Drakensberg Cable Car

intrepid wrote: As a tax payer, I object to government-spending of this nature.

R300m is enough to build roughly 3 750 RDP houses which should house 4 people each (although in reality they tend to house between 15 and 50 people). That means that the state funding this would pay for 15 000 people to live comfortably in a proper house with running water and electricity as promised by the constitution.

The question is how much "new" tourism will the cableway bring to KZN? If people that usually go to Drak Gardens for December now go to Thendele instead, we haven't created tourism, we have just redistributed it - so a few jobs are created while a few others are lost.

Hypothetically the cableway may pull 100 000 people each year (actually I am doubtful that it will even reach 100 000). If this is made up of 50% people driving between Jo'burg and Durban (as the business plan suggests this will be over half the visitors) and 50% people staying in the area:
- The drive-throughs won't create jobs outside the cableway and perhaps a nearby restaurant/curio shop
- The other 50 000 people at 25% amounts to 200 000 people, 65 000 of which aren't regular visitors to the area, but at least half of which would have probably gone to the Central or Southern Berg instead. Or perhaps some of these would have been staying in the KZN Midlands for the holidays instead. Call it 32 000 "new" tourists. 16 new tourists create 1 new job according to normal tourism stats - I think its based on SA getting 10m tourists each year and 470k people in SA being employed by tourism - although that comes to 21, but then there are the knock on jobs. But anyway, the convention is 16. That's 2 000 new jobs at a cost of R300m (this number would include the 30-74 in the cableway itself). R150 000 per new job created.

Seems a bit expensive to me. I'm not counting the cost of fixing the road as the state needs to do this either way. We all pay our R2/l in fuel levy, our toll fees and I'm not going to mention the "e" word...

Here are a few photos of the state of the Royal Natal National Park Hotel in 2013. The place is derelict.
There is a short report on the KZN noticeboard at the main visitors centre at RNNP to explain what happened to RNNP.
Government intervention has meant that tenders to run the hotel are held at bay.
This is a fine example of what government administration is NOT doing to promote tourism in the Drakensberg.

Government should fix what needs fixing now rather than build what it can't fix in the future.

mtn_tiska's reference to the wreck of the Royal National Park hotel was news to me (I am from the Cape). Googling revealed the whole sad story;

www.heritageportal.co.za/forum/royal-natal-national-park-hotel

Now if they had to spend money fixing this up the RNNP hotel, this would allow for labour to do the repair, labour at the manufacture's end for the materials, and once it is functional again, staff to run it. I would say that at least 10-15 staff would have full time employment out of this. Perhaps the newspapers need to see these images!

And if they sorted out the R74, like should have been done ages ago, then there would be an upliftment of numerous establishments that would likely provide work for more staff.

In the Mercury this morning:
www.iol.co.za/travel/travel-news/cableway-will-impact-on-heritage-site-1.1644393#.UviBk_tc83M

Wahooooo!!!

Finally, a voice out of the wilderness addressing the threat to the World Heritage Status, and the need for there not to be a project like this dividing the potential link up of the two geographical areas.

This is the UNESCO listing for the Berg: whc.unesco.org/en/list/985

Most interestingly is what is under the heading "Integrity":

The uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, composed of 12 protected areas established between 1903 and 1973 has a long history of effective conservation management. Covering 242,813 ha in area, it is large enough to survive as a natural area and to maintain natural values. It includes 4 proclaimed Wilderness areas almost 50% of the Park, while largely unaffected by human development, the property remains vulnerable to external land uses including agriculture, plantation forestry and ecotourism, although agreements between Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and local stakeholders have been implemented to manage these threats.

Invasive species and fire also threaten the integrity of the site, along with land claims in certain areas, infrastructural developments, soil erosion caused by fire and tourist impacts on vulnerable alpine trails, and poaching. The lack of formal protection of the mountain ecosystem over the border in Lesotho exacerbates these threats.

Boundary issues highlighted at time of inscription included the gap belonging to the amaNgwane and amaZizi Traditional Council between the northern and much larger southern section of the Park. While planning mechanisms restrict development above the 1,650m contour to maintain ecological integrity, it was recommended that a cooperative agreement between the amaNgwane and amaZizi Traditional Council and Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife be envisaged. Extending conservation areas by agreements with privately-owned land along the escarpment to the south of the property was also recommended. Finally an important step to strengthening integrity has been the development of the Drakensberg Maloti Transfrontier Conservation and Development Area, which has recognised the importance of a Transboundary Peace Park linking the Sehlabathebe National Park (and eventually the contiguous Sehlabathebe and Mohotlong Range Management Areas) in Lesotho with uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park. Project Coordinating Committees in both KwaZulu-Natal and Lesotho are cooperating in a planning process.

The property contains the main corpus of rock art related to the San in this area. Although the area has changed relatively little since the caves were inhabited, management practices, the removal of trees (which formerly sheltered the paintings) and the smoke from burning grass both have the capacity to impact adversely on the fragile images of the rock shelters, as does unregulated public access.

Under "Protection and management requirements" - "In terms of these legislation, all development within or outside the property is subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment, which considers the Outstanding Universal Value of the property"

new article: www.iol.co.za/travel/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/cableway-offers-lifeline-to-uplift-poor-1.1645666#.Uvsl7LTOSdA

Based on the principles outlined, I propose that careful consideration be given to a cable car to replace the chain ladder access to the top of The Amphitheatre. In this way you are not creating a new access point, but improving an existing route.

For that reason alone, the MEC’s revised proposal, and hopefully The Amphitheatre component, warrants a detailed environmental and economic assessment, and could be considered for government funding, as a nationally important infrastructure project, which would attract private investment in associated tourism activities and create additional, permanent employment. - Sunday Tribune

Not entirely sure - but it sounds like they are talking about moving the site from Singati to the chain ladders? I guess a cableway from Sentinel carpark to the escarpment would probably be cheaper to build, but I can't exactly picture the line if it doesn't go up Sentinel peak.