Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive Table 2.8: Manufacturers of New Cableways Installations in Italy (2011) Manufacturer Number Percentage Leitner 19 68% Doppelmayr-Garaventa 6 21% CCM Finotello 2 7% MEB Impianti 1 4% Source: ANEF (2009) Germany According to information taken from Verband Deutscher Seilbahnen (2010), there are around 1,800 cableways in Germany. Table 2.9 sets out the types of cableways which are in operation in Germany. Table 2.9: Types of Cableways in Operation in Germany Type of Cableway Number of Installations Drag lifts 1,637 Cable cars 165 Funiculars 21 Indoor lifts 5 Source: Verband Deutscher Seilbahnen (2010) Switzerland In 2010, Switzerland had approximately 1,774 cableways. Table 2.10 sets out the types of cableways which are in operation in Switzerland (Remontées Mécaniques Suisses, nd). Table 2.10: Types of Cableways in Operation in Switzerland (2010) Type of Cableway Number of Installations Drag lifts 897 Chair lifts 350 Gondolas 120 Funiculars 58 Aerial Tramway 126 Small cable transport installations 223 Source: Remontées Mécaniques Suisses (nd) Since 1990, the number of cableways in Switzerland has declined as old cableways are replaced with installations with greater capacity and higher performance thus limiting the number of installations required. For instance, in 2009, in addition to the four installations on new sites, seven replacement or renovations of existing installations were completed (Remontées Mécaniques Suisses, nd). Page 8
Risk & Policy Analysts It is of note that Switzerland adopted requirements based on the Cableways Directive in 2007. In addition, an agreement between the EU and Switzerland on mutual recognition of conformity assessments that relate to cableways was adopted in 2011 and the relevant decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union in March 2012 (Committee on Mutual Recognition in relation to Conformity Assessment, 2012). This agreement enhances Switzerland’s participation in the framework established by the Cableways Directive (EU-Switzerland Agreement, 2011; SNV, 2011). 2.2.3 Analysis of Customers The ski industry has historically been the primary market for cableways technology and currently accounts for 80% of the business of the principal cableways manufacturers – with the remaining 20% of cableways found in other (e.g. urban) environments. The world ski market spans 80 countries, 2,000 resorts and between 4,000 and 6,000 places of ski practice. Worldwide, the Alps continue to be the most popular ski destination attracting 46% of skiers, followed by America with 23%, Asia and Pacific 15%, Western Europe 11% and Eastern Europe and Central Asia 5% (Vanat, 2011). Table 2.11 below, presents the total number of cableway installations for skiing purposes in each country in 2011 (Vanat, 2011). As expected, the traditional European ski countries (France, Austria, Switzerland and Italy) as well as the United States and Canada currently account for the majority of cableway installations for skiing purposes globally. These markets are discussed in more detail below. Overall, traditional cableway markets have seen a long-term decrease in the number of cableways installed. It is important to note that one reason for the decrease in numbers of cableways is that old installations are being replaced by those that are more efficient and have a higher capacity which means fewer installations are needed. Page 9
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: Risk & Policy Analysts Austria Acco
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 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 47 and 48: Risk & Policy Analysts noted that u
Page 49 and 50: Risk & Policy Analysts cableways ma
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 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 89 and 90:
Risk & Policy Analysts Table 4.13:
Page 91 and 92:
Risk & Policy Analysts Table 4.14:
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 and 110:
Risk & Policy Analysts Operating Co
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:
Page 159 and 160:
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?