Drakensberg Cable Car

How could an insolvent business spend millions rehabilitating an area? It would just be left up there to decay - after selling off anything that is worth more than the cost of removing it, that is.

I would love to think that the state would do the logical/right thing, but last year they granted fraking rights despite over 15 000 signatures on a petition and studies proving it isn't safe.

Thats why a GUARANTEE of funds available for rehabilitation should be required. I think this would deter most developers.

Some years ago a similar proposal was made in the Outeniquas. It did not seem to me to be economically viable and was undesirable on other grounds. I suspect that the Swiss engineering company responsible for the construction was egging the developer on. The engineering company would not be too concerned if, after construction, the project proved non-viable. They could even make more money by removing the structure! This is a real danger.
There should eventually be a public participation process where hopefully the suggestion that the company be held to a guarantee that funds be made available to remove all structures, if non viable, will be enforced. I think that will be the ultimate deterrent.

Guardian wrote: hope we get to 200.

313 votes

votes in favour is up to 15

Thanks to everyone who shared, and please keep the shares coming. 500 may genuinely be possible. We have had 100 votes in the last 24 hours!

So the fb poll seems to have slowed down again. 354 votes for, 19 against. Laughing at my brother being one of the votes for, but hey - we're all entitled to our own opinions

So that's 373 votes total, that's just under half of what they had and we had overwhelming opposition to it.

The poll seems to have died down at 380 votes - 360 against, 20 for. I think that's great - 380 votes is more than half the number they achieved and should be a relatively reliable stat. 94.7% against. From 150 votes up it has consistently stayed around 90-95% against.

I went through the Drakensberg Cable Car (cc) feasibility study today, and noted a few things. It is a long time since I have read a feasibility document so it took a while.

I did go through the various posts in the hope of not duplicating people’s comments, however, excuse me if I do.

Firstly, I am all for sustainable development in the area that can uplift the local people and provide them with a better standard of living.

Starting in the contents under the heading market analysis page 24. I did not see a figure quoted as to the cost per round trip, and I wonder if the local people who will have this in their face will get a concessionary price?

Part of the argument for the cable way is the erosion that hikers and donkeys are causing on local passes. Of course I would say that the main culprit here is the donkey trains and not the hikers. The local people in all likelihood, unless there were concessions for them, could not afford to routinely make use of the cc, thus reducing the impact on the passes. The donkey traffic is often used for …well we know what it is used for! Could you imagine the scene on a cc, ”please could you shift up, I need some space for this one ton bag full of …

Page 4 - I like the idea that a visual corridor around the base station will be cleared of wattle. It should be done however in collaboration with the Working for Water alien tree removal scheme, otherwise the corridor might well get reseeded. Doing it this way would also exhibit that you are not merely ‘green dressing’ the project.

Page 9 - Were this area already part of the WHS, it would not even be considered. Likely true!

Page 10 – Mweni Pass on the map is in the wrong place. Fortunately, though Mweni has been removed from the list of alternatives…whew!

Page 11 – The report mentions up to 1000 cars per day. Sounds a bit high. I wonder how many fatalities there will be from this number of cars hitting cows or goats. Especially considering that the livestock are not fenced off from the road.

30 new jobs – are these permanent?

I wonder if the community want the nature of their life changed to this degree?

Page13 - The top station might be a source of supplies and shelter, only if it can be protected from theft and vandalism. That would mean permanent staff and or guards.

Page 30 - mentioned that it would allow short hikes in and around the upper station, including hikes down the chain-ladder. Which is fine if you are fully equipped to deal with sudden changes in weather otherwise it could lead to bigger catastrophes than have happened in the past. - Page 68&69 mentions this is risk but it remains to be seen how this can be mitigated.

Page 50 – Speaks about visitors having goodwill toward the Berg and its scenic beauty. Sadly it is usually within the 30-60 min walk from the hotels and hutted camps that most litter can be found. I can’t imagine people respecting the high berg by not littering the route from the upper station to the Sentinel carpark. - Page 68&69 mentions this is risk but it remains to be seen how this can be mitigated.

Page 54 & 56 – It is a good idea to dispose of any waste away from both the base and upper stations. Also the idea of keeping the upper stations facilities to a minimum is a good idea. Likely when they referred earlier to supplies for hikers, they were talking about packets of crisps and not ‘fish and chips’.

Page 63 – How I wonder, are they going to mitigate against threatened species flying into the cables, and reconcile the need to keep it less visible at the same time so that it does not become an eye sore.

Page 74 – based on precedents set in SA and the rest of the world, that the venture would be financially feasible. Perhaps in the Cape it might be, as you are sitting on a tourist hub of note.

The final draft of the Business Plan for the Drakensberg cable car has been released by Graham Muller Associates.