Mount Wellington cable car

[mark22]

Just read a news item about the proposed Mt Wellington cable car development. I see one the backers is Maydena bike Park manager and Dirt Art owner.
Maybe some of our Southern brethren would have better idea the chances of the development getting up and the likelyhood of riding it year round?

They don't mind those picking wet areas for trails with Maydena and the proposed MWCC jobby.

It never ends in Tasmania with new trails going in at St Helens and rail trail near Scottsdale and scuttling the exHMAS Darwin at St Helens next year. Which hopefully goes better than the Tobruk off Harvey Bay/ Bundaberg, what a disaster.

Be a nice place to live if it wasn't for the WEATHER....

 

[droenn]

Just read a news item about the proposed Mt Wellington cable car development.

You mean this one from 1905?

With the current proposal, I don't really know where I stand on it. A lot of Indigenous and environmental groups are concerned about it, and then residents are pissed off about it being an eyesore etc (but thats Tasmanians anyway). Seems there has been a lack of transparency on the development side, and that is never a good way to go about things. I haven't actually read enough about it, but living in Hobart for a bit, kunyani/Mt Wellington is a special place and should be looked after. But I also lived near Cape Town, and the cable car for Table Mtn works really well, so I can see benefits too.

 

[rangersac]

Alrighty I'll have a crack at this and potentially keep the flame suit handy. I'll state from the outset that I am not anti cable car per se, but I do object to the current proposal for a number of reasons which I'll outline below.

First a bit of background. A cable car proposal has been kicking around in reasonable earnest for at least 20 years or so, but it's only really gained momentum in the last five or so years. This is really on the back of the tourism boom from the MONA effect, and because the Hodgman government has been unashamedly pro development in National Parks and Reserves. I won't go into the arguments around that as that's a separate topic, but it's worth keeping this in mind when considering the cable car.

So if you wanna see the proponents idea of utopia you can do so here. A quick and dirty summary in their claims of benefits is as follows with my take on them afterwards.

1. Improved access to the mountain.
Fair claim. Currently the Pinnacle Rd is closed if there is the likelihood of snow or ice, and not reopened until gritting or plowing is done. If there is significant snowfall plowing can take multiple days. There will be times when the cable car can't operate because of high winds when you could still access the mountain by road, but in those conditions visitor numbers are likely to be reduced anyway. During snowy times the road and car park at the top does get pretty manic but I doubt traffic reduction will be that significant with the cable car, which leads onto my next point.

2. Eco friendly
Hard to assess I feel. Proponents claim a 60% reduction in traffic on the road, which I feel is probably more than a little hyperbolic. I'd imagine tickets will be around $75 return based on the Cairns cable car, so whilst I'm sure tourists will be interested as it avoids hiring a car or taking a bus tour to the top, locals will still drive.

3. Reduced road maintenance
Bollocks. The road will still be there and will always have to be maintained for infrastructure access at the top. There are also plenty of sites accessed from the road below the pinnacle

4. Improved recreational access
If there are trails built for MTB then yes. The paragliding ideas on their website (which are a new addition) are laughable though, simply because there's nowhere within several kilometres to land safely unless you can land back on the take off ramp!

5. Improved visual aspect.
From Hobart the removal of the current shelter will see a tiny building removed from the skyline. Of course up closer the complex of buildings proposed is a massive increase on what's currently up there.

Now with regards to the objections I'll similarly do a quick and dirty summary and my opinion.

1. Misappropriation of public land and excessive government support for a private venture
I agree with this. The process so far has lacked transparency and has included legislation being passed before the parliament to smooth the way before funding sources were divulged. Particularly for the base station areas which have changed several times, significant land holdings are requested. For mountain bikers the current proposal requires the major upgrade of a fire trail that runs right through the Tip Top/ Slides trail network and will have significant impacts.

2. Residential impact
Without a doubt. For residents of South Hobart there will undoubtedly be large increases in traffic volume, and for a small number of residents at the top Old Farm Rd, their local environment will be significantly altered.

3. Reduces the wilderness of the mountain.
For the most part this claim is pretty overblown I think. The side of the mountain with the proposal always had development or significant human impacts since Hobart was established. Firstly as a firewood and water source, then with huts, trails, a hotel at one point that burn down at the Springs, fire rd access and of course the Pinnacle Rd and current infrastructure. The one area where there will be significant impacts is the organ pipes, the basalt columns which are the most striking feature of the mountain. Arguably the 'wildest' area on the east face of the mountain, it's a popular rock climbing and hiking route that will be less attractive with 50 faces peering at you from out of an overhead gondola.

4. Can the business sustain itself without public support?
Ask an economist. However the company estimates vistor numbers at approx. 460,000 per annum on their website or 1260 per day. I think that's pretty optimistic for a couple of reasons. Using the table mountain cable car as an example, they have to shut down for between 60 and 90 days a year because of weather, so a similar figure on Mt Wellington is likely as it's a windy place. Using the 60 figure of closures that's 1508 people per operating day, or around 30 full sized coach tours, which I think is far in excess of current trips. Also I'd question how many people would actually take the trip if it's cloudy up the top and you can't see anything, which is also a pretty regular occurrence.

@mark22 the mountain is great for year round riding. The existing trails drain really well thanks to the underlying geology and build quality, and snow rides are always a bonus!

Phew. Bit of a essay, good luck wading through all that!

 

[born-again-biker]

Great post Ranger.
Nothing of this nature is ever just black and white.

My gut feeling is that, although there might be some benefits to building it, it seems more like infrastructure for infrastructures sake - which we all know is a liberal govt hallmark.
I think certain investors & builders will make a lot of money out of the construction project... But once it's finished that's it.
We might end up stuck with something that doesn't make enough money to support itself (burden on taxpayers) and has permanently altered the visual and environmental conditions.

Is it really "essential" infrastructure?

Sent from my LG-H870DS using Tapatalk

 

[mark22]

https://ab.co/2Me6NpP
Bit of controversy and dodgy proceedures it seems.