FIFE COUNCIL
Environment & Development Committee
6 September 2004
Agenda Item No
OPTIONS FOR A CROSS FORTH PASSENGER FERRY SERVICE
CONSULTANTS REPORT
1.0
Purpose of Report
1.1 To inform Committee on the findings of work carried out to date on the Cross
Forth Passenger Ferry Services Study and to map out the next course of actions as appropriate for members' consideration.
2.0
Background
2.1 Previous study work on the potential for cross-Forth ferry services was carried out in 1998. There was a need to review this work and consider further options and changes since the earlier study. These are as follows:-
 the number of ports considered, both in Fife and Edinburgh;
 developments within the port areas, particularly Leith, and other anticipated developments in north Edinburgh area;
 the development of job opportunities and housing close to ports;
 types of vessel, for both reliability and ease of access to ports: and
 public transport interchange facilities
2.2 The work was carried out in partnership with FETA, City of Edinburgh Council,
Forth Ports and Fife Council. All the partners contributed financially to the study, which was awarded to a consortium of consultants led by the Halcrow Group Ltd in April 2003.
3.0 Current Position
3.1 The draft final report has just recently been received from the Consultants.
Copies of the report are therefore available in the Members’ Lounge and its
Executive Summary is attached to this committee report as Appendix 1, there are only minor changes to be amended by the Consultants.
3.2 The study examined the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of introducing a passenger ferry across the Forth Estuary. Ports considered on the north shore were Rosyth, Burntisland, Kirkcaldy and Methil. On the south side of the Estuary the study focussed on Granton and Leith.
3.3 Rosyth is not recommended due to navigational service problems in relation to the bridges and Braefoot Bay terminal. Methil is not recommended due to a low patronage forecast. Of the remaining ports, Kirkcaldy to Leith offers the best patronage at 1700 single trips per day, and is the only route predicted to cover operational costs including supply of the two vessels. However, the report

highlights significant engineering issues requiring further investigation at both
Kirkcaldy and Leith, and capital investment in the order of £10m will be required.
It is therefore appropriate to also continue to consider Burntisland and Granton in further studies, for although the predicted patronage is less at 1300 single trips per day, the infrastructure costs are lower and possibly more achievable in the short term. Two fast vessels, each costing £3m and carrying 150 passengers, would ply the route working to a half hour schedule.
3.4 While £10m capital costs might seem excessive, the total cost to the public sector of providing 1040 parking spaces and appropriate access facilities at the award winning Ferrytoll Park & Ride facility will be almost £13m, none of which is being funded by the operators of the bus services. It can be anticipated that the modal shift to ferry will offer some reduction of road traffic on the Forth Road
Bridge especially during peak commuter times – again similar to Ferrytoll. The extent of this requires further consideration.
3.5 Forth Ports are currently developing the Leith Docks Development Plans, to increase the size of vessels that can enter the port as well as looking into external berth arrangements. It is understood that these proposals include the possibility of a ferry terminal. The outcome of this study is due in October.
Notwithstanding Forth Ports proposals, further partnership funding would still be required in order to progress the project in terms of providing port infrastructure works, prior to any tender which might be subsequently let for the provision of ferry services.
4.0 A Way Forward
4.1 The consultants are recommending that more detailed work, is now carried out, in order to progress these matters further:-

Carry out detailed consultation with stakeholders to confirm the operational and financi al feasibility of the ‘preferred recommended route’ utilising
Kirkcaldy and Leith, and also considering Burntisland and Granton for a cross forth ferry service.

Identify funding sources to implement the infrastructure and the service and enter discussions with interested parties.

Under take further specialised studies to assess both archaeological and ecological factors that may be affected by the introduction of a ferry service.

Under take a more detail study for the routing of the ferry, looking at wave conditions and general crossing conditions. Also access to ports needs to be looked and how the ferry will berth safely and the general comfort of the passengers using the ferry and take up of the service. From this work a more detailed specification for the ferry will be able to be drawn up, with the likely costs for operating and the revenue expected to be generated from running the service.
4.2 Operationally a Cross Forth Ferry Service is viable. Such services, once established and successful, can operate flexibly and be expanded to take in other destinations. This initiative therefore may be more than just a commuter ferry, but should become a tourist attraction and open up the south coast of Fife

in ways entirely compatible with the aims of Regeneration and the Central Fife
Action Plan.
5.0 Recommendations
5.1 It is recommended that the Committee:- i) note the findings of the work carried out as described in the consultants
Draft Final Report. ii) approve that Officers in partnership with other authorities/organisations as relevant, take forward the next steps required in the process of establishing a cross forth ferry service, including:
 Confirm the operational and financial feasibility of a ‘preferred recommended route’ for operating a cross forth ferry service through extensive and detailed consultation with stakeholders;

Establish funding sources for the infrastructure requirements;

Undertake recommended archaeological and ecological assessments using specialist consultants as appropriate;

Upon confirmation of the route, using specialist consultants as appropriate, draw-up precise operational specifications for a cross forth ferry service and invite shipyards and independent operators to provide in-depth proposals of vessel type and operational strategies;

Establish likely vessel utilisation rates and investigate further the potential for additional revenue generation from cruises/charters. iii) note and agree that officers will prepare detailed update reports for the
Environment and Development and for Central Area Services Committee as the development stages of the project progress.
Iain Napier
AREA TRANSPORTATION MANAGER
(CENTRAL)
Contact: Iain Napier 01592 411588
Town House
Kirkcaldy
20 August 2004
JF/TS/TP/7/C

APPENDIX 1
OPTIONS FOR A CROSS FORTH PASSENGER FERRY SERVICE
REPORT - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 The Halcrow Group Ltd, together with Accent Marketing and Research Limited and Three Quays Marine Service Limited, were commissioned by the client group, comprising Fife Council, City of Edinburgh Council, Forth Ports and Forth
Estuary Transport Services to assess the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of introducing a passenger ferry service across the Forth Estuary.
1.1.2 This report represents the Draft Final Report for the project. It summarises the preliminary findings of the study, including the early indications of patronage, as presented within the interim report. It then goes on to provide a more robust assessment of patronage leading to recommendations relating to preferred route options. Economic and financial analyses are subsequently carried out to provide inputs for a business case planning and procurement options.
1.2 The compatibility of the project with the institutional framework
1.2.1 This assessment of the compatibility of the project with both the national, regional and local policy framework is generally positive, with the project in sympathy with a number of specific objectives, as detailed in the following section. However, the scale of the project, suggests that the potential contribution to the attainment of those overarching objectives is likely to be modest. The potential contribution, at a local level, within a particular regeneration area could, potentially, be more significant.
1.3 The assessment of the port options
Edinburgh Shore
1.3.1 Two options have been assessed as port options on the Edinburgh shore: Leith and Granton. The capital costs required to utilise Leith Docks are substantially greater than for Granton. Given that the Western Harbour at Leith is unlikely to be accessible to a cross forth ferry service the berthing between the two ports will be similar in terms of interchange potential, although Leith will still offer reduced journey times into Central Edinburgh.
1.3.2 Interchange at both Leith and Granton is dependant upon the precise berthing location of the vessel. At Leith this could be an issue given that it appears unlikely that the vessel will be able to berth within the Western Harbour. Instead a dedicated berthing facility would be required on the outer harbour wall which offers far less attractive transport interchange due to the increased walk distances to the A901.

Fife Shore
1.3.3 On the Fife shore four port options have been assessed: Rosyth, Burntisland,
Kirkcaldy and Methil. At Rosyth the institutional constraint of Bylaw 10 (a/b/c) suggests that Rosyth, despite its attractions, is not a viable alternative.
1.3.4 Capital costs at Kirkcaldy are the highest due to the required investment in breakwaters to shelter the harbour. However, Kirkcaldy is considered to offer the best catchment area for the ferry service and better accessibility in terms of road and bus interchange. The park & ride facilities are relatively high in cost due to the design requirements to reduce the risk of flooding; however, land is potentially available.
1.4 Vessel options
1.4.1 An appraisal of the operating conditions within the Forth Estuary has been undertaken and strengths and weaknesses of six vessel options were considered within this context. This concluded that the catamaran and monohull options are considered to be the most appropriate vessels to operate a cross forth ferry service.
1.4.2 Shipyards were subsequently contacted to provide details of catamaran and monohull vessels capable of operating within the specified service criteria. Six vessel designs have been submitted, all of which meet, or can be adjusted to meet, the required specification.
1.5 The environmental scoping study
1.5.1 The Scoping Study has identified a limited number of environmental issues, which require to be addressed in order to ensure that the development can be implemented in a manner having either no significant detrimental environmental effects or impacts for which it is possible to provide reasonable mitigation measures. It is recommended that the following further studies be undertaken:

Archaeological study to be agreed with the Fife Council and City of Edinburgh
Council archaeological advisors; and

An ecological assessment under the Habitat Regulations 1994 to be agreed with Scottish Natural Heritage.
1.6 Patronage Forecasts
1.6.1 The revised patronage forecasts indicate that the route from Kirkcaldy to Leith is likely to offer the best potential for generating ferry passengers. Central forecasts estimate patronage to be in the region of 1,700 single trips per day for this route.
If the service were to berth at Granton rather than Leith then it is anticipated that patronage would be 300 trips per day lower.
1.6.2 Operating the service from Burntisland would still generate reasonable patronage levels however service running from Methil is not predicted to perform well due to the increased journey times and reduced catchment area.

1.7 Economic and Financial Appraisal
1.7.1 The estimates of the viability of the project suggest that, in economic terms, the project is not viable, returning a negative Net Present Value for all the appraised routes options. For the Burntisland and Kirkcaldy routes NPVs range from -
£10
Million to £16 Million. The routes from Methil return even lower NPV’s. The results are due to a combination of the required capital investment in the ports and vessels, the relatively low farebox revenue generated for some of the routes and the proportion of this revenue that would be abstracted from other public transport operators.
1.7.2 Financially, the project is not forecast to generate sufficient revenue to cover all capital and operating costs. However, if the port infrastructure costs are excluded then one of the routes, Kirkcaldy to Leith, is anticipated to generate a positive farebox revenue surplus of over £2 Million.
1.7.3 If vessel capital costs are excluded as well as port infrastructure costs then three of the routes are forecast to generate sufficient farebox revenue to cover day-today operational costs, with Kirkcaldy to Leith performing best with a surplus of nearly £7 Million, constituting a 21% yield on revenue turnover.
1.7.4 The results suggest that if funding can be sought to cover the capital infrastructure costs and that additional revenue can be generated through offpeak cruises/charters and advertising then the Kirkcaldy to Leith route could be financially sustainable.
1.8 The next steps
1.8.1 The following represent the next steps required in the process of establishing a cross forth ferry service.

Confirm the operational and financial feasibility of utilising Kirkcaldy and Leith as the preferred ports for berthing a cross forth ferry service through consultation with stakeholders;

Establish funding sources for the infrastructure requirements and the impact that this has upon landing fees;

Undertake recommended archaeological and ecological assessments;

Upon confirmation of the route, draw-up precise operational specifications for a cross forth ferry service and invite shipyards and independent operators to provide in-depth proposals of vessel type and operational strategies;

Establish likely vessel utilisation rates and investigate further the potential for additional revenue generation from cruises/charters.