Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive Table 2.22: Other European Cableway Manufacturers and Products Manufactured Company Country Cableway Products HMR Voss Norway Cable Cars, Funiculars STM Sistem Teleferik Turkey Drag Lifts, Chair Lifts, Gondolas, Reversible Ropeways 2.3.3 Structure of the Cableways Operating Sector Within Europe ski resorts are the main operators and purchasers of cableways installations. It is estimated that there are currently between 1,500 and over 2,200 cableways operators in Europe (FIANET, 2012). Table 2.23 below presents the number of cableways operators in selected European countries. Table 2.23: Estimated Number of Cableways Operators Country Number of Operators Switzerland 505 Norway 400 France 350 Italy 344 excl. ski schools and 189 ski schools Austria 254 Finland 100 Germany 60 Poland 60 Sweden 60 Spain 50 Czech Republic and Slovakia 45 Greece 2 Source: FIANET (2012); Remontées Mécaniques Suisses (nd); Ministero dei Trasporti (2012), Communication with the French and Norwegian authorities Notes: Please note that the information in this table comes from different sources and different sources may be using different definitions of cableway operators. Please also note that in Sweden the above number only includes the estimated number of companies operating cableways but other types of entities (e.g. communes and sports associations) that are not included in this figure also operate cableways. Based on information given on their Internet site by the Swedish Liftowners Association (SLAO - www.slao.se), approximately one half of cableway installations in Sweden were owned and operated by communes (municipal), foundations, associations, clubs or organisations. According to FIANET (2012) the majority of cableways operators are small, privately owned companies which own one ski resort. However, larger companies which own a group of resorts are increasing as smaller operators are acquired by larger players. In France, 53% of operators are private companies, 29% have mixed ownership (with both private and public investors) and the remaining 18% are state owned (Domaines Skiables de France, 2011b). Page 22
Risk & Policy Analysts The industry in Switzerland appears to be significantly more fragmented with more operators active in Switzerland compared to the other countries listed in Table 2.23. Based on data from Table 2.8, each Swiss operator will have an average of 3.5 cableways. However, each Austrian operator will have an average of 11.8 cableways, French operators 10.7 cableways, and Italian operators 6.4 cableways. Although ski resorts are expensive to run, turnover for companies in the industry is modest. It is estimated that the largest cableway operators will produce an annual turnover of between €60 million and €70 million per year, medium sized will turnover between €6 million and €12 million and small companies will turnover less than €6 million per year (FIANET, 2012). Small companies account for more than 50% of the industry and it is estimated that >60% of small companies have less than 50 employees. The vast majority of small companies will, in reality, have a turnover of less than €2 million per year (FIANET, 2012). In order to maintain visitor numbers and remain competitive, operators must invest in infrastructure (such as cableways). Ski resorts are primarily financed by sales of ski passes which permit transport on cableways thus allowing access to ski runs. Ski passes within highly developed resorts with multiple cableways and ski runs cost between €35 and €40 per day (ECC-Net, 2010). However, not all ski resorts and cableway operators follow the same economic model or are financed in the same way. In Austria for example, the owners of hotels within resorts often also conduct the cableway operation. As a result, income from hotels is used when investing in resorts allowing Austria to reinvest €500 million in ski resorts every year (Actu Montagne, 2011). In France (which has a similar income from ski pass sales to Austria) an estimated 25% of income from ski pass sales is reinvested in the ski resort each year, however investment has fallen from €400 million in 2005 to €270 million euros in 2010 (Actu Montagne, 2011). Furthermore, in Sweden all ski lift developments (new or replacement) receive some level of public funding. Operators are able to apply for funds of up to 50% of the development costs; however, private companies must prove that the development will benefit the area as a whole. Consultation has also highlighted the importance of public support (in particular EU funds) for setting up new ski resorts (which require cableway installations) in the Czech Republic. How operators invest has changed during the past 30 years. Up until the late 1980s, resorts invested in new cableways which increased the size of the resort and turnover. Now, cableways operators invest in replacement installations which are more technologically innovative, higher performance and more comfortable but may not create a direct increase in turnover levels (Domaines Skiables de France, 2011b). In 2008 and 2009 Switzerland invested a total of €645 million in cableways installations and related activities. This equates to an average of €387 million invested each year, with the majority of this investment (42% per year) spent on replacement cableways and only 6% spent on new cableways installations (Remontées Mécaniques Suisses, 2010). Page 23
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 33: Risk & Policy Analysts SME). Taken
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?