional centre of Oban and in particular its large number of visitors.
Appraisal against Established Policy Directives
7.64. As shown at Chapter 5, established policy directives have been used to shape the transport planning objectives and to guide option and the construction of packages of individual options. As such, the options should provide a good degree of fit and are consistent with the relevant policy directives. The appraisal is shown at Table 7.9.
Policy Directives / Option Packages |
Do Minimum |
A - Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
B - Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
C - Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
D - Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scottish Government Economic Strategy |
|||||
Making connections across, within and to/from Scotland better |
√ | √√√ | √ | √√ | √√√ |
Population growth to maintain the sustainability of rural communities |
√ | √√√ | √ | √√√ | √ |
Safeguard transport links to remote and rural communities |
√ | √√√ | √√ | √√√ | √√ |
Food and Drink and Sustainable Tourism opportunities for growth |
√ | √√ | √ | √√√ | √ |
Regional Transport Strategy |
|||||
Enable people to participate in everyday life |
√ | √√√ | √ | √√√ | √ |
Improve interconnectivity of the whole region to strategic services & destinations |
√ | √√√ | √ | √√√ | √ |
Make travel more affordable to individuals, businesses and freight operations |
√√ | √√√ | √√ | √√√ | √√ |
Enhance effectiveness and efficiency of freight transport |
√ | √√√ | √√ | √√√ | √√ |
Protect the environment so it remains an attraction for visitors |
√√ | √√ | √√√ | √ | √√√ |
Argyll and Bute Council |
|||||
Secure the economic and social regeneration of our smaller rural communities…making them better places to live particularly for economically active families |
√ | √√√ | √√ | √√√ | √√ |
Work in partnership with local communities in a way that recognises their particular needs to deliver successful and sustainable local regeneration |
√ | √√√ | √ | √√√ | √ |
Support the continued diversification and sustainable growth of Argyll and Bute's economy |
√ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Ensure the outstanding quality of the natural, historic and cultural environment is protected, conserved and enhanced |
√√ | √√ | √√√ | √ | √√√ |
Continue to improve Argyll and Bute's connectivity, transport infrastructure, integration between land use, transportation and associated networks |
√ | √√√ | √ | √√√ | √ |
Focus investment on our road network where it can achieve the best socio/economic impact |
/ |
√√ | / |
√√ | / |
7.65. Options A and C generally score best. This is because of the increased accessibility for residents and visitors through the north-south road. The exception is in terms of preserving the environmental qualities. This is because the advent of the road would increase residents' vehicle movements on the island and also the number of visitors attracted to the island (particularly for Option C). However, the overall physical environmental impact would be quite limited by the continuing bans on visitors bringing a car to the island.
7.66. Option A performs better than Option C in environmental terms. However, the latter performs better in terms of opportunities for growth. This is because a direct Oban service would offer a link straight into the major tourism hub of Oban.
7.67. As required by STAG, Table 7.10, over provides a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of construction, implementation and operation under each of the options.
Option |
Assessment |
|---|---|
Do Minimum |
No anticipated issues following implementation from March 2013 onwards |
A: Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
No anticipated issues regarding shore infrastructure or ferry operation. North-south road would require a design that is environmentally acceptable, and does not exacerbate drainage issues or livestock issues. The latter comment also applies to upgrade of the existing south road |
B: Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
No anticipated issues regarding shore infrastructure or ferry operation |
C: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
Issue of parking spaces for islanders' vehicles within Oban would have to be addressed. All livestock would have to be moved in trailers on the ferry as unloading/loading livestock on the hoof in the centre of Oban would not be practical. North-south road would require a design that is environmentally acceptable, and does not exacerbate drainage issues or livestock issues. The latter comment also applies to upgrade of the existing south road. |
D: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
Issue of parking spaces for islanders' vehicles within Oban would have to be addressed. All livestock would have to be moved in trailers on the ferry as unloading/loading livestock on the hoof in the centre of Oban would not be practical |
Affordability-Cost to Government
Introduction
7.68. This section considers the costs of the five options that are being assessed in this Chapter. It looks in turn at the costs of investing in:
- Road infrastructure on Kerrera.
- Marine facilities.
- Operation of the ferry service.
7.69. The first two of these aspects are covered in detail at Appendix A. The information presented here is in summary form.
Road Infrastructure
7.70. As agreed with Transport Scotland and Argyll and Bute Council four standards of road construction have been considered. These are:
- Basic: clearance of surface organic material, sub-base layer with crushed stone/concrete surface where required and reinstatement of drainage.
- Forestry: this standard is the level which can be constructed using locally won quarried rock (crushed) or imported stone. Argyll and Bute Council have adopted forest grade tracks elsewhere in their area.
- Non-sealed: up to near adoptable standard, but without a sealed bituminous surface.
- Single track: an adoptable standard.
7.71. Argyll and Bute Council told us that they are not aware of their having adopted forest grade roads. However, they said that they do have some roads on the list of public roads that are to a forest type specification. They have been left this way due to limited budgets and the low volumes of vehicles.
7.72. The current Council policy requires a newly adopted road to have c15 years where only routine maintenance is required. They told us that a forest and basic specification may not achieve this.
7.73. The basic specifications include as a minimum: clearance of surface organic material; sub-base layer with crushed stone/concrete surface where required; and reinstatement of drainage
7.74. This option is not really intended as a specification for a new road but is a simple option to address the current route which has several areas which are extremely difficult to negotiate due to rutting, flooding, presence of muddy/grassy areas, etc. It is accepted that this is not a track which would reach an adoptable standard but would be suitable for simple running repairs (possibly managed locally) to provide access between the northern and southern areas of the island and simplifying the process of dealing with emergencies by overcoming the significant impediments noted during our inspection.
7.75. The forestry track includes:
- Clearance of surface organic material.
- Excavation to competent foundation layer.
- Sub-base layer with geotextile, crushed stone/concrete where required.
- Type 1 aggregate upper layer for a 4.5m wide running surface.
- New drainage ditches either side of the road.
- Reinstatement of drainage.
- Passing places accommodated on wider stretches.
7.76. This allows for the removal of any peat, silt or plant matter down to a suitable "hard horizon" from which any of the road options could be constructed and then making up the road structure with construction materials compatible with any road construction. Consequently, the design life is fifty years although, given that the traffic is likely to be lower than design standards usually consider there is every likelihood that this could be exceeded. The main differences from the non sealed and single track roads is in the finished surfacing materials, numbers of passing places, signage and culverting of drainage rather than the simpler ditches allowed in this option.
7.77. A number of routes have been assessed and costed. These reflect the findings of our consultations and the other research undertaken for the study.
7.78. The Council provided a copy of their Feasibility and Cost Estimate report on the North - South Proposed Road Link for the Isle of Kerrera from 2006 which contained considerable detail in relation to the importing of materials, cost of materials locally and allowances for the likely outputs per day for materials and labour. The study is extensive and we have appraised this in reference to our database of road construction to distil the road construction rates into a linear metre value. Values for surfacing have been interpreted using rates for similar works and enquiries to local suppliers with the final rate being a combination of all sources.
7.79. For comparison, we would highlight that the Council's estimated costs from 2006 for the Forestry Road between Kerrera Ferry and Ardantrive was £734k whereas our estimate is £893k for a similar road. Typically, values are proportionally higher due to the increase in energy costs and rising costs of construction materials experienced since 2006.
7.80. The routes are shown on the map at Appendix B. The costs of the various routes are shown at Table 7.11.
Cost (£000) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Route |
Length (m) |
Basic |
Forestry |
Non-sealed |
Single track |
East 1 (shoreline) |
1,670 |
590 |
893 |
1,513 |
2,241 |
East 2 (inland) |
1,980 |
623 |
1,003 |
1,707 |
2,544 |
West coast |
2,940 |
922 |
1,566 |
2,636 |
3,944 |
Full circuit |
4,920 |
1,545 |
2,568 |
4,343 |
6,487 |
To north pier |
1,470 |
265 |
457 |
966 |
1,503 |
Existing south road |
3,440 |
661 |
1,137 |
2,341 |
3,652 |
7.81. The single track options are the most expensive. As a proportion of the cost of the single track specification the other options are:
- Basic: 18-26% of the single track costs.
- Forestry: 31%-40%.
- Non-sealed: 64-68%.
7.82. The first three routes at Table 7.11 would provide a north-south road link. The East 1 option would be the lowest cost. However, as noted earlier, the environmental (visual) impact of this option could rule this out. The East 2 option would be slightly more expensive: by around £30,000-£300,000 depending on the road specification. However, this option would have less of a visual impact than East 1.
7.83. All consultees offering a view on a north-south road felt that it should be of a forest track standard. This would be adequate for needs in terms of expected traffic volumes and vehicle types, based on the current level of economic activity on Kerrera. The cheaper basic road is considered to be inadequate in terms of quality, durability and public acceptability.
7.84. A route around the west of the island would be considerably more expensive. For example, over £1.5 million at forestry standard compared to at or below £1 million for the eastern options.
7.85. The cost of a full circuit-i.e. a figure of eight road network on the island-is also shown at Table 7.11. The figures used are the sum of the costs of the East 2 and west coast options.
7.86. The full circuit would cost around 2½ times the cost of the East 2 option alone. A number of residents highlighted the opportunity to create such a loop, which they stated would have economic benefits for the island in terms of encouraging more walkers to visit the island, and growing a cyclist-visitor market.
7.87. The road to north pier would be required in addition to the north-south road if a direct Oban service was provided from a new pier at the north of Kerrera. This would increase the cost, beyond that of the east and west options, by between around £250,000 and £1.5 million, depending on the road specification.
7.88. Finally, as shown earlier, Options A and C include not only a north-south road but also an upgrading of the current road in the south of the island. Table 7.11 shows that the cost of this upgrade ranges between over £660,000 and £3.6 million, again depending on the road specification. A number of the households we consulted felt that if a north-south road was being created then the south road should also be upgraded at the same time and to a similar standard to bring access to the lifeline ferry service on to a par for all residents of Kerrera. It was highlighted that this is what is provided as a minimum in other similar islands.
Shore Infrastructure
7.89. Three types of slipway provision have been investigated and considered:
- Basic upgrade and repair.
- Upgrade to all states of the tide operation.
- Upgrade to receive larger vessels. These would be of the order of either a CMAL Island Class vessel (requiring a slipway of 8m width) or a CMAL Loch Class vessel (requiring a slipway of 12m width).
7.90. Four landing sites on Kerrera have been considered, plus two sites on the mainland. The Scottish Sea Farms slip on Kerrera has not been included. This is because its owner's requirements for use of the slipway means that a reliable service operating to a published schedule is unlikely to be achievable.
7.91. The costs associated with these sites and the slip types listed above are presented in Table 7.12, over. The cost figures are not cumulative, and the basic upgrades are included in each cost. Oban Marina and Gallanach can already accommodate an 8m vessel. However, this is not at all states of the tide.
Site/Provision |
Basic upgrade |
To receive existing size of vehicle ferry at all states of tide |
To receive larger vessels-8m slipway width |
To receive largest vessels-12m slipway width |
To receive larger vessels plus all states of tide |
To receive largest vessels plus all states of tide |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kerrera Ferry Slip |
48 |
265 |
170 |
215 |
605 |
660 |
Port na Fhearna |
n/a |
n/a |
488 |
644 |
1,287 |
1,443 |
Oban Marina |
315 |
1,050 |
n/a |
451 |
1,050 |
1,209 |
North Pier |
n/a |
n/a |
488 |
644 |
1,287 |
1,443 |
Gallanach Slipway |
3 |
175-250 |
n/a |
185 |
n/a |
550 |
Lismore Slip |
15 |
No upgrade required |
No upgrade required |
Operate on restricted basis |
No upgrade required |
Operate on restricted basis |
7.92. The two Kerrera sites at Port na Fhearna and North Pier would be new ones. Hence no costs are shown for a basic upgrade to them, while it would also be most cost effective to build their slipways to a specification of at least 8m width.
7.93. The Lismore slip at Oban has been identified as the landfall for the options including a direct service from the north of Kerrera. This would not require an upgrading to operate at all states of the tide or larger vessels. However, physical constraints mean that it would not be possible to have it widened to 12m.
7.94. The main point to note is that upgrading the slips currently used by the vehicle ferry would be relatively cheap compared to the other sites-including the options for all states of the tide and receiving larger vessels. Moving to a non-tidal service using the two existing facilities is much cheaper than doing so at the other locations.
7.95. The Port na Fhearna option does not appear to offer any significant advantages over the existing vehicle ferry slipway on Kerrera-bar that it could be constructed without interrupting operation of the existing ferry during construction. However, it would be considerably more expensive than upgrading the existing facility.
7.96. The use of a slipway at the marina site would depend on its continuing availability for use by a scheduled ferry service. Other than this, there do not appear to be any specific operational benefits from the alternative of using a new pier elsewhere on north Kerrera-bar that it could be constructed without interrupting existing usage of the marina's slipway. Also the north pier option is more expensive. This is both in terms of slipway construction costs and through the need for a purpose built road to access it.
7.97. In terms of the marine options, the community generally prioritised the achievement of a non-tidal service over other aspects, such as having a larger vessel.
Road and Shore Infrastructure Costs
7.98. Table 7.13 presents a summary of the combined road and shore infrastructure costs of the five options. This uses the information presented in the preceding sections.
Forestry grade north-south road |
South road to forestry grade standard |
All states of tide-existing vehicle ferry size |
Total |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
Do Minimum |
0 |
0 |
n/a |
0 |
A: Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
893-1,003 |
1,137 |
440-515 |
2,470-2,655 |
B: Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
0 |
0 |
440-515 |
440-515 |
C: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
893-1,003 |
1,137 |
1,065 |
3,095-3,205 |
D: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
0 |
0 |
1,065 |
1,065 |
7.99. For ease of comprehension, to reflect the analysis earlier in this Chapter and to focus on the most affordable variants the costings shown for the options are based on:
- Road investment to forestry standard.
- All states of the tide operation, but slipway requirements reflecting the size of the current vehicle ferry.
7.100. The inclusion of affordability means that Options A and B assume use of the existing slipways rather than a new one at Port na Fhearna. It also means that Options C and D are based on using the marina slipway on Kerrera.
7.101. The key points to note from Table 7.13 are that:
- Options C and D are around £600,000 more expensive than Options A and B.
- Total road investment costs are greater than the shore infrastructure costs.
- Upgrading the south road would be costlier than the creating a north-south link road.
7.102. Thus, the options that exclude the road investment are much less expensive (by around £2 million) than those with it. However, this is affected by the inclusion of the south road upgrade. If this is excluded from Option A then the difference between it and Option D (which has no road investment at all) reduces to between around £250,000 and £450,000.
7.103. For the reasons stated above the analysis at Table 7.13 assumes no increase in the vehicle ferry size beyond that presently in operation. However, a larger slipway would give greater flexibility in the vessel to be used by operators who would bid for a Transport Scotland contract to run the service. It would also offer future proofing if over time ferry users wish to move larger vehicles and also avoid the transhipping of freight that is presently required.
7.104. Clearly, moving to a slipway of 8m width would be more expensive. However, in relative terms the cost difference between Options C and D and Options A and B would reduce-from around the £600,000 figure state above to between £200,000 and £300,000.
Vessel Operating Costs
7.105. The vessel operating costs of Options C and D can be expected to be greater than those for Options A and B. This reflects, first, additional fuel costs involved in a longer crossing between north Kerrera and Oban than that between the middle of the island and Gallanach.
7.106. Second, the longer crossing and the additional visitor demand from a direct Oban service would mean that Options C and D are more likely to require a vessel with a certification for more than 12 passengers. This would increase costs as a greater number of crew would be required as well as other provisions.
7.107. It is not possible to comment in any more detail than this. This is because, we understand, Transport Scotland's tendering process would leave the specification of the vessel (in terms of passenger certificate and vehicle/freight carrying capacity) to the operator's discretion. Further, Transport Scotland would meet the net cost of operation: that is, taking account of fare revenues. This would be estimated by the tenderers themselves as part of their bid.
School Transport
7.108. Options A and C present the opportunity for school transport to be merged with a public, rather than privately contracted, service. These options would provide good access from across the island for school-age children through a combination of on-island road transport plus ferry crossing.
7.109. This would remove the current cost to Argyll and Bute Council of procuring a dedicated boat service for transporting school pupils to Oban. As noted earlier the cost of this is around £14,000 per annum. The Council would, however, need to meet the cost of the passenger fares for pupils travelling on a public ferry service, plus any on-island transport costs to get them to and from the ferry terminal. The cost of transport on the mainland would also be met by the Council. We understand that one of their contracted school transport vehicles presently passes Gallanach slipway.
7.110. With Options B and D (i.e. with no north-south road) there would still be the requirement for a separate school boat service to meet the needs of families in the north or south of the island as appropriate.
7.111. Table 7.14 provides our assessment of the likely public response to each of the options. This is based on the consultations undertaken for the study.
Option |
Likely Public Response |
|---|---|
Do Minimum |
Strongly adverse reaction as it would be seen as failing to address the main transport needs of the community |
A: Existing vehicle ferry route, road investment |
Generally acceptable as it addresses main issues raised by the community. Most of those consulted felt that this should be the location for a supported service. Potential adverse reaction from the marina, assuming that this was the only publicly supported service. Potential adverse reaction from residents living at the northern end of the island as overall journey times would increase and fares would now have to be paid-otherwise dependent on whatever service would be provided by the marina. |
B: Existing vehicle ferry route, no road investment |
Most of those consulted felt that this should be the location for a supported service. However, strongly adverse reaction from community as the north-south road is seen as a key issue and one which would have wider community benefits beyond simply improving ferry access to the mainland. Adverse reaction from residents at the northern end of the island as it would not fully address their transport needs and they would remain dependent on whatever service would be provided by the marina. Potential adverse reaction from the marina, assuming that this was the only publicly supported service. |
C: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, road investment |
Adverse reaction from residents outside the northern end of the island. This would increase their journey times to Oban, have higher fares than under Options A and B, and there would be strong concerns about vehicle parking availability in Oban. |
D: Direct vehicle ferry service to Oban, no road investment |
Strongly adverse reaction from residents and businesses outside the northern end of the island, with no practical means of accessing the ferry service at the north end of the island. Even allowing for this, the ferry service would not be seen as having been enhanced due to increased journey times to Oban, have higher fares than under Options A and B, and there would be strong concerns about vehicle parking availability in Oban. Further, the north-south road is seen as a key issue and one which would have wider community benefits beyond simply improving ferry access to the mainland |
Note: Table contents reflects consultation findings
7.112. We believe that the Do Minimum option should be rejected. The analysis in this Chapter has shown that it does not meet the identified transport needs of the community. It would make only a limited contribution to achieving the transport planning objectives. Specifically it would result in:
- Social and economic fragmentation and varying access to the different ferry services on Kerrera due to the lack of a north-south road.
- A shorter operating day than that sought by the community-and implied by the Scottish Ferries Review methodology, given the island's very heavy dependence on access to the mainland.
- An inconsistent vehicle and freight service affected by tidal constraints.
- Continuing concerns about the safety of access and egress for the ferries.
7.113. As such, there would be a strongly adverse public reaction to the Do Minimum as a long term solution to the island's transport needs.
7.114. We also believe that Options B and D should be rejected. They would make a significant contribution to improving ferry service provision. However, the lack of a north-south road would mean that Kerrera would remain a divided community and economy.
7.115. There would remain a lack of access to employment in the north of the island by those in the south and vice versa. Some islanders would still be excluded from proper access to a supported ferry service if it was not operating from "their" part of the island. Some would continue to have to take their own boat into Oban.
7.116. The economic benefits from visitors would continue to be limited by their only being able to readily access one part of the island.
7.117. Thus, the full benefit to social integration and economic development of the island from the infrastructure investment and ongoing revenue support to the ferry service would not be realised. It could be that, despite the investment, Kerrera would continue to require three ferry services. Overall, these two options would make only a limited contribution to achieving the transport planning objectives. As such, there would be adverse public reaction to either-and particularly to Option D from residents who live outside the northern end of the island.
7.118. There are merits in both Option A and Option C. They would both significantly improve current ferry provision (notably longer operating day and all states of the tide working) and offer all islanders road access to a single supported ferry service.
7.119. A slipway of the width of the existing ones used by the vehicle ferry would meets most current needs for vehicle/freight movements. However, increasing the width-even if only to 8m-would future proof provision against changing demand over time. It would also open up future tendering of the service to a wider range of vessels. This would require additional investment-although as shown earlier it would narrow the difference in costs between Option A and Option C.
7.120. The north-south road would, in itself, increase social cohesion in the island and open up employment opportunities on Kerrera for all residents-in addition to providing access to the vehicle ferry service. It would also open up opportunities for an appropriate level of economic development-e.g. in tourism. However, in terms of affordability there is an issue with also including the upgrade to the road on the south of the island. This would be more expensive than creating a north-south road link but would generate a lower level of benefit. It may be that more detailed engineering work could be undertaken to review the cost estimate for the south road that has been produced for this study.
7.121. A number of issues would have to be addressed in taking forward either Option A or Option C. These include, first, an environmentally-sensitive design for a north-south road. Second, means of transporting visitors up and down the length of the island given the presumption of a continued prohibition of visitor vehicles on Kerrera. There would also be an issue of transport of residents to the ferry terminal where this is not at "their" end of the island. However, it should be remembered that residents and visitors currently need to make their own transport arrangements to travel on the existing rough tracks. A north-south road would improve this situation, even if residents had to continue to take their own cars and visitors walk along the new road.
7.122. The main strengths of Option A are that:
- The landfall on Kerrera would be closest to the current main areas of population and visitor facilities.
- The cost of upgrading the existing shore infrastructure would be relatively low.
- There is relatively little prospect of a complementary commercial passenger service being provided to the middle of the island.
7.123. The main weaknesses are that:
- It is likely to generate less visitor activity than a direct Oban service.
- For some travellers, the issue of getting between Gallanach and Oban would remain.
7.124. The main strengths of Option C are that:
- It has the potential to generate a significant increase in the amount of visitor activity and related economic benefit.
- The service would travel directly into Oban-a regionally significant service and employment centre and a significant transport interchange.
7.125. The main weaknesses are that:
- A landfall on north Kerrera would depend on the continued availability of access to the marina site-or creating a more expensive slipway elsewhere on north Kerrera.
- The shore infrastructure costs are higher than for a middle island service.
- Ferry fares would be higher than for a middle island service given the longer crossing.
- The net revenue costs of the service to Transport Scotland could be higher given that vessel operating costs are likely to be greater than for a middle island service.
- The usefulness of the service would be limited unless a solution to the issue of residents' parking in the vicinity of the slipway in Oban could be found.
- Direct landing of livestock into Oban could require a larger vehicle ferry than the current one. This would increase the costs of the required shore infrastructure on the north of Kerrera.
- It is possible that a commercial passenger ferry could operate between Oban and north Kerrera which, at least, for part of the year could complement a vehicle ferry service to the middle of the island. This would compete against the publicly supported service and, thus, effectively increase the cost of supporting it.
Landing Stages and Car Parking at Gallanach
Landing Stages
7.126. The Kerrera Development Trust has an aspiration to install landing stages at either side of the existing vehicle ferry crossing. The landing stages would be for community use, with the intention of making the crossing in an individual's boat easier and safer than at present.
7.127. The landing stages have been costed at around £130,000. The Development Trust is in the process of sourcing funding to provide the facilities.
7.128. The engineering review for this study considered the proposal. We conclude that the costs are appropriate, dependent on being able to secure the stages to the seabed via a chain, which is subject to favourable seabed conditions. If this was not possible then costs could increase by up to 50%.
7.129. Landing stages would only offer benefit to those with access to a small boat. They would not provide significant benefit over and above that achieved by Options A and C.
Car Parking at Gallanach
7.130. The Argyll Coastal Waters project comprises the creation of a kayak trail from Helensburgh to Kerrera. Significant funding has been attracted from the Coastal Communities Fund and Leader to provide the infrastructure to facilitate safe and easy access to the water for kayakers.
7.131. The Gallanach slip is one such site. There are established car parking problems at the Gallanach slip, with usage conflicts arising between islanders and kayakers.
7.132. The present proposal is to:
- Create dedicated car park for kayakers opposite the current car parking spaces.
- Create a safe path to the water's edge at a location away from the existing slip.
- Provide a changing shelter for kayakers.
- Provide interpretative signage giving the necessary information for kayakers.
7.133. Argyll and Bute Council has funding secured for the above. Negotiations are ongoing with the owner of the land on which the car parking area would be created.
7.134. If the existing car park was to be extended under any other means, then a cost of between £8,500 and £12,000 per space should be included. This would comprise bays of 2.4m by 4.8m, with a 6m wide lane for access and egress.