Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Risk & Policy Analysts Innovation and Research As these options do not implement any substantive changes to the classification of specific installations or to requirements placed on these installations, no impacts on innovation and research are expected. Consumers and Households No impacts are expected to consumers and households as no substantive change is being enacted. However, substantive changes would have large impacts as the requirements to have operating personnel may render some installations currently certified as inclined lifts unaffordable. Specific Regions and Sectors Impacts are likely to differ between Member States as benefits are more likely to be accrued in those Member States where cableways and lifts manufacturers are located and/or where funiculars and/or inclined lifts are more frequently constructed. Public Health and Safety No impacts are expected as no substantive change is being enacted. However, should substantive changes be enacted, it is not clear whether this would have an impact on passenger safety. According to the UK authorities (the HSE), the essential requirements under the Cableways Directive better cater to the environmental conditions that may compromise the safety of the passenger / operators using or working on outdoor installations. More specifically, it was stated that there are specific hazards associated with operating installations in an open environment exposed to external factors such as meteorological conditions, terrain features, and other external activities, including the following: weather conditions; lightning strikes; rain, snow and ice; and accelerated corrosion effects. In addition, it was also stated that there is an increased risk of people gaining access to the running track of such installations where protection is not easily provided, as would be the case with lift shafts or partitioning of the running track of lifts within a building or construction. According to the HSE, the essential health and safety requirements of the Cableways Directive address these and other hazards associated with such installations operating in open environments. Similar concerns were expressed by a cableways manufacturer who stated that inclined lifts are certified according to legislation which is primarily intended for Page 99
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 and 108: Risk & Policy Analysts may come to
Page 109: Risk & Policy Analysts Operating Co
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 161 and 162:
Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.12:
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?