The idea of building an incline to transport visitors to the top of Mill Mountain has climbed its way into Mayor David Bowers' mind once again.

An incline -- a two-car cable railroad that ran straight up the mountain -- functioned as a tourist draw for Roanoke from 1910 to 1929, when it was closed. Bowers pitched the idea of rebuilding it in 1995 during his previous tenure as mayor, and former Councilman Bev Fitzpatrick pushed for it again a few years ago.

Now, the idea has emerged again -- this time in the context of a council discussion over placing a conservation easement that would prohibit development of about 550 acres on the mountain. The council is holding a public hearing on the proposed easement Monday -- and particularly on the question of whether to include about 3 acres of developable land on the summit.

That portion of land was the subject of a 2007 proposal by Valley Forward -- a group of young professionals -- to build the Rockledge Community Center, which would include a restaurant, community room and cafe. That proposal stalled in 2008, partly because Bowers included opposition to the proposal as a cornerstone of his successful run for mayor that year.

But the debate over use of that acreage has re-emerged with the council's consideration of where to draw the conservation easement.

Bowers falls firmly into a group that wants the conservation easement to include that land, essentially putting a firm end to any plans for its development.

"If you want a dining experience on Mill Mountain, pack a picnic," Bowers said.

But he opened up the possibility of an incline Friday. He said that if the council votes to exclude the land from the conservation easement -- thereby leaving it open for development in the future -- he thinks it should factor consideration for an incline into the easement as well.

"The current plan does not provide for any yet-to-be-sited historic incline reinstatement," Bowers said.

"My biggest concern isn't people using the mountain, but cars on Mill Mountain. I don't want to have more parking lots, bus zones, loading docks. If the mood of the council is to allow for potential development, then I think that warrants an increased interest in public transportation access to the mountain, instead of the automobile."

Consideration of an incline would require rewriting the conservation easement and could delay the process, Bowers said, but he said he expects the easement to be approved by this summer, regardless of how the council proceeds.

However, it's still unclear where he'll find support on the council for that proposal. Three sitting council members said they won't support rewriting the easement to include accommodations for an incline.

Councilman Rupert Cutler referred to the history of the first incline.

"It was a flop," he said. "It was an economic white elephant right off the bat. It seems to me the same thing would be true today."

Councilwoman Gwen Mason said Bowers mentioned the idea at a past meeting, and "I didn't count a single vote other than the mayor in favor of the incline. I'm not in favor of it and won't support it."

Mason said inclines can work in certain situations -- generally where there's both a large mountain and a large population.

"It makes very little sense given the size of Roanoke and the expense," Mason said. "There's no reason to put one of those on Mill Mountain. The roads work fine. It's not like there's a 15-car traffic jam every time people want to go up Mill Mountain."

Vice Mayor Sherman Lea agreed with Mason that Bowers "doesn't have support for the incline" among council members.

Lea said Bowers' idea "came out of nowhere. We hadn't talked about it before, at least as a group."

He said that the timing of the idea and fashion in which it was proposed demonstrated one of Bowers' weaknesses since returning to the council: building support among his colleagues.

"You're just a loud voice if you don't have consensus building," Lea said.

Cutler, Lea and Mason also differ with Bowers in that they all favor the version of the conservation easement that would not include the proposed Rockledge site, potentially allowing development.