A bridge too far?

A Peruvian mayor has built a bridge leading to Machu Picchu, Peru's Inca citadel, despite warnings it will wreck the archaeological gem and open a route for drug smugglers. The 80-metre (260ft) long bridge over the Vilcanota river is due to open this week in defiance of a court order and protests from the government, which fears hordes of backpackers will swamp the site.

It's not so open and shut, however:

Locals have welcomed the bridge for opening their remote province to commerce and tourism. Instead of a treacherous 15-hour drive over mountain passes farmers can truck coffee and fruit to Cusco in just three hours.

And perhaps key:

The bridge, 12 miles from Machu Picchu at the town of Santa Theresa, replaces one washed away in a 1998 flood but which the government refused to rebuild.

Surely no one wants to see a site like Machu Picchu overrun; nonetheless, should the site be protected by deliberately isolating those who leave near it? And is preservation indeed the motive here?

Conservation concern, [Mayor Castro] said, was a red herring to protect the monopoly of PeruRail, part of Orient Express Hotels, which has operated the line since 1999. Every day hundreds of foreigners pay from £33 to £230, depending on how much luxury they want, for a return trip. With the bridge backpackers can take a £2.30 bus ride to the foot of the site.

Posted by David on December 27, 2006 5:53 PM