Commenting on the opinion piece: Mandating car parks will only increase congestion – at best

You are correct that mandating car parking levels is not the right solution as it is not suitable for all forms of development.

The policy has only considered the issue of problems created by infill housing, which if you live in an area where this occurs, like I do, it is a real issue.

However, the core issue is not the number of car parks but space. Most new developments build small dwellings with no room. Small bedrooms, limited storage spaces and garages that will only fit a car the size of a Yaris.

This can easily be seen even in inner-city apartments, where size has continued to shrink to allow developers to squeeze more in and maximize profit.

These small dwelling sizes when applied to infill housing lead to the garage being used as storage, and the flow-on problem of cars parked on streets and kerbs.

To fix the problem there needs to be an increase in minimum sizes of dwellings and garages.

My suggestion would be a ute test for garages, where they need to be of a minimum size that is big enough to park a dual cab ute and open both driver and passenger doors at the same time. Flow this on to bedrooms by specifying a minimum size and storage space.

While increasing transport options will alleviate some of these issues, it is not practical in Australia to remove the need for cars.

In a family where both parents work, two cars are needed for the child care run, shopping etc.

TOD’s are a nice dream but they only work for a minority of people who only need to travel to the city.

Try living in the south-west, working out north, using only public transport and dropping three kids at childcare on the way. – Julian Thompson

We have moved into a new housing estate and there are not enough car parks.

There is no forward thinking by developers.

Half the single car garages provide are too small, so most two-car families park one car on the street.

Plus the fact the new estates in the outer suburbs are targeting young families means in 16 years problems will increase when the children get their licences and buy their first cars. 

So Labour has the right idea – we need to provide more spaces.

I only wish the $3000 I already paid in encumbrances already covered this issue. – Carrie Ritter

Commenting on the story: Reveal city council “oysters and champagne” bill: councillor

By all means, reduce costs. But this obsession with trivial matters is becoming a statewide obsession and reveals, to me at least, that we’re becoming too navel gazing and myopic.

It appeals to the lowest common denominator.

If its important, just do it, don’t report on it, and get on with the real issues.

It gets reported because the protagonists (in this case Phil Martin) want kudos for it, from those who think this really matters.

As a ratepayer do I care if they have chicken curry vs a sandwich? No.

I care that they unify instead of being so individual, and get on with issues like rejuvenating North Adelaide, making Adelaide accessible for all forms of transport and encouraging a night time economy for example. – Brent Hill

Commenting on the story: Airport flights, passengers and road traffic set to take off

The drop off and pick up at Adelaide airport is one long bottleneck. Poorly conceived and poorly managed.

Putting cones down the middle of the two lanes does not encourage anxious drivers to go to the far end of the queue as there is no guarantee you can find a stopping place there either.

You can’t see it, so you join the line.

Even little old Launceston airport has two lanes for drop-off and pick-up, each separated by some pavement and there is a separate taxi ramp and it is easy to drive in and see where you can stop.

The Adelaide airport designers had plenty of space available for three, four or more separate lanes.

Unfortunately, new building work at Adelaide airport means the problem can not be rectified. – Steve Charles

In regard to Andrew McKenzie’s letter, first of all, commiserations for such an awful life.

I can’t comment on the notion that Adelaide airport is worse than those of the third world.

But we have experienced quite a few airports in Europe and the UK (as well as Australia), and Adelaide airport is much better than any of them.

It’s friendly, warm, nicely designed for people to hang out in. Better shops and food. We are very fond of it! – Cathy Chua

On a recent return trip from Bali passengers were faced with a nearly two hour wait to pick up baggage from a single carousel.

Complaints to customer service where three people stood with hands behind their backs and a security guard walked around aimlessly were met with an agreement that the service was a disgrace and complaints should be made to Adelaide Airport, whom I emailed with request for said fiasco to be explained.

Five days, no answer. 

As a world traveller Adelaide is the worst airport I’ve come across for this service. Appalled is putting it mildly. – Peter Gasiorowski

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.