Stop the Routeburn Tunnel
Jun 21st, 2012, 12:32 AM
#1
Stop the Routeburn Tunnel
Those of you who love the South Island of New Zealand as much as I do, might be interested in reading about the proposal to build a tunnel to connect Milford Sound (Lower Hollyford Road - Gunns Camp) and Glenorchy. It's quite the topic in Glenorchy at the moment, but it's very much David and Goliath and I'm personally horrified at the prospect.
More details here:
http://www.stopthetunnel.co.nz/
More details here:
http://www.stopthetunnel.co.nz/
Jun 21st, 2012, 04:02 AM
#2
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting issue, worth following, as these issues are always more than meets the eye.
Will it take pressure off Queenstown?
Will it improve tourism and conservation, by spreading tourists?
Will it add to the education of tourists?
Will is cause a catastrophy?
Can it be done safely and in an environmentally and culturally senistive manner?
Are they just NIMBYs?
Is it the kiss of death syndrome at work?
Will it mean more jobs and services?
Will it mean that people will spend more time down south?
Do the benefits outweight the costs?
Who is paying and why?
Who is really behind the project?
Who is really behind the protest?
What do they have to gain? (It is never about what people have to lose)
What are the facts underneath the hype?
Why are you horrified?
Food for thought.
As is:-
A greenie is someone who has a house in a forest.
A developer is someone who wants to build a house [or road] in the forest.
David = small and fast with superior weaponry.
Goliath = big and slow with antiquated weaponry.
Who is who?
Will it take pressure off Queenstown?
Will it improve tourism and conservation, by spreading tourists?
Will it add to the education of tourists?
Will is cause a catastrophy?
Can it be done safely and in an environmentally and culturally senistive manner?
Are they just NIMBYs?
Is it the kiss of death syndrome at work?
Will it mean more jobs and services?
Will it mean that people will spend more time down south?
Do the benefits outweight the costs?
Who is paying and why?
Who is really behind the project?
Who is really behind the protest?
What do they have to gain? (It is never about what people have to lose)
What are the facts underneath the hype?
Why are you horrified?
Food for thought.
As is:-
A greenie is someone who has a house in a forest.
A developer is someone who wants to build a house [or road] in the forest.
David = small and fast with superior weaponry.
Goliath = big and slow with antiquated weaponry.
Who is who?
Jun 21st, 2012, 12:21 PM
#4
Will it take pressure of QT?
From what I understand Peter, the whole idea is to increase tourism to QT. The tunnel will be for private use only, to transport tourists from Milford to QT, making no stops along the way. It could potentially devastate small communities such as Glenorchy and Te Anau, although Te Anau could still potentially still get visitors going to Doubtful Sound. Not to mention the added traffic to the tiny town of Glenorchy...as estimated 50 buses a day passing through their quiet community.
Are you familiar with the government's attempt to raise the level of Lake Manapouri by 30 meters several years back, in an attempt to increase the production of electricity for an aluminum smelter in Bluff? To pretty much drown Te Anau and potentinally devastate the envirnoment to produce a wee bit more electricity? The people protested and the people won (thank God).
From what I understand Peter, the whole idea is to increase tourism to QT. The tunnel will be for private use only, to transport tourists from Milford to QT, making no stops along the way. It could potentially devastate small communities such as Glenorchy and Te Anau, although Te Anau could still potentially still get visitors going to Doubtful Sound. Not to mention the added traffic to the tiny town of Glenorchy...as estimated 50 buses a day passing through their quiet community.
Are you familiar with the government's attempt to raise the level of Lake Manapouri by 30 meters several years back, in an attempt to increase the production of electricity for an aluminum smelter in Bluff? To pretty much drown Te Anau and potentinally devastate the envirnoment to produce a wee bit more electricity? The people protested and the people won (thank God).
Jun 21st, 2012, 12:28 PM
#5
Have you been to Glenorchy Peter? If you have, you should understand the implications of such a project on the community and the environment. I'd hate to see NZ ruin the very thing that attracts visitors to the SI in the first place. They've already done that with QT, I would have hoped they'd learned from that, but apparently not. One man's progress is another man's loss. It breaks my heart, it really does.
Jun 21st, 2012, 07:25 PM
#7
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't been to Glenorchy since the 80s. I went to QT about 10 years ago. So I have no real understanding of the issue. That is why I posed questions not opinions.
I have lived and worked in very small communities - I taught in a school with <10 students - and know what they are like. These towns have both extremes, forward thinking, sustainable, good for the whole community types and backward thinking, parochial, selfish, types.
Neither is necessarly better or worse. Getting a balance is the key and the hard part.
We have had this debate on other issues -
Should a local group decide what other people can and can't do, just because they got there first?
I have no opinion on the tunnel, as I am not in possession of the facts. However, I do not think the locals have the right to decide. It should be the whole community of New Zealand.
What have been the pros and cons of the Homer Tunnel? What lessons were learned from it?
What are the job prospects for Glenorchy School leavers?
Will the tunnel add to their employment prospects?
What percentage fiordland will be affected?
How can the kiss of death syndrome be prevented? Modified? Managed?
There are always more questions than answers.
I have lived and worked in very small communities - I taught in a school with <10 students - and know what they are like. These towns have both extremes, forward thinking, sustainable, good for the whole community types and backward thinking, parochial, selfish, types.
Neither is necessarly better or worse. Getting a balance is the key and the hard part.
We have had this debate on other issues -
Should a local group decide what other people can and can't do, just because they got there first?
I have no opinion on the tunnel, as I am not in possession of the facts. However, I do not think the locals have the right to decide. It should be the whole community of New Zealand.
What have been the pros and cons of the Homer Tunnel? What lessons were learned from it?
What are the job prospects for Glenorchy School leavers?
Will the tunnel add to their employment prospects?
What percentage fiordland will be affected?
How can the kiss of death syndrome be prevented? Modified? Managed?
There are always more questions than answers.
Jun 22nd, 2012, 07:02 AM
#8
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still have no opinion.
But I have been reading the offical documents on the NZ Dept of Conservation website:-
http://www.doc.govt.nz/getting-invol...art-ltd/#reply
It is very interesting, especially the bits where submitters contradict themselves (as expected - people always do).
I'll keep reading.
But I have been reading the offical documents on the NZ Dept of Conservation website:-
http://www.doc.govt.nz/getting-invol...art-ltd/#reply
It is very interesting, especially the bits where submitters contradict themselves (as expected - people always do).
I'll keep reading.
Jun 22nd, 2012, 05:04 PM
#9
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We wholeheartedly agree with Melnq8! For those of us independent travelers, a day trip to Glenorchy is a highlight of the SI. It's a delightful experience to enjoy sheer beauty at one's own pace, without the flurry of tour buses, ending in a quaint little town. Having this tunnel will certainly take away one huge attraction of the SI, giving travelers like us one less motivation to travel to this part of the world.
Jun 22nd, 2012, 08:55 PM
#10
Peter -
I plan to do more research myself, but I disagree that the town itself shouldn't have a huge say in the matter. The problem is that many towns in NZ, have no idea what's going on in Glenorchy, which demonstrates what a regional issue it seems to be. I asked our B&B owner in Geraldine their opinion, and they hat no idea what I was talking about. I think it's vital to get the word out there to locals and visitors alike, while there's still time to make a difference.
I plan to do more research myself, but I disagree that the town itself shouldn't have a huge say in the matter. The problem is that many towns in NZ, have no idea what's going on in Glenorchy, which demonstrates what a regional issue it seems to be. I asked our B&B owner in Geraldine their opinion, and they hat no idea what I was talking about. I think it's vital to get the word out there to locals and visitors alike, while there's still time to make a difference.
Jun 23rd, 2012, 04:19 AM
#11
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just curious - Would you be against the tunnel if the locals wanted it and the rest of the country didn't? Or the both the locals and the rest of NZ wanted it?
Do you use the Homer Tunnel? From memory this is the only way by road to Milford Sound. Or do you fly in one of the 12 000 flights each year? The Homer Tunnel most certainly changed the life of the locals. Should it have been built?
The locals should have a say, but not the power of veto. It is a National Park and World Heritage Area issue which by definition takes it out of their hands - or should.
I'm still fence sitting. It is certainly not the worst solution to the problem of over tourism in the area. But I am not convinced it is the best solution either.
One of the issues is building ANY new road in the National Parks. This then leads to the questions of what are National Parks for? How should access to them be provided? What is appropriate? Who decides that? There are many who would say it should only be on foot.
All human activity will cause some impact.
What is the best way to manage that? Would you be happy with a ballot or some such (such as with some National Parks here) to limit tourist numbers, thus you wouldn't be able to go as often as you wanted.
Can access be made to one of the other fiords that would have less of an impact?
Perhaps only accessible by sea plane to some other fiord such as some places Canada? Is Milford sound specatcular in its own right or just the the most accessible? How many people is too many?
All parties will need to compromise. It will be interesting to see how this is done. There will be greasing of palms that is certain. By who, and to who will be very interesting.
Do you use the Homer Tunnel? From memory this is the only way by road to Milford Sound. Or do you fly in one of the 12 000 flights each year? The Homer Tunnel most certainly changed the life of the locals. Should it have been built?
The locals should have a say, but not the power of veto. It is a National Park and World Heritage Area issue which by definition takes it out of their hands - or should.
I'm still fence sitting. It is certainly not the worst solution to the problem of over tourism in the area. But I am not convinced it is the best solution either.
One of the issues is building ANY new road in the National Parks. This then leads to the questions of what are National Parks for? How should access to them be provided? What is appropriate? Who decides that? There are many who would say it should only be on foot.
All human activity will cause some impact.
What is the best way to manage that? Would you be happy with a ballot or some such (such as with some National Parks here) to limit tourist numbers, thus you wouldn't be able to go as often as you wanted.
Can access be made to one of the other fiords that would have less of an impact?
Perhaps only accessible by sea plane to some other fiord such as some places Canada? Is Milford sound specatcular in its own right or just the the most accessible? How many people is too many?
All parties will need to compromise. It will be interesting to see how this is done. There will be greasing of palms that is certain. By who, and to who will be very interesting.
Jun 23rd, 2012, 02:53 PM
#12
<Just curious - Would you be against the tunnel if the locals wanted it and the rest of the country didn't? Or the both the locals and the rest of NZ wanted it?>
Yes, I'd still be against it, as it would ruin what attracts me most to Glenorchy. The local concensus seems to be that building a tunnel just doesn't make any sense. It only benefits big tour operators (I'm guessing Real Journeys is leading the charge, but that's just a guess)- apparently the tour operators want the government to pay for the tunnel, but it will be for their SOLE USE. It's just unnecessary IMO - it seems to be all about shortening the current drive, and helping tourists who already race through the country race thorough it even faster, all at the detriment of Glenorchy, Gunns Camp and Te Anau and at a potentially huge environmental cost. As far as I can tell, the only winners are big business and impatient tourists.
From what I understand, they would drill an 11 km tunnel from Gunn's Camp, which is currently a one horse town with camping facilities and many lovely tracks (located nor far from Milford Sound), through the mountain, ending near the Routeburn Track on the Glenorchy side. The tunnel would result in tourists bypassing Te Anau, bus traffic would adversely affect Gunns Camp and Glenorchy. So three communities potentially lose out, be it in business (Te Anau) or in peace and quiet (Gunns Camp and Glenorchy).
The Homer Tunnel opened in 1954 to provide access to Milford Sound. The Routeburn Tunnel doesn't provide access, it shortens the drive, that's it. Yes, I've been through the Homer Tunnel on several occasions. Yes, I think it's an engineering marvel (but godawful ugly).
The fact that DOC has approved the Routeburn Tunnel baffles me, but now I understand why they're known as the Dept of Contradiction in NZ. They're similiar to the US Nat'l Park Service in that they seem more interested in building roads than actual conservation.
This isn't about accessibility...Milford is already accessible, as is Glenorchy. It's about making things easy for tour operators IMO.
Yes, I'd still be against it, as it would ruin what attracts me most to Glenorchy. The local concensus seems to be that building a tunnel just doesn't make any sense. It only benefits big tour operators (I'm guessing Real Journeys is leading the charge, but that's just a guess)- apparently the tour operators want the government to pay for the tunnel, but it will be for their SOLE USE. It's just unnecessary IMO - it seems to be all about shortening the current drive, and helping tourists who already race through the country race thorough it even faster, all at the detriment of Glenorchy, Gunns Camp and Te Anau and at a potentially huge environmental cost. As far as I can tell, the only winners are big business and impatient tourists.
From what I understand, they would drill an 11 km tunnel from Gunn's Camp, which is currently a one horse town with camping facilities and many lovely tracks (located nor far from Milford Sound), through the mountain, ending near the Routeburn Track on the Glenorchy side. The tunnel would result in tourists bypassing Te Anau, bus traffic would adversely affect Gunns Camp and Glenorchy. So three communities potentially lose out, be it in business (Te Anau) or in peace and quiet (Gunns Camp and Glenorchy).
The Homer Tunnel opened in 1954 to provide access to Milford Sound. The Routeburn Tunnel doesn't provide access, it shortens the drive, that's it. Yes, I've been through the Homer Tunnel on several occasions. Yes, I think it's an engineering marvel (but godawful ugly).
The fact that DOC has approved the Routeburn Tunnel baffles me, but now I understand why they're known as the Dept of Contradiction in NZ. They're similiar to the US Nat'l Park Service in that they seem more interested in building roads than actual conservation.
This isn't about accessibility...Milford is already accessible, as is Glenorchy. It's about making things easy for tour operators IMO.
Jun 23rd, 2012, 08:30 PM
#13
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always reckoned the tunnel was the worst of the three proposals. The Gondola or Train would at least provide good vistas and a experience in its on right, while the tunnel is just 20 minutes in the dark.
Many people opposed the train or Gondola claiming it would be a blight on the landscape, but I feel it could look quite majestic if designed properly.
If people do not want to seat on the bus for a 5 hour trip they should base themselves somewhere closer like Te Anau.
I have little idea where Glenorchy is, if it was not for this thread I would guess somewhere in central Otago and I have lived in NZ most of my life.
Many people opposed the train or Gondola claiming it would be a blight on the landscape, but I feel it could look quite majestic if designed properly.
If people do not want to seat on the bus for a 5 hour trip they should base themselves somewhere closer like Te Anau.
I have little idea where Glenorchy is, if it was not for this thread I would guess somewhere in central Otago and I have lived in NZ most of my life.
Jun 24th, 2012, 03:41 PM
#14
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changing topics slightly - the bigotry between different traveller types is fascinating.
Just using Mel as an example (nothing personal) "tourists who already race through the country race thorough it even faster".
It assumes there is a right and a wrong way to travel.
Quite often it is the infrastructure that "racing tourists" bring, that allow "independent tourists".
People are taking shorter and shorter holidays and this to will need to be managed.
All fascinating - doesn't solve anything though.
Just using Mel as an example (nothing personal) "tourists who already race through the country race thorough it even faster".
It assumes there is a right and a wrong way to travel.
Quite often it is the infrastructure that "racing tourists" bring, that allow "independent tourists".
People are taking shorter and shorter holidays and this to will need to be managed.
All fascinating - doesn't solve anything though.
Jun 24th, 2012, 06:18 PM
#15
Thomas -
Are you familiar with the proposed monorail?
<If people do not want to seat on the bus for a 5 hour trip they should base themselves somewhere closer like Te Anau.>
My sentiments exactly.
I've always felt a bit sorry for the time poor traveler, but I can certainly relate, as we Americans tend to get much less vacation time than other countries.
Are you familiar with the proposed monorail?
<If people do not want to seat on the bus for a 5 hour trip they should base themselves somewhere closer like Te Anau.>
My sentiments exactly.
I've always felt a bit sorry for the time poor traveler, but I can certainly relate, as we Americans tend to get much less vacation time than other countries.
Jun 25th, 2012, 01:53 PM
#16
Jun 26th, 2012, 03:26 AM
#17
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Are you familiar with the proposed monorail?"
Only what I read in the newspaper and seen on TV, but have not looked into any options in detail. Have not heard much about it for quite same time. Many people think its going to ruin the 'landscape' and a popular hike. But there are millions of unspoiled hectares in New Zealand. Plus I have always enjoyed scenic train rides and others probably would to.
What would most people prefer, seat in the dark on a bus for 20 minutes, or get a elevated view of same spectacular scenery.
Only what I read in the newspaper and seen on TV, but have not looked into any options in detail. Have not heard much about it for quite same time. Many people think its going to ruin the 'landscape' and a popular hike. But there are millions of unspoiled hectares in New Zealand. Plus I have always enjoyed scenic train rides and others probably would to.
What would most people prefer, seat in the dark on a bus for 20 minutes, or get a elevated view of same spectacular scenery.
Jul 22nd, 2012, 12:12 AM
#18
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bumping this up as tonight on Sunday, the local current affairs programme, there was a report about the tunnel and the monorail ideas to go through the Routeburn and Holyford areas.
I'm not sure how to get the correct web address for the video so if you are interested go onto www.tvnz.co.nz, find TV One and look for the programme Sunday, and tonight's programme, 22 July.
Definitely neither ideas are sound as far as I am concerned. As Mel has said or inferred, our beautiful pristine areas are why people come to NZ.
I'm not sure how to get the correct web address for the video so if you are interested go onto www.tvnz.co.nz, find TV One and look for the programme Sunday, and tonight's programme, 22 July.
Definitely neither ideas are sound as far as I am concerned. As Mel has said or inferred, our beautiful pristine areas are why people come to NZ.
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:33 PM
#19
Thanks dotty. I went to the website, but I can't play the video as I'm in Australia. I'm so glad to hear they're getting the word out though. Drawing attention to this bizarre proposal can only help.
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:38 PM
#20
Here's the link to the story from the site dotty posted:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/camp...mentum-4981137
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/camp...mentum-4981137
