Journal ofTransport Geography 10 (2002) 231–239 www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo Viewpoint Temporal accessibility in archipelagos: inter-island shipping in the Jose AAngel Hernaandez Luis * Departamento de Geografııa, Universidad de de , Gran Canaria, 35003 Canary Islands,

Abstract The aim ofthis paper is to analyse the current conditions oftemporal daily accessibility among the seven Canary Islands by means ofsea transport forboth passengers and vehicles. To do this a method is proposed that can be applied to other areas sharing similar characteristics ofterritorial remoteness and fragmentation.Time available daily at the destination is also studied in relation to administrative or commercial working hours. Ó 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Temporal daily accessibility; Shipping lane; Land corridor; Intermodality

1. Introduction Because ofthe high cost ofair travel, short-sea shipping is the principal mode for achieving social and For financial reasons and because ofthe lack ofa financial integration, both between the islands and with hinterland with sufficient population, it has not been the outside world. Perhaps the most important fac- possible to provide a wide range ofservices forthe local tors currently creating more travel between the islands population on each ofthe Canary Islands. Such services are the progressive specialisation ofthe space–economy include, for example, a large hospital offering multiple and its effect on increased mobility, together with the specialities and services, or a large shopping centre with booming tourist industry and the rising income per a great variety ofshops. Transport toward those islands capita. An additional factor is the appearance of new that do possess such essential services therefore becomes ship owners due to the complete liberalisation ofshort- critical. sea transport in European Union (EU) waters since the The barrier formed by the sea prevents the use of pri- beginning of1999. 1 This has resulted in an increase in vate vehicles except via ferries and inter-island transport daily trips, an improvement in timetables and reduced is restricted to ships or aeroplanes. Inter-island public fares. The consequence is that whereas in 1994 only two transport faces similar challenges to those on the main- shipping companies were operating a fleet offerriesca- land but with the major difference oflack ofcompetition pable oftransporting both vehicles and passengers, in from private car and lorry transport. However the 1999 there were three. One ofthe two existing compa- planning ofthe number oftrips, timetables, availability nies has also improved its services by adding three more ofseats or cargo capacity are the main problems faced routes. In 1998 there were nearly 3.7 million inter-island by sea and air transport. The greater the number oftrips trips by sea, or 2.24 trips per inhabitant, as well as 1.9 and ship and air transport capacity, the greater acces- million inter-island air transport trips. sibility will be between the nodes on the different islands. Inter-island mobility still does not provide relative Even so this will also depend on timetable planning that territorial continuity because ofthe slowness ofthe may – or not – facilitate intermodality with land trans- vessels as well as the lack oftimetable synchronisation port together with an adequate availability oftime at a to provide optimum intermodality amongst three or destination.

1 CEE Ruling nr. 3577/92 ofthe Council, 07/12/92, article 6, point 2 which led to the implementation ofcabotage forintra-EU shipping services. Since responsibility was transferred to the Canary Islands in * Tel.: +34-928-45-2789; fax: +34-928-45-2775. shipping transport matters, in accordance with Royal Decree of24/02/ E-mail address: [email protected] (J.AA. Hernaandez Luis). 95, the entry into service ofnew shipping lines has accelerated.

0966-6923/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. PII: S0966-6923(02)00014-5 232 J.A´ . Hernandez Luis / Journal of Transport Geography 10 (2002) 231–239 more islands. Therefore it may be construed that there is lion people make this their holiday destination including still a significant field ofpotential demand that sea Spanish tourists from the mainland. This has had an transport does not satisfy because of the slow operating influence on the demand for maritime transport. As an speed at sea and incomplete intermodality. example, there is a (return) flow of1.3 million passen- As in other archipelagos in developed countries, the gers between the islands ofTenerifeand La Gomera, tendency over the last few years in the Canary Islands despite the latter’s population being less than 20 000 (see has been to de-centralise shipping routes that have tra- Table 1). ditionally been concentrated on each island’s main, Gross added value tends to be concentrated in the ‘capital’, city in favour of links through those regional capital cities especially on the central islands ofTenerife ports that are nearest to the adjoining islands (Knowles, and Gran Canaria where high density ofpopulation, 1996). This allows improved temporal accessibility since economic specialisation and central place and adminis- the average speed by road is greater than the 20 knots or tration functions have generated gross added value less ofa conventional ship. Accessibility is undoubtedly four percent higher than population share (Table 1). This improved although the pressure on the roads is in- confirms the important role played by island capital creased, especially taking into account that one ship can cities as points ofdeparture and destination. At the same carry nearly 250 cars (or 100 cars and 40 trailers). This time the majority ofgovernment functions, national aggravates the traffic problem on land and particularly health service facilities and commerce are to be found in at certain times ofthe day, forexample, in the morning, these capital cities. This explains why the population has when coinciding with the rush hour for internal traffic a higher average income in these capital cities in com- movements. parison with the rest ofthe territory and consequently greater potential for mobility (Hernaandez, 1996).

2. The regional context of the Canary Islands 3. Methodology The Canary Islands is a group ofseven main or large islands and seven small islands. All the large islands are Accessibility is a key factor in regional development inhabited but only one ofthe small ones and that has policy and this is well documented (Brookfield, 1980; just 600 inhabitants (Fig. 1). Another fundamental Dunbar, 1981; Biehl et al., 1986; Rutz and Coull, 1996; characteristic is that all the islands – with the exception Hoyle, 1999). However, it is often not the determining ofthe two central islands Tenerifeand Gran Canaria – factor for promoting a region since development also are chronically deficient in services because oftheir depends on a large range ofparameters including phys- small population. This leads to greater demand for ical conditioning factors, population size and charac- travel between these islands and the two central ones. At teristics and state investment policy. the same time, travel for employment is of great signif- There are two main types ofaccessibility: positional icance which leads to a very high incidence ofday trips. and personal (Gutieerrez, 1988). Temporal accessibility The availability ofsufficient time at the destination is a falls into the first category and may also be translated key factor for the functional integration of the islands. into financial accessibility, in the sense that time spent Since the 1960s, growth in the tertiary economy on travelling may be considered as not productive in work- the Canary Islands has been progressively linked with ing hours. In this way, and through surveys on salaries tourism and this has contributed to an increase in the for different economic activities, as well as the transport standard ofliving ofthe inhabitants. This also led to companies’ fares, it is possible to consider financial ac- an increase in inter-island mobility, both for work and cessibility between two or more nodes ofone network 2 leisure. In the same way the tourists have also demanded (Hernaandez, 1996). more excursions to and from adjacent islands on day Temporal accessibility has been researched exten- trips. sively, for example, in Hagerstrand’s (1970) work on The population ofthe seven main islands is quite time geography, as well as by Nutley (1983), Rodrııguez uneven ranging from 714 000 on Gran Canaria and (1989), and Loopez (1990). These, among others, refer 666 000 on Tenerife to just 8000 on the island of Hierro (Table 1). At the same time there is a very high con- 2 Included in the Libro Blanco de los Transportes en Canarias centration ofpopulation in each ofthe islands’ capital [Canary Islands White Book on Transport] (Gobierno de Canarias, cities reaching 53% in the case ofGran Canaria. This 1998) are some isochrone maps for shipping and air transport, from fact will be taken into account when evaluating growing Tenerife and Gran Canaria to the rest of the archipelago. There are interest in the use ofregional ports as against ports in also some isocost maps that only take into account the costs ofbuses and taxis plus the air or maritime fares leaving out the costs related to the capital cities. time consumption in working hours. These are, at the beginning ofthe The number ofvisitors to the islands has increased day, quite considerable since the main users are people in the admin- continuously since the 1960s and annually over 10 mil- istration and private enterprise. J.A ´ Hern . a dzLi ora fTasotGorpy1 20)231–239 (2002) 10 Geography Transport of Journal / Luis ndez

Fig. 1. Canary Islands: Population and Gross Added Value (1996). 233 234 J.A´ . Hernandez Luis / Journal of Transport Geography 10 (2002) 231–239

Table 1 Population and economic characteristics ofthe Canary Islands Islands Population % ofpopulation Arrival oftourists Annual income, Euros % ofGAV a generated (1996) in capital city (1997) per capita (1991) in the capital city (1991) Gran Canaria 713 768 53.27 2 733 978 6461 57.47 Tenerife 665 611 32.09 3 157 343 6870 36.96 La Palma 81 507 21.82 117 007 5703 33.32 77 379 52.23 1 466 570 7950 42.21 42 938 44.67 958 975 8027 37.69 La Gomera 17 008 35.12 69 754 6127 49.31 El Hierro 8338 49.57 8709 6487 52.67

Canary Islands 1 606 549 – 8 512 336 6692 – Source: Instituto Canario de Estadııstica. a Gross added value. directly or indirectly to the problems oftemporal ac- The total time spent in travelling door to door from cessibility by public transport, particularly in mainland origin to destination was calculated including the time areas. However, mainland inhabitants can always fall spent in overland travel, that spent checking-in and back on the alternative ofprivate transport when the boarding at the port, the actual time spent at sea and public service is deficient or does not supply their needs. that in disembarking and collecting luggage. It is also In an archipelago there is no private road transport al- necessary to calculate the time available to the traveller ternative for reaching another island and the planning for undertaking the activities at the destination that are ofthe timetable, availability ofseats and the possibility the primary reason for their trip. If the travellers do not ofbeing able to travel at a certain time are ofvital have enough time to complete their business in one day, importance (see Lutter et al., 1992; Hernaandez, 1996; or assuming that they have travelled on the first available Coozar et al., 1998). ferry of the day, the cost of the trip will increase con- This paper concentrates on temporal accessibility in siderably. They will either have to add the cost ofan relation to inter-island modes oftransport because ofits overnight stay – the hotel bill plus meals 6 – or use air vital importance for the Canary Islands. 3 The capital transport ifit is available. Similar studies of daily ac- cities ofthe islands contain the greatest concentrations cessibility have been carried out by, for example, Lutter ofpopulation, in Gran Canaria and Tenerifeaccounting et al. (1992). Available time is defined as the time be- for 53% and 32%, respectively. At the same time it is tween the arrival at the destination (such as the office in also necessary to identify the economic strength of these a particular street or a private house), and the latest time cities, 4 in terms ofthe per capita income ofthe inhab- to commence the return trip to the ferry terminal for itants as this will influence who undertakes the most check-in and boarding. inter-island travel for different reasons (higher cultural In any case, the more frequent trips are usually sub- level or more qualified employment). 5 Due to these ject to government and commercial hours ofwork. Such factors, each of the seven Canary Islands’ ‘capital’ cities hours vary between countries, but in the Canary Islands has been taken as the most frequent points of departure they are: government offices (08:00–15:00 h) – com- and destination for inter-island shipping trips. mercial enterprises (09:00–13:00 and 16:00–20:00 h). If, for example, the reason for the trip is government busi- ness and the traveller arrives at their final destination at 3 According to Murillo et al. (1995), 45% ofround trips between Tenerife and Gran Canaria are carried out in only 1 day, whereas with 09:30 h and has to return no later than 17:00 h, they will the other islands they decrease to 23.2%. Ifwe add to this the round lose 90 min out ofthe normal working day. trips of 2 or 3 days, the percentages rise to 94.6 and 87.4, respectively. These percentages are extremely high, reflecting the incidence of temporal accessibility within insular modes oftransport. This is 4. Evolution of the accessibility times by sea in the Canary particularly so when the trips are repetitive. Therefore, according to Islands MECSA (1993), the frequency of the trip between Tenerife and Gran Canaria by Jet-foil is 7% ‘‘once a week by 7%’’ rising to 53% when the frequency is between ‘‘once a week and once a month’’. The analysis assumes that departure and destination 4 According to Caixa (1999), 59.4% and 37.5% ofthe financial points are located within an island’s capital city. This activity is concentrated in the capital cities ofGran Canaria and Tenerife, respectively, in spite of the important tourist activity in the south ofboth islands. 6 MECSA (1993) indicates that the reason for the trip ‘‘work/ 5 According to the Canary Island Government (Gobierno de business’’ between Tenerife and Gran Canaria by Jet-foil and by plane Canarias, 1995), Gran Canaria and Tenerife surpass the average rose to 57% and 56%, respectively. Leisure was relegated to a mere 17% income for their islands by 5% and 8%, respectively. on average for both modes of transport. J.A´ . Hernandez Luis / Journal of Transport Geography 10 (2002) 231–239 235

Table 2 Temporal maritime accessibility between island capital cities in the Canary Islands, 30 June 1994 (in min)a Travelling Check-in and Time of Disembarking Total to and from boarding sea trip and luggage ports S/C de Tenerife–Las Palmas de G.C. (Jet-foil) 20 30 80 10 140 S/C de Tenerife–Las Palmas de G.C. (Ferry) 20 30 240 10 300 S/C de Tenerife–S.S. de La Gomera (Hydro-foil direct)a 60 40 35 10 155 S/C de Tenerife–S.S. de La Gomera (Ferry direct)a 60 40 80 10 190 S/C de Tenerife–Valverde (Ferry direct)a 60 40 270 10 380 S/C de Tenerife–S/C de La Palma (Ferry) 20 30 495 10 555 Las Palmas de G.C.– (Jet-foil direct)a 100 40 80 10 230 Las Palmas de G.C.–Puerto del Rosario (Ferry) 20 30 480 10 540 Puerto del Rosario– (Ferry direct)a 70 40 35 10 155 Puerto del Rosario–Arrecife (Ferry) 20 30 180 10 240 Mean 45.0 35.0 197.5 10.0 288.5 Source: Timetables ofshipping and bus companies. a (1) Only direct links have been considered with no stopovers whatsoever. (2) Temporal accessibility refers to passage. However, the accessibility of a trailer is similar to that shown here since the ‘‘travelling to and from ports’’ is similar to the times used by the buses. (3) Considered here is bus transport between and Los Cristianos (or vice versa); Morro Jable and Puerto del Rosario (or vice versa); and Puerto del Rosario (or vice versa); and –Arrecife (or vice versa). From there on the time left for the departure of the ship corresponds to checking-in and boarding times.

allows seasonal comparisons or time series analyses over provide a much faster door-to-door journey time be- several years to be undertaken. Travelling times vary tween the respective capitals ofPuerto del Rosario significantly due to changes in ship type, and improve- (Fuerteventura) and Arrecife (Lanzarote) than the all- ment in ports or road networks. water route. Similarly, the fast ferry route between In this case study two key dates have been chosen: on Gran Canaria and Santa Cruz de Tenerife 1994 when only two shipping lines were operating in the provides a much shorter door-to-door journey between Canary Islands with the capability ofcarrying passen- the respective capitals ofLas Palmas de Gran Canaria gers and motor vehicles, one ofwhich only operated two and Santa Cruz de Tenerife than the all-water route. routes; and 1999 when there were three shipping lines. Minimising the sea journey, by using nearer local ports, In 1994 there were 10 different ferry services on 7 routes and maximising the length ofland journey, reduces total among the islands, with 2 operators on 1 ofthem (Table travelling time and also enables ferry frequency to be 2). In 1999 there were 13 different ferry services on 10 increased. Contrary to this trend, a long distance ferry routes with 2 operators working 7 ofthem (Fig. 2, and route has opened between the two islands ofGran Table 3). Two ofthe new routes provided shorter and Canaria and Lanzarote, with an average crossing time of more direct sea journeys by ferry from Los Cristianos in 840 min (Table 3). Tenerife to and by fast ferry Between 1994 and 1999, crossing times have been from Santa Cruz de Tenerife to Agaete in Gran Canaria. reduced on only two routes. The direct ferry from Los The third new service was a direct ferry from Las Palmas Cristianos in southern Tenerife to Valverde on El Hierro de Gran Canaria to Morro Jable on Fuerteventura. has cut the time at sea by 15% from 270 to 230 min. Whereas the time spent in checking-in and boarding Consequently, the door-to-door journey between the and disembarking and luggage collection has not chan- two capitals ofSanta Cruz de Tenerifeand Valverde ged, the balance between time to travelling to and from dropped by 11% from 380 to 340 min. The introduction ports and time at sea has changed. of a direct ferry from Los Cristianos to Santa Cruz de Since 1973, new shorter routes between adjacent local La Palma has cut the time at sea between Tenerife and ports have in some cases replaced longer distance routes La Palma by 46% from 495 to 230 min. As a result, the between the main, capital city, ports (Fig. 2). For ex- door-to-door time between the two capitals ofSanta ample, the route Los Cristianos in southern Tenerife to Cruz de Tenerife and Santa Cruz de La Palma decreased La Gomera replaced the earlier route from Santa Cruz by 61% from 555 to 340 min. de Tenerife in northern Tenerife to La Gomera. El Hi- Journey times for inter-island maritime transport are erro now has a direct ferry to Los Cristianos instead of still high and still limit territorial integration in the ar- being connected to Santa Cruz de Tenerife via La Go- chipelago. Table 4 shows a simulation oftemporal ac- mera. The route from Corralejo in northern Fuert- cessibility that could be achieved using fast ferries eventura to Playa Blanca in southern Lanzarote helps travelling at speeds of35–38 knots. These ships carry 236 J.A ´ Hern . a dzLi ora fTasotGorpy1 20)231–239 (2002) 10 Geography Transport of Journal / Luis ndez

Fig. 2. Canary Islands: Passenger Shipping Routes 1973 and 1999. J.A´ . Hernandez Luis / Journal of Transport Geography 10 (2002) 231–239 237

Table 3 Temporal maritime accessibility between island capital cities in the Canary Islands at 30 June 1999 (in min)a Travelling Check-in and Time of Disembark- Total to and from boarding sea trip ing and ports luggage S/C de Tenerife–Las Palmas de G.C. (Jet-foil) 20 30 80 10 140 S/C de Tenerife–Las Palmas de G.C. (Ferry) 20 30 240 10 300 S/C de Tenerife–Las Palmas de G.C. (Fast-ferry direct)a 60 20 65 10 155 S/C de Tenerife–S.S. de La Gomera (Hydro-foil direct)a 60 40 35 10 155 S/C de Tenerife–S.S. de La Gomera (Ferry direct)a 60 40 80 10 190 S/C de Tenerife–Valverde (Ferry direct)a 60 40 230 10 340 S/C de Tenerife–S/C de La Palma (Ferry) 20 30 420 10 480 S/C de Tenerife–S/C de La Palma (Ferry direct)a 60 40 230 10 340 Las Palmas de G.C.–Puerto del Rosario (Ferry) 20 30 490 10 550 Las Palmas de G.C.–Puerto del Rosario (Jet-foil direct)a 100 40 80 10 230 Las Palmas de G.C.–Puerto del Rosario (Ferry direct)a 100 40 195 10 345 Las Palmas de G.C.–Arrecife (Ferry) 20 30 840 10 900 Puerto del Rosario–Arrecife (Ferry) 20 30 180 10 240 Puerto del Rosario–Arrecife (Ferry direct)a 70 40 35 10 155 Mean 49.3 34.3 228.6 10.0 322.9 Source: Timetables ofshipping and bus companies. a (1) Only direct links have been considered with no stopovers whatsoever. (2) Temporal accessibility refers to passage. However, the accessibility of a trailer is similar to that shown here since the ‘‘travelling to and from ports’’ is similar to the times used by the buses. (3) Considered here is bus transport between Santa Cruz de Tenerife and Los Cristianos (or vice versa); Morro Jable and Puerto del Rosario (or vice versa); Corralejo and Puerto del Rosario (or vice versa); and Playa Blanca–Arrecife (or vice versa). From there on the time left for the departure of the ship corresponds to checking-in and boarding times. both passengers and vehicles (cars and trailers) to and 07:00 h and reach the capital cities on La Palma or El from the ports on each island that are nearest to each Hierro (the most western islands), at 18:00 h, after other. Such high speed services are planned by the crossing the islands ofFuerteventura, Gran Canaria and government and the shipping companies themselves. 7 Tenerife (about 450 km in a straight line). Currently it In 1999 only one fast ferry was operating between the would be impossible to carry out this trip in one day, two central islands ofTenerifeand Gran Canaria with a due to the slow ship speeds and poor intermodal con- travelling time ofjust over one hour including berthing nections. It is therefore only possible at present to cross operations. The rest ofthe trips in Table 4 are authen- from one island to another from east to west or vice- tic simulations, except for the existing short ferry route versa and territorial integration is still limited in spite of between Lanzarote and Fuerteventura. This simulation improvements since 1994. is compared with the 1999 network (Table 3). Fast fer- ries would cut journey times between Santa Cruz de Tenerife and the capital cities on La Gomera El Hierro and La Palma by 15 min (10%), 130 min (38%) and 125 5. The availability of time as a territorial integrating min (37%), respectively and between Las Palmas de factor for insular spaces Gran Canaria and Puerto del Rosario (Fuerteventura) by 105 min (30%). One ofthe main requirements foradequate territo- With optimum timetable planning, where perfect in- rial integration in archipelagos is the level oftemporal termodal exchange is guaranteed between on-shore and accessibility between islands. Inter-island travel is ofvital maritime transport from the most eastern point to the importance, particularly for those islands that lack cer- most western point ofthe Canary archipelago (or vice tain services due to small populations, and these trips versa), a trailer could leave at 06:00 h from the capital have to be repeated quite often over the course of the city on Lanzarote (the most eastern island), to board at year. Timing therefore plays an important role. Taking all ofthis into consideration, the availability oftime – usually in one day – forundertaking any ac- 7 Co-operation agreement between the Ministry of Public Works and tivity in a specific place on the island visited may easily the Canary Islands Government in matters of roadways, Las Palmas de become a problem ofeconomic accessibility. This is Gran Canaria, 16/04/97; Preview ofthe Regional Plan for Transport in because ifthe return trip cannot be completed by ferry the Canary Islands, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 1998; Regional Plan for the Canary Islands Road Network (1994, 2007), Las Palmas de within one day, the costs increase considerably by either Gran Canaria, 1994; and the General Guiding Plan for Infrastructures having to use air transport, ifavailable, or having to pay on the Canary Islands, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, 1996. for a hotel room and losing part of the next working 238 J.A´ . Hernandez Luis / Journal of Transport Geography 10 (2002) 231–239

Table 4 Simulation of temporal accessibility between inland capitals on the Canary Islands using fast ferries and regional ports (in min)a Travelling Check-in and Time of Disembarking Total to and from boarding sea trip and ports luggage S/C de Tenerife–Las Palmas de G.C. (Fast-Ferry) 60 20 65 10 155 S/C de Tenerife–S.S. de La Gomera (Fast-Ferry) 60 30 40 10 140 S/C de Tenerife–Valverde (Fast-Ferry) 60 30 110 10 210 S/C de Tenerife–S/C de La Palma (Fast-Ferry) 60 30 115 10 215 Las Palmas de G.C.–Puerto del Rosario (Fast-Ferry) 100 30 100 10 240 Puerto del Rosario–Arrecife (Ferry comarcal)a 70 40 35 10 155 Mean 68.3 30.0 77.5 10.0 185.8 Source: Timetables ofshipping and bus companies. a (1) Only direct links have been considered with no stopovers whatsoever. (2) Temporal accessibility refers to passage. However, the accessibility of a trailer is similar to that shown here since the ‘‘travelling to and from ports’’ is similar to the times used by the buses. (3) We have kept the traditional ferry between Fuerteventura and Lanzarote due to the short trip involved (35 min). (4) Considered here is bus transport between Santa Cruz de Tenerife and Los Cristianos (or vice versa); Morro Jable and Puerto del Rosario (or vice versa); Corralejo and Puerto del Rosario (or vice versa); and Playa Blanca–Arrecife (or vice versa). From there on the time left for the departure of the ship corresponds to checking-in and boarding times.

Table 5 Availability ofcommercial and administrative time formaritime passengers in the capital cities ofLa Gomera and Tenerifeislands, 30 June 1999 (in min)a Government time Commercial time S/C de Tenerife–S.S. de La Gomera (Hydro-foil) 375 330 S/C de Tenerife–S.S. de La Gomera (Ferry Fred. Olsen) 270 240 S/C de Tenerife–S.S. de La Gomera (Ferry Trasmediterraanea) 285 215 S/C de Tenerife–S.S. de La Gomera (maximum time) 375 330 S. S. de La Gomera–S/C de Tenerife (Hydro-foil) 255 135 S. S. de La Gomera–S/C de Tenerife (Ferry Fred. Olsen) 335 345 S. S. de La Gomera–S/C de Tenerife (Ferry Trasmediterraanea) – – S. S. de La Gomera–S/C de Tenerife (maximum time) 335 345 Source: Timetables ofshipping and bus companies. a (1) From then on the rest ofthe time to departure ofthe ferrycorresponds to check-in time, boarding and land transport fromthe place of destination to the bus terminal. (2) Government hours (08:00–15:00 h); commercial hours (09:00–13:00 and 16:00–20:00 h).

day. Inter-island ferries and air transport do not operate person leaving Tenerife using the first available ferry overnight in the Canary Islands. Due to the population’s to La Gomera and returning on the last ferry back to dependence on inter-island transport there could be Tenerife. Only 69% of commercial working hours (330 a case for a transport service that maximises temporal of480 min) and 89% (375 of420 min) ofgovernment accessibility. Aerotaxis, or similar systems, are imprac- working time can be used on La Gomera. In the reverse tical because oftheir high cost. direction, time available in Santa Cruz de Tenerife is The maximum availability oftime forpassengers in 72% ofcommercial working hours and 80% ofgovern- certain places on the destination island is a very im- ment working hours. However on other routes not portant requirement ofinter-island transport systems. all the inter-island services show such a relatively high This is particularly the case between Tenerife and Gran ratio of available time, for example, from Gran Canaria Canaria, whose economies exhibit complementarity in to Lanzarote, the trips are not daily and it is therefore employment, business, commerce and health. not possible to complete the return trip by ferry in one Administrative and commercial time available are day. considered separately in the case study chosen ofwork- ing time available in the capital cities ofLa Gomera and Tenerife (Table 5). 6. Conclusions In spite ofthe possibility ofcombining ship opera- tors on the outgoing and incoming routes in order to Efficient sea transport is a requirement for the social increase the time available on the island ofdestina- and economic development ofarchipelagos. Air trans- tion, the temporal accessibility ofthe trip reduces the port is much faster but more expensive and not afford- time available to a large extent. Taking the case ofa able for most island residents. A series of parameters can J.A´ . Hernandez Luis / Journal of Transport Geography 10 (2002) 231–239 239 be considered to optimise inter-island public transport, Gobierno de Canarias. 1998. Libro Blanco de los Transportes en for example, by improving temporal accessibility and Canarias, Consejerııa de Turismo y Transportes, Las Palmas de the availability oftime during government and com- Gran Canaria. Gutieerrez, J., 1988. Accesibilidad y transporte rural. Una perspectiva mercial working hours on the destination island in order social. Revista del Ministerio de Turismo, Transportes y Comun- to avoid increasing costs by having to stay overnight. icaciones 24, 27–40. Inter-island transport problems in the Canary Islands Hagerstrand, T., 1970. What about people in regional science? Papers, are characteristic ofthose archipelagos whose islands Regional Science Association 24, 7–21. are too distant from each other for the construction of Hernaandez, J.AA., 1996. El transporte marııtimo en el contexto socioeconoomico de Canarias. (Ed.) Consejerııa de Turismo y fixed links. Temporal accessibility can be improved by Transportes del Gobierno de Canarias, Las Palmas de Gran minimising sea distances and introducing fast ferries to Canaria, 144 pp. shorten overall journey times. This increases the time Hoyle, B.S., 1999. Islands, transport and development. In: Biagini, E., available for business on other islands within a day’s Hoyle, B.S. (Eds.), Insularity and Development: International return travel. Perspectives on Islands. Pinter, London. Knowles, R.D., 1996. Fixed links and short sea crossings. In: Hoyle, B.S. (Ed.), Cityports, Coastal Zones and Regional Change. Wiley, Chichester. References Loopez, E., 1990. Una visioon del papel territorial de la oferta de transporte puublico de pasajeros por carretera en la Comunidad Autoonoma andaluza. Fundamentos para su reforma. In: In Biehl, D. et al., 1986. The contribution ofinfrastructure to regional Estudios Geograaficos, 198, pp. 65–81. development. Final report, Commission ofthe European Commu- Lutter, H. et al., 1992. Accessibility and Peripherality ofCommunity nities, Luxemburgo. Regions: The Role ofRoad-, Long-distance Railway- and Airport Brookfield, H.C., 1980. The transport factor in island development. In: Networks, Commission ofthe European Communities, Brussels. Shand, R.T. (Ed.), The Island States ofthe Pacific and Indian MECSA. 1993. El transporte de viajeros entre Gran Canaria y Oceans: Anatomy ofDevelopment. Development Studies Centre Tenerife, Ministerio de Obras Puublicas y Transportes, Madrid. Monograph No. 23. Australian National University, Canberra, pp. Murillo, C. et al., 1995. Coste de la insularidad en Canarias, Ed. 201–238. Consejerııa de Economııa y Hacienda, Gobierno de Canarias, Las Caixa. 1999. Anuario Comercial de Espanna,~ Servicio de Estudios de la Palmas de Gran Canaria, 129 pp. Caja de Ahorros y Pensiones de Barcelona, Barcelona. Nutley, S., 1983. Transport Policy Appraisal and Personal Accessibil- Coozar, R. et al., 1998. El Transporte Marııtimo de Pasajeros en la ity in Rural Wales. Geo Books, Norwich. Bahııa de Caadiz. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Rodrııguez, I., 1989. Accesibilidad de la poblacioon en el medio rural: el Caadiz, Caadiz, 84 pp. caso de San Martıın de Valdeiglesias. In: Actas XI Congreso Dunbar, A.C., 1981. Transport and development: Inter-island shipping Nacional de Geografııa, Madrid, vol. I, pp. 206–211. in Vanuatu, PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra Rutz, W.O.A., Coull, J.R., 1996. Inter-island passenger shipping in (unpublished). Indonesia: development ofthe system, present characteristics and Gobierno de Canarias. 1995. Estimacioon de la Renta Insular y future requirements. Journal of Transport Geography 4 (4), 275– Municipal, Instituto Canario de Estadııstica, Las Palmas de Gran 286. Canaria.