thanks for the update @GerardH .i don’t understand this “minimum standard” stance from DCC staff. What they should be targetting is Minimum viable pathway. Their view of minimum is 50x more than needed.
Step 1 is - allow people to use the entire corridor in its current state (eg remove barriers and ensure property permissions in place, remove and signpost any hazards).
Step 2 - improve pathway surface in sections over several years based on usership and demand.
we don’t need another highly over-engineered pathway like Port to Port, which was built to a 90+ year standard. We just need to start with a dirt track and get people on it. Overbuilding by a factor of 20 - 100x cost is ludicrous. This is bueracracy gone mad and is nanny state mentality and engineer CYA (cover ya butt) for liability.
Time to fire some engineers at the DCC and build some miniumum viable pathways based on recommendations from actual cyclists. do they just see this as an employment program for their contractor mates?
A tunnel and corridor that has been there for 150 years is not a hazard. The beauty of cycling on existing rail corridors is 95% of the work has already been done. This asset belongs to the people of Dunedin and will improve the recreation, transit opportunites as well as a much needed proven tourism boost!