And for those election-campaigning critics of the city council, too ready to accuse it of not consulting the people before making decisions, consider that more than 250 public submissions were received from the public and a two-day hearing held for those who wished to make their recommendations in person.
Yet, even now, after the council's committee has achieved a compromise it can recommend, finality will not occur until perhaps as much as another year has passed.
The council may stand justly accused of failing to attend to the opinions of its citizens on some issues, but it cannot be so accused on this one.
There is no doubt the road affords one of Dunedin's most attractive views, has been a popular recreational destination for many years, and is a fine asset for the city. It has also, over the years, become a liability.
In fairness to the council, it must be stated that the many advantages of the promenade have at times seemed outweighed by the disadvantages: hooligans have used the road as a theatre for their more attention-seeking behaviour, the so-called "boy racer" element has not been slow to match it, there have been incessant littering problems and vandalism, on top of which must be mentioned the suicidal risks.
In response, the council has over the years tried various interventions, of which the most obvious was the installation of road "humps" to deter race-track activity.
But the closing of most of the road was taken as an opportunity by various parties to pursue their own agendas.
Public reaction to these responses - none of which had been previously widely aired, let alone considered by councillors - was swift and largely negative, which was why the council found itself faced with finding a path to match both the public and their prior expectation the road would not permanently be closed to vehicles.
Whether the corporate tail was wagging the governance dog is now immaterial: the council committee's recommendations, if confirmed, appear to have achieved a compromise that is acceptable, given the alternatives.
Complete reopening could not be justified without measures to prevent the problems of the past recurring, and complete closure would be unacceptable to a majority of citizens.
The compromise offers the reopening of the road to traffic within restricted hours. Providing these reflect greater use of the road, particularly during summer time when it should be extended into the early evening, that seems acceptable.
The proposal of a shared pedestrian/cyclist pathway needs revisiting since the two have not proven to be invariably or even safely compatible elsewhere, and the opportunity obviously exists for cyclists to share the road.
Other improvements appear to be sensible, and long needed.
As to the future of the reserve between the road and the sea, this must now be given close attention.
The review of the Ocean Beach Domain management plan must include consideration of recreational values as a priority - the essential preservation and protection of the dunes is a given.
The beach itself has very limited easy access from the road and that needs to be attended to; there are opportunities to more extensively plant suitable vegetation on the dunes; and high value given to preserving the ability of people to walk along the beach and freely exercise their dogs from the surf life saving clubhouse.
The existence of indigenous wildlife is a far less important matter since the area cannot be regarded as significant habitat, given what the city itself discharges into the ocean there, and the many other far more important habitats existing nearby.
The council's task, therefore, should be to grasp the opportunity provided by what has been an extensive - and healthy - public debate, one that should not be lost on those seeking office on Saturday.
