Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive Figure 2.3: Urban Installations in Recent Years (O’Connor and Dale, 2011) 2.3 Industry Structure 2.3.1 Main Players Cableways Manufacturers in Europe There are two main industry groups in the cableways industry, the Doppelmayr- Garaventa Group (based in Austria and Switzerland) and a group comprising Leitner (Italy) and Poma (France). These two groups dominate the European and global cableways industries accounting for 90% of the global industry (EC, 2010); the value of their combined market share has been confirmed in communication with these two groups in 2012. The Doppelmayr-Garaventa Group was created in 2002 following the merger of Doppelmayr of Austria and Garaventa of Switzerland and is the global market leader with approximately 14,200 cableway installations in 86 countries. Doppelmayr- Garaventa Group is the market leader and has accounted for approximately around 50% of the value of the market for the past decade. The types of installations delivered by Doppelmayr-Garaventa in recent years are given in Table 2.12. In 2010/2011 Doppelmayr-Garaventa installed 126 cableways worldwide. Table 2.12: Doppelmayr-Garaventa Installations 2005-2010 Type of Installation Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Funiculars 4 3 1 2 5 4 Aerial tramways 7 9 3 6 3 4 Page 14
Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.12: Doppelmayr-Garaventa Installations 2005-2010 Type of Installation Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pulsating gondolas 2 2 1 1 1 1 Funifor/Funitel 1 2 1 1 2 2 Tricable ropeways - - - 1 - 2 Combined Installations 4 4 7 3 3 2 Detachable gondolas 31 20 30 23 23 27 Detachable chairlifts 56 66 49 28 35 40 Fixed grip chairlifts 38 53 25 38 20 20 Surface Lifts 28 47 22 27 21 20 Other 2 4 5 6 4 4 Total 162 198 140 128 109 118 Source: Doppelmayr-Garaventa Annual Reports for 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 Leitner has their head office in Sterzing in Northern Italy. In 2000, the parent company of Leitner also acquired Poma. Since the merger, the Leitner and Poma brands have remained independent (unlike Doppelmayr-Garaventa) forming a strategic partnership and combining activities such as the purchase of raw materials and R&D investment. One of the advantages of remaining independent appears to be that both brands continue to exploit their competitive advantage in their domestic markets. The Leitner-Poma Group has a market share of approximately 40-45%; this has remained broadly unchanged over the past decade. Table 2.13 below presents the types of installations delivered by Leitner between 2005 and 2011. In 2010, Leitner and Poma together realised a total of 87 installations. Table 2.13: Leitner Installations 2005-2011 Type of Installation Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Detachable gondolas 12 12 10 8 8 14 10 Detachable chairlifts 30 25 17 10 23 18 15 Fixed grip chairlifts 22 15 14 7 8 8 9 Surface lifts 15 11 13 11 7 13 10 Other 3 2 1 2 2 - 1 Total 82 65 55 38 48 53 45 Source: Personal Communication with Leitner (2012) Poma is based in Grenoble, France, but has subsidiary companies throughout the world. It is estimated that 50% of Poma’s business is located within France; however, increasingly strong markets for Poma include North America, Asia (particularly China) and Latin America (where cableways are increasingly being used in an urban setting) (Le Moci, 2010). While business not linked to winter tourism is an area that Page 15
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: Risk & Policy Analysts Japan The sk
Page 29 and 30: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.15:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?