Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing

[bernieq]

I agree entirely that the 'financial' case of the FHAC document is a nonsense. However, that's not where the case against should be aimed.

When the proposal first surfaced, I met with my local member to highlight the many wrongs of the proposal, with particular focus on the financial case. The short story is that, whilst sympathetic (he was a bushwalker himself) to my argument that the walker numbers being touted were ridiculous and so the financial case was fatally flawed, he made a comment that I think is instructional : "It wouldn't be the first time that a Government funded project didn't make a profit"

I took from his comments that other arguments will be more persuasive eg environmental (plant & animal threatened species), 1st Nation concerns, (vocal) public opposition. Politicians make the decision - the arguments need to focus on what influences politicians.

[Xplora]

I agree entirely that the 'financial' case of the FHAC document is a nonsense. However, that's not where the case against should be aimed.

When the proposal first surfaced, I met with my local member to highlight the many wrongs of the proposal, with particular focus on the financial case. The short story is that, whilst sympathetic (he was a bushwalker himself) to my argument that the walker numbers being touted were ridiculous and so the financial case was fatally flawed, he made a comment that I think is instructional : "It wouldn't be the first time that a Government funded project didn't make a profit"

I took from his comments that other arguments will be more persuasive eg environmental (plant & animal threatened species), 1st Nation concerns, (vocal) public opposition. Politicians make the decision - the arguments need to focus on what influences politicians.

Those driving the walk were pushing the significant economic benefit as one of the selling points but I doubt they could really sell it. The real reason for the walk is the accommodation that will be used in winter for backcountry skiing tours. Those pushing the accommodation have an interest in extending the resort, so to speak, into the park but they were reluctant to foot the bill for the accommodation construction. Parks have taken that on now. There is very little actual interest in the walk itself and the accommodation nodes are conveniently placed in areas that will attract skiers who do not want to tent it. Parks builds it and then when the walk fails (actually before then) the resort will take over the buildings and supply them oversnow. Guests will likely be transported out oversnow so there will not be any need for a day ski in.

What Lops has highlighted is NOBODY is really interested in this walk. It is not iconic in any way. It is not the economic benefit that needs to be argued though so you are right with that. It is that the walk is not popular enough to warrant the attention. Essentially, any part of this walk could be done in a series of day walks with accommodation provided at the resorts but the ARV's have not shown any interest in summer activities until recently and at Falls that has been limited to MTB. Falls ARV are one of the bodies pushing for the luxury style accommodation for the walk. Join the dots.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

I will be doing a working bee with BTAC later next week at Tawonga Huts. I will take a photo of the log book entries there.

[Xplora]

I will be doing a working bee with BTAC later next week at Tawonga Huts. I will take a photo of the log book entries there.

Tawonga huts is not actually on the current FHAC alignment. Might not be of much value.

[stry]

Those driving the walk were pushing the significant economic benefit as one of the selling points but I doubt they could really sell it. The real reason for the walk is the accommodation that will be used in winter for backcountry skiing tours. Those pushing the accommodation have an interest in extending the resort, so to speak, into the park but they were reluctant to foot the bill for the accommodation construction. Parks have taken that on now. There is very little actual interest in the walk itself and the accommodation nodes are conveniently placed in areas that will attract skiers who do not want to tent it. Parks builds it and then when the walk fails (actually before then) the resort will take over the buildings and supply them oversnow. Guests will likely be transported out oversnow so there will not be any need for a day ski in.

What Lops has highlighted is NOBODY is really interested in this walk. It is not iconic in any way. It is not the economic benefit that needs to be argued though so you are right with that. It is that the walk is not popular enough to warrant the attention. Essentially, any part of this walk could be done in a series of day walks with accommodation provided at the resorts but the ARV's have not shown any interest in summer activities until recently and at Falls that has been limited to MTB. Falls ARV are one of the bodies pushing for the luxury style accommodation for the walk. Join the dots.

Very logical, and a text book case of a conspiracy "theory" being fact. It's becoming increasingly clear that the income aspect and the whole FHAC was only ever an intentional distraction, and that the game all along was to get the Razorback and Feathertop under Resorts control.

Now that the plot has been put so clearly (and I believe accurately) by Explora, the problem is still how to effectively oppose the plot.

[Lophophaps]

Tawonga huts is not actually on the current FHAC alignment. Might not be of much value.

This is a good point. I was getting the proposed Tawonga Huts node confused with the current overnight stops at Cope and Dibbins Hut. I said:
"The FHAC walk has three campsites: Cope Hut, Tawonga Huts and Dibbins Hut. If 100 walkers stay at these places then there are 300 walker nights. The maths is easy – 17,000/300 = 56. That is, the DMP 17,000 figure is out by over 50 times. An alternative is that the popularity is falling, down by 98%."
As there are only two overnights on the current FHAC the above maths needs to be revised.
100 walkers, 2 nights, 200 walker nights
17,000/200 = 85 times
200/17,000 = about 1%, so the numbers may have dropped by 99%

It does not matter much if the 17,000 walker night figure from the 2016 Draft management plan is overstated by 50 or 85 time, or if the drop in custom is 98% or 99%. The general picture is as many have said for seven years.

I'm contacting opposition MPs, with my main theme that the DMP and the minister have been economical with the truth, and that there is gross economic mismanagement. The media are not interested, but if they keep getting advice about government shortcomings and wasted funds they may pick it up. Of course with billions of dollars wasted on major works, FHAC is small beer.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

IMHO the ARV only want to operate Buller, Falls and Hotham as ski resorts in VIC.. They are slowly disinvesting in Lake Mtn., Baw Baw and Stirling.
Under the present regime I expect these three places to become the same as Mt. Buffalo is now ( i.e. Kaput ) before this decade is over.
So they are well interested in expanding the Falls/ Hotham footprint in a any shape or form.

[Xplora]

Update provided today.
https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/projects/e ... %20webpage

Some changes. Tawonga huts is out but Westons is in. This means you will not be able to camp at Westons unless you pay. It is only a small site and no space to get 100m away from the planned development. This plan just gets worse but one thing has improved. No huts. High Knob will have platforms and a toilet. Westons is a nice spot but I probably wouldn't bother camping there. I know of others who have but it is not far to Blairs if you are going that way. It seems also the existing platforms at Cope Hut will be used instead of a new area being cleared. Logical. Cope to Blairs is an easy day and there is more room down by the river to spread out and everyone can find a place to pitch a tent.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

The update shows that The Diamantina spur is still in the plan. Newbie user pays
glampers will not do well going up or down The Diamantina spur. It is TOUGH!.
At least the High Knob campsite will not AFAIK be cleared of trees
nor will a helipad be installed to fly slaves in for grape peeling duties for tired and emotional glampers( sic).
When looking for a silver lining in this dark debacle of a black cloud ,
there will be a pit loo installed at Weston's hut and now at High Knob.
In past green seasons I have had that beautiful campsite at High Knob to myself simply because
I had to go and fetch water from the spring near the Bungalow spur hut ruins or on the MUMC hut track and dig my own latrine.
That was a deal breaker for most of the masses at Fed. hut, many of whom are newbies to the area in general.

[Xplora]

The update shows that The Diamantina spur is still in the plan. Newbie user pays
glampers will not do well going up or down The Diamantina spur. It is TOUGH!.

So the owner of one company I know who is guiding the existing FHAC said he would not be taking his clients up it. I think it is safe to say not many will do it so not need to get the knickers in a twist about that one.

At least the High Knob campsite will not AFAIK be cleared of trees
nor will a helipad be installed to fly slaves in for grape peeling duties for tired and emotional glampers( sic).

I believe High Knob is already used as a helipad. That was the information provided to me by a personal friend in PV who works with the aerial fire crews.

When looking for a silver lining in this dark debacle of a black cloud ,
there will be a pit loo installed at Weston's hut and now at High Knob.
In past green seasons I have had that beautiful campsite at High Knob to myself simple because
I had to go and fetch water from the spring near the Bungalow spur hut ruins or on the MUMC hut track and dig my own latrine.
That was a deal breaker for most of the masses at Fed. hut, many of whom are newbies to the area in general.

No camping within 100m of camping platforms is not so much a silver lining. Not a lot of flat ground 100m away from Westons Hut. Honestly, the whole thing will fall flat in my opinion but if you try to camp where you shouldn't and a tour group (or paying group) does happen to come by you might have some issues. I don't use Westons but I know some do in summer and winter. it would be worth writing your objection to this the use of this site at the exclusion of others. The purpose of the walk was to make it available to others who might not be self sufficient walkers. Walking from Cope to Westons in a day is pretty easy for most people and there is bugger all else to do once you are there at lunchtime. Just another example of how poorly considered the whole plan is. Why not walk them to the Kiewa river? Plenty of room down there for everyone to spread out and only an hour or so further. The next day can be Diamantina and Feathertop or out via Swindlers Spur but apparently the only thing that makes the plan iconic is the walk up Diamantina spur and a Feathertop summit.

[Lophophaps]

Xplorer, agreed. The maps are not that useful in that I cannot see exactly where Cope and Diamantina Spur platforms are located. Westons is a bad place for platforms. Flat ground is at a premium, and as you say, 100 metres away is not possible. When they had platforms at Federation there was a quick response from bushwalkers along the lines "Where do we camp?" If there's a similar response about Westons then the platforms may be put at Blairs. There was another push along the lines that current users will no longer be able to use some places, also successful. I think. This matter has been dragging on for six years. Agreed, an hour or so from Westons, slightly better placed to tackle Diamantina. The toilets will probably be pods like at other huts.

I cannot recall a helipad at the top of Diamantina Spur, or an area big enough to land a helicopter. There are a series of big clearings about 10 minutes from The Razorback on that level. It looks like the platforms will be more or less hidden, nice.

There's a maxim when bad legislation is found - if no-one is going to be hurt, enforce the law and watch it fail. While I don't like the Westons platforms or the proposed track "improvements" on Diamantina I can live with them. The scaled back Diamantina platforms will be mostly hidden. Watch the money wasted as hardly anyone will use the FHAC. Hopefully word will get around that you do not have to pay to camp on grass. So walkers may go past the platfroms, use the toilets and shelters, and not pay anything.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

The present camping platforms at Cope Hut and Dibbins hut area are widely ignored and
seldom used. Add these other white elephants to that list of useless additions to the area.

Instead of putting user plays glampers at Weston's hut for a night then why not put them up at the
Red Robin Battery ( Miner and former lease holder Ken Harris's old residence)?
There is a helipad near there already.

[scroggin]

From what I can see of the preliminary Detailed Design, would this be the location for the High Knob accommodation?

High Knob

https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/-/media/project/pv/main/parks/documents/plans-and-projects/falls-to-hotham-alpine-crossing/site-plan-high-knob.pdf?rev=2d805585f5a648668bd8407e68cce97b

[paidal_chalne_vala]

Yes , that is the place. It is a beautiful bush camp site at present. I have camped there a number of times over the
years. Get out there and enjoy it before it becomes developed.

[juz]

I concur with PCV. Seems an aweful shame to be ruining one of the best alpine camping areas in Vic.
I don't understand how anyone could think this will improve the camp site. Crazy town.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

They paved paradise and put up a
FHAC piece of shyte( Sorry to Joni Mitchell ).

[Lophophaps]

In early November 2016 Parks Victoria released the FHAC Draft Management Plan. There was a very short time to respond, perhaps before Christmas. After a lot of immediate protests the submission deadline was extended to late January 2017. I cannot find a record in my files of these three dates:
DMP released
Submission deadline
Revised submission deadline.

Can someone fill in the dates? Thanks.

[Lophophaps]

In December 2024 I made a submission to Parks Victoria (PV) about the November 2024 revised plan. Points 7 and 8 from that submission are below.

7 Very few people do the existing FHAC. In October 2024 I was at Dibbins and Derrick Huts. I recorded the FHAC entries. As the log books cover different periods the number of FHAC entries varies. Some parties are in winter, and two green season parties did not say how many people were in the party. The winter party numbers offset the missing green season parties. The figures are fairly clear.
Dibbins Hut 51 FHAC people over 2.8 years 18 people a year
Derrick Hut 32 FHAC people over 2.25 years 14 people a year
Call it 20 people a year. With FHAC campsites at Cope and Dibbins Huts this is 40 walker nights a year. These figures are similar to those that I have recorded several times since 2016 and have been accepted by PV.

8 Page viii of the 2016 Draft Management Plan (DMP) stated:
"Taken together, the total number of walker nights is expected to increase from 17,000 in 2016 to 60,500 by 2026."
So in 2016 the DMP stated that there were 17,000 walker nights, with a projected increase of 4250 walker nights a year. The DMP figure for 2024 is thus 51,000 walker nights divided by two campsites (Cope and Dibbins Huts) equals 25,500 walkers. Divide this by the log book number of 20 people a year and the 2016 estimate is out by a somewhat alarming 1275 times. Point 1.1 of my January 2017 FHAC submission said of the DMP: “Figures are demonstrably false, out by 3-1000 times.” This has not changed. Eight years ago the veracity of the PV figures was pointed out to PV, but these false figures are still being used. Why?

End of submission extract

A belated thought. PV says that in late 2016 there were 17,000 walker nights on FHAC, and around 51,000 walker nights now. From 1 October to 30 May – the probable walking season – is 250 days. With 17,000 walker nights divided by 250 days is 68 walkers a day. For two campsites (Cope and Dibbins) then there are 34 walkers a night at each of these campsites.

Using 51,000 walker nights divided by 250 days is 200 walkers a day. For two campsites (Cope and Dibbins) then there are 100 walkers a night at each of these campsites. For three campsites (add Westons) there are 200 walkers per day divided by 3 equals 66 walkers a night at each of these campsites. This figure is roughly double the Overland Track number of 34 walkers a day starting the OLT.

Like most other walkers who have been to the region regularly I have not seen anything like this number of walkers on the track or at the Cope, Westons or Dibbins campsites. I have seen 2-5 tents on the Cope and Dibbins platforms.

The November 2024 plan has eight platforms for Cope. These platforms may be in place – I did not count them. I did not count the number of Dibbins platforms. There are eight platforms planned for each of Westons and High Knob. The platforms take one tent which may have two people, so 16 people a night on the platforms.

That is, PV says that there were 34 walkers a night at Cope and Dibbins in 2016, and 60-100 walkers at each campsite now. But there's only room for 16 on the platforms. Where are the other 18, 44 and 84 walkers going to stay?

Put another way, PV says that there are high numbers (60-100 walkers a night at each campsite), but only has enough platforms for eight tents. PV may be tacitly admitting that the numbers are well under what they have been saying for years. Regardless, with just 16 people at each campsite the business case falls over with a very loud thump.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

LOP: your numbers and figures offer insight into what a farce and charade this debacle of a plan really is.
The Entire state becoming stoney broke may be what actually sinks this project altogether.
Imagine what the expenditure on consultants has been up until now.
It could have been spent on improvng what is already in place and on what really needs fixing.

[Lophophaps]

In late 2016 PV released a FHAC Draft Master Plan. A business case was released in May 2022. In November 2024 an update was released. A number of relatively minor updates have been released in the last eight years. Does anyone know of other major updates? If so, please post details and links. Thanks.

[stevage]

Interesting thread! I haven't read all 769 posts yet.

Just returned from a 4 day loop covering some of this area: Mt Loch Car Park, Derrick, Dibbins, Blairs, Federation, Diamantina Hut.

As we were walking I kept wondering who would actually want to do the FHAC. The trailheads are so far part. You're either setting up for an enormous car shuffle (an extra 8-10 hours?) or paying hundreds of dollars for a transfer, for a 3 day walk. What a massive and unnecessary faff when there are perfectly good loops like what we did. Also...ski resorts are not exactly my favourite choice of trailhead.

FWIW, we camped right next to Dibbins Hut. It sounded pretty busy and noisy down at the official site. At the time, I'd forgotten it was a (bookable) FHAC site, and didn't know it was platforms - would have been even more keen to avoid it in that case. It was very pleasant and peaceful by the hut, a perfect little spot.

[stevage]

Btw, for anyone else confused by the bigger picture with this project and looking for a map, it's buried on page 103 here:

https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/-/media/pr ... e748c1d8ad

I feel like anyone looking at that map would have the same obvious thought that I did, and do the loop starting and ending at almost the same place at Hotham, and avoid the massive logistical faff.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

The whole scheme has been contrived by people who have never walked / ski toured
in the area and are trying to manufacture a Tassie or NZ style big ticket user pays hiking route.
It is a load of betty swollocks!

[Lophophaps]

The overnight spots are now Cope Hut, Westons Hut, and High Knob. I've done all of the FHAC in bits, both directions, current and proposed route, and on skis for nearly all. I have not skied Diamantina Spur, pole 333 to Westons Hut, or pole 267 to Dibbins Hut. I have not done FHAC or Falls to Hotham or vice versa in one go.

Steveage has good reasons for not doing FHAC in one go:
"As we were walking I kept wondering who would actually want to do the FHAC. The trailheads are so far part. You're either setting up for an enormous car shuffle (an extra 8-10 hours?) or paying hundreds of dollars for a transfer, for a 3 day walk. What a massive and unnecessary faff when there are perfectly good loops like what we did. Also...ski resorts are not exactly my favourite choice of trailhead."

Platforms can be booked but if another party is on your platform there are no remedies at law. Government agencies are specifically excluded from Australian Consumer Law and the Victorian version, Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012. The Victorian government is not a trader.

[Xplora]

The whole scheme has been contrived by people who have never walked / ski toured
in the area and are trying to manufacture a Tassie or NZ style big ticket user pays hiking route.
It is a load of betty swollocks!

That is not entirely true. I don't know if the current team working on the project walked it but I was informed at one of the meetings that team members had walked the area. Ski touring was not really part of the original plan so I am not sure if it matters. It would not be a ski touring route anyway unless you wanted to carry skis down Westons and up Diamnantina.

I do agree the walk is a pretty poor offering and that car shuffle makes it less appealing but it would not take 8 hours. Might be a couple of hours deviation for two cars which is still a pain for what is on offer. If it were me I would probably just walk back to Falls Creek the quick way which would only mean another night out.

[wander]

carry skis down Westons and up Diamnantina.

Have done this, there was snow all the way to the bottom of the valley, more fell over night. Climbed up Diamantina with waist deep pow till just below the tree line.

[CraigVIC]

Every new walk being built or proposed in Victoria involves a significant shuttle. This is an easy way to generate private income for tourism operators using public walk infrastructure. Shuttles are the main private service; as you go up the steps to a fully guided trip with gear supplied and carried, meals prepared etc the numbers of clients are pretty small.

It's also who is targeted by these walks. If you live in Victoria and are taking on the larapinta (for example) you won't be that worried about shuttle costs as you will already be taking a lot if time off, buying plane tickets and transfers, booking accommodation pre and post walk, organizing food drops, etc. It is already a Big Trip. That's who's being targeted by Parks, cashed up walkers who are doing big trips in lieu of an overseas trip or a cruise or whatever.

[Lophophaps]

Falls-Hotham-Falls appeals more than a car shuttle. The route could include Jaithmathang, Fainters, Youngs Hut, Mount Cope, Fizys Hut, and the Nelses. The time spent sorting transport at the ends is a significant part of three day Falls-Hotham trip

[Xplora]

carry skis down Westons and up Diamnantina.

Have done this, there was snow all the way to the bottom of the valley, more fell over night. Climbed up Diamantina with waist deep pow till just below the tree line.

It would be rare and good you were there to enjoy it.

[Xplora]

Every new walk being built or proposed in Victoria involves a significant shuttle. This is an easy way to generate private income for tourism operators using public walk infrastructure. Shuttles are the main private service; as you go up the steps to a fully guided trip with gear supplied and carried, meals prepared etc the numbers of clients are pretty small.

It's also who is targeted by these walks. If you live in Victoria and are taking on the larapinta (for example) you won't be that worried about shuttle costs as you will already be taking a lot if time off, buying plane tickets and transfers, booking accommodation pre and post walk, organizing food drops, etc. It is already a Big Trip. That's who's being targeted by Parks, cashed up walkers who are doing big trips in lieu of an overseas trip or a cruise or whatever.

This is a significant point. Those who know the area will see things very differently but I just don't see the volume of cashed up walkers that has been touted. So far there is also very little interest in providing a shuttle service but if you pay the big bucks for a tour the tour operator has all that sorted. I don't really care. PV has come to some realisation that the original plan will not work and it has been modified to something I can live with and who knows how it will be in 10 or so years.