Islands Connectivity Plan: Strategic Approach and Vessels and Ports Plan

I believe that the above all relate to Ferry Services and no mention is made of fixed links such as tunnels; consequently, although a "yes" might be consistent with regard to Ferry Services, a "No" must be the default answer.

I have answered "Yes" to this question as the questions relates specifically to Ferry Services. However, a Tunnel would effectively provide all of the above priorities simply by virtue of being a Tunnel, which would be available 24/7, unaffected by weather, and have no appreciable visible affect on the landscape. A Tunnel is also likely to be more cost effective in the long term than continuing with Ferry fleets and harbour/port upgrades.

I think that these draft priorities are aspirations as opposed to "sights". A resilient future would see a series of Tunnels operating in parallel (or replacing) existing or reduced Ferry Services. Talk to the Faroese.

I believe that relevant authorities need to engage with local populations more with well advertised face to face workshops/consultations and the like. Project Reference Groups, Stakeholder Groups and Webpage Updates are all very well but all of these methods too often fail to reach a significant number of the local population whose views go unrecognised. In situations where local populations are relatively small (most island communities) direct mailing should be considered, as such means of communication is likely to result in a larger attendance at meetings. Email only works for those who are "signed up" for such means of communication and Web Page posts only work for those that regularly peruse relevant Web Pages - a small minority of the "domestic" population. Although perhaps considered old fashioned, hard copy postal communication remains a reliable means of communicating with interested parties.

Such discussion groups as already exist need to listen and take note of all views expressed and not limit their listening to only those views that support the "official" line.

Accessibility should be a matter of "common sense". I find it disappointing that it should need to be introduced as a "standard" but if that is what is needed then yes, it is a good idea. How you would enforce such a reasonable standard on all existing Ferry Vessels remains unclear to me however.

Shelter (pre embarkation): There should be weatherproof shelter available to all, constructed in such a way as to be easily accessible by wheelchair users with their helpers. Rain protection alone is not sufficient, particulary in the winter time when existing shelters without doors often become cold wind tunnels.
Embarking and Disembarking: Access should be wheelchair accessible and preferably, on larger ferries, not via the vehicle access ramp.
Corridors: should be wide enough to allow passage of a standard wheelchair whilst still allowing for simultaneous passage by a "standard person".
Wherever possible, a sufficient number of lifts should be available such that wheelchair users should not need to queue for an unreasonable length of time. It should be recognised that some passengers may also need to use such lifts for the movement of heavy luggage.
Toilets: should be easily accessible to wheelchair users and not have a "water stop barrier" at the door.
Car Park Space/s: Where possible, a car park space/s should be readily available at ports for disabled users who are not making the Ferry Journey by vehicle but who are being met by taxi or other vehicle driver.
Cafeteria Tables etc.: There should be sufficient space around a number of designated cafeteria tables to accomodate a wheelchair bound person without otherwise blocking passage by others.
Signs and Signage: Should be of sufficient size and positioning that they can be more easily read by those with impaired sight. Consideration should be given to reproducing relevant notices in Braile, possibly on the same notice in a standard position. This is more important than reproducing notices in gaelic which relatively few local people and very few visitors can read.
Staff Training: Staff should receive relevant training in how to assist disabled passengers.
Audible Announcments: Should be short and to the point and be specific to the vessel. The existing CALMAC safety announcement is generic, overlong, and contains information that is not relevant to safety. As a consequence, most passengers do not listen to it (ask them). Better that a vessel specific safety announcment was made before each sailing by the Captain or other relevant crew member.

Retain a small number of vehicle spaces to just before sailing. If not needed by locals then release these firstly to booked late comers or if there are no booked late comers then to those in the unbooked queue. Releasing such held spaces in advance of this (such as the existing 72 hours) defeats the primary purpose of reserving them in the first place. You should recognise that it is often difficult for vehicle drivers to safely reach their port of disembarkation by the currently required 30 minute check in period. For example, if you have been holidaying on Iona, the time taken to retrieve ones vehicle from the "top parking area" in Fionnphort, load it with family and luggage and then drive safely through Mull on summertime congested roads to Craignure, makes it nigh on impossible to check in within the required 30 minutes. It would be sensible and reasonable therefore (not to mention making a positive contribution to road safety) to give late comers first access to unused reserved places.

I would make more use of public transport if the timetables for the relevant buses, ferries and trains were coordinated. At present it is all too possible to miss ones train connection from Oban (and consequently ones flight or train to elsewhere) because the ferry is a few minutes late in berthing. It is also lamentable that a bus can arrive at its scheduled destination fifteen minutes after the ferry sails (and there is not another ferry for a couple of hours). as the relevant different means of transport are often run by separate companies, this is perhaps a problem for Transport Scotland to resolve? In the meantime, private vehicle is by far a more reliable means of transport, providing that one can arrive at the port of disembarkation within the required 30 minute check in period.

I have already suggested a readily available solution to this problem. Reserve a few spaces on every sailing for local use and release these spaces only just prior to sailing, firstly to booked late comers and then to the unbooked queue.

If you have a substantial need for additional vehicle capacity then you need more, or more frequent, ferries (or a tunnel).

1. If a business is inherently reasonably profitable then it should not be receiveing a subsidy.
2. Commercial vehicles should benefit from the same RET as private vehicles, otherwise the cost is simply transferred to the end users of these services and the overall cost to island residents increases. It is commonly the case that retail outlets will not deliver to island locations because of the additional cost involved or will charge punitive delivery charges (£20 is not uncommon) for the simplest item. Whereas the Post Office will deliver items at a fraction of these punitive charges, many retailers cannot or will not use the Post Office (their systems and/or carrier contracts will not permit it).

Although I agree with the factors specified I would say that these are all in relation to maintaining and/or improving existing ferry services. Given the likely level of investment I would have expected a more thorough Option Appraisal of possible alternative means of transport. Although probably more expensive (possibly prohibitively so) in the short term, I believe that a series of tunnels would be a more lasting and less expensive solution in the long term. By expending considerable resources in a short term ferry infrastructure solution you run the risk of never being able to afford what might be described as a better solution.

By achieving the first i.e. "the sustainability of ferry services by maintaining and increasing reliability and resilience" you largely achieve the others.

If the Ferry Fleet is essentially moving to electric power then you need a reliable source of electricity that is not at risk of interuption. I would favour locally produced electricity where possible that is not reliant on the national grid. Such local production could be sourced from Wind Power and/or Tidal Power, the latter being a guaranteed source of power as long as we have a moon in orbit. Such locally produced electricity could further benefit local populations with cheap electricity and also supplement the National Grid when in surplus. (I believe that the electrical power required to service a tunnel link is likely to be much less than that required to power a ferry vessel.)

I have no idea whether or not these are practically possible but -
Onboard wind powered electricity generators?
Modern computerised Sail Power?

I agree with retaining RET but would apply the same rate to all vehicles irrespective of whether or not they are commercial or private. As stated before, a higher commercial RET is simply passed on to the islanders and adds to the cost of lving on an island.
I disagree with introducing different levels of fares. Price differentials are simply a means to generate income for the service provider and favour those who can afford to pay. They would be an added cost to some visitors and would be a disincentive to some to visiting the Scottish Islands either to holiday or to visit relatives. They are not a means of providing a service.

As stated before, price differentials are simply a means to generate income for the service provider and favour those who can afford to pay. They would be an added cost to some visitors and would be a disincentive to some to visiting the Scottish Islands either to holiday or to visit relatives. They are not a means of providing a service.

That said, if you insist on introducing differential fares then the following question is answered in that event.

If this, in effect, is an argument for introducing differential fares, or punitive fares for vehicle drivers, then I disagree.
If the suggestion is to introduce real lower fares for travelling without a vehicle and/or at quieter times then I agree.
I do not agree to subsidising lower fares by introducing punitive higher fares for others.