Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive
As noted previously, the proposed options would not have any impacts on the
classification of specific installations. However, should more significant changes to
the definitions of inclined lifts be enacted some impacts may occur. Several
stakeholders noted that generally it is somewhat more expensive to build an
installation as a cableway rather than as an inclined lift. The main cost difference
relates to the fact that cableways have higher operating costs than inclined lifts which
do not require operating personnel or drivers. The process of approval of an inclined
lift is also easier. The implication of this is that from the purely financial perspective
entities commissioning (and according to one stakeholder also manufacturing) small
funiculars/inclined lifts have a vested interest in advocating the construction of an
inclined lift. At the same time, the authorities providing approval for these
installations have, according to an Austrian notified body, a vested interest to err on
the side of caution and prefer to classify installations as cableways rather than
inclined lifts. On the other hand, an SME cableway manufacturer noted that using the
Lifts Directive is not always straightforward as it is not geared towards outdoor
installations. In the case of outdoor installations that might be affected by weather
conditions (snow) it is better to apply the Cableways Directive.
There are large differences in the way components are sourced for inclined lifts and
for cableways which may explain some of the price differential. Inclined lifts consist
of series-produced components sourced on the open market and even large
manufacturers are said to source parts in this manner. This is not the case in the
cableways sector.
Administrative Burdens on Businesses
No additional administrative burdens are expected from either Option B2 or B3.
Public Authorities
Similar to Problem Area A, costs of implementation of the policy options would
consist of the one-off costs of changing European and national legislation and/or the
Application Guides. In general, one-off costs associated with Option B3 are likely to
be significantly higher than those associated with Option B2.
As regards running costs for public authorities, should this option lead to a reduction
in the workload of public authorities, cost savings can be expected to occur. The
additional costs of handling a case where a public authority has to deal with incorrect
classification of an installation have been estimated by one of the respondents at one
week’s worth of personnel costs, amounting to approximately €5,000.
The German authorities expect increased administrative burden from Option B2
(associated with providing advice).
Page 98