This Wednesday’s meeting of Council’s Transport Committee has some more details (see Page 9-11) on the Grafton Gully Cycleway. Nothing drastically new to those who have been following the project here on the blog, but some interesting details about the context to other ongoing and related projects. Further back in the same agenda, you will get the wider, more aspirational plans for the area too.
A point that could be easily missed is that the document mentions current discussions in Council and NZTA to abolish the old rule according to which walking and cycling in motorway designations is forbidden by *default*, and exceptions are very hard to achieve. Making this anachronism more flexible will be a good step.
There was an article on Stuff.co.nz last night about the project / Council meeting. It is a bit surprising that Council voted that heritage advisors “will be involved in all future talks” – Council & Historic Places Trust have been involved from the beginning in 2010, and protection of the cemetery was always a very important item. Well, that should hopefully be easy to clarify.
Update to the update:
Now that Brian Rudman has added his (sadly ill-informed) views on the project, let’s clarify this loud and clear. There was never any intention, proposal or plan to touch any part of the cemetery that still has graves in it. The route goes through areas that were dug up totally when the motorway was built. Some proposals for side access to the route were discussed which would have come closer to / into the cemetery, and they were ditched for that very reason.
As a synergy effect, Council (not transport engineers) proposes to upgrade a pedestrian path so that it would link through the cemetery and allow access to the cycleway (on which pedestrians are allowed). Said path was / is not intended to be for cyclists, and a simple gate, chicane or similar will be able to prevent access.
[Though admittedly, there is one plan that did show the arrows Rudman thinks indicate cycleways heading through the cemetery, and that could be misinterpreted – because the plan itself, unlike the text that goes with it in the same presentation, doesn’t clarify that it is intended for those paths to be pedestrian connections].