News of proposed developments either anywhere near New Zealand's special places, or with any specific possible adverse effect, prompt much negative reaction. Partly, that is because many automatically believe preservation is good and "progress" is bad.
Others are cautious by nature or protective of their own "back yards". Whatever the reasons, the initial recoil helps gives society time to take stock. After all, our fragile environment can be so easily degraded and our countryside, rivers, bush, beach and mountains quickly spoilt. The next response should be considered and as objective as possible. Is the development really going to do the damage feared?
What are its advantages?
Are prejudices and closed minds at work?
Fortunately, the structure of our laws - and consents procedures - encourage pausing before full engagement. It is, generally and in most sensitive areas, rightly difficult to forge ahead with projects that might deleteriously affect others and the environment.
The Milford Dart tunnel proposal illustrates these points.
Many, without hesitation, blanch at the prospect, sited as it is in two national parks. Whatever the safeguards, whatever the benefits, a development of this scale is unconscionable. A barrier of objections will be raised and opposition will be substantial. That is understandable because of the scale of the plan and because we must be wary. Nevertheless, if observers stand back, as the Department of Conservation has, all might not be dire. Perhaps, as Doc claims, subject to suitable mitigation, the various environmental effects will be "minor". Doc produced a 168-page report to accompany last Saturday's official notification of its intention to grant a concession to Milford Dart Ltd (MDL) for the tunnel from the Routeburn Rd in Mt Aspiring National Park to the Hollyford Rd in Fiordland National Park. Submissions close on January 27 next year, with hearings pencilled in for March.
The project, one of several ideas for cutting the travel time to Milford, was first promoted six years ago. Plans were temporarily withdrawn in 2009 because of the international credit crunch and amended last year. A 600m road through forest in the Routeburn Valley was never going to receive permission, and the tunnel portal would now be in an open grassy area. The tunnel's length has been extended from 10.4km to 11.3km.
The one-way "Dart passage tunnel" would be for buses only. Costs of $170 million have been cited for some years but will have, surely, escalated well above that figure.
The 600km trip to Milford would be cut to 240km and nine hours' driving time reduced to four. An average of 23 buses a day - 40 in summer and eight in winter - are predicted. The tunnelling itself would take 18 months and the project four to five years. The Hollyford and Routeburn roads would need to be widened.
Several issues arise immediately. One concerns the possible collapse of the venture part-way through, leaving a mess. MDL is a full subsidiary of the established company which owns the car testing facility at the Snow Farm on the Pisa Range, and it has experienced directors - including, curiously, Sir Tipene O'Regan - but nevertheless substantial and secure bonds will be required.
Southland interests continue to be alarmed that much of the bus traffic, which contains about 60% of the visitors to Milford, will bypass Te Anau. But the damage might well be less than for other Milford shortcut proposals because the tunnel will be for buses only. Whatever happens, Te Anau is a gorgeous, peaceful place that will have a strong future.
The Otago Conservation Board opposes the project because, it believes, any roading in Mt Aspiring National Park outside its "front country" is contrary to the park's plan. The Southland Board is neutral. MDL believes the tunnel's use will substantially lessen the middle-of-the-day cramming at Milford and take pressure off facilities. It believes it will also improve visitor experience, although that could, in the long run, simply increase numbers going to Milford. New Zealand has to recognise, on that score, that it must earn its way in the world and, sometimes, that will mean developments like the tunnel.
The opportunity now arises for Doc's report and the company's mitigation claims to be examined, for formal objections to be heard, and, one must hope, for careful and balanced considerations and conclusions as part of the long process through which the tunnel proposal must travel.
