Responding to Smithson: 20 cars pinged as bikes vs cars city tussle gets ugly

Regarding the stat that 87 per cent of business is from outside the CBD, yes, it is correct that around 13 per cent of business is generated by locals.

But that is not the whole story. Let’s have a reality check here.

Adelaide is our capital city, with around 350,000 people using the city per day and around 29,000 local residents.

In every other precinct, that figure is around five per cent.

So, Hutt Street is the highest performer for business generation by residents in the city, and it is outperforming the visitor/resident ratio. – Patrick Maher

Surely Hutt Street needs more off-street parking, like any other shopping precinct. It is poor planning that has allowed development without off-street parking. Residential development also has insufficient parking, so most of the side street parking is reserved for residents who should be parking on their own properties. Some councillors and local traders are living in the past and want roads to be used for parking rather than for active transport, including bikes and pedestrians. Other cities have dealt with this long ago. – Peter Mayer

You see, there is really no problem with Hutt Street apart from that being created by the ill-conceived schemes of the Adelaide City Council.

The sad and outdated philosophy of removing private cars from the city is a pipe dream, creating angst and costly experiments. We are not Copenhagen, Amsterdam or Salzburg. This is Adelaide, unless people forgot.

Hutt Street is not only a special shopping/entertainment strip but also an essential traffic artery (as if the council hasn’t noticed), the residents, businesses and the public would be happy to be confident that they can expect stable continuance, but the council still appears to be hellbent on getting on with its silly and expensive ideas. Surely there are greater priorities for council to deal with.

Leave it the way it is and let the residents, businesses and public enjoy an already pleasant strip. – Sozo Nikias

You might like

Opinion

Smithson: 20 cars pinged as bikes vs cars city tussle gets ugly

Opinion

OPINION: SA’s lifesaving services crumbling as govt fails front line

There seems to be a misconception that everyone wants to ride bikes in the Adelaide City Council.

It’s been my experience over the past five years, since we returned from living overseas, that bicyclists are few and far between in the city centre, let alone in the southwest corner of it on Hutt Street.

There is an element of coercion by the Adelaide City Council to force people into bicycling. This isn’t the first attempt to improve the rideability in the CBD, and previous projects have had mixed results. But I don’t and didn’t see a sudden influx of riders resulting from those changes.

Is this simply a solution without a problem? – Bob Sibson

You might like

Opinion

Smithson: 20 cars pinged as bikes vs cars city tussle gets ugly

Opinion

OPINION: SA’s lifesaving services crumbling as govt fails front line

I was told by a former Adelaide City Council traffic design officer that previous surveys had shown that many car parks were taken up by nearby workers, not so much patrons. I doubt that’s changed.

They wouldn’t want to repeat King William Road, where cars were removed at a cost of $26 million – an absolute disaster for traders and a nightmare to park in.

Go for Option A … leave it alone. – John Green

Ah yes, another genius idea from Adelaide City Council — because nothing says “world-class planning” like closing off streets with the CBD’s traffic volume.

Here’s a thought: once Hutt Street and surrounding side streets hit inner-Copenhagen density of 26,223 people or inner-Amsterdam’s of 86,862, let’s lock it down for bikes, pop-up cafés and daily latte parades.

Until then? Maybe keep it at 50 km/h with plenty of parking, so the businesses can actually survive — and the rest of us can still get there.

Honestly, I haven’t seen a decent piece of policy from Adelaide City Council in decades. – Philip Hopkins

I, as a resident of the southeast corner for more than 30  years, am appalled at the council’s intended proposal. We need the Hutt Street businesses to continue and flourish. As a now elderly person, I am afraid of spending the rest of my life without the services we have, and they can only continue if parking remains as is. Please do not waste our taxpayers’ money on putting in bike lanes; we have Frome Street, which is servicing cyclists from the Unley area. Surely, we don’t need another street so close converted into bike lanes. – Pam Mitchell

Responding to Exclusive: Lord Mayor says Adelaide’s COP31 bid running hot in New York

The Lord Mayor might think about who she pals around with. Does she not know that New York City Mayor Eric Adams ended his doomed re-election bid on Sunday, after being accused of bribery, wire fraud, and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations? – John Driggers         

Editor’s note: Cr Adams denied the allegations.

Responding to Trams hit spotlight in latest public transport pitch

The word chutzpah is often very relevant in political discussion these days, but none more so than in regard to the Greens’ push to extend the tram line to Norwood and North Adelaide.

Putting aside Robert Simms’ urgent need to Google the phrase “cost-benefit analysis”, the Greens claim adding more than three-quarters of a billion dollars to our already record debt is a risk worth taking just so they can be competitive, not win, a couple of inner-city seats, and the rest of the state can go hang.

Unless the SA Greens ditch these sorts of politically and economically immature policies that benefit a tiny proportion of the population yet saddle the entire state with the cost, they are likely to go the way of their federal counterparts and see reduced representation in the next parliament. – David Lodge

Responding to All aboard: SA Govt on announcement train after Libs 50c promise

I don’t warm to many of the Liberal’s policies, but I like the idea of the 50c fares. Public transport needs encouragement. It is better for the environment, getting cars off the road, lowering commuter stress, and, if fares are low enough, for the cost of living. It should bring more buses and trams along.

It makes more sense than cutting down trees for an elite golf tournament. – Jock Churchman

Why does Labor go on about trains and trams being back in public hands but ignore the buses? Buses have a greater reach into our suburbs, carry more passengers and have a significant impact on public transport in this state. – Dominic Green

I find it somewhat strange that such an elaborate press conference was held by what is normally a very measured and strategic Malinauskas Labor Government.

Reading into the detail of this announcement, the only real change to the Gawler railway line timetable is weekday trains, where many are now going to run two minutes quicker, noting, however, that Adelaide Metro’s definition of “on-time-running” is up to five minutes after the scheduled departure time. Therefore, such a small time saving is barely worth a news article, let alone a headliner and all the press coverage this announcement received!

In 2008, when diesel rolling stock plied this line, and the sleepers were old timber and not concrete sleepers, weekend train services took a few minutes less than the newly announced timetable to travel from Gawler Central to Adelaide.

Also, despite the press conference fanfare, the thousands of residents of Riverlea Park and Virginia are still without evening or weekend public transport – the only improvement was adding a few new bus stop poles in Riverlea Park. – Joel Taggart

Responding to State Government makes largest Adelaide park lands grab since 1837

Cameron Ogden… in a letter responding to “State Government makes largest Adelaide Park Lands grab since 1837” erroneously criticises the Adelaide Park Lands Association for, in his words,  “seeking to dictate who belongs and who doesn’t”.

This is not just mistaken: it is a reversal of the truth. The Adelaide Park Lands Association stands for the exact opposite of this strange claim.

We totally agree with Ogden’s assertions that “the park lands belong to all South Australians” and “must remain a shared resource”.

That is why we campaign for open green public park lands, and against developments that fence off, build over, restrict access, or permit park lands access only to paying customers.

Ogden’s contention that “new park lands are being created” by new government infrastructure defies logic. Putting huge new buildings on public park lands is the exact opposite of “creating” park lands. – Shane Sody

With respect to Lucy Hood’s statement, my comment is. What is she thinking?

The expansion of high-rise accommodation in the city is a good reason to reverse the loss of free public open space in Adelaide’s park lands. We need more trees for people to enjoy and access freely, not fewer, for our expanding number of city citizens. Shame on Labor. They should leaf the trees alone.

They don’t get that heritage is more than buildings. – Dr Iris Iwanicki-Reid