Forum rules
Victoria specific bushwalking discussion. Please avoid publishing details of access to sensitive areas with no tracks.Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 06 Dec, 2016 11:16 am
Earwig wrote:PV's website says submissions close on January 27th.
Oh dear, I just sent a heap of emails to MPs asking for 28 February. No matter, 27 January is good. I still need to see the environmental risk assessment in time to make an informed submission. Also, the DMP contradictions need to be sorted. Finally, I need the DMP in a form that can be easily read. If this is not done then it's actionable at law, and remedies exist.
The MPs are now aware that the DMP is like Swiss cheese, many holes. This point needs to be put to them by others. My long summary above is intended as a resource, so please use it.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 06 Dec, 2016 5:09 pm
Lophophaps wrote:Earwig wrote:PV's website says submissions close on January 27th.
Oh dear, I just sent a heap of emails to MPs asking for 28 February. No matter, 27 January is good. I still need to see the environmental risk assessment in time to make an informed submission. Also, the DMP contradictions need to be sorted. Finally, I need the DMP in a form that can be easily read. If this is not done then it's actionable at law, and remedies exist.
The MPs are now aware that the DMP is like Swiss cheese, many holes. This point needs to be put to them by others. My long summary above is intended as a resource, so please use it.
As the MPs are now aware, so are we, thanks to you and Chev, pcv, eggs, nnw, xplora in recent posts. Great work.
Given that the so-called information sessions organised by Parks Vic were occuring today in Bright and then in Melbourne on Monday, I think it is certainly justified to complain about how this matter is being unduly rushed. One needs time to properly digest the document before a session if it is going to be of much use to anybody.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 06 Dec, 2016 7:30 pm
I've been gently pushing the point that more time is needed and saying why. Others have been gently pushing the more time mantra. I think that this has been noted at sundry levels. It's now up to PV to provide the missing information.
My submission is not final but will doubtless grow, and it's already big. Once I see the missing information I can add more. The first page is a summary. It's important to use your own words, your own format. If there's too much similarity the merit decreases. For this reason I will not be putting my submission here, at least for now.
The second page of my submission is all questions. These questions can be used as a starting point for other submissions. The questions are based on my long summary above.
*** starts
1 Please explain why the DMP format is unacceptable, evidencing a lack of awareness of good grammar, spelling, punctuation and forms of words.
2 Why is the information in the DMP of such a poor quality?
3 What is the source of the information in the DMP?
4 Why not have the default track width at 400 mm, with a wider track used only on bridges and raised walkways?
5 Page 33 says "Utilise existing trails where possible". Why is there a duplication of the route from Tawonga Huts to Weston Hut, which breaches this objective?
6 Why is there so much unnecessary expenditure?
7 Why have markers on clearly defined tracks?
8 Why have seats?
9 The DMP says that basic camping will be provided, but this exists. Please explain.
10 The Razorback is a Conservation zone. Please explain how a lodge meets this zone.
11 Please explain how helicopters and drones meet The Razorback Conservation zone.
12 The DMP has a one kilometre camping exclusion zone for the FHAC. This will severely affect current users, including the AAWT. Please explain why this zone exists.
13 Please explain why the region is being privatised with government funding at the expense of current users.
14 The DMP says that camping grounds are designed for groups of up to 30. A group this big it totally out of place. Please explain why such a large group is acceptable.
15 Please explain why commercial entities will be preferred over traditional users.
16 Please explain why inexperienced people are being enticed into hazardous regions that are beyond the capacity of these people to deal with.
17 The DMP suggest a hazardous night descent of Mt Mt Jaitmathang. Why?
18 Why does the DMP suggest climbing from Tawonga Huts to the saddle south-west of Mt Jaitmathang twice?
19 The market segment suggested in the DMP does not have the skills to accurately assess track difficulty or suitability to match their needs. Hence, the DMP is proposing to put these people at risk. Why?
20 Much more detail is needed for the figures. Can this information be provided as a matter of urgency, and will further PV consideration of the matter be put on hold pending such provision and enough time for interested people to review this information?
21 Does PV accept that the 17,000 walker night figure is demonstrably false, and that perhaps 1-400 people a year ascend Diamantina Spur?
22 Please provide a business case.
23 Can Parks Victoria provide a platform use figure broken down by location and month?
24 When will Parks Victoria make the information on their website relating to the need to pay for and book camping platforms accurate?
25 Please provide maintenance figures for the FHAC, and the number of extra full time staff or equivalent needed for this.
26 Please explain why the camping platforms cost $80,000 each, and advise if there was a competitive quoting or tendering process.
*** ends.
I'm hoping that PV is reading this thread and will provide answers. Absent answers the entire process is suss, and I intend to do everything I can to stop it. This is not NIMBY. I've suggested a Dibbins-Swindlers-Razorback-Bungalow route that would attract more people for less expenditure and be safer. This is about preserving wild beautiful places from over-development, and maintaining the access we currently have.
My submission is not final but will doubtless grow, and it's already big. Once I see the missing information I can add more. The first page is a summary. It's important to use your own words, your own format. If there's too much similarity the merit decreases. For this reason I will not be putting my submission here, at least for now.
The second page of my submission is all questions. These questions can be used as a starting point for other submissions. The questions are based on my long summary above.
*** starts
1 Please explain why the DMP format is unacceptable, evidencing a lack of awareness of good grammar, spelling, punctuation and forms of words.
2 Why is the information in the DMP of such a poor quality?
3 What is the source of the information in the DMP?
4 Why not have the default track width at 400 mm, with a wider track used only on bridges and raised walkways?
5 Page 33 says "Utilise existing trails where possible". Why is there a duplication of the route from Tawonga Huts to Weston Hut, which breaches this objective?
6 Why is there so much unnecessary expenditure?
7 Why have markers on clearly defined tracks?
8 Why have seats?
9 The DMP says that basic camping will be provided, but this exists. Please explain.
10 The Razorback is a Conservation zone. Please explain how a lodge meets this zone.
11 Please explain how helicopters and drones meet The Razorback Conservation zone.
12 The DMP has a one kilometre camping exclusion zone for the FHAC. This will severely affect current users, including the AAWT. Please explain why this zone exists.
13 Please explain why the region is being privatised with government funding at the expense of current users.
14 The DMP says that camping grounds are designed for groups of up to 30. A group this big it totally out of place. Please explain why such a large group is acceptable.
15 Please explain why commercial entities will be preferred over traditional users.
16 Please explain why inexperienced people are being enticed into hazardous regions that are beyond the capacity of these people to deal with.
17 The DMP suggest a hazardous night descent of Mt Mt Jaitmathang. Why?
18 Why does the DMP suggest climbing from Tawonga Huts to the saddle south-west of Mt Jaitmathang twice?
19 The market segment suggested in the DMP does not have the skills to accurately assess track difficulty or suitability to match their needs. Hence, the DMP is proposing to put these people at risk. Why?
20 Much more detail is needed for the figures. Can this information be provided as a matter of urgency, and will further PV consideration of the matter be put on hold pending such provision and enough time for interested people to review this information?
21 Does PV accept that the 17,000 walker night figure is demonstrably false, and that perhaps 1-400 people a year ascend Diamantina Spur?
22 Please provide a business case.
23 Can Parks Victoria provide a platform use figure broken down by location and month?
24 When will Parks Victoria make the information on their website relating to the need to pay for and book camping platforms accurate?
25 Please provide maintenance figures for the FHAC, and the number of extra full time staff or equivalent needed for this.
26 Please explain why the camping platforms cost $80,000 each, and advise if there was a competitive quoting or tendering process.
*** ends.
I'm hoping that PV is reading this thread and will provide answers. Absent answers the entire process is suss, and I intend to do everything I can to stop it. This is not NIMBY. I've suggested a Dibbins-Swindlers-Razorback-Bungalow route that would attract more people for less expenditure and be safer. This is about preserving wild beautiful places from over-development, and maintaining the access we currently have.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Tue 06 Dec, 2016 9:19 pm
I will take a print out of these questions to the Meeting this Monday. I will not allow them to wriggle out of any of these questions until they provide a suitable answer. If others are also going to the Melb. Q. session then we should each ask one of these questions respectively in turn.
A chap on Ski dot com went to the Bright Q. session and has posted an interesting report on the proceedings on that web site.
A chap on Ski dot com went to the Bright Q. session and has posted an interesting report on the proceedings on that web site.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 4:03 am
I'm revising the questions to suit the session on 12 December. Should be finished in a day or so, competing priorities.
This is the ski dot com link
http://forums.ski.com.au/xf/threads/fal ... 39/page-15
Hully on that website posted as follows:
No real new info from the session in Bright today. Some key points I took out:
- been a lot of negative feedback about name, Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing....most likely to revert to Alpine Crossing
- 500mt exclusion zone along the entire track to casual camping will not happen....still likely to be some sort of restrictions around the proposed camp/accommodation areas themselves of say 200mt radius (100mt distance from) as per current bookable platform sites at Cope Hut
- Parks Vic very adverse to any measures to exclude, or discourage, current users
- clearly this is not an exercise in revenue generation on the part of Parks Vic....in fact these types of walks tend to be revenue negative due to an increase in trail managment and maintenance costs
- those present from the consultants were very loose in their understanding of the numbers in the business case and assumptions used, clearly the accuracy of the data is recognised as very questionable....yet being used to justify $23million in spend!
- the project is very clearly Tourism North East driven, with I would suggest Alpine RMB TNE board members pulling the strings. This is a marketing exercise, not a parks management exercise.
My key standout takeout is that the document, even recognising that it is still in draft from, has a huge amount of content that has been very poorly thought out by the consultants. If the public has got any change out of $1/4 million + I would be very surprised, yet content seems to be strong on concepts such as how the rest areas would look ('beautifully constructed masonary benches' to quote the consultant there) but important things such as data accuracy and impracticle, unworkable exclusion zones have been very poorly researched. The consultants also seemed to have a 'scatter gun' approach to what would be developed as accommodation....eg the walk has been rerouted to take in Diamantina and include a camp on High Knob, yet he was talking about how great accommodation developed at Red Robin Mine would be!!
I think that the actual outcome of all of this will be a couple of low impact (visually and environmentally) accommodation facilities, along the lines of Cradle Mountain Huts, which would operate with little real impact on current users. Obviously if popularity grew to a point where they were necessary, people managment strategies woudl be needed.
I think that it is important that people keep up with submissions etc to ensure that they realise people are serious about this. They can tend to have a couple of sessions like today, tick off the stakeholder consultation box and continue on as they please. Parks Vic were very surprised at the turnout today and the passion of the people attending.
*** ends
It seems to me that it's important to turn up at the meeting, ask tough questions, show that the DMP is very poorly written, cast doubt on the maths, and other lesser aspects. Show that a low number do Diamantina Spur because it's hard, and no marekting spin will alter that. State that the OLT et al grew to what they are on merit, not spin. The current Falls-Hotham walk has been heavily promoted and has flopped. Will a few seats and icon markers make a difference? Probably not.
Other posts on the ski forum.
“The companies producing these glossy documents basically survive off being commissioned by public bodies/departments/authorities to prepare such reports. The skill in the business case analysis preparation by the companies is manipulating data etc to arrive at a business case that supports the outcome that the commissioning organisation desires. Failure to arrive at a business case that supports the desired outcome is likely to compromise the company getting further lucrative commissions from public bodies to prepare future reports.
“Why do it under the Tourism North East umbrella? Firstly it distances the report from PV, FCRMB and MHRMB and the obligations for inclusion and equity (plus for PV environmental and natural heritage conservation) that they are obliged to. Also, politically it distances this report from the Minister responsible for all of PV, FCRMB and MHRMB and blurs the lines of responsibility with the Minister responsible for tourism. This use of a third party organisation with blurred responsibilities has been used successfully by the Minister responsible for PV to distance themselves from responsibility for Mt Buffalo Chalet, they have now completely washed their hands of this situation.”
“No one is being excluded from putting on a pack and walking up Diamantina spur, whether rich or poor. The mountain decides who is fit to access it, not a bunch of beard-stroking BC gurus at the trailhead.
“The simple reason for it is that any development begins to undermine the environment itself, which is the defining reason we go to these places.”
“The Alpine Crossing as a named and promoted trail has only been around for a few years. Significant effort and cost was invested in upgrading the track along the Swindlers Spur, Dibbins Hut, Bogong High Plains, Cope Hut (predominantly AAWT) alignment. This included track work, trail head features, interperative signage, camp site upgrades with installation of campling platforms.
“The Alpine Crossing in its current form has been heavily marketed and promoted by FCRMB and to a lesser extent MHRMB and PV. Clearly according to this new report this marketing effort has failed to achieve the desired walker numbers.”
“As someone who receives submissions on major projects on behalf of government for a living, I think he's probably right.
“Use short paragraphs.
Reference page and paragraph numbers.
Minimise emotion.
Concentrate on issues, not anger.
Point out inconsistencies.
Use facts and figures.”
“The walk is optioned to start in different places or not do the hard bits. It is less about the Iconic walk and more about how it can be serviced to cater for their perceived target market. In fact the plan admits the walk would not be iconic unless it includes Jahaitmathung and Feathertop but then admits most of the target market will not do Diamantina spur. This has less to do with preventing any class of person from enjoying what the area has to offer but it is more about changing the conditions so people do not feel scared out there. Environmental impact in conservation zones is supposed to be kept to a minimum. This plan does not suggest minimal impact.”
“The plan indicates dedicated rangers will patrol areas to ensure people pay. These will have compliance officer power. If you do not give you details then they have the option to arrest you. Do you think it will come to that? I will not pay either.
“And as for what Legs suggests. They may do a good job but they also intend to big a whopping big sign at the top of Mt. Feathertop. That again is contrary to the zoning in the Alpine NP management plan. It also gives a pretty good idea of what they think is good. All this to appeal to the cashed up fat and over 50 who need a manufactured experience. I don't want to exclude them from the area but I doubt they will want to do it anyway. It will be just too hard, too hot, too cold, too windy, to sunny, too cloudy, too wet, too dirty, too far, too hilly, too flat, too many bugs and not worth the money they are going to charge.
“The visitor figures this glossy plan spouts are taken from as far afield as Rutherglen.”
This is the ski dot com link
http://forums.ski.com.au/xf/threads/fal ... 39/page-15
Hully on that website posted as follows:
No real new info from the session in Bright today. Some key points I took out:
- been a lot of negative feedback about name, Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing....most likely to revert to Alpine Crossing
- 500mt exclusion zone along the entire track to casual camping will not happen....still likely to be some sort of restrictions around the proposed camp/accommodation areas themselves of say 200mt radius (100mt distance from) as per current bookable platform sites at Cope Hut
- Parks Vic very adverse to any measures to exclude, or discourage, current users
- clearly this is not an exercise in revenue generation on the part of Parks Vic....in fact these types of walks tend to be revenue negative due to an increase in trail managment and maintenance costs
- those present from the consultants were very loose in their understanding of the numbers in the business case and assumptions used, clearly the accuracy of the data is recognised as very questionable....yet being used to justify $23million in spend!
- the project is very clearly Tourism North East driven, with I would suggest Alpine RMB TNE board members pulling the strings. This is a marketing exercise, not a parks management exercise.
My key standout takeout is that the document, even recognising that it is still in draft from, has a huge amount of content that has been very poorly thought out by the consultants. If the public has got any change out of $1/4 million + I would be very surprised, yet content seems to be strong on concepts such as how the rest areas would look ('beautifully constructed masonary benches' to quote the consultant there) but important things such as data accuracy and impracticle, unworkable exclusion zones have been very poorly researched. The consultants also seemed to have a 'scatter gun' approach to what would be developed as accommodation....eg the walk has been rerouted to take in Diamantina and include a camp on High Knob, yet he was talking about how great accommodation developed at Red Robin Mine would be!!
I think that the actual outcome of all of this will be a couple of low impact (visually and environmentally) accommodation facilities, along the lines of Cradle Mountain Huts, which would operate with little real impact on current users. Obviously if popularity grew to a point where they were necessary, people managment strategies woudl be needed.
I think that it is important that people keep up with submissions etc to ensure that they realise people are serious about this. They can tend to have a couple of sessions like today, tick off the stakeholder consultation box and continue on as they please. Parks Vic were very surprised at the turnout today and the passion of the people attending.
*** ends
It seems to me that it's important to turn up at the meeting, ask tough questions, show that the DMP is very poorly written, cast doubt on the maths, and other lesser aspects. Show that a low number do Diamantina Spur because it's hard, and no marekting spin will alter that. State that the OLT et al grew to what they are on merit, not spin. The current Falls-Hotham walk has been heavily promoted and has flopped. Will a few seats and icon markers make a difference? Probably not.
Other posts on the ski forum.
“The companies producing these glossy documents basically survive off being commissioned by public bodies/departments/authorities to prepare such reports. The skill in the business case analysis preparation by the companies is manipulating data etc to arrive at a business case that supports the outcome that the commissioning organisation desires. Failure to arrive at a business case that supports the desired outcome is likely to compromise the company getting further lucrative commissions from public bodies to prepare future reports.
“Why do it under the Tourism North East umbrella? Firstly it distances the report from PV, FCRMB and MHRMB and the obligations for inclusion and equity (plus for PV environmental and natural heritage conservation) that they are obliged to. Also, politically it distances this report from the Minister responsible for all of PV, FCRMB and MHRMB and blurs the lines of responsibility with the Minister responsible for tourism. This use of a third party organisation with blurred responsibilities has been used successfully by the Minister responsible for PV to distance themselves from responsibility for Mt Buffalo Chalet, they have now completely washed their hands of this situation.”
“No one is being excluded from putting on a pack and walking up Diamantina spur, whether rich or poor. The mountain decides who is fit to access it, not a bunch of beard-stroking BC gurus at the trailhead.
“The simple reason for it is that any development begins to undermine the environment itself, which is the defining reason we go to these places.”
“The Alpine Crossing as a named and promoted trail has only been around for a few years. Significant effort and cost was invested in upgrading the track along the Swindlers Spur, Dibbins Hut, Bogong High Plains, Cope Hut (predominantly AAWT) alignment. This included track work, trail head features, interperative signage, camp site upgrades with installation of campling platforms.
“The Alpine Crossing in its current form has been heavily marketed and promoted by FCRMB and to a lesser extent MHRMB and PV. Clearly according to this new report this marketing effort has failed to achieve the desired walker numbers.”
“As someone who receives submissions on major projects on behalf of government for a living, I think he's probably right.
“Use short paragraphs.
Reference page and paragraph numbers.
Minimise emotion.
Concentrate on issues, not anger.
Point out inconsistencies.
Use facts and figures.”
“The walk is optioned to start in different places or not do the hard bits. It is less about the Iconic walk and more about how it can be serviced to cater for their perceived target market. In fact the plan admits the walk would not be iconic unless it includes Jahaitmathung and Feathertop but then admits most of the target market will not do Diamantina spur. This has less to do with preventing any class of person from enjoying what the area has to offer but it is more about changing the conditions so people do not feel scared out there. Environmental impact in conservation zones is supposed to be kept to a minimum. This plan does not suggest minimal impact.”
“The plan indicates dedicated rangers will patrol areas to ensure people pay. These will have compliance officer power. If you do not give you details then they have the option to arrest you. Do you think it will come to that? I will not pay either.
“And as for what Legs suggests. They may do a good job but they also intend to big a whopping big sign at the top of Mt. Feathertop. That again is contrary to the zoning in the Alpine NP management plan. It also gives a pretty good idea of what they think is good. All this to appeal to the cashed up fat and over 50 who need a manufactured experience. I don't want to exclude them from the area but I doubt they will want to do it anyway. It will be just too hard, too hot, too cold, too windy, to sunny, too cloudy, too wet, too dirty, too far, too hilly, too flat, too many bugs and not worth the money they are going to charge.
“The visitor figures this glossy plan spouts are taken from as far afield as Rutherglen.”
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 4:57 am
Hully's summation is good but I will add a bit more once I have time to organise it. Submission closing is now the end of January but late submissions will be accepted as well. They are reading these forums as well and have taken note of many things. That is why the 500m exclusion has been removed. It was a long meeting which was not originally designed to be a meeting. It was supposed to be a drop in 'info' session. My advice is to get to the Melbourne meeting on time. After 2 hours they broke the meeting up so people could speak individually to one of the team. Not sure if the same will happen and I guess that depends on numbers.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 5:50 am
Xplora, thanks. I guessed that the meeting went on for some time. I had hoped that PV and the consultants McGregor Coxall are reading this thread. Most of my posts are aimed at them as well.
It's good that PV is taking note of our comments, and perhaps those on the ski forum. PV is now well aware of the lack of scholarship in the DMP. It would be interesting to learn why McGregor Coxall got it so wrong. If I had commissioned such a report I'd want my money back - breach of Australian Consumer Law. PV now know about the strong opposition to the DMP. PV may know about the fate of the big signs on summits about 40 years ago. PV may now know that Diamantina Spur is a tough climb, and that if there's an adverse incident, McGregor Coxall and PV are in the frame for negligence. I'm pursuing a similar case now, where a hospital denied treatment.
DS is not popular because it's hard, a point lost on McGregor Coxall.
I hope that PV advise about changes such as the 500 metre no camping zone being no longer adopted. If not then there will most probably be a lot of submissions criticising aspects that are no longer so.
And now for something completely different. Sort of. The DMP has a disclaimer from McGregor Coxall. The disclaimer is in a small faded font and thus is hard to read. Due to this it has no basis at law. Oops. Part of the disclaimer is below, hopefully transcribed correctly; it's hard. I reckon that this is a pro forma disclaimer, and they cannot even get this right. LOL.
"This study and its attached appendices are based on estimates, assumptions and information sourced and referenced by McGregor Coxall and its sub consultants (sic). We present these estimates and assumptions as a basis for the reader's interpretation and analysis. With respect to (sic) forecasts we do not present them as results that will actually be achieved. We rely on the interpretation of the reader to judge for themselves (sic) the likelihood of whether these projections can be achieved or not (sic) ... In preparing this Study we have relied upon information concerning the subject property and/or study (sic) area provided by the client and we have not independently (sic) verified this information except where noted in this Study."
I rather like the "sub consultants". Are McGregor Coxall planning submarine access from the dam wall to near Wallaces Hut? Or is it the underground escalator up DS? McGregor Coxall's credentials are becoming very shaky. Time for a refund.
It's good that PV is taking note of our comments, and perhaps those on the ski forum. PV is now well aware of the lack of scholarship in the DMP. It would be interesting to learn why McGregor Coxall got it so wrong. If I had commissioned such a report I'd want my money back - breach of Australian Consumer Law. PV now know about the strong opposition to the DMP. PV may know about the fate of the big signs on summits about 40 years ago. PV may now know that Diamantina Spur is a tough climb, and that if there's an adverse incident, McGregor Coxall and PV are in the frame for negligence. I'm pursuing a similar case now, where a hospital denied treatment.
DS is not popular because it's hard, a point lost on McGregor Coxall.
I hope that PV advise about changes such as the 500 metre no camping zone being no longer adopted. If not then there will most probably be a lot of submissions criticising aspects that are no longer so.
And now for something completely different. Sort of. The DMP has a disclaimer from McGregor Coxall. The disclaimer is in a small faded font and thus is hard to read. Due to this it has no basis at law. Oops. Part of the disclaimer is below, hopefully transcribed correctly; it's hard. I reckon that this is a pro forma disclaimer, and they cannot even get this right. LOL.
"This study and its attached appendices are based on estimates, assumptions and information sourced and referenced by McGregor Coxall and its sub consultants (sic). We present these estimates and assumptions as a basis for the reader's interpretation and analysis. With respect to (sic) forecasts we do not present them as results that will actually be achieved. We rely on the interpretation of the reader to judge for themselves (sic) the likelihood of whether these projections can be achieved or not (sic) ... In preparing this Study we have relied upon information concerning the subject property and/or study (sic) area provided by the client and we have not independently (sic) verified this information except where noted in this Study."
I rather like the "sub consultants". Are McGregor Coxall planning submarine access from the dam wall to near Wallaces Hut? Or is it the underground escalator up DS? McGregor Coxall's credentials are becoming very shaky. Time for a refund.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 8:52 am
Just quickly as I am busy writing up things from yesterday. The Iconic walk itself was called a 'draw card' or 'backbone' of the plan when I suggested the walk was secondary to the servicing and other options. They would not concede it was secondary but clearly the emphasis is on making everything as comfortable as possible so people 'feel safe' in nature. They agreed the marketing is about an area more so than the walk that is why the walk is being used as the draw card with offers such as the Red Robin battery (which I noted was no where near the track) can be offered. I have raised another point with them and with Cameron from PV personally on the need to upgrade BHP road as it is going to receive increased traffic in the future regardless of the plan. They will need many more millions of dollars to do that and if they do not then the plan will be contributing to further road trauma. It is already on the blackspot list. They cannot change the draft plan so comments about exclusion zones should remain to show it is a bad idea and poorly thought of. It is only a draft and much more work has to be done before it can be tabled. The economic study is not finished nor is the environmental study. They will be out soon???
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 9:16 am
Lophophaps wrote:I'm revising the questions to suit the session on 12 December. Should be finished in a day or so, competing priorities.
This is the ski dot com link
http://forums.ski.com.au/xf/threads/fal ... 39/page-15
Hully on that website posted as follows:
. . . the project is very clearly Tourism North East driven, with I would suggest Alpine RMB TNE board members pulling the strings. This is a marketing exercise, not a parks management exercise . . .
A marketing exercise, not a management exercise sums it all up in one sentence. I want to provide evidence on that in my submission. There are many egregious examples, so it won't be hard to do!
On the first point, re Tourism North East driven, I'm trying to find out more. This link http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/322241/List-of-members-ARCC-and-ARMBs-1-Jan-2016.pdf states that the Alpine Resorts are Crown land reserves each managed by its own Resort Management Board appointed by the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water. It lists the people who comprise these boards by name, but not by affiliation: http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/322241/List-of-members-ARCC-and-ARMBs-1-Jan-2016.pdf So what bodies do these people represent? It could be important to know that in light of the perceptive comment below that Lophophaps includes in the summary of other posts on the ski forum:
Why do it under the Tourism North East umbrella? Firstly it distances the report from PV, FCRMB and MHRMB and the obligations for inclusion and equity (plus for PV environmental and natural heritage conservation) that they are obliged to. Also, politically it distances this report from the Minister responsible for all of PV, FCRMB and MHRMB and blurs the lines of responsibility with the Minister responsible for tourism. This use of a third party organisation with blurred responsibilities has been used successfully by the Minister responsible for PV to distance themselves from responsibility for Mt Buffalo Chalet, they have now completely washed their hands of this situation.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 9:42 am
Hi peregrinator
You can find more details about the board members here:
http://www.arcc.vic.gov.au/about/our-minister-board
http://www.fallscreek.com.au/FCRMBOARD
http://www.mthotham.com.au/all-about-hotham/why-hotham/corporate/board/
I didn't notice anything particularly concerning.
You can find more details about the board members here:
http://www.arcc.vic.gov.au/about/our-minister-board
http://www.fallscreek.com.au/FCRMBOARD
http://www.mthotham.com.au/all-about-hotham/why-hotham/corporate/board/
I didn't notice anything particularly concerning.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 11:43 am
I've found Milford figures at 14,000 a year http://milfordtrack.net/ but cannot find anything for the OLT. Can someone please direct me to the OLT use figures? I'm also interested in figures for the more recent Victorian icon Walks, beach and Grampians. Next one to go is Croajingalong, I think. Thank you.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 12:03 pm
8K officially (from the tas P&W site), busy season this year though.
http://parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=7827
http://parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=7827
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 12:31 pm
Nuts, thanks. I could not find that. Could someone please put a link to the thread you are reading in
http://forums.ski.com.au/xf/threads/fal ... 39/page-15 ?
There's already information copied both ways, but I think that it would be useful to put a link in sk.com.
http://forums.ski.com.au/xf/threads/fal ... 39/page-15 ?
There's already information copied both ways, but I think that it would be useful to put a link in sk.com.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 3:03 pm
andrewp wrote:Hi peregrinator
You can find more details about the board members here:
http://www.arcc.vic.gov.au/about/our-minister-board
http://www.fallscreek.com.au/FCRMBOARD
http://www.mthotham.com.au/all-about-hotham/why-hotham/corporate/board/
I didn't notice anything particularly concerning.
Nor did I, other than at Hotham, Julia Hunter did have a role at InterContinental Hotels Group, which may or may not have any significance. Thank you for those links, andrewp.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 3:16 pm
Lophophaps wrote:I've found Milford figures at 14,000 a year http://milfordtrack.net/ but cannot find anything for the OLT. Can someone please direct me to the OLT use figures? I'm also interested in figures for the more recent Victorian icon Walks, beach and Grampians. Next one to go is Croajingalong, I think. Thank you.
Yeah, get to Croajingalong before it's too late. But honestly, given its distance from major population centres and limited features that can be promoted as iconic, spectacular, mind blowing et cetera, ad nausem, I'm thinking the consultants are going to have a very hard time getting that one up. Maybe they have in mind employing sculptors to build a set of Apostles off the coast? An upgrade to international standard for the Mallacoota Aerodrome? Jet ski hire at Wingan Inlet?
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 3:55 pm
All these so called iconic walks are vestiges of the Bracks Labor government. They are getting a bit old now. Coajingalong is next and still looking to go ahead. This proposal, being quite short for a long distance walk is set to be implemented in one hit and not stages. Considering the others, well at least the GOW is running at a loss, then the economics may not stack up.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 7:39 pm
If the Great Ocean Walk is not working that well then Croajingalong miles away from Melbourne is unlikely to work.
I've just finished reading two reports from Tourism North East. The views in these reports seem to underpin the direction of the FHAC. Both reports are reasonably well written and presented, with good aims. I would have liked to have seen more references supporting the assertions. As with the DMP, there is limited awareness of the value we place on the mountains. However, the two TNE reports are more general and cover a lot more than just bushwalking. Some extracts are below with my comments.
Vibrant tourism in Victoria's high country.
Submission to Parliamentary enquiry into heritage and eco tourism July 2013
Commissioned by Tourism North East
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images ... h_East.pdf
Page 6 "The changing nature of the visitor to the North East (sic) means that a traditionally self-guided or facilitated experience in the region now calls for assistance from an operator at times." Says who and to what degree?
Page 7 details industry comments, including "Travelling public are looking to reconnect with nature, to have an authentic experience. They are also looking to do so in comfort, with all the modern conveniences." Says who and to what degree? It seems odd that this purported authentic experience is at the expense of traditional users and the environment. A lodge on Diamantina Spur is hardly authentic.
Page 8 has key industry themes, infrastructure "If ecotourism in the region is to progress and best capitalize on the available assets, then investment in infrastructure that allows tourism customers to both access and immerse themselves in the environment is essential. This includes everything from sustainable mountain biking and walking tracks through to environmental friendly, semi-permanent wilderness accommodation." This could be the basis for the Diamantina Spur and other lodges. Not happy.
Page 14 says that barriers to realise potential are "The implementation of changes to private sector investment into National Park (sic) environments and rural land use planning will be critical to realising the opportunity for further unique accommodation in sympathy with nature." Again, this is a contradiction. In sympathy with nature may mean the tent collapsing at 2am in a blizzard. I am at one with the environment.
*****************************************
*****************************************
Victoria's High Country Destination Management Plan 2013-2023
Prepared by Tourism North East
Updated March 2016
http://www.tourismnortheast.com.au/wp-c ... _FINAL.pdf
Page 32 "... the North East Victoria Gap Analysis noted that the profile of the High Country's visitors is changing, generating an increased demand for nature-based experiences, particularly those that are facilitated rather than self-guided.” Says who and to what degree?
Page 33 has a tent pitched in what seems to be an interesting location, just off the road at Diamantina Hut.
Page 34 "... this work must look to emphasise how the High Country offering differs from competitors in terms of its unique natural setting." This is a good concept. It's unfortunate that the best way to achieve it has been lost on the way.
Page 36 Heading Alpine resort green season activation lists the FHAC "Develop an iconic walk that will attract both domestic and international visitors and be a hero (sic!) product for the region." First the walks are iconic and now they are heroes. Merde.
Page 36 Falls Creek, Rocky Valley Lakeside and trail head developments "Redevelopment of Lakeside Precinct to include new trails, water sports (accessed by a jetty and boat ramp), food and beverage options and create a memorable and iconic arrival/departure point for the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing." Note the spelling "Lakeside". The DMP has "Lake Side". Is Rocky Valley Dam to be a carnival?
Page 36, Mt Buffalo "Develop a long-term vision for Mt Buffalo ... and a business case for the development of the Gorge." I wonder if the Victorian Climbing Club knows of this.
Page 36 has a heading Brand work "Brand development for the 7 Peaks Walk offering." I've not heard of this before. Has anyone?
I've just finished reading two reports from Tourism North East. The views in these reports seem to underpin the direction of the FHAC. Both reports are reasonably well written and presented, with good aims. I would have liked to have seen more references supporting the assertions. As with the DMP, there is limited awareness of the value we place on the mountains. However, the two TNE reports are more general and cover a lot more than just bushwalking. Some extracts are below with my comments.
Vibrant tourism in Victoria's high country.
Submission to Parliamentary enquiry into heritage and eco tourism July 2013
Commissioned by Tourism North East
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images ... h_East.pdf
Page 6 "The changing nature of the visitor to the North East (sic) means that a traditionally self-guided or facilitated experience in the region now calls for assistance from an operator at times." Says who and to what degree?
Page 7 details industry comments, including "Travelling public are looking to reconnect with nature, to have an authentic experience. They are also looking to do so in comfort, with all the modern conveniences." Says who and to what degree? It seems odd that this purported authentic experience is at the expense of traditional users and the environment. A lodge on Diamantina Spur is hardly authentic.
Page 8 has key industry themes, infrastructure "If ecotourism in the region is to progress and best capitalize on the available assets, then investment in infrastructure that allows tourism customers to both access and immerse themselves in the environment is essential. This includes everything from sustainable mountain biking and walking tracks through to environmental friendly, semi-permanent wilderness accommodation." This could be the basis for the Diamantina Spur and other lodges. Not happy.
Page 14 says that barriers to realise potential are "The implementation of changes to private sector investment into National Park (sic) environments and rural land use planning will be critical to realising the opportunity for further unique accommodation in sympathy with nature." Again, this is a contradiction. In sympathy with nature may mean the tent collapsing at 2am in a blizzard. I am at one with the environment.
*****************************************
*****************************************
Victoria's High Country Destination Management Plan 2013-2023
Prepared by Tourism North East
Updated March 2016
http://www.tourismnortheast.com.au/wp-c ... _FINAL.pdf
Page 32 "... the North East Victoria Gap Analysis noted that the profile of the High Country's visitors is changing, generating an increased demand for nature-based experiences, particularly those that are facilitated rather than self-guided.” Says who and to what degree?
Page 33 has a tent pitched in what seems to be an interesting location, just off the road at Diamantina Hut.
Page 34 "... this work must look to emphasise how the High Country offering differs from competitors in terms of its unique natural setting." This is a good concept. It's unfortunate that the best way to achieve it has been lost on the way.
Page 36 Heading Alpine resort green season activation lists the FHAC "Develop an iconic walk that will attract both domestic and international visitors and be a hero (sic!) product for the region." First the walks are iconic and now they are heroes. Merde.
Page 36 Falls Creek, Rocky Valley Lakeside and trail head developments "Redevelopment of Lakeside Precinct to include new trails, water sports (accessed by a jetty and boat ramp), food and beverage options and create a memorable and iconic arrival/departure point for the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing." Note the spelling "Lakeside". The DMP has "Lake Side". Is Rocky Valley Dam to be a carnival?
Page 36, Mt Buffalo "Develop a long-term vision for Mt Buffalo ... and a business case for the development of the Gorge." I wonder if the Victorian Climbing Club knows of this.
Page 36 has a heading Brand work "Brand development for the 7 Peaks Walk offering." I've not heard of this before. Has anyone?
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Wed 07 Dec, 2016 7:51 pm
Page 7 details industry comments, including "Travelling public are looking to reconnect with nature, to have an authentic experience. They are also looking to do so in comfort, with all the modern conveniences."
Which completely ignores the fact that 'authenticity' and 'comfort with all the modern conveniences' are mutually exclusive.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 08 Dec, 2016 4:52 am
Major points from meeting as best as I can remember them. They are in point form as it would be too big to do otherwise. I can explain individual points if asked. Most of the talk from PV and the consultants was the same rhetoric as in the plan. These include points raised by people attending.
500m camping exclusion is to be lifted
Camping will cost at all developed areas but you can still dispersed free camp outside them
It was suggested track work should be in response to erosion or degradation due to increased numbers and not to make it easy. Most of the tracks were easy enough now.
The majority of the area is already suitable for the target market if the resorts did more to promote and cater for them.
There is no commitment from anyone to service this venture to date. They are having trouble getting business on board. The numbers do not add up to a viable business option. This may not stop them building it as it is believed the infrastructure and track upgraded will attract more people.
Without tour operators the walk cannot happen. Suggestion of a grant to fund them by Falls Creek rep.
The branded walk is only a draw card for the area or the spine of the plan. Everything is optioned around the walk to cater for a wider class of person who wants to feel safe and comfortable. They would not concede the walk was about providing the service and meant less than the options and servicing.
Some new tracks and options such as a boat across Rocky Dam are now off the books.
Significant logistical problems exist with the Razorback and Fed hut servicing. A good chance the cost of this will be prohibitive in the long term. If helicopters cannot be used they are considering using porters on foot. (457 visas I think)
There is no answer to the conflict with the Greater ANP management plan which is being tabled in parliament now. It allows for minimal impact in conservation zones and the hard roof development proposed is not minimal. Waste out. Food in. Water collection, gas bottles, solar power, water pumps, waste water collection or treatment. Linen out. All takes a toll on the impact. Much will come down to DELWP decision.
Rest stops will be made out of stone and carved by a stone mason. Toilets will not be at all rest stops. Any wonder they will cost so much but they want to compete with the fancy seating offered on other walks. 3 peaks seating was referred to.
Track work from Weston’s must be suitable for horses. Steel stairs will not be appropriate.
The rep from Hotham had no idea new hard roof accommodation was going to be built. (Maybe they are being kept in the dark)
It was recognised that little effort has been made to cater for people in the green season by the resorts. Falls Creek does do some but Hotham was called a ghost town by one of the plan consultants. (Nth East tourism even says the resorts can support green season)
A word document format will be posted on the website to make it easier for people to make submissions.
They are going to review the raw data for walker numbers and could not answer how they managed to get to those figures apart from using the model for the Grampians. When it was put to them as 5000-8000 people every year which was as much as the OLT they in some way agreed the figures seemed high.
The Great Ocean walk is running at a loss for PV
The concept was born out of the Bracks government and they are just pursuing that agenda set. Change the agenda and this may be dropped.
Page 100 – Vistior management, where is says tour operators will be given first preference was intended to refer to accommodation precincts only and this part of the plan has to be adjusted to take away the confusion.
Permits to control walker numbers should only be introduced when numbers make it necessary.
Steve Baird (Bogong Horseback adventures) said February was their worst month because people are scared of bushfires. No bookings. This could be the same for the walk.
It was pointed out the BHP road was critical for the plan as it will be used to service the walk and there will be increased numbers of visitors as a result of the marketing. This road is not suitable for the numbers proposed which will result in significantly more road trauma. Resealing, widening and proper drainage is required before the plan can be put into effect.
Possible name change but the Alpine crossing is only a suggestion. Personally I don’t think it fits but they are clearly not happy with the name from a branding point of view.
Environmental and economic studies have not been completed as yet but should be soon.
I will add more as the brain functions.
500m camping exclusion is to be lifted
Camping will cost at all developed areas but you can still dispersed free camp outside them
It was suggested track work should be in response to erosion or degradation due to increased numbers and not to make it easy. Most of the tracks were easy enough now.
The majority of the area is already suitable for the target market if the resorts did more to promote and cater for them.
There is no commitment from anyone to service this venture to date. They are having trouble getting business on board. The numbers do not add up to a viable business option. This may not stop them building it as it is believed the infrastructure and track upgraded will attract more people.
Without tour operators the walk cannot happen. Suggestion of a grant to fund them by Falls Creek rep.
The branded walk is only a draw card for the area or the spine of the plan. Everything is optioned around the walk to cater for a wider class of person who wants to feel safe and comfortable. They would not concede the walk was about providing the service and meant less than the options and servicing.
Some new tracks and options such as a boat across Rocky Dam are now off the books.
Significant logistical problems exist with the Razorback and Fed hut servicing. A good chance the cost of this will be prohibitive in the long term. If helicopters cannot be used they are considering using porters on foot. (457 visas I think)
There is no answer to the conflict with the Greater ANP management plan which is being tabled in parliament now. It allows for minimal impact in conservation zones and the hard roof development proposed is not minimal. Waste out. Food in. Water collection, gas bottles, solar power, water pumps, waste water collection or treatment. Linen out. All takes a toll on the impact. Much will come down to DELWP decision.
Rest stops will be made out of stone and carved by a stone mason. Toilets will not be at all rest stops. Any wonder they will cost so much but they want to compete with the fancy seating offered on other walks. 3 peaks seating was referred to.
Track work from Weston’s must be suitable for horses. Steel stairs will not be appropriate.
The rep from Hotham had no idea new hard roof accommodation was going to be built. (Maybe they are being kept in the dark)
It was recognised that little effort has been made to cater for people in the green season by the resorts. Falls Creek does do some but Hotham was called a ghost town by one of the plan consultants. (Nth East tourism even says the resorts can support green season)
A word document format will be posted on the website to make it easier for people to make submissions.
They are going to review the raw data for walker numbers and could not answer how they managed to get to those figures apart from using the model for the Grampians. When it was put to them as 5000-8000 people every year which was as much as the OLT they in some way agreed the figures seemed high.
The Great Ocean walk is running at a loss for PV
The concept was born out of the Bracks government and they are just pursuing that agenda set. Change the agenda and this may be dropped.
Page 100 – Vistior management, where is says tour operators will be given first preference was intended to refer to accommodation precincts only and this part of the plan has to be adjusted to take away the confusion.
Permits to control walker numbers should only be introduced when numbers make it necessary.
Steve Baird (Bogong Horseback adventures) said February was their worst month because people are scared of bushfires. No bookings. This could be the same for the walk.
It was pointed out the BHP road was critical for the plan as it will be used to service the walk and there will be increased numbers of visitors as a result of the marketing. This road is not suitable for the numbers proposed which will result in significantly more road trauma. Resealing, widening and proper drainage is required before the plan can be put into effect.
Possible name change but the Alpine crossing is only a suggestion. Personally I don’t think it fits but they are clearly not happy with the name from a branding point of view.
Environmental and economic studies have not been completed as yet but should be soon.
I will add more as the brain functions.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 08 Dec, 2016 6:01 am
Xplora, thanks for that summary. It seems that PV, Tourism North East and others have got the message that the figures are a great work of fiction and that there are major problems with the plans for the Feathertop region. There's also the small matter of the lack of the economic and environmental reports. The stone seats are preposterous. Fine, have them, but let the tour operators pay, not taxpayers. The seats are miles out of place. There seems to be nobody who can adequately assess a cost-benefit or return on investment. PV, this is what I do, with my money. Wasting funds on the inane DMP is the first financial concern, seats are next.
Great, visitors want to feel safe. It's up to those promoting this lunacy to make them safe. Climate change is happening, and bushfires will be more widespread, more intense and more often. Add Diamantina Spur on any day but especially a hot day and there's scope for misadventure. For some reason three word slogans stick in the mind. I just thought of one - Visit Hotham and Die, VHD. Maybe use this, counter the DMP spin.
I'm stunned that toilets will not be at intervals of 1-2 hours. Have they not learned from the OLT experience? Another point to add to my submission, making 74.
Changing the way that camping at places like Federation Hut is conducted is bad. Have the wretched platforms but let us camp as we have always done. More than nearly anyone else, bushwalkers have a connection to the land, for nearly 100 years. All these plans are quite unnecessary. Leave things as they are and find a better way to get more people walking in safety. Dibbins is the answer. Easier, less expensive, no Feathertop conservation zone breaches, more appealing, use Hotham accommodation. It beggars belief that Hotham cannot see this.
Had to laugh. After all this the FHAC name is suss. This entire process has been mismanaged, public funds wasted. In due course I'll be looking this, with a watching brief for the next 5-10 years to see if the 60,500 walker nights is achieved. In nearly 40 years of involvement in conservation I cannot recall one major issue where conservationists were wrong.
Great, visitors want to feel safe. It's up to those promoting this lunacy to make them safe. Climate change is happening, and bushfires will be more widespread, more intense and more often. Add Diamantina Spur on any day but especially a hot day and there's scope for misadventure. For some reason three word slogans stick in the mind. I just thought of one - Visit Hotham and Die, VHD. Maybe use this, counter the DMP spin.
I'm stunned that toilets will not be at intervals of 1-2 hours. Have they not learned from the OLT experience? Another point to add to my submission, making 74.
Changing the way that camping at places like Federation Hut is conducted is bad. Have the wretched platforms but let us camp as we have always done. More than nearly anyone else, bushwalkers have a connection to the land, for nearly 100 years. All these plans are quite unnecessary. Leave things as they are and find a better way to get more people walking in safety. Dibbins is the answer. Easier, less expensive, no Feathertop conservation zone breaches, more appealing, use Hotham accommodation. It beggars belief that Hotham cannot see this.
Had to laugh. After all this the FHAC name is suss. This entire process has been mismanaged, public funds wasted. In due course I'll be looking this, with a watching brief for the next 5-10 years to see if the 60,500 walker nights is achieved. In nearly 40 years of involvement in conservation I cannot recall one major issue where conservationists were wrong.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 08 Dec, 2016 6:45 am
Regarding February or any other month in which there could be a code red day....how do they evacuate all these paying clients when the National Park is closed.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:17 am
neilmny wrote:Regarding February or any other month in which there could be a code red day....how do they evacuate all these paying clients when the National Park is closed.
There are not many code red days up there but the logistics would be a nightmare. Possibly they will be able to get their private helicopter to pick them up. The bigger issue is when a storm hits and a fire starts. I was on Mt. Feathertop in Jan 2003 when that storm hit and reported the small puff of smoke at the base of Feathertop near the Kiewa river while on my way down Diamantina spur. It took a great deal of convincing the operator I was not looking at fog. A bucket of water could have put it out but nothing was done and access to it was easy. I digress. 2 days later, at Derrick hut, the Police helicopter saw us and landed. They had of course been looking for us and said they had evacuated many people from Fed hut and Feathertop. We were offered a lift but there was not danger so we kept walking. The plan mentions a fire in 2013 but none others in recent times.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 08 Dec, 2016 5:35 pm
I wonder if there are thoughts of fireproof bunkers for the 80-100 people at each campsite. These would be very expensive to build. Of course they would be good in winter, if dark.
I cannot find any mention in the DMP about who pays for the DS lodge to be flown in and out. Is this PV? I'm guessing so as only PV can build. Absent details it's hard to estimate the cost, but it could be $50-100,000 a year, and this needs to be added to the total cost. This is a lot of paying walkers, and it's hard to see there being enough to pay for the transport, setup and takedown. One possibility is that after a few years PV realises that it's less expensive to leave the lodge, at which point Hotham says why not go for more income from heli-skiing ...
Does anyone have hard figures on the Great Ocean Walk cost, numbers, profitability, effect on local business and number of people employed due to the GOW? I'm also interested in hard figures showing platform use at Cope and Dibbins Huts. Anecdotal reports are fine. A figure for the upgrade of the Bogong High Plains Road and who does it is also sought. I'm looking for hard facts for my submission.
PV underfunded
http://wild.com.au/news/victorian-natio ... derfunded/
Wow, what a massive drop! My submission will ask if the Minister will guarantee funding
I cannot find any mention in the DMP about who pays for the DS lodge to be flown in and out. Is this PV? I'm guessing so as only PV can build. Absent details it's hard to estimate the cost, but it could be $50-100,000 a year, and this needs to be added to the total cost. This is a lot of paying walkers, and it's hard to see there being enough to pay for the transport, setup and takedown. One possibility is that after a few years PV realises that it's less expensive to leave the lodge, at which point Hotham says why not go for more income from heli-skiing ...
Does anyone have hard figures on the Great Ocean Walk cost, numbers, profitability, effect on local business and number of people employed due to the GOW? I'm also interested in hard figures showing platform use at Cope and Dibbins Huts. Anecdotal reports are fine. A figure for the upgrade of the Bogong High Plains Road and who does it is also sought. I'm looking for hard facts for my submission.
PV underfunded
http://wild.com.au/news/victorian-natio ... derfunded/
Wow, what a massive drop! My submission will ask if the Minister will guarantee funding
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Thu 08 Dec, 2016 6:39 pm
Fire bunkers, oh my , that is another point for my submission!.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Fri 09 Dec, 2016 5:11 am
Lophophaps wrote: I'm also interested in hard figures showing platform use at Cope and Dibbins Huts. Anecdotal reports are fine. A figure for the upgrade of the Bogong High Plains Road and who does it is also sought. I'm looking for hard facts for my submission.
There is a graph for platform bookings at Cope in the Plan but not Dibbins. BHP road is controlled by the Alpine and East Gippsland shires. VicRoads gave it to them with a big cash handout to look after it. The road was sealed on the cheap and the rest of the money most likely spent elsewhere. Recently the EG shire received a grant from the Federal government to improve safety on their section. They painted orange centre lines, put up speed advisory signs and replaced all the white guideposts with orange (because the road is above the snow line). I petitioned to have the speed limit reduced to 80 and they refused. I asked for my guard rails on dangerous corners and they refused. Consequently a car ran off the road and started a bushfire. To fix the road would mean ripping it up and starting over. Widening the road so it was actually two way traffic width would mean approvals from DELWP. Given the Omeo Hwy upgrade cost $13M (under budget) I was suggest at least that if the councils are doing it. EG shire use Wheelans as contractors. They are not very effecient. The Omeo highway also takes a snow plough whereas BHP road would fall apart. Any upgrade would have to be capable of being ploughed.
Given the walk is not about the walk and more about the area, diversification and options, BHP road will be critical to the success of the project as it is the backbone of the High Plains. I can tell you that there was a good chance the road would still be closed now as the Alpine shire was initially not wanting to effect the repairs. I was told the road was like jelly when driven on. I made some calls and suggested EG shire clear the snow from their end as machinery could not get in from the other side. This was done and then EG was told the road would remain closed until Christmas. EG complained and Alpine shire had to effect some sort of repair. This could be the deal breaker and it only dawned on me at the meeting in Bright. The road would have to return to VicRoads control. The shires would not be willing to spend the dollars required. East Gippsland is less than interested in the entire project. They are only about Bairnsdale and the Lakes. Their section of the road is past the walk alignment but in fact everything east of the BHP road and Big River fire trail is East Gippsland. I think Mt. Bogong may be in it as well. This means any development of Rover Chalet may need planning approval from EG shire. Cope Hut is also in EG shire.
Having the road upgraded and possibly open all year round is good and bad for the area (also good and bad for me). It would benefit the resort as people from East Gippsland could get there easier but then the resort would lose the groomed track on the road. I care little about that but others would. I would have much easier access to BC ski trails and could take visitors in winter to the snow instead of the long drive to Dinner Plain and Hotham. There would be increased traffic all year and currently we enjoy the winter peace on the road and the ability to ski free from the locked gate. Mittagundi also use the road in winter for their winter trips but would not if it was open and clear. They would find another option.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Fri 09 Dec, 2016 7:40 am
Submissions are good and I encourage everyone to make one.
However, this is clearly a political issue and will be resolved, eventually, by our politicians.
Please call your local representative and express your views. It is a numbers thing and it really does make a difference when there is a groundswell of protest.
Even though he is a bushwalker, my local member had no knowledge of the Parks proposal. He does now. His holiday reading now includes the draft Master Plan and I'll be sending him a copy of my submission.
The more people who call him (and all the others, from both State houses) the more likely his support.
However, this is clearly a political issue and will be resolved, eventually, by our politicians.
Please call your local representative and express your views. It is a numbers thing and it really does make a difference when there is a groundswell of protest.
Even though he is a bushwalker, my local member had no knowledge of the Parks proposal. He does now. His holiday reading now includes the draft Master Plan and I'll be sending him a copy of my submission.
The more people who call him (and all the others, from both State houses) the more likely his support.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Fri 09 Dec, 2016 8:05 am
Xplora, good points. I've added the High Plains Road cost to my submission. Winter barriers at Windy Corner and (I think) Trapyard Hill is crucial. Many skiers use the Nordic Bowl there are international ski races that would be compromised by an open road.
Bernieq, agree. I'm waiting on the outcome of Monday's meeting. At the last meeting there was a slight return to sanity. Any advice to MPs should have a summary with key points - socio-economic information questionable, figures that are very murky, figures have been ignored or included to boost the economic case, no EIS, no business case, dangerous, likely to bring the region and proponents into disrepute, and a gross waste of public money.
A few minutes ago I sent the following to PV. I pity PV, attempting to do a lot with damn all funds. PV are not the enemy. let's work with them as much as possible. I remain hopeful that economic reasoning will prevail.
The following questions are for the information session on 12 December 2016. They have been sent to Parks Victoria so that the answers can be ready on 12 December. These questions need to be answered and more information needs to be provided before meaningful responses can be submitted. If there is insufficient time to consider the new information then I will be taking action.
1 Some time ago Parks Victoria advised "An environmental risk assessment is also being completed as part of the development of the master plan ... The final risk assessment will be made available to the public when the draft master plan is released." Please provide a copy of this report.
2 Please explain why the DMP format is unacceptable, evidencing a lack of awareness of good grammar, spelling, punctuation and forms of words.
3 Why is the information in the DMP of such a poor quality?
4 What is the source of the financial ans socio -economic information in the DMP? Please provide same to all people and entities that have made submissions prior to the DMP, or who have otherwise expressed interest.
5 Why not have the default track width at 400 mm, with a wider track used only on bridges and raised walkways?
6 Page 33 of the DMP says "Utilise existing trails (sic) where possible". Why is there a duplication of the route from Tawonga Huts to Weston Hut?
7 Why is there so much unnecessary expenditure?
8 Why have markers on clearly defined tracks?
9 Why have seats and why are they so expensive? Has a cost-benefit analysis or return on investment been done?
10 The DMP says that basic camping will be provided, but this exists. Please explain.
11 The Razorback is a Conservation zone. Please explain how a lodge, helicopters and drones are acceptable in this zone.
12 Please explain how helicopters and drones meet The Razorback Conservation zone.
13 The DMP has a one kilometre camping exclusion zone for the FHAC. This will severely affect current users, including the AAWT. It is understood that this zone will no longer proceed, and if so, written advice is sought. Please explain why this zone exists.
14 Please explain why the region is being privatised with government funding at the expense of current users.
15 The DMP says that camping grounds are designed for groups of up to 30. A group this big is totally out of place. Please explain why such a large group is acceptable.
16 Please explain why commercial entities will be preferred over traditional users.
17 Please explain why inexperienced people are being enticed into hazardous regions that are beyond the capacity of these people to deal with.
18 Please explain how management will deal with evacuating large numbers of people if there's a bushfire.
19 The DMP suggest a hazardous night descent of Mt Mt Jaitmathang. Why?
20 Why does the DMP suggest climbing from Tawonga Huts to the saddle south-west of Mt Jaitmathang twice?
21 The market segment suggested in the DMP does not have the skills to accurately assess track difficulty or suitability to match their needs. Hence, the DMP is proposing to put these people at risk. Why?
22 Much more detail is needed for the figures. Can this information be provided as a matter of urgency, and will further Parks Victoria consideration of the matter be put on hold pending such provision and enough time for interested people to review this information?
23 Does Parks Victoria accept that the 17,000 walker night figure is demonstrably false, and that perhaps 1-400 people a year ascend Diamantina Spur?
24 Please provide a business case.
25 Can Parks Victoria provide a platform use figure broken down by location and month?
26 Parks Victoria website information implies that bookings must be made for camping and that camping platforms must be used. This is false. When will Parks Victoria make the information on their website relating to the need to pay for and book camping platforms accurate?
27 Please provide maintenance figures for the FHAC, and the number of extra full time staff or equivalent needed for this.
28 Please advise of the cost to build and maintain all toilets in remote regions of the Bogong High Plains. A breakdown buy individual location is sought.
29 Some 8000 people a year walk Tasmania's Overland Track (OLT). The FHAC proposal has 15,000 people a year. The OLT has major water pollution problems due to a lack of toilets between huts. Toilets between campsites are under consideration. Please advise why this aspect was not in the DMP and Parks Victoria's view on this point.
30 Please explain why the camping platforms cost $80,000 each, and if there was a competitive quoting or tendering process.
31 The Bogong High Plains Road is a critical part of the FHAC. This road is falling apart, with dangerous curves, a poor surface, a narrow width, a speed limit that is too high and other like aspects. It will cost $15-20 million to upgrade this road. Please advise why this was not in the DMP, the cost, who will manage the upgrade, when it will happen, and who will pay for it.
32 Due to the lack of verifiable data, major expenditure that has not been included, flawed models, demonstrably false information and consultants that are totally unable to manage this process, the DMP's benefit to cost ratio of 7.66:1 is out by a factor of about 10. This does not include environmental costs. Does Parks Victoria accept that the return is closer to break-even and may well be lower?
Bernieq, agree. I'm waiting on the outcome of Monday's meeting. At the last meeting there was a slight return to sanity. Any advice to MPs should have a summary with key points - socio-economic information questionable, figures that are very murky, figures have been ignored or included to boost the economic case, no EIS, no business case, dangerous, likely to bring the region and proponents into disrepute, and a gross waste of public money.
A few minutes ago I sent the following to PV. I pity PV, attempting to do a lot with damn all funds. PV are not the enemy. let's work with them as much as possible. I remain hopeful that economic reasoning will prevail.
The following questions are for the information session on 12 December 2016. They have been sent to Parks Victoria so that the answers can be ready on 12 December. These questions need to be answered and more information needs to be provided before meaningful responses can be submitted. If there is insufficient time to consider the new information then I will be taking action.
1 Some time ago Parks Victoria advised "An environmental risk assessment is also being completed as part of the development of the master plan ... The final risk assessment will be made available to the public when the draft master plan is released." Please provide a copy of this report.
2 Please explain why the DMP format is unacceptable, evidencing a lack of awareness of good grammar, spelling, punctuation and forms of words.
3 Why is the information in the DMP of such a poor quality?
4 What is the source of the financial ans socio -economic information in the DMP? Please provide same to all people and entities that have made submissions prior to the DMP, or who have otherwise expressed interest.
5 Why not have the default track width at 400 mm, with a wider track used only on bridges and raised walkways?
6 Page 33 of the DMP says "Utilise existing trails (sic) where possible". Why is there a duplication of the route from Tawonga Huts to Weston Hut?
7 Why is there so much unnecessary expenditure?
8 Why have markers on clearly defined tracks?
9 Why have seats and why are they so expensive? Has a cost-benefit analysis or return on investment been done?
10 The DMP says that basic camping will be provided, but this exists. Please explain.
11 The Razorback is a Conservation zone. Please explain how a lodge, helicopters and drones are acceptable in this zone.
12 Please explain how helicopters and drones meet The Razorback Conservation zone.
13 The DMP has a one kilometre camping exclusion zone for the FHAC. This will severely affect current users, including the AAWT. It is understood that this zone will no longer proceed, and if so, written advice is sought. Please explain why this zone exists.
14 Please explain why the region is being privatised with government funding at the expense of current users.
15 The DMP says that camping grounds are designed for groups of up to 30. A group this big is totally out of place. Please explain why such a large group is acceptable.
16 Please explain why commercial entities will be preferred over traditional users.
17 Please explain why inexperienced people are being enticed into hazardous regions that are beyond the capacity of these people to deal with.
18 Please explain how management will deal with evacuating large numbers of people if there's a bushfire.
19 The DMP suggest a hazardous night descent of Mt Mt Jaitmathang. Why?
20 Why does the DMP suggest climbing from Tawonga Huts to the saddle south-west of Mt Jaitmathang twice?
21 The market segment suggested in the DMP does not have the skills to accurately assess track difficulty or suitability to match their needs. Hence, the DMP is proposing to put these people at risk. Why?
22 Much more detail is needed for the figures. Can this information be provided as a matter of urgency, and will further Parks Victoria consideration of the matter be put on hold pending such provision and enough time for interested people to review this information?
23 Does Parks Victoria accept that the 17,000 walker night figure is demonstrably false, and that perhaps 1-400 people a year ascend Diamantina Spur?
24 Please provide a business case.
25 Can Parks Victoria provide a platform use figure broken down by location and month?
26 Parks Victoria website information implies that bookings must be made for camping and that camping platforms must be used. This is false. When will Parks Victoria make the information on their website relating to the need to pay for and book camping platforms accurate?
27 Please provide maintenance figures for the FHAC, and the number of extra full time staff or equivalent needed for this.
28 Please advise of the cost to build and maintain all toilets in remote regions of the Bogong High Plains. A breakdown buy individual location is sought.
29 Some 8000 people a year walk Tasmania's Overland Track (OLT). The FHAC proposal has 15,000 people a year. The OLT has major water pollution problems due to a lack of toilets between huts. Toilets between campsites are under consideration. Please advise why this aspect was not in the DMP and Parks Victoria's view on this point.
30 Please explain why the camping platforms cost $80,000 each, and if there was a competitive quoting or tendering process.
31 The Bogong High Plains Road is a critical part of the FHAC. This road is falling apart, with dangerous curves, a poor surface, a narrow width, a speed limit that is too high and other like aspects. It will cost $15-20 million to upgrade this road. Please advise why this was not in the DMP, the cost, who will manage the upgrade, when it will happen, and who will pay for it.
32 Due to the lack of verifiable data, major expenditure that has not been included, flawed models, demonstrably false information and consultants that are totally unable to manage this process, the DMP's benefit to cost ratio of 7.66:1 is out by a factor of about 10. This does not include environmental costs. Does Parks Victoria accept that the return is closer to break-even and may well be lower?
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Fri 09 Dec, 2016 8:15 am
Many skiers use the Nordic Bowl there are international ski races that would be compromised by an open road.
The Nordic Bowl is to be turned into a high altitude training area for athletes.
http://forums.ski.com.au/xf/threads/fal ... ion.75395/
http://epbcnotices.environment.gov.au/_ ... 8649600339
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Fri 09 Dec, 2016 11:43 pm
Leave the Nordic Bowl alone!.The Nordic bowl is only about 1600 M in elevation.
Make those people sprint around the Main Range circuit in NSW. Most of it is above 2000 M.. That will get their heart rates and hemoglobin counts going. Better yet , get them to sprint up Hannel's spur!!.
Make those people sprint around the Main Range circuit in NSW. Most of it is above 2000 M.. That will get their heart rates and hemoglobin counts going. Better yet , get them to sprint up Hannel's spur!!.
Re: Falls Creek to Mt Hotham Alpine Crossing
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 7:28 pm
Subject to anything that comes up before late January 2017, especially the meeting, my submission is finished. I will dissect the DMP one page at a time, pouring facts on nebulous information, false logic, dangerous suggestions and breaches of law. I'm up to 19 pages, and will soon have 10,000 words. There's plenty of material above to use as a basis for a submission.
The inside cover is page ii, although it is not so marked. The Disclaimer on page ii is in a small, faded font, quite hard to read and contrary to law, hence invalid. The Disclaimer says “In preparing this Study we have relied upon information concerning the subject property and/or study (sic) area provided by the client and we have not independently (sic) verified this information except where noted in this Study.” That is, McGregor Coxall wrote this entire report without checking everything. As shown in my submission and the comments of nearly everyone else, this intellectual laziness has made the DMP quite useless.
I'm adding "(sic)" wherever I see a mistake. My aim is to destroy the credibility of the DMP. It took a while to write but the individual aspects were not hard. Night descent of Mt Jaitmathang, 4000 people a year up Diamantina Spur, cattle grazing on the page 41 map, the Rover Scout Chalet protected by Snow Gums and not the hill, no toilets between camp sites ... The DMP is a technical disaster.
The inside cover is page ii, although it is not so marked. The Disclaimer on page ii is in a small, faded font, quite hard to read and contrary to law, hence invalid. The Disclaimer says “In preparing this Study we have relied upon information concerning the subject property and/or study (sic) area provided by the client and we have not independently (sic) verified this information except where noted in this Study.” That is, McGregor Coxall wrote this entire report without checking everything. As shown in my submission and the comments of nearly everyone else, this intellectual laziness has made the DMP quite useless.
I'm adding "(sic)" wherever I see a mistake. My aim is to destroy the credibility of the DMP. It took a while to write but the individual aspects were not hard. Night descent of Mt Jaitmathang, 4000 people a year up Diamantina Spur, cattle grazing on the page 41 map, the Rover Scout Chalet protected by Snow Gums and not the hill, no toilets between camp sites ... The DMP is a technical disaster.
© Bushwalk Australia and contributors 2007-2013.