Opposition to Gondola starts
Another cause for Wally?
The Alpine council looks like it’s in for a drawn out battle over its support for a proposed $20 – $30 million gondola going up Mt Buffalo as a major national tourist attraction. According to this report in the Border Mail, the proposal has already attracted opposition from the Victorian National Parks Association spokesman Philip Ingamells, who says it would “threaten to transform the iconic reserve into a theme park.”
“We’re not really keen about that sort of thing,” he said of the Alpine Valleys Tourism Board suggestion. “We think these things can destroy the ambience of natural places — we don’t want to change them into theme parks. We would much rather the money be spent on maintaining the natural values of the parks.”
I’m not sure who or what the Victorian National Parks Association is, and exactly what authority or expertise they have in these matters, but judging from the 8 reader-comments posted to the article, opinions are clearly polarised amongst the community. Some of these comments actually look familiar – I’ve added my opinions to each one:
Perhaps a study should be carried out for a skitube alpine railway type development similar to the Perisher Blue resort area. The skitube runs through the national park and has limited visual impact and would allow access to the top of the mountain by all. As for transforming the park into a theme park as Philip Ingamells has stated, it is a aerial tramway, not a water slide! A skitube alpine railway or Skyways Project would not only generate tourism and cash inflow, it would provide jobs and security for the region and promote this iconic area further, rather than restricting access and promotion in its present form.
Posted by Bruce Ray, 6/11/2009 10:10:24 AM
Um, the attraction is not getting to the top, Bruce, it’s about the journey up and the magnificent views, so a ”skitube alpine railway” would be a bit pointless, not to mention rather impossible over such a steep rocky terrain. The rest of your comment is on the money though.
The Chairlift project will do the opposite to “theme parking” Mt Buffalo. It will bring visitors to see the natural beauty of the area. The drive up the mountain would burn more fossil fuels per visitor than the electric driven Chairlift. As long as the chairlift is driven by renewable energy (sourced from purchasing energy from Hydro scheme, or Green companies) then it’s a winner for the environment, a winner for tourism, and a winner for Tourism Victoria. Look at what the Blue Mountains cable-ways does for Katoomba on an international level. The chairlift, including the historic chalet would certainly plant Mt. Buffalo, Porepunkah, Bright and Myrtleford more solidly on the international map as an attraction of natural beauty. People need to realize the area’s tourism industry is threatened by climate change (snow/ski industry) so sustainable commerce such as this project needs to be put into place now, not 15 years when we have a failed ski industry.
Posted by Nic Wilke, 6/11/2009 10:53:13 AM
You’re sort-of on the right track, Nic, but this area is NOT dependent on the ski season for tourism anyway and therefore NOT threatened by climate change. That’s Hotham’s & Falls Creek’s problem, not ours. I think we also need to ensure the Chalet is not ruined in the process.
I agree totally with the Victorian National Parks Association view regarding the proposed chair life. It would be nothing more than a blot on the land scape . A monumental eye saw. The money would be better spent clearing walking tracks, providing more shelter and toilet facilities on the mountain itself. As a regular visitor and hiker I would hate to see the sites beauty destroyed by an ill conceived idea. I feel it’s just another case of bureaucrates trying to be seen to be doing something. What better way to be noticed, come up with an outrageous proposal like this. It’s a wonder they didn’t include the building of a McDonalds and a KFC on the Gorge as part of the package.
Posted by leave Buffalo alone, 6/11/2009 12:12:30 PM
I think you mean “eyesore”, not “eye saw”, LBA. Although you might be right about it being “bureaucrats trying to be seen to do something”, because I really doubt that the task force the council has put together is up to the task. Btw, your references to Maccas & KFC sound familiar – are you sure you’re not Lee ‘Wally’ Rosser?
I’m in favour of things staying as they are. Though its expensive to go skiing, and this is a stretch for me as I’m a bit impecunious and might manage 1 or 2 days in a resort, staying off-mountain, I’m concerned that any increase in on-mountain accommodation or significant reduction in the cost of lift tickets could create overcrowding and excessive demand, and attract an element of visitor which presents an increased risk of antisocial behavior around the resorts or mountain. I’m in favour however of increased camping or backpack accommodation off the mountain and limited camping/backpack accommodation on top and increased public transport by buses up there especially at a subsidised rate (vline anybody?) to promote increased use and less car traffic.
Posted by Shauna, 6/11/2009 1:25:42 PM
Shauna, it’s not about snow skiing on Mt Buffalo. Buffalo’s days as a ski resort are over and this idea is to attract tourists year-round, not just in winter, and that’s certainly what it will do. Sorry to hear you’re “a bit impecunious” – i.e. with little or no money - perhaps you could get a job?
A ski tube railway would not work-it is simply to steep-unlike the Kosciusko one where the height difference is much less and the distance greater. I’m sick of arguments justifying proposals on the basis of ‘Jobs” and “Security”-using those criteria would justify building anything-why not a prison? Or a coliseum? Provision of subsidised shuttle buses would get people to the top who can’t otherwise-and provide some employment! The major concern is the visual impact-it would have to run almost straight up the gorge- with pylons cars and cables spoiling a unique and special landscape. How will it affect other recreational use-hangliding for one? Spend the money on extending and improving the areas wonderful cycle trails and walk paths. Let us encourage physical actitvity. Such amenities would bring families and others back. Riding a gondola is likely to be a once only thing. Buffalo is an icon as it is. Let us not violate a grand old lady.
Posted by Steve, 6/11/2009 3:45:03 PM
Whoa, Steve is really against the idea. Somehow though, I don’t think the hang-gliders should take priority over a potential 500,000 visitors per year. But I agree, it has to be done right with respect to the environment and with minimum impact on the visual beauty.
This is a silly idea, commerically and environmentally. There is not enough to do on top of Mt Buffalo to warrant this type of investment. Nor, is there any suitable accommodation or enough snow for viable winter activities. It would be a true white elephant. Something like this is more suitable for Falls Creek (Mt Beauty to FC), where there is already a large resort complex, built attractions and other activities. Commercially it might succeed, especially if it becomes a viable alternatie to winter driving up. Environmentall, though, it is challenging.
Posted by Bob, 6/11/2009 7:12:06 PM
Are you from Mt Beauty/Falls Creek by any chance, Bob? What’s wrong, worried that it will attract more tourists to Bright? As for your “not enough to do up there” comments, well the trip is what they’ll be doing. Again, it’s not about skiing, it’s about creating a unique attraction, i.e. the gondola itself.
This will certainly turn into a debate between the people who’d like a sustainable tourism industry in NE Victoria (one with little or no snow) and the people who don’t want to share this beautiful area with the majority. Ecotourism is the way to go. Mt Buffalo chalet, people, is shut. It is not in operation, therefore detracting visitors to the area. Get this chairlift in ASAP and start establishing a viable industry, with jobs, exposure to the environment, and stop your old fashioned attitudes towards tourism.
Posted by Dozer, 7/11/2009 2:31:45 PM
You’re right Dozer, it’s going to be one raging debate. I’m leaning your way at the moment but I want to know more about it.
Surely this is just what the area needs,a modern, sophisticated means of transport to the top, experiencing such wonderful views and bringing people back to their mountain, surely tourism is to be embraced for this sensational area to be successful. and that stupid comment re Maccas & Kfc well it just shows the mentality of the opponents!!
Posted by Make it happen, 9/11/2009 4:07:33 PM
Yeah, I agree, MIH. But I think we should also be upgrading the town of Bright. I mean, if we’re going to get an extra 500,000 visitors, we better get the town in shape.
…………………………
I think we’re in for an interesting ride here. But if the objectors want to have any impact, here’s a tip:
Don’t let Wally be your spokesperson!
.
Wally says: I'm taking y'all to VCAT, Woolies. Go on, git! Git out of 'my town'.
Contact: alpineopinion@gmail.com
Click 
Yeah saw all this up here in Cairns when the skyrail was proposed and built. It too was going to be a monstrosity, with protesters staging tree sit ins etc and generally being a nuisance all through the project. This was through sensitive world heritage wet tropics too. When completed, it was truly magnificent (still is) with a system that gives people of all ages and abilities an opportunity to experience the beauty of the ascent of the McAllister Range, the Barron River, and of the rainforest canopy. The towers and the gondolas do not detract from the beauty of the area, and during construction there was very little damage done where the towers were located – only 10m2 was cleared for each tower.
It works here, and should work down your way if done sensibly. Assuming of course it’s what your community wants
It works here, and should work down your way if done sensibly. Assuming of course it’s what your community wants
Hi Mike. yes, you are spot on about the Cairns skyways. I think it’s the same company as down here too. But the key is in your final sentence: “assuming it’s what your community wants.” Unfortunately the local community has a long history of opposing anything that takes us forward. And it’s not always on altruistic or environmental grounds – it’s often got more to do with not wanting to share this area with others.
Based on no research whatsoever, I would suggest that there was a majority of community support for the project in Cairns. However, all you heard about was the imminent destruction of the rainforest, the protesters and every negative about it, which of course the media lapped up. Once completed the fuss died down, the locals swarmed over ‘their’ new attraction and was very positively received. The whingers and protesters shot through, looking for something else to go crook about – perhaps down to Bright?
Hmmm same mob eh? ITM? Apparently didn’t do so well in Hong Kong, although that system seems to be working fine now.
Buffalo is a State Park so the final approval is up to the State Government not the council. The local council is just trying to drive it but I worry they don’t have the expertise or wherewithal to overcome the flood of objectors and their tactics. The whole process might get bogged down in the initial stages and never see the light of day.
My big worry is Parks Vic (or whatever it’s called today). Unless things have changed their aim is to restrict access to THEIR National Parks so by definition they would be against this.
There are many visitors & locals who have no way at present to enjoy Buffalo – oldies don’t like mountain roads – and for them a Gondola with a cafe at the top would be a great way to overview the valleys and enjoy the local fauna. To them walking tracks and rock rambling are but distant memories!
Bright definitely needs another attraction (year round) to build on the visitor numbers coming here. Rumour has it that some accommodation houses & eateries have been doing it tough lately.
Yes, and what a lot of people don’t appreciate is how much money taken in by accommodation places & restaurants is then spent in the local community on: supplies, wages, cleaning, laundry hire, repairs, replacements, new works, etc, etc. When we had the restaurant I calculated that as much as 60-70c in the dollar we took in went into the general community. Businesses like accommodation and food are just the ‘gateway’ for the funds to enter the town, and everyone benefits.
Getting back to the project, I see there’s already an anti-gondola letter in today’s paper. I might put it up later for critical review.
Btw Percy, you’re not ME, are you? Believe it or not, some people are still saying you are.
Ha ha – How could I aspire to such greatness – anyway my taste in dogs is somewhat bigger and I hate little black cars. No I am not You.
It’s a good example of how the council and government aren’t involving public institutes and groups with their projects. When the government really connects with the councils and public, the project turns out better and everyone is happier.
Sorry to disagree with you Sally, but both the Shire and Great Alpine Valleys Tourism are already involving the community.
It’s early days in the process, but some forty tourism operators (mainly from Bright) took part in a tourism “think tank” at the Alpine Visitor Information Centre on Tuesday afternoon. A key question was “What major infrastructure tourism projects should the Alpine Shire be undertaking?” Straight off, the consensus was to get the Gondola started ASAP and I suspect the pressure will be on to ensure it doesn’t go off the radar.
There are going to be naysayers who will raise objections to this project, but these people tend to belong in the “bleeding heart” category and typically cannot build a cogent case which merits serious consideration.
“What major infrastructure tourism projects should the Alpine Shire be undertaking?” … the consensus was to get the Gondola started ASAP
Noel, I’m in favour of the gondola but it is NOT an infrastructure project that the Alpine council can or will undertake. The costs of it are out of their league and ultimately only private industry can make it happen. The task force they’ve established is only looking into the feasibility of it and, given who is on the task force, I wouldn’t be holding my breath waiting for it to get off the ground.
For the operators to simply reinforce what GAVT & council are already doing adds nothing to the gondola project and simply lets the Alpine council off the hook to get off its arse and implement other major infrastructure projects like CBD improvements, extensions to the railtrail etc.
The 40 or so operators have got blinkers on and have missed the point.
I don’t believe for a minute that GAVT and the Shire will undertake to do the job without calling in outside expertise. As usual, you let your cynicism overtake your objectivity.
If I, as a builder of “Sky Trains” wished to look at developing one on Mt Buffalo, I’d be beating on the Shire’s door. For once, the Shire is being proactive and I congratulate them for it. They have the relationships with Parks Victoria et al that matter.
I’m sure the 40 or so operators would be less than impressed with your opinion of them. Has your relationship with them soured that much?
You’re missing my point entirely too, Noel. The council will NOT be spending capital work funds on the gondola idea and the only money they’ll put towards it will come from a Govt grant for a feasibility study, probably less than $100,000.
My point is that the question, “What major infrastructure tourism projects should the Alpine Shire be undertaking?” is about what PUBLIC capital works projects it should be funding with both council $s and govt grants. Those works are totally separate to the gondola project that, ultimately (if it ever gets beyond the study stage) will be built and funded by a private developer.
For you and the 40 others to only suggest the gondola is pointless, as it’s not a public council infrastructure project. So how am I being cynical? Isn’t it more the case that you and the others don’t understand the difference? It seems so.
Anyway, you might be interested to know that I have already been contacted by a German firm interested in the gondola proposal. They came across it via my recent post. I have passed the info on to Mr Nicholls and now the company is liaising directly with the shire. Despite what you and *some* people suggest, this website actually helps this area.
1. The gondola was only one of many topics covered during the meeting. It happened to strike a chord.
2. Read this article in today’s Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/scenic-skyway-on-the-cards-for-mount-buffalo-20091111-i9yj.html
3. I cannot recall ever saying anything about your website. Feel free to vent your spleen!
1. Really Noel? Which ones? In your first comment here you clearly implied that the only real project discussed was the gondola: A key question was “What major infrastructure tourism projects should the Alpine Shire be undertaking?” Straight off, the consensus was to get the Gondola started ASAP.
So what else did the Illuminati come up with?
2. I’ve read it.
3. Noel, you have been as cynical as all hell about me and about this website over the years. You have even suggested that I do the area a disservice.
Illuminati Ray…
My thanks to the spelling-police for noting my typo. Corrected.
I agree with VNPA and think its a terrible idea as I have stated in some length on your other Blog, Ray.
I dont know who is having the pipe dream of attracting 500,000 to 600,000 visitors a year, but if you look at a few other internationally recognised, massive tourist drawcards for Victoria – Healesville Sanctuary gets about 300,000 a year, Puffing Billy about 200,000 – 250,000 a year and the biggest of them all, the penguin parade at Phillip Is just scrapes in over 500,000 a year. All three of these are an easy day trip from Melbourne.
If any one is foolish enough to base thier profit margins on more than double these numbers, either the ticket prices to ride it will quickly become atronomical, or it will require constant government bail outs to prevent it becoming a “great idea” that no longer operates but is still an eye sore.
National Parks are for the enjoyment of the natural environment, not for theme park rides.
We get well over that number of tourists to this area every year, Dave, so I think the numbers are feasible. National Parks are for EVERYONE’S enjoyment and this idea is hardly a theme park.
Anyway, judging by today’s Bright Observer there is a lot of opposition to the gondola proposal and I think we’re in for one raging debate over this – as big perhaps as the infamous Coles debate and almost as big as the even more infamous gondola-luge on Apex Hill debacle.
Somehow I doubt the council and its ‘task force’ are going to win this one. I’ll write a new post about this later and explain why I think the whole idea should be abandoned as a waste of time and resources.
Don’t get me wrong, I am in favour of a gondola going up Mt Buffalo. But the reality is it ain’t going to happen and we should, instead, focus on what can be achieved, not on some pipe dream
More later.