Octd6fjr2001 - Transport Scotland · The breakdowns of these totals by U.K. port group and overseas country are shown in Tables 9 and 10 below. Table 9 Scotland's Unitised Imports

"' .tJ;.ft'~·,~

:~.. ;

'-~

Octd6fjr2001'r.":""

ROSYTH - ZEEBRUGGE

PROPOSED FERRY SERVICE

REPORT ON FFG -APPLICATION

TERMINAL

roduced by Peter D Stebbings August 2001

pproved by C.M.D. Wootton - Director Job No: MKRSB/002SB

Final 1 October 2001

ROSYTH-ZEEBRUGGE

PROPOSED FERRY SERVICE

REPORT ON FFG APPLICATION

TERMINAL

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.0 APPLICANT BACKGROUND

3.0 THE PROPOSED PROJECT

4.0 ROAD ROUTE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

5.0 STATUTORY PLANNING & OTHER MATTERS

6.0 ENGINEERING ASPECTS

7.0 OPERATIONAL ASPECTS

8.0 CAPITAL COST

9.0 PROCUREMENT

10.0 OPERATIONAL COSTS

11.0 INADMISSIBLE COSTS

12.0 SUPPORT

13.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PPENDIX A - Meeting Notes - Visit to Rosyth

PPENDIX B - Meeting Notes - Visit to Zeebrugge

PPENDIX C - Documents Reviewed

PPENDIX D - Photographs of Proposed Rosyth Terminal Site

PPENDIX E - Photographs of Proposed Zeebrugge Berth and Terminal

PPENDIX F - Final Layout

MKRSB/002SB

)"

1.0 Executive Summary

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• The proposed final layout of the terminal is adequate.

• The operational aspects and costs have been property addressed.

• The capital costs for the proposal are of the correct order with one major exception -the linkspan.

• Inadmissible costs of plant cost (approx £1,150,000) have been identified.

• The capital costs of the Terminal could be reduced if vessel berthing can be achievedwith an improved dredged access and without the construction of "8" Berth.

• Any grant should reflect more realistic design fee costs and the deduction of theinadmissible cost of a harbour crane replacement and certain new plant.

• Traffic analysis indicates that provided the service is adequately run, then theproposed Rosyth-Zeebrugge service could result in a significant number of reductionin road haulage miles.

osyth - Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry Serviceeport on FFG Application - Terminal

October 2001Version F

2.0 Applicant Background

2.0 APPLICANT BACKGROUND

Forth Ports Ltd is the company which was formed on privatisation of the Forth Ports Authority.The company has extensive experience of port operation and has successfully procuredinfrastructure for new services elsewhere in the estuary .

The Forth Ports Ltd company are developing trade at Rosyth and have utilised the expertiseand resources available in its other ports on the Forth to ensure that the Rosyth operation isplaced on a sound footing.

Although physically separated from the established Forth ports, such as Leigh andGrangemouth. Rosyth has good communications with all Forth Port Ltd establishments .

.J.-I-OS-yt-h---z-ee-b-ru-gg-e-p-ro-p-os-ed-F-err--y-Se-rv-jc-e---------::-----------------;:::O-:::ct-,ob-=e::-r -:;-2;:;;OO~I-

eporton FFGApplication- Terminal Version F

3.0 THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed project consists of the modification of the existing 'T' berth at Rosyth with theinstallation of a double deck Ro/Ro linkspan to accept Ro/Ro vessels by the provision of anew buifding face at'S' berth forming a basin. Shore works are to be provided in the form ofa Ro/Ro terminal for both passengers and freight traffic. An associated application for aFreight Facility Grant has been made by a shipping company Superfast Ferries Maritime SA,for the modification of their vessels Superfast 1 and Superfast 2. These are intended toprovide a daily service between Rosyth and the Port of Zeebrugge in Belgium.

The basis of this application is that such a service would abstract present road borne traffic toand from Scotland presently using the English motorway system and southern ports foraccess to the Continent. The proposed project at Rosyth would not be limited to this trafficand could provide facilities for Scandinavian Ro/Ro freight traffic which presently utilisesexisting facifities further south in the UK. This is not referred to by the Applicant in thesubmission.

-+R+s-y-th---z-ee-b-ru-gg-e-p-ro-po-s-ed-F-e-rry--Se-rv-ic-e------- ~---------------O::::-:ct-;ob-e-r -;;:20~O:-;I-I~to" FeG App""'oo - T,m;~1 V",ion F

4.0 Road Route & Traffic Analysis

4.0 ROAD ROUTE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

4.1 Freight

4.1.1 Freight flows to/from Scotland

Scotland's unit load traffic, containers and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), is moved by road,rail and sea, and comprises both domestic UK traffic and international cargoes. Drawing on anumber of official statistical sources, and making assumptions and estimates as shown, theannual flows are given in Table 1 below.

-Table 1.Scotland's Annual Unit Load Traffic bv Mode of entering/leaving Scotland. 1999/2000.('OOOs).

U.K Traffic Overseas Traffic Total Traffic

ICont.Neh Tonnes Cont.Neh. Tonnes Cont.Neh. Tonnes

Containers -Inward - Sea 26 344 (b) 18 238 (b) 44 582

- Rail 28 367 (8)(2) 111 1,467 (a)(2) 139 1,834- Road - - - - - -- Total 54 711 129 1,705 183 2,416

Outward - 27 356 (b) 32 417 (b) 59 773Sea

- Rail 23 307 (a)(2Y 93 1,2267a)(2) 116 1,533- Road - - - - - -- Total 50 663 125 1,643 175 2,306

H.G.v.sInward - Sea 103 1,244 (b) - - 103 1,244

- Rail - - - - -- Road 1,678 20,306{a) 62 747-(a)(1 ) 1,700 210-53- Total 1,781 21,550 62 747 1,843 22,297

Outward - 99 1,193 (b) - - 99 1,193I Sea,

- Rail - - - -- Road 1,277 15,451 (a) 139 1680=(8)T1) 1416 17,125- Total 1,376 16,644 139 1680- 1,515 18318

otals 3,261 39,568 455 4,218 3,716 45337

Sources (a) Scottish Transport Statistics 2001 (S.T.S. '01) (Rail '99/'00; Road 'aD)(b) Maritime Statistics 1999 (M.S. '99) (Sea '99)

Notes:(1) Data for 2000 from S.T.S. '01 with assumption that in addition to U.K. hauliers traffic as

stated an extra 10% of overseas traffic is moved by foreign haufiers.(2) Data for 99/00 from S.T.S. '01 with assumptions that 70% of cargo moved by rail other

than minerals, coal & coke was containerised, and this traffic split 20% rest of U.K. and80% overseas.

(3) Conversion rates of 13.2 tonnes per container and 12.1 tonnes per H.G.V. have beenused throughout based on data from S.T.S. '01 (Table 10.8) which shows these figuresfor Scotland's 1999 traffic, domestic plus international.

Table 1 above shows that almost 10% of Scotland's unit load traffic is international withcontainers representing about 80% of that business.

~ osyth - Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry Service 4 October 2001

port 011 FFG Application - Terminal Version F

4.1.2 Growth record & simplistic projection to 2002

Available historical data showing past trends in overseas freight traffic to and from Scotland issummarised in the following tables:

Table 2.Goods Lifted Internationally by U.K. HGVs to or from Scotland(million tonnes)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Imports to 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2ScotlandExports from 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5Scotland

.Source: S.T.S. '01

Note: Carryings by foreign registered hauHers not included in the above. It is likely these have beenincreasing in recent years as shown by statistics for the overall U.K. situation.

"'able 3.Scottish Manufacturina EXDorts£000 m. at 1995 constant prices)

990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

10.5 10.7 11.5 12.1 15.0 17.2 18.2 20.2 21.3 21.4

;Source: Survey of Scottish Sales and Exports in 1999/2000. SCD!.

Irable 4.Scottish Ports Unit Load Foreian Traffic'000 1. of container and ro-ro traffic)

,

1993 1995 1998 1999

:;Ivde Imports 6 37 25 16

Exports 89 140 88 133

orth Imports 282 239 225 221

Exports 394 333 331 384

ource: DTLR Maritime Statistics '93, '95, '98, '99.ate: All the above traffic is containerised.

able 5.cotland's Foreian and Coastwise Unit Load Traffic

( 000 units)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

ontainers 49 52 87 96 108 100 82 86 84 91o-ro 310 300 293 342 343 356 359 387 409 408

ource: S.T.S. '01.II

joSyth - Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry Service 5 October 2001jeport on FFG Application - Terminal Version F

Trade data for Scotland's imports from outside the U.K. is not available but clearly in valueand tonnage terms there is a marked imbalance with exports predominating. Table 3 aboveshows an average annual growth rate for manufactured exports over the last decade of over8%. This pattern does not appear to be reflected in the tonnages moved by U.K. hauliers(Table 2) or Scottish ports (Table 4). It is proposed that an annual growth of 4% for unit loadtraffic is adopted for the years 1999 to 2002.

Based on levels recorded in Table 1 above, and an assumed annual growth of 4%, the flowsof Scotland's international traffic in 2002, the projected start up year for the Scot-Zee Ferry,could be:

Table 6.Scotland's International Unit Load Traffic by Mode of enterinalleavi na Scotland. 2002Proiected.('000 units)

.Inward OutwardSea Rail Road Total Sea Rail Road Total

Containers 20 122 - 142 36 103 - 139HGV - - 24 24 - - 150 150Total 20 122 24 166 36 103 150 356

Source: Consultant's projections.

4.1.3 Trading partners

Exports from Scotland are categorised by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry(SCDI) as the service, primary and manufactured sectors. In value terms in '99 in £billionthey were estimated at 3.0, 5.5 and 19.2 respectively. The first category is not relevant to thisproject: the second, without hydrocarbons, was £bn. 0.26 being mainly salmon and seafish.

Destinations for Scotland's manufactured exports are given in Table 7 below. EU countries insequence of importance as recipients of Scotland's exports are France, Germany,Netherlands and Italy.

I Table 7.Scotland's Manufactured Exports by Destination. 1999

Value l£m) % of TotalEuropean Union 12,006 62North America 2,339 12Western Europe (excl. EU) 1,216 6Asia Pacific (excl. Japan) 1,193 6Eastern Europe 466 2Rest of World 2,014 10Total 19,234 100

Source: SCDI Survey of Scottish Sales and Exports in 1999/2000.

Data for origins and destinations of HGV traffic are provided in Table 8 below.

Table 8.O&D Data for Scotland's Imports and EXDorts carried bv U.K. HGVs. 2000.('000 tonnes)

Exports Imports Total, France 203 64 267

Netherlands 70 57 127

Rosyth - Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry Service 6 October 200]Report on FFO Application - Terminal Version F

Germany 82 44 126Italy 71 50 121Other EU 102 29 132Other Countries 19 0 19Total 547 244 791

Source: S.T.S. '01.

The above tables do not give data on Scotland's containerised imports. These cargoes comepredominantly from outside Europe with Asia and America being the main sources.

I 4.1.4 RoutesI

The most recent survey of inland origins and destination of UK international trade was carriedout in 1996 as part of the STEMM EU 4th Framework research project to develop models ofmulti-modal European transport flows. Using one of these models, the results of the 1996survey have been enhanced to provide a·comprehensive description of the 1996 pattern ofunitised traffic moving between the UK and Continental Europe, excluding Scandinavia.

During 1996, unitised imports from Continental Europe excluding Scandinavia to Scotlandamounted to 1,340 thousand tonnes, while Scottish exports were 1,514 thousand tonnes.The breakdowns of these totals by U.K. port group and overseas country are shown in Tables9 and 10 below.

Table 9Scotland's Unitised Imports from Continental Europe bv DischarQe Port. 1996.('000 tonnes)

Port Group % Germany France Netherlands Belgium Italy Rest of TotalShare Cont.

EuropeScotland 27 109 6 190 39 - 20 364

I (East Coast)Scotland 1 - 4 - - - 13 17

I (West Coast)North East 18 44 33 100 48 - 17 242Humber 16 50 21 84 13 21 74 218Wash & North - - - - - - - -East AnqliaHaven 5 13 1 39 1 1 11 66Thames & 27 61 86 42 45 65 67 366KentRest of G.B. 6 1 38 - 1 8 13 67Total 100 276 189 455 147 95 178 1,340

Source: STEMM Project

Table 10.Scotland's Unitised Exports to Continental Europe bv LoadinQ Port. 1996.('000 tonnes)

Port Group % Germany France Netherla Belgium Italy Rest of TotalShare nds Cont.

EuropeScotland 15 42 8 89 59 - 25 223!lEast Coast)Scotland 6 - 7 - - - 78 85[tWest Coast)

. North East 16 41 65 49 56 - 24 235I

Rosyth - Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry Service 7 October 2001

Report on FfG Application - Terminal Version F

Humber 18 39 55 46 17 30 79 248Wash & North - - - - - - - -East AngliaHaven 4 14 3 12 1 4 20 50Thames & 33 51 171 15 53 78 134 502KentRest of G.B. 8 - 55 - 1 12 81 149Total 100 186 364 211 187 124 442 1,514

Source: STEMM Project

The port group share of each country's traffic with Scotland is shown in Table 9 (Imports) andTable 10 (Exports). Scottish ports handled 24% of Scotland's unitised traffic with ContinentalEurope. The main alternative ports are Thames & Kent (predominantly Channel Tunnel andDover) with 30%, and North East and Humber port groups with 17% each of Scotland'sunitised traffic. There is clearly some potential for attracting further traffic to Scottish ports,but it must be recognised that these ports are already successful in handling.a majorproportion of the traffic. There is a wide range of consignments with different transport needswithin these totals, in terms of commodity, timing, urgency etc. which will always result inspecific reasons for choosing different port routes for consignments with specific needs.

4.1.5. Relative positions of containers and accompanied and unaccompanied trailers.

For Scotland's overseas traffic containers represent a significant share of the unit load totalwith a figure estimated at just over 50% of the whole market. Much of the container trafficmoves to and from Scotland by rail from the ports of Felixstowe and Southampton being deepsea freight moving mainly to or from the Far East or America. The position for near sea trafficto and from Continental Europe is markedly different as shown in Table 11 below. The splitbetween accompanied HGV, unaccompanied HGV and containers for Scotland's Europeantrade is 47%, 17% and 36% respectively.

Table 11Scotland's Import & Export Unitised Maritime Tradewith Continental Europe bv Mode. 1996.

HGV Accom. HGV Unaccomp. Container TotalTonnes Units Tonnes Units Tonnes Units Tonnes UnitsCOOO) COOO) COOO) COOO)

Scot. (E. - - - - 586.7 64,608 586.7 64,608coast)Scot (W. - - - - 101.8 12,175 101.8 12,175coast)N. E. 16.9 2,845 229.4 24,432 130.4 23,536 376.7 50,813Humber 213.8 24,909 251.3 27,021 18.3 1,742 483.4 53,672Haven 109.6 13,421 9.1 824 1.2 107 119.9 14,352Thames 496.4 54,868 1.6 106 - - 498.0 54,974& KentChannel 304.0 34,950 - - 67.8 5,444 371.8 40,394TunnelRest of 153.2 16,807 2.5 206 159.6 6,965 315.3 23,978UKTotal 1,293.9 147,800 493.9 52,589 1,065.8 114,577 2,853.6 314,966

Source: STEMM.

The data in the above table shows marked discrepancies between the three alternativemodes between the available routes. Accompanied HGVs move mainly through ports in theThames and Kent and the Tunnel; unaccompanied HGVs move almost exclusively throughNorth East and Humber ports and containers move through Forth and North East Ports. Data

Rosyth - Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry Service 8 October 2001Report on FFG Application - Terminal Version F

for the whole of the traffic using North Sea ports and the Dover Strait, as in Table 12 below,demonstrates a similar pattern for the HGV element of the total.

Table 12

HGV traffic through U.K. Port Groups.('000 units)

DTLR Transport Statistics Bulletin Q1 2001.

1991199419972000

I Source:

Accomp.115.9108.3141.5144.1

North SeaI Unaccomp.

473.9512.0575.0633.6

% Accomp.20172019

Accomp.517.2643.7890.81,349.5

Dover StraitUnaccomp.% Accomp.72.3 88107.5 86109.1 8943.5 97

Time sensitive goods are moved by the shortest possible sea route and are accompaniedthroughout; longer sea journeys on North Sea routes are acceptable for more unaccompaniedtraffic which can cope with slower transit speeds and the less frequent departures than areavailable across the Dover Strait. Container traffic to and from Europe is predominantlycarried through the Forth Ports but that cargo is likely to be receptive to move on a Scottishferry service as a container or unaccompanied HGV unit.

4.1.6. Evaluation of Applicant's Traffic Projections.

a) Capacity.The projected upper load factors for the service, expressed by percentage of capacity utili sedand summarised in Table 13 below, are considered by the consultants to be achievable. Theservice will operate on a one sailing a day basis in each direction and that departure timingcan be selected to best suit customers, although freight and passengers may not concur.There is not therefore the factor of under-utifisation of space at unpopular departure times thata multi daily sailing service has to cope with. However 80% as the achievable load factor onthe export route for a single daily sailing as a year round average may be optimistic givenweather, planned or breakdown maintenance, quiet days in the week, some shipperdissatisfaction from shut outs on full sailings, etc. Even with these provisos the consultantssupport the figure.

b) Carryings and Traffic Build Up.Freight traffic in the first year is shown as 30 units on the import leg and 47 on the export legas an average per sailing. Growth is projected to 55 and 87 units by Year 4, and 59 and 92units by Year 6 and thereafter. These projections appear to be reasonably cautious; it couldbe argued that since the service is seeking a small percentage of the market, and theoperational and commercial attractiveness of the route, however strong that is, will be evidentwithin a year of commencement, that a faster build up will be realised. The viability of theservice is likely to be reflected in very good or unsustainable freight liftings by year 2 of theoperation.

c) Traffic Components.Freight is projected with a split of 47% accompanied, 47% unaccompanied and 6% containersat the outset, with a minute increased share for containers to 7% by Year 6. Assumptionsabout revenue levels per unit show little difference between the three components althoughthe consultants would query these figures. Based mainly on the strong preference foraccompanied traffic to keep the sea route as short as possible under present conditions andthe existing one hundred percent use of containers by users of Forth ports currently a split of

Accompanied 10%Unaccompanied 60%Containers 30%seems more probable.

osyth - Zeebrugge Proposed FelT)' Serviceeport on FFO Application - TelminaJ

9 October 200]Version F

d) Market Share.The consultant's projection, Table 6 above, for Scotland's unit load traffic in 2002, Year 1 ofthe ferry operation, shows a total of 565,000 units. 68% (by value) of exports, the heaviestleg, are to Europe while 37% of imports are from Europe. The overall market could be seenas being approximately 330,000 units. To define the market as Europe excludes the potentialto win some non-Europe traffic, for example the export container destined to be loaded by atight deadline in Rotterdam for a customer in Japan. In Year 1 the ferry's projected traffic of25,000 units is just 7.6% of the market. With trade growth of 4% p.a. the Year 6 projection forcarryings would represent 12.3% of the market. Both figures are modest and, if the service isattractive, achievable.

4.1.7. Issues in Strathclyde report.

Points arising in the University of Strathclyde's report of March 1999 are:

- While the nationality of ownership of the 13 hauliers / container operators is recorded it isheavily biased towards UK companies when the .market is thought to be dominated byEuropean organisations .

• The.routes used by those companies that provided data are strongly biased to N.E. andHumber ports at 83% of survey traffic when the overall market share of these ports is about32%.

- While the report identifies some of the major players and potential customers for theproposed ferry, and addresses some of the issues as seen by hauliers, it does not presentdata which would influence decisions about the viability of such a service.

4.1.8. Issues in Napier report.

Points arising in the Napier University PACT report of January 2000 are:

- Market data used appears to have been limited to the DTLR 0&0 Survey 1996. This datasource, referred to in Section 4 above, was acknowledged by the authors as having certainweaknesses viz. " .... it proved difficult to obtain a sample large enough, or representativeenough, to produce wholly reliable results." ", .. results produced from the survey must betreated very cautiously."

- The estimated figure of 241,000 units for Scotland's unit load traffic with Continental Europein 1996 was probably low; the absence of any estimate for the projected level in the perceivedstart up year of the operation, and a number of later years, seems to be an omission.

- Identification from the shipper survey of an average weight of 18 tonnes per unit is at oddswith data published in Scottish Transport Statistics 2001 which gives rates (domestic andinternational) of 13.2 per container and 12.1 1.per HGV.

- The adoption of 18 tonnes per unit rather than 13.1 tonnes would be expected to markedlyreduce the estimate of units moved; this does not appear to be the case.

- No doubt the report authors are aware of it but the results from the shipper survey are likelyto be skewed towards support for the ferry service because

a) interviewees are likely to have known of the commitment to the concept by NapierUniv.

b) potential users of a new service will always welcome it and the resultantcompetition.

- Only the 18 page Final Report has been seen. It is assumed that more substantial anddetailed work exists behind it. The document seen does not provide a comprehensive


10 October 200 IVersion F

statement of the traffic prospects for the proposed ferry nor does it present a clear case insupport of the project.

4.1.9 Issues in JM Associates Application.

Section 3 of the Application, under the heading "The Traffic", addresses

- dependence on English ports- congestion on roads and other barriers such as tolls, driver hours, fuel prices- English port capacity limitations- advantages and viability of fast ferry service for Scotland- review of Strathclyde study- review of Napier study- traffic imbalance with potential for additional distribution centre import traffic- nature of exports with emphasis on computer equipment, chemicals, whisky- inability to secure firm advanced commitments from potential ferry customers- statement of estimated volumes as developed from market studies without anysubstantiation. -

The projected traffic for the service, as stated by J.M. Associates, is:

Table 13Scot - Zee Service Traffic Proiections

Year16

ImportsUnits % of Capacity9,750 2619,110 51

Units15,25029,890

Ex Jorts% of Capacity4180

Units25,00049,000

Total% of Capacity3366

Source: J.M. AssociatesNote: Annual capacity in each direction is stated as 37,375 units.

The Application fails to address important traffic issues including- potential market growth- basis of market share estimates and proportion of totals to be won.

4.2 Passengers

4.2.1 Importance to service viability and data provided

There is very limited attention in the Applications to passenger numbers and data to supportthe traffic estimates made. The earlier PACT and marketing studies were concerned almostexclusively with freight. In fact, in both the ferry service and terminal Applications for FFGsupport, passenger traffic is projected to generate a significant proportion of revenue, asshown in Table 14.

osyth - Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry Serviceeport On FFG Application - Terminal

11 October 2001Version F

Table 14Passenger related revenues for ferry service and terminal(£ thousand)

Revenue SourceFerry Service

FreightPassengers

Year 1

15,7369,412

Year 5

30.10714,545

Year 10

30,88016,043

Rosyth TerminalFreightPassengers

Passenaer Share of RevenueFerry ServiceRosyth Terminal

Source:J.M Associates

1,372279

Year 137%17%

2,010 2,045432 476

Year 5 Year 1033% 34%18% 19%

Passenger traffic is projected to account for 33% - 37% of the ferry service revenue, and for17% - 19% of terminal revenue.

In the terminal FFG application, passengers carried are forecast at 110,000 in Year 1, risingto 187,500 in Year 10, these annual rates corresponding to an 80% capacity utilisation in thehigh season when it is assumed that 28% of passenger traffic will be carried. This is nothighly seasonal as stated in the applications, since this proportion corresponds to 3.3 monthsof traffic spread uniformly over the year.

Detailed data in the application indicate an expectation of 17,600 (rising to 30,000) carscarried per year, equivalent to an average of 27 (rising to 46) cars per crossing. With 4passengers per car, there are expected to be some 40,000 (rising to 60,000) foot and coachpassengers, equivalent to an average of 2 (rising to 3.5) coaches per crossing. As notedabove, these numbers will be larger in the high season.

The projected number of some 20,000 passenger cars initially will be only about 0.5% of totalGreat Britain car traffic to Mainland Europe, or between 4% and 5% of total North Seapassenger car traffic. excluding Dover Straits and Western Channel services. This marketshare would be relatively modest. But its achievement will be dependent on how passengersto and from Scotland regard the balance between the convenience of a Scotland basedservice and the longer sea crossing time of 16-18 hours compared with the Humber (about 10hours) or the Dover Straits (about 1 hour).

4.2.2 UK Market in 2000 by Route

The recent pattern of passenger car and coach traffic between Great Britain and MainlandEurope is illustrated in Charts 1 and 2 below. The total numbers of cars increased steadilyfrom 1988 to 1994; the rate of growth increased to 1996 consistent with additional movementsbeing generated by the opening of the Channel Tunnel. The rate of growth reduced to itsearlier level between 1996 and 1998, after which there was a sharp fall in passenger cartraffic in 1999 after the cessation of duty-free concessions.

From 1995, there has been a decline in the numbers of cars carried by sea as Eurotunnel hasdeveloped its market share. The impact of this decline has fallen mostly on Dover Straitsroutes. On North Sea ferry services, the number of passenger cars carried declined steadilyfrom 734 thousand in 1992 to 518 thousand in 1997, but this trend may have been reversedto reach 586 thousand in 1999.

I osyth - Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry Serviceeport on FFG Application - Terminal


12000

10000

Chart I Annual Traffic, Passenger Cars, 1987 - 2002Great Britain to/from Mainland Europe

(thousands)Including Effect of Stopping Duty Free

Total

(Linear trend)

8000

6000

4000

2000 ------ L-- Channel. -~~--~.---;~

.,.....-.--"__-.··------1North Sea

-

o1986 1988 1990 1992: 1994 1996

Sources: HislOrical: DTLR, Transport Staristics Great Britain, 2000 EditionProjections: Consultants

Note: Figures include campers andmotorcyc!es

1993 2000 2002 2004

I.----~---/ ----

----- <_5",---..~~----/" -'-

~ --..-.--

-~._-"CUW,"'"

"ff

/--_//

/

Annual Traffic. Passenger Coarhes:, 1987 M 2002Great Britai,n to/from Mainland Europe

(thousands)Including Errett of Stopping Duty Free

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

so

o1986

Chart 2

(988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

(Une:u- treAd)

2002 2004

Sourccs; HislOrica!: DTLR~ TnUlsport Statistic" Gre-,n Brilaiil, !999 EdllionProjections; COIISIJltants

The numbers of cars and coaches carried by sea between Great Britain and Mainland Europeduring 1999 are shown in Table 15, with the consultant's estimates of traffic in 2002.

Great Britain to/from Mainland Europe

19994,791206

20025,010209

Sources: Transport Statistics, 2000 Edition; Consultant's Estimates

I Rosyth - Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry ServiceReport on FFG Application - Terminal


4.2.3 Scottish Component and RoutingThis section presents statistics from the International Passenger Survey 1999. These relateto one-way traffic flows, of Scottish residents travelling abroad and of overseas visitors toScotland.

During 1999, the number of Scottish residents visiting Western Europe (including theRepublic of Ireland) was some 2,281 thousand, of whom 1,922 thousand travelled by air(Source: Scottish Transport Statistics, 2001 edition). Of the 358 thousand using surfacetransport, 85 thousand travelled through the Channel Tunnel while 273 thousand travelled byferry. The distribution of these Scottish resident surface passengers across routes was asshown in Table 16.

Table 16.Scottish Residents travellina bv Surface TransDort to Western EuroDe 1999

Thousands ProportionChannel Tunnel 85 24%

EngliSh Channel Ports 102 28%EnQlish East Coast Ports 7 2%Other UK Ports 164 46%

Total 358 100%

Source: International Passenger Survey 1999

From these statistics some 52% of Scottish residents travelling to Western Europe by surfacetransport used the Channel Tunnel or English Channel ports, while only 2% used ferryservices from other English East Coast ports.

Total passenger vehicle traffic through UK ports on Near Sea routes in 1999 is shown inTable 17 for comparison (Near Sea routes are those between Great Britain and the Republicof Ireland, France, Belgium, NetherlandS and Germany-North Sea coast). These datainclude both inward and outward traffic.

Table 17.Accompanied Cars and Coaches on Near Sea Routes (1999)

Thousands ProportionCars Coaches Cars Coaches

Channel Tunnel 2,977 113 38% 37%

EnQlish Channel Ports 3,483 166 44% 54%English East Coast Ports 523 10 7% 3%Other UK Ports 854 18 11% 6%

Total . 7,837 307 100% 100%

Source: DTLR, Transport Statistics, 2000 EditionDTLR, Maritime Statistics, 1999

Definitions: English Channel - Thames & Kent, Sussex & Hants, West CountryEnglish East Coast - North East, Humber, Wash, East Anglia, Haven

English East Coast ports handled 7% of accompanied cars and 3% of coaches on Near Searoutes during 1999. Comparison of these distributions suggest that the proportion of Scottishresidents travelling through 'Other UK ports' (primarily Irish Sea routes) is significantly higherthan the proportion of ferry passengers as a whole. Considering only routes to MainlandEurope, 3.6% of Scottish residents using surface transport used English East Coast ports,compared with 53% using English Channel ports and 44% using the Tunnel. In contrast,English East Coast ports handled 11% of accompanied cars and 5% of coaches on thoseroutes.

I

I Rosyth _ Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry Service 14 October 200]

Report on FFO Application - Terminal Version F

These figures suggest that Scottish residents travelling to Mainland Europe are more likelythan other passengers to prefer the longer land journey with short sea crossing on the EnglishChannel than to use the longer crossings on the North Sea routes.

The surface transport routes used by Scottish residents travelling abroad and overseasvisitors to Scotland during 2000 are shown in Table 18.

Table 18.Scottish Residents Travellina Abroad and Overseas Visitors to Scotland by Surface Transport

RoutesScottish Residents(thousands) (%)57 15%212 57%

17141

Channel TunnelEnglish Channel

of which Dover StraitsOther Channel

English East Coastof which Haven

Other East CoastOther UK Darts

Total

84

22374

381

22%

15%

Overseas Visitors(thousands)5673

694

1429133

32304

(%)18%24%

47%

18%

Source: International Passenaer Survey 2000

These IPS statistics for 2000 show that, of Scottish residents travelling abroad by surfacetransport! 22% used routes through the English East Coast ports compared with 72% usingEnglish Channel ports or the Channel Tunnel. The patterns for overseas travellers whovisited Scotland at least once during their stay in the UK were markedly different, with 47%using English East Coast ports and only 42% using routes across the English Channel orthrough the Channel Tunnel.

For Scottish residents travelling abroad by surface transport, 55% are going to destinations inFrance, whereas only 11% of overseas visitors to Scotland are from France. Of Scottishtravellers to the Benelux, Germany and Italy, 60% used English East Coast ports, comparedwith 75% of overseas visitors to Scotland from these countries,

Given the importance of passenger revenues to the viability of the proposed service,marketing effort will need to focus on those most likely to use the route.

4.2.4 Growth Record and Simplistic Projection to 2002

The growth record of passenger transport through English East Coast ports is the mostrelevant for the proposed service. The proposed service will be in direct competition with theservices using the Humber and North East ports. As noted in Section 2 above, this traffic wasin steady decline from 1992 to 1997, but increased between 1997 and 1999 by 13%.Whether this is maintained will depend on a change in the pattern of destinations of UKresidents travelling abroad, and the origins of overseas visitors.

It is expected that the rate of growth of this segment of the market will be between 0% pa and5%' pa to 2002. Because of the dominance of France as a destination for Scottish residents,the market for the proposed ferry is expected to grow at between 0% pa and 3% pa in thenext few years ..

4.2.5

V

Evaluation of Applicants' Traffic Projections

Assumptions about traffic volumesPassenger traffic is expected to be an important generator of revenue, but there is very littleexplanation or justification offered for the traffic forecasts in the Applications. While these


IS October 2001Version F

forecasts imply a relatively modest share of the total passenger market in and out of Scotland,analyses of available information indicates that only a fraction of that total market is likely tobe attracted to the proposed service. Over 50% of Scottish residents travelling abroad bysurface transport are going to France. Only 22% of Scottish travellers use English East Coastports compared with over 70% going by English Channel routes and the Channel Tunnel.

These considerations suggest that a relatively high share of the realistic market must beachieved to reach the forecast traffic levels.

ii) Sensitivity to service levels and chargesPassenger traffic is highly seasonal, and consequently there are large variations in fare levelsbetween high and low seasons. On the routes with substantial capacity, there is also scopeto offer special packages to fill any spare capacity that may emerge. Strong price competitionmust therefore be expected when the new service starts operations.

o$yth - Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry Serviceeport on FFG Application - Terminal

16 October 2001Versiol1 F

5.0 Statutory Planning & Other Matters

5.0 STATUTORY PLANNING & OTHER MATTERS

Forth Ports Ltd is a statutory company and as such has certain residual process for the safeand efficient conduct of port businesses.

Forth Ports Ltd were questioned at the interview held in Rosyth as to the extent of theseprocesses. It would appear that they are sufficient to cover the construction of the marineworks associated with the Ro/Ro terminal. In addition licences are required for any dredgingworks and Forth Ports have already raised the extension of their present licences to cover theproposed dredging with appropriate Departments. No serious environmental issues areexpected by Forth Ports Ltd.

The shore works are also covered by Forth Ports Ltd's statutory powers, but in addition FifeRegional Council have included the proposed development in their structural plan. The newspine road has been authorised for construction in furtherance of the Council's policy ofdevelopment of surplus land at Rosyth for commercial port purposes.

osyth - Zeebrugge Proposed Ferry Serviceeport on FFG Application - Tenninal


6.0 Engineering Aspects

6.0 ENGINEERING ASPECTS

The infrastructure proposal consists of building a terminal on existing hardstanding with themain Ro/Ro berth utilising an existing quay wall. As such, no particular difficulties or risks areinvolved. A site investigation has been -carried out and has been released fa the design andbuild contractor.

'S' Berth presents the greatest chaJfenge in that the new quay structure is to face up an ad-hoc reclamation area. This usually presents problems to the driving of sheet piles but theform of construction proposed minimises this risk.

The form of construction chosen is a contiguous wall of tube piles and any obstructions canbe cleared from within the tube.

Should the contractor elect to optimise his design and provide sheet piles in between the tubepiles the risks would increase. This is because sheet piles are not easily driven throughobstructions being of slender section.

The provision of all services such as electricity and drainage has been adequatelyconsidered.



I

I. I

7.0 Operational Aspects

7.0 OPERATIONAL ASPECTS

The Applicant's proposal for a combined passenger and freight Ro/Ro terminal is adequatefor the service envisaged. It is beyond the minimum required for a 'start-up' service for freightonly Ro/Ro but provides for the traffic projected immediately upon commencement of theservice.

The additional information gained following Scott Wilson's visit and interview with the ForthPorts Ltd personnel shows that the proposed stevedoring appropriate and consideration hasbeen given to maximising freight traffic.

Difficulty has obviously been found in assessing the amount and type of traffic that could beon offer to the service. This is exemplified by the provision of reefer points, anacknowledgement that a significant amount of Scottish-Continental traffic is meat and fishproduct.

The Applicant's terminal layout is not to be as submitted in the FFG Application. During theinterview held with Forth Ports Ltd, Scott Wilson were informed that the construction of a newspine road would enable a better layout for the proposed terminal entrance to be adopted.The construction of the new spine road is, it is understood, to be constructed within thetimescale of the construction of the terminal itself.

The time available for discharge and loading of the vessels is likely to be a minimum of fourhours even if the vessel is slowed due to bad weather. For this reason it is considered thatthe initial provision of an upper deck linkspan is not essential. The vessel has excellentinternal ramps and with the proposed provision of tug units the vessel could be serviced by asingle deck linkspan and especially if it was twin lane. Provision in the design of the linkspancould be made for the addition of an upper deck at some time in the future should increasesin traffic warrant such a provision.

It should be noted that the shipping company are taking the risk on weather and as such maydemand a double decklinkspan for security of service standard.

With the length of time that the vessel is lying alongside parking requirements are difficult toassess. If the freight traffic is unaccompanied then more space is required for parking but ifthe traffic is accompanied then the space required is reduced. Current philosophy is forshipping companies to load vessels at the earliest opportunity so this maximises the on boardrevenue both from freight drivers and passengers. However, there would appear to beadequate land for the level of service proposed. The manning of a mixed terminal Le.passengers and freight requires disproportionate staff numbers. A freight only operation canbe manned with as little as four persons per shift for the acceptance and marshalling of traffic.However a mixed operation requires a minimum of eight persons per shift for the same sizedvessel. From experience it is impractical to segregate incoming export traffic into freight andpassenger traffic even when volumes are low.

Having elected for a mixed service the proposed provision of facilities on shore is consideredby Scott Wilson to be commensurate with the vessel type and capacity envisaged.

The construction of'S' berth is primarily to provide a consistent dredged depth adjacent to theoperational 'T' berth. When the results of the computer simulator of the docking of thevessels are to hand it may be found that the provision of the new'S' berthing face and fulldepth over the basin created can be deferred.

Scott Wilson are of the opinion that the vessels proposed could berth safely with full waterdepth In the basin being 3 beam widths from the berthing face of 'T' berth.

osyth - Zeebrugge Proposed FeIT)iServiceeport on FFG Application - Terminal
