Wellington Park Sustainable Transport System - Invitation for Ideas

This doesn't look too radical, the paper acknowledges the need for continued car transport up the mountain.

However I reckon its worth trying to co-ordinate a response from the climbing community, as any changes will directly affect us.

My thoughts are:

• Continued private car transport up the mountain, and parking at the climbers car park, is very important to the climbing community. The recent work on the carpark is a good improvement, however more may be needed in the future
• A regular, cheap public transport system (eg a public bus up the mountain that would let people off at the climbers carpark or the chalet) would get some use from local climbers, and probably more from visiting climbers. Needs some space for mountain bikes!
• Most climbers would be against a cable car due to the detraction from the experience on the organ pipes (big guess/assumption there)

thoughts?

Comments on this are due soon, anybody got stuff to add to a submission?

From Tony McKenny:

Hi Pete,

I suggested to Jon a week or two back that I coordinate climbers responses to the Discussion Paper and I have therefore forwarded your response to Michael Easton, along with mine and Heather’s. As I will be away up to 12 June (when submissions close) I though it better to send now, rather than miss the deadline altogether.

Doug Parkinson MLC is running a “Survey” to drum up support for a cable car – and I have responded to him as well. See below.

Cheers

Tony

We would like to make the following submission to the Trust regarding access to the Mountain.

A. We would like to express our strong opposition to any proposal for a cable car on Mt Wellington. In our opinion:

· The building of a cable car and associated buildings would be a visual blot on the landscape no matter where it was built.

· Such a development would involve structural buildings on the mountain, by whichever route chosen, adding to the possibilities of pollution, environmental degradation and changes to already stressed ecosystems. The last proposal from a few years ago would have also directly affected the rock structure of the Organ Pipes and the mountain environment.

· The economics of such a proposal simply don’t add up. We often hear of similar systems built overseas but they all are based on a far larger tourist population, on mountains where there is no easy road access for most of the year. As shown in the last failed cable car proposal, in order to make it pay the cost per person is likely to be exorbitant for the average Tasmanian family, and it is most unlikely that any local usage would be more than a one-off trip. The idea put out in the Mercury recently by one Hobart alderman that access to the top of the Mountain via the road might have to be limited throughout the year to make it pay is just plain silly,

· The snow cover in any one year would never support a snow industry as has been mooted in previous proposals – there is simply not enough snow, not enough freezing days or water for snow-making and not enough skiers to make it viable. And this situation doesn’t seem likely to improve, given the present climate change scenario.

· Just where would the money for such a venture come from, and what guarantees would we have that we would not be left with a rusting white elephant on the Mountain? Whose responsibility and whose money would it be to maintain or remove the structure if it proved to be non-viable? The last proposal failed to attract private capital and a realistic business plan has never been developed.

· The Organ Pipes, Lost World etc are world famous sites for rock climbing, visited by literally hundreds of interstate and international climbers each year, injecting many thousands of dollars into the Hobart economy. It would be an economic tragedy if that was affected, and would reflect extremely badly on the reputation of Tasmania for environmental stewardship, a reputation already much tarnished by our perceived ongoing environmental issues. The area is the subject of at least three Guidebooks for visiting climbers and many internet blogs and resource sites.

B. We believe that consideration should be given to alternative methods of accessing the top of the Mountain all the year round.

· There are alternative methods of travel over snow-covered roads. The Antarctic Division use a number of on-ice people-carriers ranging from Hagglund vehicles (and these are used too on the snow fields on the mainland), tracked people carriers and utes, while tracked buses are used in BC in Canada on glaciers for tourists, and so on. There are many variations on these themes around the world, none of which are as expensive or intrusive as a cable car and which do not involve changing or damaging our fantastic mountain asset. A further economically viable option would be fitting commercial snow blades to vehicles such as tractors to clear the road on the few days of the year that it is necessary.

· The provision of small, subsidised and timetabled buses might be considered. The road is too narrow for large coaches but a shuttle service from the Springs and/or Fern tree could reduce the number of cars on the road.

C. Access to the Organ Pipes for climbers is an ongoing problem. The recent work by the Trust to improve parking has been favourably commented on by visitors but other aspects of the safety survey need implementation e.g. warning signs, notices re-angled parking etc. As the number of visitors continues to rise, it is important that provision be made in the future for more parking and/or improved bus access at the bottom of the access track.

Lastly, we are very unhappy with the so called “survey” put out by MLC Doug Parkinson. The questions are skewed to elicit a particular response, and it is no more than an attempt to drum up populist support for the cable car proposal, doing nothing to canvass a wider range of options or possibilities. A very poor and one-sided effort.

Many thanks

Tony and Heather McKenny

From Pete Steane:

Hi Jon
I'm not sure if there is actually any co-ordinated submission happening from the climbers but I figured if there is, you would probably know about it. If there is, could you please incorporate the following ideas into it - if they have not already been covered. If there is no co-ordinated response from climbers, maybe you could let me know and I will submit my own ideas under my own steam.
Thanks.
Pete Steane.

My observations/concerns/ideas:

BACKGROUND
The most frustrating aspect about Mt Wellington access from my (climber's) perspective is the closure of the road on days of perfect climbing weather, mainly in winter.

In Winter, climbing must happen in the morning. After about midday even the sunniest buttresses are in the shade and conditions become too frigid for sensible rock climbing. However if you can get to a sunny buttress on a still, sunny Winter's morning, climbing on the warm rock with snow, ice and frost at the base of the cliffs and an ocean of fog lying over Hobart and the Derwent Estuary is one of the best climbing experiences available in the country.

The Winter days that are suitable for climbing on The Mountain are limited. Of those that are suitable, few fall on weekends. Such days are therefore extremely valuable to climbers. You've been at work all week hanging out for a climb. You wake up on a glorious sunny Saturday morning and can see that it's going to be a fantastic morning on the Pipes. You drive up there to find the road closed at the Springs, despite the fact that it's completely dry at the point of closure. Even 4WDs are not allowed through. The options are:
1. Wait an hour or three until they open the road.
2. Walk up from the Springs.

Either of these options means that you will arrive too late at the cliff for anything but a very cold and unpleasant climbing experience. You simply turn around and drive back home, furious and bemused at the fact that we are unable to keep a road open to one of the state's premier tourist attractions that lies 15 minutes from the centre of the capital city - in glorious, dry, sunny weather!

When I have asked about the reason for the road closure it has been that there is frost or ice further up the road and that it's too dangerous for traffic to go up until later in the day. Funnily enough at the very same instant that I am being turned back from the Springs, there are other people driving up the Lake Dobson and Ben Lomond roads to access the mountains in those areas. These are roads that are every bit as narrow as Pinnacle Road but much more remote and consistently subject to far worse conditions than those on Pinnacle Road. On these roads the traffic is often monitored by suitably qualified people to ensure that any vehicles proceeding in the less than perfect conditions are suitably prepared and equipped.

SUGGESTIONS
Here are some suggestions to help relieve the frustrating situation of fine weather Winter (non-)access to Pinnacle Road and the Organ Pipes in particular. They could also be extended to apply in all but the very worst Winter conditions if so desired. These suggestions are not mutually exclusive. They could be incorporated into a multi-pronged solution. They are listed in order of what seems to me to be the most simple to the most complicated. The simpler solutions (Suggestions 1 to 3) would seem to me to be preferable.

1. Start any snow/ice clearing operations a couple of hours earlier than what currently happens so that the road is clear at least to the Chalet by say 9:00 or 9:30 a.m.

2. Talk to the managers of Mt Field and Ben Lomond National Parks to see how they manage to keep their roads open, and apply similar strategies to Pinnacle Road.

3. Allow suitable vehicles (eg 4WDs) past the gate at the Springs. Staff monitoring the gate could be suitably trained to be able to make such a call - similar to the rangers at Mt Field for instance. You could still keep the gate at the Chalet closed if you were worried about conditions further up. This would at least allow morning access to the Pipes and the Panorama Track as well as pedestrian access to Big Bend area. If you were dubious about the competence, wisdom, judgement or maturity of the drivers of these vehicles, there could be a pilot vehicle supplied that others follow up the road. See 5.

4. Have a subsidised 4WD minibus or troop carrier acting as a shuttle vehicle running from the point of closure to the Pinnacle (or as far as desired). Having a basic vehicle such as a troopy (as opposed to a nice plush bus) may help to limit the numbers of people who actually want to go further up. Many people may be happy just to stay at the Springs and play in the snow while they wait for the road to re-open, rather than suffer a noisy, bumpy ride in the back of a troopy. The shuttle vehicle(s) would need to run frequently (eg every 15 minutes) and be cheap for the user - say a dollar or two, but preferably free as happens at Cradle Mountain, I think. The managers (Trust, HCC, whoever) may be able to hire or lease such vehicles for the limited times that they would be required.

5. The shuttle vehicle could double as a pilot vehicle that other 4WDs could follow up the road.

ADDRESSING THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION 5.2 OF THE STS - INVITATION FOR IDEAS DOCUMENT

Q1. Why do these modes meet the Sustainable Transport Criteria?

These suggestions allow for the basic access needs of both locals and visitors. Nothing is suggested that is different from what happens in other comparable environments so the safety issues are no more problematic than on any other well managed exposed road. The suggestions would not increase the current impact on the ecosystem. Encouraging car-pooling in a shuttle vehicle (Suggestion 4) could well impact positively on the health of the ecosystem. The system is as equitable as possible. By clearing the road sooner (Suggestion 1) access to the high point is as equitable as it is in Summer. A large proportion of modern cars have 4WD facility sufficient for driving up a slippery bitumen road (Suggestion 3), and an alternative shuttle vehicle covers those that don't (Suggestion 4).

The suggestions are as affordable to the individual/family as running a car. Those without a 4WD who elect to take the shuttle pay no more than what it costs the owner of the 4WD in fuel and running costs to drive up the mountain. The suggestions help to provide a vibrant economy by allowing people to enjoy the mountain more fully. Happy visitors are more likely to spend money. If they pass the Springs Cafe twice (up and down) they will probably spend money twice, especially if they have been exercising in the meantime.

The suggestions have the potential to limit emmisions to the extent that people can car-pool in a shuttle vehicle (Suggestion 4) and that the shuttle vehicle could be an eco-friendly one if desired.

Q2. How will the mode(s) improve and/or extend current visitation to the mountain?

This should be self evident. If the road is open on nice Winter mornings then climbers will have access to the Organ Pipes. Other visitors will have access to parts of the mountain above the Springs, which could include more walking tracks, more reliable snow drifts and more panoramic views.

Q3. How will the mode(s) work? Will extra infrastructure be required?

This is answered above, under SUGGESTIONS. Suggestions 1 to 3 require no extra infrastructure. The only extra infrastructure could be the shuttle vehicles in Suggestion 4. It may be possible to hire or lease these on a short term basis as required.

Q4 . Is significant capital investment required? How will this be recovered?

No capital investment would be required for Suggestions 1 to 3, although the operators of the road clearing machinery may need to get up there a couple of hours earlier (Suggestion 1). The costs of running the shuttle vehicles (Suggestion 4) could be recovered in part directly from a modest charge of a dollar or two per passenger (no more) and indirectly from greater visitor spending in the eceonomy more generally (as a result of them spending more time in the Hobart area).

Q5. How will the mode(s) address access during the Winter months?

This is the focus of the above SUGGESTIONS and has already been addressed.

NOTE:
While I have often mentioned the possibility of a shuttle vehicle in this email, it is not my first preference. I think that the vast majority of winter access issues could be resolved using Suggestions 1 to 3 above.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

Pete.

Didnt really get enough comments beyond what Tony and Pete submitted anyway, but sent this:

Hi Michael,
Please accept this short submission on the STS white paper, on behalf of the climbing community at www.thesarvo.com. It is organised under modes of transport.

1. Private Car
Continued private car transport up the mountain, and parking at the climbers car park and Lost World, is very important to the climbing community. The recent work on the carpark is a good improvement, however more may be needed in the future as climbing visitor numbers increase. The climbing community would also like to see greater winter access for private vehicles in snow conditions. With careful management private car transport on Mt Wellington should be sustainable into the future.

2. Bus
A regular and cheap public transport system (eg a public bus up the mountain that would let people off at the climbers carpark or the chalet) would get some use from local climbers, and probably more from visiting climbers, and would go some way to reduce traffic. To be useful to climbers it would need to let people off at the climber's car park and at the Lost World car park. A bus running from Ferntree would be preferable to from the Springs as it would allow public transport to be used from the city. A mountain bike trailer or room for bikes in the bus would provide additional benefit.

3. Walking Tracks
Climbers are extensive users of the walking tracks on Mt Wellington, and see the existing track network as sustainable and necessary. However the formalisation and signage (both of track starts and warning signs for non-climbers) of the network of informal tracks to the base of the Organ Pipes should be considered in the future.

4. Cable Car
Climbers are overwhelmingly opposed to the introduction of a cable car on Mt Wellington. It is seen as unsustainable both environmentally and economically. The introduction of a cable car passing over the Organ Pipes would detract in an extremely negative way from the climbing experience.

Regards,

Jon Nermut http://www.thesarvo.com

Interestingly over at pedalbite opinion is far from settled: http://pedalbite.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15404

In regard to winter time access to the mountain.
My observations are that Mt Wellington attracts a differnt set of winter time users to say Mt Field or Ben Lomond. Whereas these areas typically attract people intersted in skiing etc who generally have suitable vehicles and at least some experiance of snow driving. By comparison Mt Wellington attracts (as well as the climbers/skiier/bushwalkers) many tourists and day trippers who have neither suitable vehicles or experiance. I'll never forget watching the chos unfold at the slightly icy springs carpark loop road when the HCC workers who were directing traffic knocked off for the day. There were numerous cars that slid off the road due to drivers having no judgment of icy driving conditions. I think if public winter access was allowed it would be chaotic.
I think that a basic winter shuttle service from the closure point (as suggested by Pete Steane) is a great idea. The example that springs to mind is the shuttle run at the Remarkables Ski Field in NZ from the end of the longer runs back to the lifts. This is (or was when i was there) a unimog truck of similar (like the ones the army uses) that had rows of bench seats in the back. Just hop on, throw your board/skiis in and ride up. Such a veichle could be stored at the springs (like the grader is now, or even fitted with a blade and used as the grader) and used to shuttle people to the top when required. Far cheaper, more appropriate, less contentious and to mind heaps more fun than a chairlift!
John

John, Can you send your comment direct to Michael Easton at the Trust, if you haven't already? He will accept late submissions he says, unless they are very late..... Closing date was the 12 June.

Cheers

Tony

Easton, Michael [EastonM@hobartcity.com.au]

Michael easton has advised that there is now a draft report for comment at

http://www.wellingtonpark.tas.gov.au/management/strategies/transport/

Some excerpts:

6.    Summary    Analysis    of    Options
An analysis of the suggested access modes is provided
in Appendix 2 of this paper. By applying the above
constraints and opportunities to the respective modes,
along with the transport criteria, it is possible to develop
the principles of a transport system that will be equitable
and in keeping with the management values of Wellington
Park, particularly in the shorter term. 
It should be noted that the Trust does not have access to
specifc technical and fnancial details of the modes, and
thus general assumptions have been made where required.
•  A shuttle-bus service has the fexibility to commence
from a number of locations and to deliver visitors to a
range of destinations, including the Springs. It utilises
existing infrastructure and imposes minimal new
visible infrastructure. It may assist with winter access
however potentially provides a year-round option that
could be complementary to private vehicle access
(thus reducing parking pressure), and could be staged
in implementation. It may however not be viable, or
may require a subsidy.
•  A cable-car is likely to by-pass the Springs, has high
visual impact and would most likely require commercial
infrastructure within the Pinnacle Zone. It has high
construction costs with little subsequent fexibility.
Given the substantial media coverage of the cable car
concept, it is noted that the Trust has never received a
proposal for a cable car, and has no access to fnancial
or technical information relating to the concept.
•  Light rail may be a less visible form of alternative
transport however is likely to involve great technical
diffculty and high construction costs. Whilst departure
could be from the Springs, associated infrastructure
for maintenance and storage of equipment would be
extensive. The service would require development of
destination facilities, however could provide options
for access to other points en route.
•  Private vehicles will continue to provide the most
accessible, convenient and affordable transport for
the majority of Park visitors, and will involve minimal
additional infrastructure (at existing capacities).
Access will be via the Springs, and to any other point
along Pinnacle Road. Congestion and restrictions may
still occur based upon road conditions.
•  Cycling provides access for a small section of the
community and is consequently a secondary mode,
complementing other key modes. Cycling links
continue to be developed providing greater access
opportunities.
•  Walking is an achievable access mode for large
sections of the community, requiring minimal
additional infrastructure, however is not achievable in
isolation from other modes.
•  The remaining options - elevators, zoo carts,
magnetic road strips and fying fox – are not
considered achievable or sustainable for visitation
given technical, environmental, and/or economic
constraints based on current knowledge.

7.    Proposed    Sustainable    Transport    System
Given the above, and the information gained from the
Ideas paper, it is considered that the STS consist of:
Primary Modes
•    Individual    access    by    private    car
  This mode takes account of the ready availability of
private cars for a great majority of the Park’s visitors,
particularly during snow periods. The mode is relatively
cheap (putting aside the capital cost of buying a
car), and accessible to the general community. It
requires on-ground resourcing during peak visitation
periods however has an established network of
roads and carparks which serve the purpose for the
majority of the year, and requires minimal increase in
infrastructure.
•    A    shuttle-bus    service    provided    by    licensed    private   
operators.
  This mode (most likely involving mini-buses) is
complementary to private cars, however would assist
in reducing congestion, and provides an alternative for
those without easy access to private cars. The mode
could be run all-year-round, with commencement
from the Springs or from the city, but importantly is
relatively fexible allowing alterations to capacity and
frequency.
  The mode also offers potential access during snow
periods, depending upon the technical features of the
buses. A service could operate from the Springs either
on an opportunity basis or as a permanent winter
feature.
  Buses could be required to have bike carriage
capability, and could deliver an interpretive experience
during the journey. A variety of additional incentives
may be possible to encourage usage.
•    Walking   
  This mode would continue as per existing, with
walking access from outside or from within the Park.
The mode would be complementary to any shuttle-bus
service, allowing for travel to various locations within
the Park.
Secondary Modes
•    Bike    riding
•    Other    private    operators    e.g.    taxi    services    operating   
from    outside    of    the    Park
  These modes are presumed to continue complementary
to the Primary Modes. Links between the Mountain and
the surrounding areas will continue to be enhanced to
maximise walking and cycling opportunities.
Potential Modes
•  Future modes will be required to build upon the
above modes to enhance the overall sustainable
transport system. Any future mode should be either
complementary to an existing mode, or provide a
suitable replacement. Any future mode will be required
to meet:
--  The needs of the community;
--  The sustainable transport criteria;
--  The management policies and objectives of the
Wellington Park planning framework; and
--  The vision of the Trust for the ongoing
management of the Park.