Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive
should such novel, mixed purpose systems be developed in the future. Option A3
however would potentially entail transposition costs; should Option A3 be
implemented in isolation, these costs are likely to be significant. However, should
Option A3 be implemented in conjunction with other changes (such as alignment of
the Cableways Directive with the NLF), only one set of costs would be incurred for
all changes and the marginal cost of Option A3 would likely be comparatively
smaller.
By contrast, the costs associated with Option A2 would be significantly lower.
Taking into account the absence of specific benefits, it can be concluded that the costbenefit
ratio for Option A2 is superior to Option A3. In addition, Option A2 has the
added advantage that the Application Guide is a comparatively more flexible
instrument when compared to the Directive and can be more easily and more costeffectively
changed to reflect novel designs, should these appear in the future.
5.3.2 Problem Area B: Addressing Confusion over Inclined Lifts and Small Funiculars
Summary of the Aims of Intervention and of the Relevant Policy Options
As noted in Section 4, problems have been experienced in the course of the practical
application of provisions regarding inclined lifts and small funiculars. Problems have
been noted particularly when effective and formalised communication between public
authorities and companies is not established at an early stage of the planning process.
For this reason, it appears necessary to examine whether such problems could be
avoided in the future by means of improved guidance.
To this end, two policy options are proposed:
Option B2: Providing more extensive guidance in the Application Guide to the
Cableways Directive and amending the Application Guide to the Lifts Directive to
underscore the importance of companies collaborating with the authorities at an
early stage of planning and design; and
Option B3: Amending the Cableways Directive to explicitly exempt inclined lifts
from its scope. Article 1(6) of the Cableways Directive would read: “This
Directive shall not apply to: lifts within the meaning of Directive 95/16/EC,
including inclined lifts.”
Additional Information on the Significance of the Problem to be Addressed
It is clear that a number of EU Member States have experienced problems with the
implementation of existing provisions on small funiculars and inclined lifts.
Examples of such implementation problems are now discussed.
A recent case in the UK involved an installation located at the Blists Hill Open Air
Museum. During the design stage, the manufacturer (the British company WGH Ltd.)
considered whether the installation should be built according to requirements of the
Lifts or the Cableways Directive. It was unclear to the manufacturer which set of
Page 92