Mt Wellington Cable Car survey

[frenchy_84]

Im not trying to start an argument for or against a cable car, just letting people know if you want a say, fill out this survey
http://www.mtwellingtoncablecar.com/#!survey/ce2t

The survey has been commissioned by MWCC however if your against any development there are plenty of opportunities to write that.

[Strider]

Done

[cooee]

This was important, done also.

[GerryDuke]

ditto

[wayno]

is this for local residents only?

love question 9 the last option,

If built, how often do you think you would you ride the cableway? *

Not in a million years, no cable car!

[Strider]

is this for local residents only?

I see it as being for anyone that has an interest in the area, or an interest in how they might use the area in future. If you have some useful input, I'm sure it would be appreciated.

[Hallu]

I can understand cable cars in areas you can't reach by regular car or only difficultly by walking, but Mt Wellington is really easily accessible, by both... So this a rather ridiculous and useless project.

[wayno]

it asks for a suburb and postal code. so i guess i could put the one i stayed at..
i'll refrain from commenting here.... i could write a book....
their facebook pages is funny reading the comments...

[Strider]

I can understand cable cars in areas you can't reach by regular car or only difficultly by walking, but Mt Wellington is really easily accessible, by both... So this a rather ridiculous and useless project.

Put your comments into the survey mate...

[Hallu]

Already done.

[Nuts]

The cable car for Roland didn't make any sense. There is no aging summit development to upgrade and no environmental benefit (no road to reduce traffic from). There's no way of not detracting from the view (of the mountain) and I can't see how it would get a steady flow of users.

On Mt Wellington, I haven't read much besides the sample proposal attached to this survey (which I had a look at last night). Which aspect doesn't make sense? Are people posting here that they answered the survey in support? Just curious (If it's a bad idea I don't really care if it becomes another debate, i'm happy to be educated here.. Not a 'brownie' ftr, iv'e done conservation work on both mountains ..)

[wayno]

i've started another thread , maybe people want to comment there? and this one just to point people to the survey?

[frenchy_84]

is this for local residents only?

I see it as being for anyone that has an interest in the area, or an interest in how they might use the area in future. If you have some useful input, I'm sure it would be appreciated.

I think its more for local residents, as they want to gauge regular usage etc, questions such as how often would you use it with a repsonse like whenever interstate family and friends visited. But if you are going to do it wayno, put your NZ address not a tas address.

[Strider]

Are people posting here that they answered the survey in support?

I answered in strong support. IMO the current utilisation of Mt Wellington is a missed opportunity for Hobart. However, I would also hate to see it's natural environment be impacted to any extend beyond what it already is.

[Pongo]

I'm happy to share the way I responded. As a main lander and having not gone up Wellington but as a regular visitor to Tassie, I was happy to reply. I suspect having some tourists answer the thing will help, however I tended to reply neutrally, as I don't know enough about the sites, something this survey does not help with.

For the questions about if I support the thing (1 and 2 I think - can't go back in so I can't check the items), I replied neutrally. There simply isn't enough information available to say yes or no.

The rest of the questions are basically, 'if we did it, how would you like it to be' and so most of my answers were low impact, small development. For facilities, I ticked toilets, walkers log book (not sure of the walks from there) and not much else. Basically, infrastructure that keeps the environment clean without bulldozing it. There wasn't much mention of a waste management system... nothing like seeing empty tinnies at the start of a trail... but I digress....

[Pauly]

I answered in stong support. Mt Wellington has a pretty poor and dangerous road leading to an inadequate car park, poor look out shelter, toilet block and that massive transmission tower. Tourism is growing in Tas and the road which is often closed duing winter and can not cope with the demand on opening after recent snow falls will need frequent maintanence and more than likely an upgrade in the not too distant future. I like the idea of reducing the traffic on the road, reducing emmisions from cars, busses and taxis that use it. Providing the cable car doesnt scar the mountain (which it wont because the gondolas travel above the canopy) and the pinnacle development is discreet and sensitively designed to fit in with the landscape, I am all for it

[Orion]

I guess my browser is too old, I just get a blank page!

[mwcc-director]

I guess my browser is too old, I just get a blank page!

Yes, update your browser and you'll experience goodness. ... then you can have your say in the survey.

- AB
MWCC executive | www.mtwellingtoncablecar.com

[Davo1]

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/20 ... -news.html

From the headlines -

"Build it and they will come

FORGET Hobart, Sheffield's Mt Roland is on course to become Tasmania's first mountain to boast cable car access to its summit.

While debate about a cable car project for Mt Wellington drags on, the push to take visitors up spectacular Mt Roland is gaining momentum."

[north-north-west]

I answered in stong support. Mt Wellington has a pretty poor and dangerous road leading to an inadequate car park, poor look out shelter, toilet block and that massive transmission tower. Tourism is growing in Tas and the road which is often closed duing winter and can not cope with the demand on opening after recent snow falls will need frequent maintanence and more than likely an upgrade in the not too distant future.

Yeah, and the weather won't affect the operation of the cable car, either, will it.
It's a good road, by Tasmanian standards - if mainlanders learned to drive properly they'd have no trouble with it. The carpark's adequate most of the time for the number of visitors, and you can't build a lookout shelter that gives you a decent view without stuffing the whole ambience of the mountain. And if you find the transmission towers annoying, how about a cable car line all the way up?

[clarence]

From what I can see, it looks like a unique ecotourism project to promote the state's "clean and green image" - more clean and green than driving a car to the summit via a road whose path is clearly visible from the city. The summit is hardly "wilderness". Given the presence of the huge tower on the summit of the mountain, the arguement about adverse visual impact doesn't really stand up in my opinion.

As bushwalker/outdoors people, I think it is unreasonable to expect everywhere to be treated as if it were wilderness. If you want wilderness, there are huge tracts of it to be found elsewhere in Tasmania.

If people oppose this project on the grounds of environmental impact I am genuinely interested to know what alternative, feasible ecotourism developments they would propose in its place.

Clarence

Last edited by clarence on Thu 28 Mar, 2013 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Graham51]

I can understand cable cars in areas you can't reach by regular car or only difficultly by walking, but Mt Wellington is really easily accessible, by both... So this a rather ridiculous and useless project.

I'd rather see a cable car built to Mt Wellington, which is already impacted by roads and other infrastructure, than to other mountains which can't be reached by road (Mt Anne would be a good example with a cable car going up via Deception Ridge.) Surely this cable car can't impact much more on the skyline than the televisin towers etc already do.

[Happy Wanderer]

Don't forget that it isn't only the cable car that has been proposed. There is also the associated commercial development on the summit which would be required for the viability of the venture.

From the MWCC facebook site:
“MWCC has slated a project ... which includes:
Heated pinnacle visitor centre;
Sheltered open-air amphitheatre for public use and events and improved scenic platforms;
Indoor scenic vantage points and function space for public events,
Choice of 3 dining experiences/price-points (café, bistro & upmarket restaurant)"

A glass-bottomed viewing platform cantilevered over the Organ Pipes was also high on the 'like' factor.

There are supposedly promises to keep the road open and retain current parking areas, so just where will all this extra infrastructure be located? And how large would that infrastructure have to be to cater for the 'up to 800 passengers every hour' (MWCC figures) being deposited at the terminal?

And incidentally, how does one construct a 'sheltered open-air amphitheatre' in one of the windiest locations in the state?