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?

Oh no!

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).

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.

Wow I hope the government backs away from this.

A bit like flying helicopters in the Grand Canyon or to Machu Picchu.

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 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-involved/consultations/closed/dart-passage-tunnel-milford-dart-ltd/#reply

It is very interesting, especially the bits where submitters contradict themselves (as expected - people always do).

I'll keep reading.

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.

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.

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.

<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.

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.

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.

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.

More here:

http://www.wildernessmag.co.nz/view/page/articles/read/glenorchy-residents-fear-consequences-of-tunnel/

"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.

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.

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.

Here's the link to the story from the site dotty posted:

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/campaign-against-fiordland-tunnel-gains-momentum-4981137

Thanks, Mel. I suspect the address wasn't available as I went straight into the TV One website as soon as the story was over! My husband, a South Islander through and through, was really indignant at the nerve of the two tourist operators trying for the mighty dollar over the beautiful countryside.

Hi Everyone!
Wow! My friend and I are headed to NZ in Oct. A dream of many years... This thing with the tunnel: Just reading your posts and not really knowing the nitty-gritty, I must say that, as a selfish traveler, I'd rather have the pristine beauty preserved and have it be a bit more difficult to get where we want to go as tourists. It's what traveling is all about to me. I regret all the places I didn't make it to before they were destroyed by "westernization" and chasing the tourists dollars. So not knowing the fate of Glenorchy, I'm glad I'm going there now!

Enjoy Glenorchy Karen...and sign the online petition if you disagree with the tunnel proposal after you've seen what they'll be destroying.

It is an interesting thread. Questions raised and fellings and ideas one way and the other.

The National Park system in NZ is great, but I challenge New Zealanders to actually say they have been in one in any meaningful way (Hiking, camping, off track etc). Out of my colleagues at work on a basic straw poll the number is very low. Therefore the question asked is "if accessibility is improved for National Parks would you visit them more often?"

If the National Parks were visited more often by more than overseas tourists maybe they would be appreciated more by locals. Perhaps that does include improved accessibility. In the case of Fiordland, instead of making moles out of visitors for 20 minutes, how about showing them the canopy of the park from a well designed and as least impacting as possibile, gondola. So long as this is feasible and not destructive to the environment.

Uncontrolled development of sensitive sites is horrendous, I have seen some shockers myself in my travels througth Asia and Europe. I would in no way condone that. However the extreme alternative of no change at all risks us bubble wrapping what we have and potentially excluding those members of the extended community who would appreciate more accessibility. Without accessibility there is a detachment from what is there and the potential of developing disinterest, which ultimately may be more descrutive to the future of national parks than roads or gondolas.

Hi Kiwi_acct -

I'm curious where you live...Auckland?

I'm surprised about your comment regarding Kiwis not visiting their own national parks and I certainly hope that isn't the case. Have you visited the areas in question?

Do you really feel that there's an accessibility issue? These places ARE accessible, they just take a wee bit of time to get there.

I've been visiting the SI and its national parks on a fairly regular basis since 1994 and I've seen alot of changes, not all for the good. However, I try to visit in the off season, so I have no idea if the current system is taxed to the point of needing improvement in the busy season. I've not seen or read anything to indicate that, so to me, this is more about big business than accessibility and need, but I may not have the full story.

It will make only a few hours difference in drive time in a bus.

Yes, many Jaffas do not venture to the South Island much less to a national park. Sort of like people from LA never having been to Universal Studios (well not quite).

Hi Melnq8

I do currently live in Auckland but I have visited National Parks across the country. One of my favourites is Te Urewera, probably as this was the first park I camped in as a kid (Camping being a bit of a stretch as it was a school trip and we stayed in DOC huts). I loved it. When we get a chance as a family now we camp in DOC grounds around the North Island. I prefer camp sites with less by way of "comforts" as I think it is better for the kids to be away from technology and the like, plus I dont mind shipping in and out my own accomodation, food/waste.

To a lot of New Zealanders, National Parks are a bit like the Outback to Australians or the Rockies to Canadians/Americans. They know they are there but a lot of people have not been to them.

I have been through about half of the National Parks in NZ. It would be nice to see more but not so easy to get away from work. Plus as mentioned above, apart from parks such as Abel Tasman which has a good infrastructure within it, it is difficult to meaningfully experience large chunks of them. I am not advocating the system of say the UK, where National Parks there appear to have tarseled roads to all points of significance within them (For instance The Lake District). However if accessibility is limited or challenging then there is a risk of people being disengaged from them and thereby not caring what happens to them. This potentially could lead to uncontrolled exploitation of the resource. Disinterest and disassociation being a risk.

mlgb, it is interesting that you say that many "jaffas" do not venture to the South Island. Getting past the distasteful, pejorative term Jafa, I have had the "don't leave home until you have seen the country" conversation with many friends, family and business contacts country wide. It is an assumption that Aucklanders do not look around the rest of the country while conversely that balance of New Zealanders are well travelled internally. This is a myth, happily regurgitated at regular intervals by those who have a prejudice against Auckland and Aucklanders when in many cases they have never been here. Or if they have it is while they are in transit. A bit like saying you don't like LA when all you have done is change planes at LAX. I have even had conversations with people while I have been down south, who once they have found out I live in Auckland feel more than entitled to abuse me and the city I live in when a) they don't know me and b) they have never been here.

New Zealand is too small a country to become overly parochial within and frankly the world is too small to become overly nationalistic within as well. Lets celebrate what we have, make it accessable in a controlled and planned manner and encourage all to enjoy it.

My comment is only based on my own circle of Jaffa friends, Kiwi_acct. I keep suggesting they travel more in their own country, but they are "city" people and fit the Jaffa stereotype to a T (rather proudly, I might add).

<To a lot of New Zealanders, National Parks are a bit like the Outback to Australians or the Rockies to Canadians/Americans.>

I find that really disheartening. I suspect that the majority of Australians from 'over east' have never set foot in Western Australia, yet I reckon a heck of a lot of them have been to Bali. A shame really, considering WA is a third of the country.

I have met many Kiwis who had no idea what I was talking about when I mentioned places practically down the road from them, but I chalked that up to my accent and poor pronunciation. Just last month I met a NZer who'd been raised in Christchurch, but had no idea where Waipara was, which shocked the heck of out me ("Why-pra", right?)

I'm from Colorado, and I'm certainly guilty of not getting to the Rockies often enough, but I figure I have a pretty good excuse, having not lived there for 30 years. I do hope to rectify that at some point though.

I can only hope that Kiwis don't take for granted the beautiful place they live in and do what they can to protect it for generations to come.

Melnq8, it is indeed a little disheartening, though as you observe sadly not unique to New Zealanders.

The saying "travel broadens the mind" is a very true one. I have been fortunate in that my career has allowed me to travel significantly within New Zealand and globally, and not always the pretty places. I have learnt alot from this.


BTW your pronounciation of Waipara would be fine to my ears I would certainly know where you were talking about. Nice spot, very nice sauvignon blanc. To Christchurch folk maybe they would only know it as the turn off for Hanmer Springs? hard to say.

mlgb, keep chipping away at them. NZ, as you know, has a lot to offer.

Over new years a few years back now, peak holiday period in New Zealand. A mate and I was exploring the upper reaches of the Clarence River, we meet a guy up there which we got talking to. We were the first people he has seen in seven days of tramping. Most people never get pass the the entrance to National Parks, remove the great and famous walks then the number of people who actually see our National parks is minute. Unless you are on a famous trout river you would be lucky to see anyone.

I do have a bit of problem with Waipara, because it sounds similar to many other places such as Wairarapa. Throw in mis-pronunciations and I would have to guess to know which one someones talking about. Both being wine regions confuses matters even more.

I watched that TV documentary on the tunnel and mono-rail and thought the mono-rail opposition did not do a very good job putting their side across. That ignorant sounding hunter was not at all convincing.

What most people do not realize is just how big our back country is. Most people just see the entrance to a national park, they do not comprehend that there is half a dozen (made up number) comparable valley system out of site just behind the first mountain range. Put a railway through one, and the other 5 would still be pristine and next to no people would continual to see the other 5.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10825928