Drakensberg Cable Car

Ok - that makes a significant difference.

Found this in an article online:

"The stadium's attractions continue to be extremely popular, with more than 10000 visitors a month. Non-bowl events, such as conferences and private parties, have generated more than R10-million this year, and the sky car has generated over R5-million," he said.

Ref: www.timeslive.co.za/local/2011/09/15/moses-mabhida-stadium-loses-millions

That is September 2011 - even if it has doubled since then, it still isn't 300 000 people per year. Would be nice to get something more current.

Smurfatefrog wrote: The skycar was closed during the World Cup, IIRC FIFA wouldn't allow it, saw it as a security risk

I was drawing attention to the fact that visitor numbers have declined overall for the whole of the year and that was the reason. People chose not to come to KZN (which means primarily Durban) to avoid the WC, they spent their holidays elsewhere. The instinctive response in hosting a big event is that overall figures would be up adding to your base load; not necessarily.

Just looking over some old articles. Is it just me or does this "3300m top" really bug everyone? The proposed top is 3143m, assuming it tops out on the khulu itself.

Perhaps when they say 3300m, they are talking about the proposed extension to Mont-Aux-Sources (3282m). Surely the extension will never happen, but is it possible that they will actually build the entire thing at the same time?

The scheme should not have a hope in hell from an economical point of view.
It appears to be driven by political ego-boosting and corruption, perhaps by the construction companies. It is along these lines that is best attacked. The local community can always be bribed into acquiescence.
Environmental issues, so important to us, may have lesser impact.

Logically there is no way that this scheme can be approved, but politically??

Possible extension to Mt-Aux-Sources is a distinct worry and may well sneak in.

Quiet in all this debate is the question of the border between SA and Lesotho and what Lesotho's views on the cableway are.

Bergie wrote:
Possible extension to Mt-Aux-Sources is a distinct worry and may well sneak in.

and then the road in from Afri-Ski in Lesotho to Mt-Aux-Sources to service the restaurant, gift shop, generator house, staff living quarters and 'health and safety' routine. After-hours the cable way will be an easier way to get those bags of dope down the hill too, much as I suspect the ranger road up the Little Berg in Giant's Castle was used with the Corner Pass/Judge Pass route.

From Tourismupdate.co.za

Last week’s poll: Is the Drakensberg cableway a good idea?

Last week, we asked readers what they thought about KZN’s plans to build a cableway in the Drakensberg. The majority of the respondents, or 66%, did not support the plans, while 34% supported the plans.

So two out of three people involved in tourism think it is a bad idea.

An article from this morning's Mercury

This article is quite funny - a very selective reply...

This proposal needs to be seriously looked at as a business - sustainable development must, by definition, be self-sustaining.

The biggest myth in business is that the "idea" or "product" is the most important aspect. Aside from charities, if the objective of business is to generate cash (usually the case) - the key is how to convert a capital investment into a profit and subsequently cash.

To illustrate what I am saying without trying to get technical or anything - consider the following business concept:

I make special homemade health bread. People often say I should start a business selling this bread. So seeing as I have managed to come up with this recipe - why don't I start a business selling this bread?

Simple - my material cost in making 1 loaf is roughly R30 before fixed costs. If I wanted to make a minor profit on it I would have to sell it at roughly R50 per loaf to cover time costs and fixed costs. Now while it might be possible to sell the occasional loaf of bread at R50 per loaf, I would never sell enough to actually make a profit. Well, definitely not one worth the effort required.

There was a brilliant article written about the business model of Red Hat Linux - one of the most profitable software companies around - and you can legally download their main product off the internet for free.

The article referred to the "bottled water theory" - the assumption that a product is better because of how it is packaged and marketed rather than consideration of the actual product. They admit that their product isn't the best open source operating system around, but they market it in a way to make it sound like it is.

A google search of reasons to visit SA (www.southafrica.net/country/us/en/top10/entry/top-10-reasons-to-visit-enus) briefly mentions natural beauty, but it immediately goes to Table Mountain, Mpumalanga and has a photo of Knysna.

Other sites - visit SA to see the big 5 and the history around Madiba. Another one says the wildlife, blue train, wine routes, history and Table Mountain. Another says wildlife again.

We have St Lucia and Hluhluwe–iMfolozi Park here in KZN, both top level wildlife areas. But they don't seem to really compete with places like Kruger. Improving the publicity and facilities of places like this is the way to fix this problem.

Lists of what to do in KZN do list the Drakensberg, but its always right at the bottom of the list.

Lists of what to do in KZN do list the Drakensberg, but its always right at the bottom of the list.

That is exactly the reason why they are trying to raise the profile for the berg with this cablecar is it not? If the cablecar can get the berg on the international tourist map along with kruger and Table mountain, then surely it is a good thing?
From that aspect I can definitely go with the plan... it is the other aspects; financial sustainability, cultural, social and wilderness that tells me that this cablecar is not the way to get the berg on the map.

*I do not like how being labeled an environmental group is a way to discredit an organisation these days. I think it stems from fundamentalism that is often necessarily present in environmental arguments. Any group that rises fundamental flaws should be taken seriously. And the concerns raised about this project should not be grouped under "The environmental groups" as in the article. Since concerns have actually not been focussed on the environmental aspect, if it were VE, WAG etc will have been moaning about the (real) danger for the vultures not the financial and social aspects.

**Videos about the public consultation process on youtube only show a bakkie with a large tv screen and dancing schoolchildren. I hope those children where not counted as part of the 10 000.