ROGER FRINSDORF: I note Nick Sharpley’s letter re trams v buses (InDaily, 30 October 2013) and can only ask: are you serious? Stand on the corner of North Terrace and King William Street and listen to the screech of iron against iron as the tram takes the corner. Remember the chaos when a tram stopped recently in King Williams street and stopped the entire system as nothing could pass it. Take some time to look down North Terrace on the tram side and observe the ugly overhead cables and compare with the Art Gallery side which has trees and no wires.
Then go to the O-Bahn which has a pleasant tree-lined entrance and 100km/h ride enjoyed by a huge number of commuters with overpasses and underpasses – all well-planned.
Our city forefathers had the common sense to rip up the ugly tram lines and replace them with mobile buses which can vary their route and don’t get pedestrians killed as they alight. As a final check look at the ugly conglomeration of wires on the tram/railway from the Morphett street bridg. A sign of future futility?
CAROL FAULKNER: I agree with several points made by Daniel Bennett in his assessment of Adelaide’s future planning needs (How would you plan Adelaide?, InDaily, 30 October 2013).
But, like all other commentators on the subject, there seems to be a blind acceptance that Adelaide’s population must grow, thereby creating the need to house an increasing number of residents. Does anyone ever stop to ask why must Adelaide’s population grow? Left to its natural fertility and mortality rates plus a moderate intake of migrants, South Australia can maintain a stable population.
I’d be happy to see an increase of residents in the CBD, as long as there was a corresponding claw-back of urban sprawl. But because the government is hell bent on chasing a bullish population target through migration, all of the Greater Adelaide area is up for grabs including arable food-growing land.
I wholeheartedly agree with Daniel that our climate awareness needs to change. We know that the driest state will keep getting drier, so why are we chasing a target of 560,000 extra residents? The desal plant alone will not cater for the additional demand and we need to reduce our take from the Murray if the river system is to survive future droughts exacerbated by climate change. All cities must accept at some point that a sustainable population limit has been reached.
Stay informed, daily
It seems the government’s population growth policy is based on purely economic factors but the details have never been explained because they simply don’t want that can of worms opened up for debate. I’ve tried to pry open the lid and perhaps if others started asking the same questions this all-important issue would get the attention it deserves.
Send us letters via email to [email protected], including your full name. The editor reserves the right to edit letters.
Or join the discussion on our Facebook page.
Want to see more stories from InDaily SA in your Google search results?
- Click here to set InDaily SA as a preferred source.
- Tick the box next to "InDaily SA". That's it.
