Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive Figure 2.13: New Cableways for Skiing Purposes by Type (2001-2010), based on Vanat (2011) Changes in Regional Demand In terms of volume, the Alps continue to be the largest customer for cableways. However, the market dominance of the Alps is decreasing; it represented only 48% of the market for new cableways in 2010 which is a decrease of 18% from 2001. The decrease noted in the Alps has had a significant effect upon the total global demand for cableways. While demand for new cableways installations is decreasing in traditional areas like the Alps, new and emerging markets such as the market in Eastern Europe are experiencing an increase in demand. Importantly however, this demand is not currently increasing at a pace quick enough to fill the deficit left by the shrinking Alps market. Figure 2.14: New Cableways for Skiing by Region (2001-2010), reproduced from Vanat (2011b) Page 48
Risk & Policy Analysts Changes in Portfolio of Manufacturers As discussed above, the core or traditional markets of Western Europe, particularly France, Austria, Switzerland and Italy (as well as North America and Canada) are maturing and, as a result, emphasis is now being placed on the maintenance (revision, modification) and upgrading of existing installations in these areas. This comes at a detriment to the installation of new cableways and the development of new resorts. For many cableways manufacturers, maintenance activities now account for a significant part of business. Operators now attempt continuous innovation on cableways installations rather than simply conducting basic maintenance activities which allows installations to become out of date and obsolete (Mayer, 2009). According to data from the cableway manufacturer Poma maintenance of installations now equates to approximately 1/3 of total business (Le Moci 2010). It is estimated that the annual maintenance cost of a gondola is 1.5% of the cost of purchasing the installation (Commision de la Sécurité des Consommateurs, 2009). As a result manufacturers are turning their attention toward new and emerging markets such as the new EU Member States in Eastern Europe (EC, 2010). According to Remontées Mécaniques Suisses (2010), Switzerland saw an investment of around €645 million in cableways in 2008 and 2009 (combined). This sum was mostly invested the replacement of old installations by technologically innovative installations which deliver higher performance and are more comfortable. On the other hand, investment in new installations was below that of previous years. Also, Swiss cableways operators have increased investment in additional services such as restaurants and hotels in an attempt to offset the weather dependence of the sector. 2.6.2 Products and Product Pricing The unique nature of cableways installations, the varying types of cableways available and the competitive nature of the industry, means pricing is difficult to discuss and costs difficult to estimate. Furthermore, as cableways are made according to the specific requirements of each situation, comparing the prices of different manufacturers is also difficult. Table 2.34 presents examples of prices of different cableways installations; several examples are provided for each category in attempt to illustrate the range of prices possible for each type of installation. There are indications that the Directive may have impacted product prices but the extent of this development is not clear. The Slovenian Ministry of Infrastructure and Spatial Planning stated that cableways became slightly more expensive following the Directive but this is not only because of the Directive but also due to a reduction in the number of manufacturers. On the other hand, according to an SME cableway manufacturer, product prices increased substantially because of the Directive. Page 49
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 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: Risk & Policy Analysts Other factor
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 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?