Cape York to have sealed roads

Submitted: Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 12:45
ThreadID: 38285 Views:5115 Replies:15 FollowUps:17
This Thread has been Archived
Lets hope that they are kidding. How could sealing the entire Peninsular road not ruin the 4 wd reputation of The Cape

MP pushes for sealed Cape York roads
12:00 PM October 5

State MP Jason O'Brien says sealing the entire Peninsula Development Road would not ruin its reputation as an iconic far north Queensland wilderness trek.

The Member for Cook wants the Commonwealth to match the state's $10 million commitment to seal a further 30 kilometres of the road at Laketown.

He would eventually like to see the entire road sealed to Weipa, as well as the Telegraph Road to Bamaga at the tip of Cape York.

Mr O'Brien says there would still be plenty of wilderness to explore and sealed roads would benefit Cape businesses and residents.

"Who use Cairns for all sorts of reasons to use the health facilities, legal facilities and a range of other services that they need Cairns for and I think that those people deserve to have decent transport access," he said.

The president of the Four-Wheel Drive Club of Queensland, Scott Crawford, says he would not be disappointed if the entire Peninsula Development Road was sealed.

"You've got to look at it, I suppose, from the point of view of Weipa and those other towns that need to have similar services to other places in Australia," he said.

Source: ABC
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 12:54

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 12:54
The president of the Four-Wheel Drive Club of Queensland, Scott Crawford, says he would not be disappointed if the entire Peninsula Development Road was sealed.

Good to see this bloke is on our side.. who needs enemies.
AnswerID: 197947

Follow Up By: Scoey (QLD) - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 14:10

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 14:10
And his justification is that places like Weipa need access to services like the rest of us!

Does he not think that people may move to places like Weipa BECAUSE of the remoteness?!?!
0
FollowupID: 456515

Follow Up By: Member - Bware (Tweed Valley) - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 18:17

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 18:17
Who is this guy; Harold Scrub-bar's love child?

0
FollowupID: 456545

Follow Up By: Member - Bware (Tweed Valley) - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 18:25

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 18:25
Scoey, that is so true! It happens even in places not as remote. You move somewhere because it's quiet etc and before you know it they're putting in huge residential estates then the new residents move in and start saying to local council, "we don't want 4wd's or dogs on 'our' beaches", "we need a westfield shopping centre with Maccas". Bloody progress!
0
FollowupID: 456546

Reply By: Footloose - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 13:24

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 13:24
There have been plans to do this for some years. It would not only benefit the locals, but any future pipeline maintainance.
Am I in favour ? Logic tells me it may be good for the locals in one way, but bad in another. I suspect that much of the flavour of the exoperience could be lost.
I love the Cape the way it is, but the only constant around here is change.
What's next ? A 6 lane highway through the Simpson ?
The GCR is already on the way to being a highway between WA and Gladstone.
My advice is to see Australia now, before it changes too much. Our great grand kids may well look back at our experiences and say "yes, but WHY did they do it ?" :(((((((
AnswerID: 197951

Reply By: Voxson (Adelaide) - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 13:44

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 13:44
I rekon it would be great if they sealed the PDR....I hate corros....
They can seal the Gibb River Road too while they are at it..
AnswerID: 197957

Follow Up By: SunWizard - Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 07:04

Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 07:04
Sooner the better for everybody when sealed
findmeinthesunBob
0
FollowupID: 456821

Reply By: Old Scalyback & denny - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 15:41

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 15:41
afternoon
at least you wouldnt have to slow down at the settlements so they could check the alcohol supply

steve
AnswerID: 197965

Follow Up By: Richard Kovac - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:20

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:20
Ha Ha
0
FollowupID: 456619

Reply By: David from David and Justine Olsen's 4WD Tag-Along - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 18:03

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 18:03
I am dead against just sealing the road, unless sufficient other tracks are made available to 4wders. Loss of access to areas suitable for 4wding is the biggest issue for four-wheel drivers across the country. Pave the cape road, close the Kirrima range, shut up the deserts and then where do we go. I have just received a letter from Scott Crawford re services at national parks, and I have to say that in my opinion the man is completely out of touch with reality.

I won't give details here, but anyone who has received the letter via a 4wd club, and is a bit confused by his antics, and wants my point of view on it feel free to message me.
AnswerID: 197975

Follow Up By: David from David and Justine Olsen's 4WD Tag-Along - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 19:07

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 19:07
Actually damnit, I will give my point of view here. It is off topic to the original thread, so I would be happy to start a new thread if this one gets out of hand.

Scott Crawford wrote to QLD 4WD clubs asking that all members copy his letter and send to ministers and federal members. There are afew items raised that are in my view valid, such as restricted access for campervans and the limitations of an online booking system, but the rest of it reads like a personal fight between Scott and the park rangers, and in my view is a misuse of position as President of FWDQLD.

The gist of it is he wants National parks to provide more services and charge less. He wants rubbish services and firewood. This is in dirct contracts to the Code of Ethics of FWDQLD, and in my opinion burdening QPWS with such services will result in less opportunities for 4wders especially clubs.

My response is

"that we feel that you have produced a highly personal and emotive letter. Importantly, we do not feel that it is appropriate for you to use your position as the President of Four Wheel Drive Queensland to pursue what appears to us to be a personal agenda. Furthermore, we do not feel that your letter represents the philosophies and ethics of Four Wheel Drive Queensland and those of the members"

"I would like to address some points in your sample letter. We disagree that it is the responsibility of QPWS to provide firewood and to collect rubbish. The belief that National Parks should collect our rubbish would seem to contradict our code of ethics, “Keep the environment clean. Carry your own and any other rubbish out”. It is our opinion that funds used by QPWS to collect and dispose of rubbish would be better spent providing improved and increased access and tracks for the general 4WDriving public. "

"Another point I wish to raise is that you failed to provide any positive suggestions to improve the system. While we do agree with your statements about the inadequacy of the online and phone booking system and see problems with the restricted access for camper trailers and caravans due to the use of bollards, we would prefer to campaign for real solutions and useful dialogue with our politicians and the QPWS. "

"One example of the result of a cooperative relationship between 4WDrivers and a government agency is the document entitled “Recreational vehicles and protected areas of South Australia – a handbook for managers and recreational users” (ISBN: 1 921018 32 1) developed by the Department of Environment and Heritage (SA) and the South Australian Association of 4WD Clubs who have established a formal partnership allowing both parties to benefit from the wealth of knowledge within each group. Their collaborative initiative focuses on the “management of protected areas to meet the desires of a rapidly expanding group of recreational vehicle users seeking challenging and rewarding environmental experiences with minimal facilities” (Department of Environment and Heritage, 2005, p. 3) Additionally, their goal is “sustainable use of protected areas by recreational vehicles through the implementation of legislation, policy and minimal impact practices based on a sound knowledge of the resource, requiring a proactive, consultative and cooperative approach” (p. 7). There are some relevant and interesting points in that handbook that are in contrast to some of the points you raise in your sample letter, according to the National Parks code outlined in that document. For example, “Take your rubbish with you” and “use liquid fuel or gas stoves” (p. 8). Furthermore they encourage the voluntary involvement of 4WD club members to preserve the natural environment."

"We would support the implementation of this kind of relationship between individuals and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and would prefer to encourage correspondence that will enrich our opportunities to access and enjoy our state’s parklands"
0
FollowupID: 456549

Follow Up By: Crackles - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 21:41

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 21:41
Well put Dave..... Scott certainly appears to have lost touch with those he represents.
Cheers Craig........
0
FollowupID: 456581

Reply By: David from David and Justine Olsen's 4WD Tag-Along - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 19:09

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 19:09
typo correction "this is in direct contrast to the Code of Ethics"
AnswerID: 197979

Reply By: PatrolBen - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 19:10

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 19:10
Rightyo:
This must be another greenies plan to kick the four wheelers out of anywhere decent.
Step 1: Seal road so more people can get in
Step 2: Kick up a big stink about how they think the place is being 'desecrated'
Step 3: Close all the tracks

Not fooling me: The only true wilderness is between a greenies ears!
Leave the place unsealed.
AnswerID: 197980

Follow Up By: Leroy - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 20:35

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 20:35
greenies aren't into bitumen.....they are jumping up and down at the moment about the sealing of the Bogong high plains road because it attracts more tourists, rubish etc. so you think they are pro sealing the road to the tip. You got to be kidding. They would be opposed to this as much as many other people.

Leroy
0
FollowupID: 456564

Follow Up By: Grunt Oxn - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 18:36

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 18:36
Couldn't agree more Leroy, Paved roads will mean more people and therefore more pressure on the environment. Government or local authorities will say that this is in hand and will be managed to ensure the environment receives minimal impact as a result of this. Hmmm, heard that one before? Bottom line is that's its really difficult to do. Eventually as this pressure manifests itself within the environment the custodians of such feel the need to take action to help prevent further degradation such as closing secondary tracks deemed non essential.

Now I realise that business up there will be better as a result of paving the road and more people will also mean things like a greater appreciation of the environment up there.......but at what cost?

Personally I'm against it for these sort of reasons but see the points made by others, in 20 or 30 years time we should have a clear picture if I'm right or not. I work in the environment sector, consider myself a greeny and love 4bying.

Joe

0
FollowupID: 456740

Follow Up By: PatrolBen - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 19:50

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 19:50
I see I didn't add enough sarcasim!

Just that I am highly sceptical when anything happens around National Parks that involve 'opening' them up. Although I am from QLD I have heard horror stories about the Vic Hight country amongst others and from memory (haven't been home for a while)that the southernmost 18km of Fraser Island is outa bounds to 4wd's due to environmental concern about nesting birds who just happen to bury thier eggs on the high tide line. 'CONCERN' rasied by greenies ...... it 'almost' seems planned.

If too many tourists get in I also can see closures of side tracks and then all concerned it'll be a two lane 100km/ph highway to the tip.
Freakin Brilliant!
0
FollowupID: 456756

Follow Up By: Grunt Oxn - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 20:09

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 20:09
and I'll be the first to admit, if your concerned you have good reason to be! Couldn't agree more with your final comment too.

here's to remote Australia, let's hope it stays that way.
Joe
0
FollowupID: 456759

Reply By: Peter - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 22:06

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 22:06
I don't know if I would get too excited over the proposition, they can't even upgrade the Ipswich Motorway! How would they ever expect to seal all of Cape York. The State would expect the Federal Government to pay and as we've seen with other projects (such as the Tugun bypass) that happens very slowly if at all
Peter
AnswerID: 198019

Follow Up By: David from David and Justine Olsen's 4WD Tag-Along - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 23:58

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 23:58
at all is too fast. As someone who was living in the Daintree prior to the Bloomfield road, let me tell you it happens real fast. It is now bitumen from the Daintree river to Cape Tribulation and bituent from Cairns to Cooktown. I give it an absolute maximum of ten years befroe it is bitumen to Weipa
0
FollowupID: 456606

Reply By: Member - Jeff H (QLD) - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 23:12

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 23:12
Yeah g'day . I'm Jeff, pushing 60, and just a pup: (deleted personal detail, sorry).
Anyway enough
Moved to Darwin from Alice about the same time as the road toward E. Alligator was sealed.
Went to go fishing one time, and there's a fleet of Vicwiegens, (complete with 'vans), where we used to party/fish.

We were youngish then (as now),'n thought Port Douglas looked OK.
. THANK YOU, cristopher.
Mission Beach (south, for those who know), was home for a while.
We currently live off a "backroad" N of Bundaberg. Gees,(I wish I could say bleep ), and since the link has been sealed, trucks and buses have become commonplace.
What's my point? 2 things:
(1) Seal an access road, and you risk destroying the very thing the place/people were there "BA"*
. (2)See a link to Agnes Waters.
* = Before bleep s.
Thank you for persisting, you must know the feeling, JH>
AnswerID: 198030

Follow Up By: David from David and Justine Olsen's 4WD Tag-Along - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 07:36

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 07:36
These politicians are out of touch. They say it won't change things, but it does. I had the pleasure of hearing Dr David Suzuki speak a few nights back. He has been holidaying in Port Douglas for nearly 2 decades. He said, "the very things that made Port Douglas attractive have been lost to development."

I lived near there for a decade and I have to agree. The same thing will happen to the Cape. We should all write to the minister and let him know our views. We should write to the likes of Scott Crawford and tell him what efforts he as the President of FWDLD should be doing on our behalf.

I beleive that if the road is to be sealed to Weipa (and it will be) then we should be given access to at least as much gravel road in other parts of the State including some tracks closed recently due to amalgamation of State forests and National Parks.
0
FollowupID: 456637

Reply By: Richard Kovac - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:23

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:23
About time grade it and paint it black

I'm getting the taste for a nice statesman or a fairlane

now that's cruising

AnswerID: 198044

Reply By: Bros 1 - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 16:06

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 16:06
Kev M,
I would like to lodge the following in support of sealing the entire DEVELOPMENT road.
1. There is no 4b challenge on the DEVELOPMENT road apart from the corrugations. These can be found on any unsealed road.
2. The TELEGRAPH track would still be there for the 4b fraternity, as would all the divergent roads to the east and west.
3. What right have we as a 4b fraternity to try and hold back access to the Cape from the people who already live and work there or the rest of the community who might want to go to the tip to see that part of Australia.
4. I have no affiliation with any political party or 4b organisation.
Where is LAKETOWN and as for sealing the TELEGRAPH track, forget it.
These are only my opinions and are not intended to ruffle any feathers.
Cheers,
Bros.
Work is the curse of the down and out bludger.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 198095

Follow Up By: SunWizard - Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 07:23

Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 07:23
Bros good to see a voice of reason and common sense
findmeinthesunBob
0
FollowupID: 456824

Reply By: Willem - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 20:53

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 20:53
Reading through all these posts I see heaps against and a few for the sealing of the road to the Cape.

Since when was Weipa a town for peace and quiet?. AFAIK it is there to service the the Bauxite Industry.

You cannot stop progress and development of better infrastructure.

Does anyone remember when the road south from Alice still had 800km of dirt left on it. That was finally sealed in 1988!! Didn't hear too many complaints about that...or when the 300km of corrugated road from Fitzroy Crossing and to Kununurra was sealed. Not many complaints there either.

Just because you drive a 4x4, you lot think you own all the 'free' space and the gravel roads?

The roads will be sealed one day which will be good for the development of the Cape and the advancementt of the communities which dot the landscape. I am sure there will still be plenty of places to go where you could camp and enjoy the bush, even if the Cape was sealed.

Most likely in another 20years 4x4's and rough driving will be something academic.

So, as Footy points out, better get out there now and Do It!

AnswerID: 198140

Reply By: silkwood - Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 08:19

Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 08:19
Any sealing of this road will be bugger-all about access for tourism or even the benefit of "locals", it will be about access for industry (read mining).

Agree or not, some of the argument here is a bit rich. It will spoil the reputation of the place? So we shouldn't seal it because then there's no bragging points at the pub?

Letting more people in will spoil the place, it's better the way it is? I'll bet that's what they were saying 40 years ago before "bloody tourists" (look in the mirror) invaded the area. Besides, isn't this the argument for closing lots of tracks in National Parks?

There are less places for 4WDing all the time? Well, bugger me, so that's the reason for the existence of the bush?

Unless a little more rigour is used in arguing for or against issues which affect access, it is likely such forums will have little affect in persuading anyone towards their perspsective.

I do find it funny, though. When I listen to walkers and environmentalists arguing against 4WD access, they sound just like you lot! :)

Cheers,

Mark
AnswerID: 198179

Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 14:47

Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 14:47
We're closer in outlook than I first thought :)
0
FollowupID: 456861

Reply By: Bware (Tweed Valley) - Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:41

Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:41
Personally, I can't wait to be able to drive to the tip and have maccas for lunch; that's why we travel, isn't it? ;-))
AnswerID: 198191

Follow Up By: silkwood - Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:52

Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:52
It's why YOU travel! Personally I travel so I can get there and complain about there being a McDonalds and how it's not the same as it used to be, is it? :)

Mark
0
FollowupID: 456842

Follow Up By: Bware (Tweed Valley) - Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 15:24

Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 15:24
There is a world waiting for us in which the only way to travel is on expensive tours that have special liscences that you must book two years in advance to be in a bus or boat with thirty others going 'ooh, aah!' as you drive past the beautiful scenery. You stop at a chain fast-food that is anchored over the barrier reef for lunch then whisked away to the 'eco-lodge' at the end of the day. As superficial as Hollywood.

What is 'good' development, what is 'right'? There is only example to go by. The NSW coast still has water restrictions but must be (along with SE QLD) the fastest growing population in Australia. Who is going to make the hard decision to cap population growth until infrastructure (read water supply) atleast catches up with the current populations of various catchment areas? What use is a new dam if there is a lack of rainfall? But development goes on. It is out of control. "Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them".

I can't believe I'm writing this; thanks to the NSW governments for making so much of the NSW coast NP's. If they didn't it would be all open to developers. As it is, every little village is becoming a satellite suburb to whatever town they are nearest to. The rates go up for the elderly, the rents go up, there's always a lack of infrastructure for the growing population. But there's always that catch-cry; 'development is good for the economy'.
0
FollowupID: 456865

Reply By: Bware (Tweed Valley) - Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 13:38

Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 13:38
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop with a sealed road to Weipa and the benefits for the locals; it paves the way (pardon the pun) for more development. A sealed road means easy access and soon you have new suburbs popping up, more tourists and in time it can only go two ways; it becomes a developers' paradise or they lock up the rest of the land due to sensitivity and too many tourists. There is no middle ground because governments at all levels don't make balanced decisions. Not all progress (development) is progress (movement towards something better).
AnswerID: 198205

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)