Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

Risk & Policy Analysts
may come to different conclusions with regard very similar installations), there is no
legal certainty; in fact, even individual public authorities may not be consistent in
interpreting the existing legislation and changes to the classification of a particular
installation during the planning phase have been known to have occurred in the past.
On the other hand, in Sweden, while there is some division of roles between different
authorities, due to the concentration of lifts and cableways expertise within the
National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, queries are eventually referred to
this organisation. There was a case in Sweden where it was unknown whether an
installation was going to be an inclined lift or a cableway. In Sweden, it is common
for manufacturers to communicate with the authorities, when in doubt. Austria also
noted that manufacturers always contact the authorities before they build a new
installation.
It is also alleged that the current system has led to the inconsistent application of
existing requirements. For example, an Austrian notified body noted that authorities
in different Member States interpret existing requirements differently. This appears to
be corroborated by a manufacturer that specifically referred to differences in the
interpretation of the relevant requirements in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. In
addition, it has been alleged that the existing system leads to very similar installations
being classified in different ways. For example, two installations in Oberstdorf
(Germany) are technically almost identical but one has been approved as an inclined
lift and the other as a cableway.
Overall, while the number of cases of confusion over inclined lifts and funiculars may
not be very high, problems with the implementation of provisions on inclined lifts and
funiculars have been identified by a significant proportion of stakeholders responding
to consultation (including national authorities, notified bodies and manufacturers).
Summary of Stakeholder Views
Based on the responses received from the stakeholders who participated in the
consultation, Options B2 and B3 are considered to be the most suitable in tackling this
problem area.
Policy Option B2 (amending the Application Guide) is considered to be marginally
more effective than Option B3 (legislative change). However, stakeholders have
highlighted that for Option B2 to be successful, amendments need to be made to the
Application Guides of both the Cableways Directive and Lifts Directive. It is
believed that this will ensure maximum clarity and minimum confusion for all
stakeholders in all Member States as the advice given in both Application Guides
would be consistent. It is important to note that stakeholders (particularly competent
authorities) were largely divided over whether Option B2 or B3 would be the most
effective. While no clear view emerged from national associations of cableway
operators that responded to the consultants, FIANET expressed support for Option
B2.
Page 95