Editorial: Walk up and pay the way for Mt Eden

Few attractions in Auckland rival Mt Eden. A total of 1.2 million visitors a year, about half of whom are tourists, bears testimony to its appeal. The vast majority come to admire the 360-degree view of the city and its surroundings from the summit - a panorama that rarely fails to impress. Yet Mt Eden is so much more than that, thanks to its archaeological and geological significance. Now, a review of the Auckland City Council's management plan offers the opportunity not only to recognise that importance but to incorporate it in an ordered, well-balanced blueprint that will enhance the mountain's appeal.

The review comes amid rumblings about the impact of tourism. Heavy buses are blamed for cracks in the summit road and an overly congested, polluted and noisy summit. The carparking area, which has room only for two or three buses, often has many more. Constant foot traffic, mountainbikes and cattle are also eroding features of the mountain, including the fragile crater, Maori terracing and kumara pits.

The increasing pressure has led to calls for tour buses to be banned from the summit. This, indeed, would have been largely the situation today had a 1986 management plan, which limits access to the summit road to small buses and restricts cattle, ever been enforced. Nonetheless, that has not stopped some bus companies warning of a virtual tourist bypass of Auckland if large buses could not travel to the top of the mountain.

That, clearly, is an overreaction. Mt Eden, one of the first destinations in New Zealand for most tourists, offers a wonderful introduction. It is also free and unregulated. Given burgeoning tourism and Mt Eden's attractiveness, mounting pressure was inevitable. The task now is to manage that pressure as best as possible. Fortunately, the ambitions of tour operators and conservationists should be able to be reconciled relatively easily.

First and foremost, Mt Eden should have a visitor centre, which would educate people about the mountain's rich Maori history, in particular, and about Auckland's unique volcanoes. Done well, it would be an opportunity for tourists to gain a grasp of the make-up of the city and the country. The centre would also be the base from which tourists could be guided along improved walkways to the summit.

Tourists would not jib at this enforced stroll, or complain if they were charged a dollar or two for the view from the summit. Both practices are common at under-pressure attractions overseas. As are shuttle buses that could be used to ferry the elderly or disabled to the summit. The visit of all would be further enhanced if heritage features were restored and clearly signposted.

The aim here should not be to make a visit to Mt Eden a joyless, production-line experience. It must be remembered that it is also an area of recreation for many Aucklanders. And that not every tourist is constrained by tight deadlines. Those with time to explore should not have their movement unduly controlled. If there were adequate signs, most would happily abide by any of the small number of necessary restrictions.

In many ways it is surprising that steps to protect and enhance Mt Eden have not been taken already. The potential for damage is clear, given that the number of visitors is similar to that visiting the Tongariro National Park. Perhaps little has been done because the large-scale international tourism is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until now, Mt Eden has largely been taken for granted as a playground for Aucklanders.

The city council review offers the chance to acknowledge the change and the pressure this has created, to recognise the mountain's make-up and history, and to understand that it has more to offer than just a view. This should be a great opportunity, not the trigger for bickering between tour operators and conservationists.