For the residents and visitors of Tasmania’s capital region, the rugged skyline of kunanyi / Mount Wellington is both an everyday landmark and a major recreational draw. Yet behind the familiar mountain view lies a complex and heated debate: should a cable car be constructed to its summit? This question is not just about engineering or tourism—it touches on access, conservation, culture, community values and the future of the park. As the project resurfaces yet again in public discourse, it’s timely for agencies like ours at PP Group Agencies to explore the arguments and implications in detail.
What’s Happening
Recent documents obtained under Right to Information reveal that the state government is re-evaluating the possibility of erecting a cable car on Mount Wellington.
Here are key facts:
-
The idea is very old: proposals date back to the early 1900s.
-
A recent review indicated major differences in opinion: only about 19.6 % of Hobart residents supported a cable car, but in outer-suburbs (where access is harder) support reached ~62 %.
-
The most recent formal proposal by the Mount Wellington Cableway Company was rejected by Hobart City Council in 2021 and by the Tasmanian Civil & Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) in 2022.
-
Despite this, the government has put the question back on the table and emphasised a “nothing ruled out” approach to the mountain’s future transport/access strategy.
The Case For a Cable Car
There are several compelling arguments in favour of such infrastructure:
1. Improved access for more people
The road to the mountain summit can be challenging (by vehicle, cyclists or walkers), especially in winter, snow events or when traffic is heavy. The review found many people cited weather or road closures as barriers.
A cable car could provide all-weather access, open up the summit to those who are less mobile, and potentially reduce car congestion.
2. Tourism and economic potential
Proponents highlight that a cable car is a premium tourism attraction—creating jobs, visitor spend and extended stays. The Cableway Company claimed large economic benefits and future estimates in the billions of dollars.
Given Tasmania’s push to grow its high-value tourism sector, this is attractive.
3. Environmental/transport benefit (potentially)
If designed well, a cable car could reduce the number of vehicles ascending the mountain, thereby lowering emissions, reducing road maintenance costs, and alleviating traffic. Some see it as a sustainable transport option. The State Government has referred to the need for “safe, all-weather access” in its documents.
The Case Against a Cable Car
Of course, the opposition is also strong—and raises serious concerns:
1. Natural, visual and cultural values at risk
The mountain holds deep Aboriginal cultural significance for the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. For them, kunanyi is more than a view—it’s heritage. Critics argue that major infrastructure (towers, cables, summit structures) would damage that value.
Also, from a conservation perspective, the visual impact, noise, biodiversity and the environment of a wilderness-adjacent specialist site raise red flags. The Tribunal found 21 grounds to refuse the most recent proposal.
2. Uneven community support & representation
As the June 2025 review showed, community support is split—those living in inner Hobart (who use the mountain often) favour minimal change, while outer-suburb residents (who struggle with access) favour greater change.
This divergence means that any major infrastructure has to negotiate whose interests are prioritized.
3. Risks of over-development & setting precedent
Many ask: once you build major infrastructure like a cable car, what next? There is concern it could lead to further commercialisation—restaurants, hotels, gift shops—potentially changing the nature of the mountain. This is a fear repeatedly raised in Council deliberations.
4. Practicalities and feasibility
A cable car is expensive, has engineering and maintenance demands, and may not function in extreme weather (winds, snow) which the summit regularly experiences. Also, while it may reduce vehicles, it also may attract more visitors (and thus pressures). The reviewers pointed to “safe and sensitive” transport being essential—but not necessarily a cable car as the only solution.
Why Does It Matter to PP Group Agencies
For an agency concerned with tourism, regional development, infrastructure planning and community engagement, this debate matters because:
-
It highlights the delicate balance between development for tourism (economic growth) and preservation of environmental/cultural values.
-
It underlines that access to iconic natural places is increasingly a question of equity (who can get there) as well as conservation.
-
It reminds us that infrastructure decisions must be grounded in community consultation, represent diverse voices, and consider long-term legacy—not just immediate benefits.
-
It serves as a case study in how local sentiment, cultural heritage, environmental regulation, planning tribunals, and government policy intersect.
What’s Coming Next
According to recent reports:
-
The state government is finalising an “action plan” for the mountain’s future, expected in early 2026.
-
The review of the mountain’s management, transport options, visitor infrastructure and cultural experiences is underway.
-
The cable car proposal remains alive (even though previously rejected). Indeed, some documents show it as a draft recommendation in strategic planning.
Concluding Thoughts
The question is not simply “yes or no” to a cable car—it’s: what kind of mountain experience do we want for future generations of Tasmanians and visitors?
If done carefully, a transport-solution could increase access, support the economy and relieve pressure on the road. But the risks—cultural damage, environmental impact, altering the character of the place, or ignoring hard voices—are real.
Add comment
Comments