10.0 Discussion and Implications of Results
The existing chairlift infrastructure is visible over a wide area. Its level of visual intrusion is highest in the Spey Valley around Aviemore and in the western areas of the Glenmore forest. Its most visual compondent is the Ptarmigan Restaurant, which is to be expected as it is located at the highest elevation. On the whole the chairlift and its associated building are not particularly visible from upon the Plateau, except in the immediate vicinity.
The viewshed of the funiculars' track, located on the viaduct does generate such a significant viewshed as the existing chairlifts. This is due to the track entering a tunnel for the final 250 metres of its ascent. Again the most visible structure is the Ptarmigan Restaurant.
The most visible sections of either set of structures are those located at the highest elevations. One of the major criticisms of the existing infrastructure is the 'sky-lining' effect, particular at the top station and the effect will only increase with the new buildings. This raises the question of whether it is actually necessary to locate the interpretation centre within this complex. To minimise visual intrusion it could be built at either the Day Lodge or the Middle Station, although as the fuzzy viewsheds for these structures demonstrate any increase in height decreases visual quality in areas from which they are visible. Perhaps the best solution in visual intrusion terms is to build it at Glen More, within the forest.
Whilst the tunnel decreases the viewshed of the funicular compared to the chairlift the route of the tunnel itself is visible over a wide area. As a long linear feature this is likely to be prominent until the covering vegetation returns, although it is predicated that this could take up to 25 years.
There is limited variation in the level of visible population calculated for any viewshed maps, because the region as a whole is sparsely populated. Aviemore is the only significant centre of population and it is located within every viewshed calculated.
The areas that suffer the highest level of visual intrusion from either development are those determined to have a high visual quality, namely the Spey Valley and the Glen More forest. The areas that undergo the most change in visual intrusion are situated along the northern valley rim and the northern edge of the plateau. Although it must be stated that from the plateau itself neither the chairlift nor the funicular are highly visible. If the selected points of interest are considered then only one mountain location can see any part of either development, and even from Braeriach very little is visible. The points with the highest levels of visibility are the visitor centres located near the main roads, such as Aviemore or Inverdruie. Tourist information centres are quite often the first point of call for many first time visitors to the area and therefore whilst this may at first appear good for the funicular, as people may simply see it and decide to investigate they may consider it a visual intrusion if they came to the region to 'get away from it all.' Many visitors to the region come in search of peace and solitude and the increase in visitors, especially around the ski area will affect the feeling of remoteness they seek and may ultimately lead to a decline in their numbers. Whilst conservationists would welcome outdoor enthusiasts going else as it would decrease pressure on Cairngorms' delicate ecology, their decline would not be so welcome by local businesses who could possibly lose trade. Although this could be balanced by the increase in winter trade.
From the accessibility results contained in the previous section it is obvious that the management plan designed to operate in conjunction with the funicular will have a major effect on the access time on to the plateau. If a walk is begun Glenmore on to plateau almost 5 hours would be added to a circular route that originally began at the Day Lodge car park, whilst a trip to the summit of Ben Macdui would now take 13 hours, an increase of over 4 hours on top of the present minimum time. Whilst many walkers may bemoan this increase in the time added to their walks there are many who favour this idea.
The so called 'long-walk-in' principle is advocated by both The Cairngorms Campaign (1997) and The Cairngorms Partnership (1996) to protect the mountains from over-use. In particular The Cairngorms Campaign (Ibid.) would like to see the implementation of planning policies designed to limit access to the more remote areas. The open access to the existing chairlift facilities ensures that visitors have relatively quick access into the mountains, the summit of Cairn Gorm can be reached in approximately one hour using the chairlift. With this facility removed the damage caused by the thousands of people who visit this delicate ecosystem each year will be dramatically reduced.
Walkers are not the only people to be affected, individuals involved in activities such as birdwatching and photography who have been content to use the chairlift as a means of quick access will no longer be denied this opportunity. The only people not affected are the non-hill walking sightseers and this may cause resentment among the outdoor enthusiasts. While the 'long-walk-in' principle is advocated by many some of the objectors suggest that it "...can only be effective where it is applied in equitable fashion to all users" (Highland Regional Council 1996).
While the car park management regime will displace outdoor enthusiasts wishing to use the Day Lodge car park as the base for their activities it is difficult to forecast the effect on visitor usage. Many walkers and climbers may decide to go elsewhere and visit the northern cairngorms less frequently. However, due to its reputation within the 'outdoor community' and particularly for those involved in 'Munro-bagging' the region will continue to attract large numbers of outdoor visitors.
Whilst the 'long-walk-in' principle will reduce the pressure on top of the plateau it is probable that it will increase it around the base station. It is unlikely that visitors to the funicular are going to be content with the view from the top. After 'experiencing' the Cairngorm interpretation centre they are likely to want to encounter it for themselves. The easy access areas around the Day Lodge may be unwilling to see increased usage as people are unlikely to want to walk 'back up' the hill.
An issue that also needs to be addressed if the car park plan is implemented is the prevention of parking along the road from Glenmore as it already acts as a major "funnel" into the mountain region. As Figure 36 demonstrates this would have a significant effect on access time although the area around Glenmore is recognised as being able to absorb a greater number of visitors (The Cairngorms Campaign).
There is a fear that if the funicular is unsuccessful then the CCC will re-advocate its original plan to let people out at the top with free access to the plateau. With the funicular already constructed this may be difficult to prevent, especially with the government seeking an econmic return investment from its investment into tourism in the region. As access times from the Ptarmigan show if outside access was granted the result on the environment due to the increased visitor numbers could be catastrophic.
Using the accessibility results it is possible it is possible to make a number of assumptions about future path usage. As outside access from the Ptarmigan will not be granted, the path that runs from there to Cairn Gorm Summit will see a large redunction in its usage. Other paths, especaillt those further into the plateau, such as the main route to Ben Macdui will also see reductions although their exisitng usage is already small. The paths that will see the an increase in usage are those from the Day Lodge and Glen More around the lower lying ground. This will be used by visitors to the funicular, although how far they will venture along them is circumspect.Last Updated 23-03-1999