Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive Overall, although a number of stakeholders would support the proposed options, where such information has been provided, it appears that it is common practice for manufacturers to discuss this issue with the authorities in the planning stage, although increased awareness of the need for companies to gain formal agreement of the authorities prior to commencing construction might be beneficial. For a significant proportion of stakeholders, however, the proposed options do not address the underlying problem of lack of clarity as to the distinction between inclined lifts and small funiculars. In other words, if clear, unambiguous and readily accessible guidance on this distinction were available, some of the problems experienced could have been averted. In addition, the current situation has the potential to lead to public authorities in different EU Member States coming to different decisions with regard to the legal classification of very similar installations. Impact on the Internal Market and Competition For Option B2, some minor impacts can be expected. As noted above, it appears that in most cases companies seek clarification from the authorities as to which of the two Directives applies to each particular case. However, overall, it seems to be more common to do so for companies that are (also) active in the cableways sector than for companies active solely in the lifts sector, which may be characterised by a comparatively lower level of awareness of the need to discuss the particularities of each case with the authorities. Therefore, it can be expected that should this Option contribute to setting lift manufacturers on an equal footing with companies in the cableways sector, positive impacts in terms of improved competition and reduced market segmentation may occur. No impacts are expected from Option B2 with regards decisions of whether a particular installation falls under the Cableways Directive or the Lifts Directive. No impacts on consumer choice, prices and barriers to entry into the market or emergence of monopolies are anticipated with regard to Option B2. Generally speaking, Option B3 cannot be expected to have any discernible impacts, positive or negative, as no substantive change would occur. In fact, it is not clear whether this Option would lead to any change as it is possible that Member States may decide not to transpose this change. As Option B3 merely adds a reference to inclined lifts as an example of equipment covered by the Lifts Directive, it is doubtful that the European Commission would be able to force Member States to transpose this change, should they decide not to do so (due to the high cost of transposition), as Member States would not be in breach of the provisions of Directive 2000/9/EC. Impact on Competitiveness, Trade and Investment Flows Minimal impacts on competitiveness, trade and investment flows are expected as neither Option is expected to result in substantive changes. Page 96
Risk & Policy Analysts Operating Costs and Conduct of Business/SMEs As noted above, Option B3 is unlikely to have any discernible impacts while Option B2 may benefit companies that are currently unaware of the need to contact the authorities as early in the planning process as possible. Considering that these options seek to clarify current legislative requirements rather than to modify them, no additional costs can be expected. According to the UK national authority, should greater clarity be achieved, this would reduce costs incurred by economic operators and public authorities that arise due to misunderstandings and dealing with errors. Should cases such as the one experienced in the UK be avoided, significant additional costs could also be avoided as the operator and the manufacturer in the UK appear to have incurred significant additional costs. As noted above, benefits from guidance provided under Option B2 are more likely to be accrued by lift manufacturers than cableway manufacturers. An overview of the European lift industry is provided in Box 5.2. Box 5.2: European Lift Industry Europe is the leading continent in terms of the number of lifts installed; 56% of the world’s lifts are located in Europe compared to 14% in North America and 30% in Asia Pacific (based on 2009 data). European standards for lifts are used widely around the world and more than 85% of lifts and escalators are based on these standards. In 2009, the production value of lifts in Europe amounted to €3.167 billion. The main producing countries are Spain, Germany and France. There are a significant number of SMEs within the lift industry however four main companies dominate the market: Otis (US); ThyssenKrupp (Germany but owned by Otis); Kone (Finland); and Schindler (Switzerland). The major lift manufacturers also manufacture inclined lifts. In addition, Maspero Elevatori SpA (Italy) as well as F Labbeé (France), WGH Ltd (UK) and Hütter Aufzüge (Germany) are smaller companies that are involved in the production of inclined lifts. Those cableways manufacturers who also manufacture inclined lifts are listed below: Poma (France) (the Poma subsidiary Skirail is often associated with the manufacture of inclined lifts and small funiculars); ABS Transportbahnen, part of the Doppelmayr-Garaventa Group (Austria/Switzerland); Leitner (Italy); BMF (Switzerland); Steurer (Switzerland/Austria); Inauen-Schätti (Switzerland); MEB Impianti (Italy); REAC SA (Spain); and Liftbyggarna (Sweden, believed to produce inclined lifts). Page 97
Page 1:
Ref. Ares(2012)1245393 - 22/10/2012
Page 4 and 5:
DISCLAIMER While RPA considers that
Page 6 and 7:
Executive Summary market. In additi
Page 8 and 9:
Executive Summary Page iv
Page 10 and 11:
Table of Contents 4. OPTIONS FOR RE
Page 13 and 14:
Risk & Policy Analysts 1. INTRODUCT
Page 15 and 16:
Risk & Policy Analysts 2. MARKET SI
Page 17 and 18:
Risk & Policy Analysts Figure 2.1:
Page 19 and 20:
Risk & Policy Analysts Austria Acco
Page 21 and 22:
Risk & Policy Analysts It is of not
Page 23 and 24:
Risk & Policy Analysts Western Euro
Page 25 and 26:
Risk & Policy Analysts Japan The sk
Page 27 and 28:
Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.12:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Risk & Policy Analysts SME). Taken
Page 35 and 36:
Risk & Policy Analysts The industry
Page 37 and 38:
Risk & Policy Analysts From the dat
Page 39 and 40:
Risk & Policy Analysts SMEs In gene
Page 41 and 42:
Risk & Policy Analysts of ski equip
Page 43 and 44:
Risk & Policy Analysts Figure 2.6:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Risk & Policy Analysts noted that u
Page 49 and 50:
Risk & Policy Analysts cableways ma
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Risk & Policy Analysts There are al
Page 57 and 58: Risk & Policy Analysts operation of
Page 59 and 60: Risk & Policy Analysts Other factor
Page 61 and 62: Risk & Policy Analysts Changes in P
Page 63 and 64: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.34:
Page 65 and 66: Risk & Policy Analysts From Table 2
Page 67 and 68: Risk & Policy Analysts Price Change
Page 69 and 70: Risk & Policy Analysts 2.6.4 Summar
Page 71 and 72: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 3.1: C
Page 73 and 74: Risk & Policy Analysts 3.3 Impacts
Page 75 and 76: Risk & Policy Analysts 3.3.4 Impact
Page 77 and 78: Risk & Policy Analysts 4. OPTIONS F
Page 79 and 80: Risk & Policy Analysts Box 4.1: The
Page 81 and 82: Risk & Policy Analysts The details
Page 83 and 84: Risk & Policy Analysts Overall, sta
Page 85 and 86: Risk & Policy Analysts Option 2 (
Page 87 and 88: Risk & Policy Analysts subject to E
Page 93 and 94: Risk & Policy Analysts out in Table
Page 95 and 96: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 5.2: K
Page 97 and 98: Risk & Policy Analysts One example
Page 99 and 100: Risk & Policy Analysts At least two
Page 101 and 102: Risk & Policy Analysts Option A3 (R
Page 103 and 104: Risk & Policy Analysts The cost of
Page 105 and 106: Risk & Policy Analysts requirements
Page 107: Risk & Policy Analysts may come to
Page 111 and 112: Risk & Policy Analysts Innovation a
Page 113 and 114: Risk & Policy Analysts To this end,
Page 115 and 116: Risk & Policy Analysts respondents
Page 117 and 118: Risk & Policy Analysts Innovation a
Page 119 and 120: Risk & Policy Analysts Summary of S
Page 121 and 122: Risk & Policy Analysts Public Autho
Page 123 and 124: Risk & Policy Analysts Is the cab
Page 125 and 126: Risk & Policy Analysts Impact on Co
Page 127 and 128: Risk & Policy Analysts Option F3:
Page 129 and 130: Risk & Policy Analysts However, the
Page 131 and 132: Risk & Policy Analysts 5.3.7 Proble
Page 133 and 134: Risk & Policy Analysts Public Healt
Page 135 and 136: Risk & Policy Analysts 6.2 Problem
Page 137 and 138: Risk & Policy Analysts 6.6 Problem
Page 139 and 140: Risk & Policy Analysts Commision de
Page 141 and 142: Risk & Policy Analysts Kaiser (nd):
Page 143 and 144: Risk & Policy Analysts STRMTG (2012
Page 145 and 146: Risk & Policy Analysts ANNEX 1 Over
Page 147 and 148: Risk & Policy Analysts A1. CONSULTA
Page 149 and 150: Risk & Policy Analysts feedback was
Page 151 and 152: Risk & Policy Analysts ANNEX 2 Revi
Page 153 and 154: Risk & Policy Analysts B2. REVIEW O
Page 155 and 156: Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.2:
Page 157 and 158: Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.4:
Page 159 and 160:
Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.9:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169:
Risk & Policy Analysts the NLF, imp
show all

Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?