By Garret Barry, Tathra
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A LOT of the recent discussion on roads versus walking tracks to improve access to Tathra Wharf misses the real issues relevant to a proper resolution of this matter.
Let me have a go.
What have we got now and where do we want to go?
We have a very special, original steamer wharf - one of the last full wharves of that type surviving.
It enjoys our nation’s highest heritage protection. It is listed on the National Estate and as a heritage item of state significance.
The wharf and its curtilage including the road and the “washed out” road are part of the heritage curtilage of that nationally significant item.
There is another heritage item - the old WW2 bunker site - and there are areas of great cultural significance to the Aboriginal community, many within the area of possible disturbance of new works.
The whole headland is of significant landscape value.
All this means a stack of local, state and even federal approvals are needed to do anything much near the wharf.
And do not think they will (or should) be easily achieved or dismissed.
I don’t think there is any debate the wharf warrants long term conservation, but it is a very costly thing to maintain, with limited prospects of funding for its maintenance.
The wharf, by its very nature, is not easy to make accessible for the frail aged or persons with mobility restrictions.
The current road gets such people about as close as they can get without very costly works and significant adverse impacts to the wharf’s heritage character.
But admittedly only in small vehicles.
It would be “nice” if tourist buses could drop off people right at the wharf, but the real benefits of this compared to the costs, I sincerely question.
It would be “nice” to have more parking, easier car and bus access and better pedestrian and cycle access; and good to tidy up the eroding sections of the old road.
But if push comes to shove, the survival of the wharf and its heritage values must surely get the first call on scarce public funds.
What sort of road and what costs and benefits?
(a) The bargain basement price $2million road:
Will only achieve a single lane loop.
Several existing parking spaces will be lost and if a bus stop is needed then several more car spaces go.
There will be no accessible grade pedestrian access and cyclists would need to battle on the road with cars and buses.
It would not fund the almost certain need for substantial improvements to the current road - which has no safe footpath to protect people from the significant increase in car volumes and speed caused by a loop road.
Even this minimalist road will mean some new cutting into the existing cliffs with not insignificant visual impacts.
No surety this model will survive the scale of storms likely to be experienced in the next 50 years - and let’s face it 50 years is not a big life span for a permanent public road.
(b) I suggest a loop road to do all the following will have no change out of $4million even $5million if it is to achieve the essential goals: Give the current road a pedestrian footpath, compliant parallel parking and a bus width carriageway; parallel parking up the new section of the road; separate cars from pedestrians and bicycles; and improve parking capacity above at the headland reserve.
So the road in (a) is a waste of money and actually makes things worse and the road in (b) has some big negatives when you consider significant extra cutting and scarring of the cliffs - in fact I wonder if heritage approval could (or should) be achieved?
The wharf itself will not be any more accessible for those with access limitations, but perhaps a bus load of elderly or persons with a disability might get as close to the wharf edge as they can in smaller numbers now by car or minibus.
Cars with caravans will not be able to stop when the wharf is busy - there will not be any spaces long enough and they will have to park up top.
The community spends $4-5million to get tourist buses to call at the wharf, but there is evidence from elsewhere they often are not big spenders.
And in busier times the congestion will mean a lot of tourists taking the road may not stop at the wharf at all, or do what they do now - park at the top of the headland and walk down.
Often federal or state funding is dependent on council putting in around 50 per cent.
That means probably at least $2million from the ratepayer.
Council has about 20 communities to service.
And $2million is way more than all of council’s discretionary spend on “non-essentials” in any year.
Should/will this ever become such a high priority over everything else?
And don’t forget that ongoing wharf maintenance.
Another option has been mentioned of a possible large bus turning circle and extra parking being cut out of the cliff beside the wharf.
I fear it would have costs similar to the loop road and possibly even bigger adverse impacts on this National Heritage site.
I conclude the only realistic option (certainly for the next 20 or more years) is to build a good walking track down the washed out road, with expanded parking at the headland above.
Even that might eat up three quarters of a million if done well, but at least that is a more realistic sum.
And a good track probably will put more real paying customers into the wharf businesses to help fund its maintenance.
It is only a fairly gentle 250 metre walk from the top car park to the wharf.
And that allows a lot of space for quality interpretation boards and the like to make it a worthwhile visitor experience instead of just another coastal traffic jam.
Parallel parking on a one-way loop road means not too many people get the spaces close to the wharf - many would face a walk not much shorter that the track option.
Frankly, if we are all realistic, the only options for a very long time are a good walking track or things staying much as they are now.