Commenting on the story: City council planners back Flinders-Franklin bikeway route
Anything short of a separate bike lane is not acceptable and a waste of taxpayers’ money.
The motorists want bikes out of their way, and the cyclists definitely want a barrier to prevent their lives being placed at constant risk.
No amount of education will ease the tension.
We already have an under-utilised north-south bike lane that was placed too far to the east.
Let’s learn from the mistake and get it right for those wanting to ride a bike, giving them the confidence to do so.
And ensure the facility will be central to the higher worker population, being Franklin-Flinders or Pirie but definitely not Wakefield as it will remain largely unused.
As to lost car bays, who cares. Is the cost difference between a street park and a car park worth the risk of life and limb?
We have seen east-west streets change from 2 lanes to 1 to provide parking and clog up the traffic.
Having a few bays does not encourage more people, it discourages people as the traffic is a nightmare and the roads worse again for alternative forms such as bikes.
It also encourages workers to drive in rather than bus it or bike it in.
Like any city we should encourage walking, cycling, public transport and efficient goods delivery and discourage single use motor vehicles which clog up the thoroughfares. – Rob Naudi
A Flinders-Franklin-Frome streets bikeway network would directly pass St Mary’s College, Eynesbury Institute, Christian Brothers College, Adelaide Botanic High School and The University of Adelaide just to name a few.
Adelaide students would benefit greatly from a safe protected bikeway across the city. – William Matthews
At a City of Adelaide Council committee meeting (Feb 18) elected representatives were shown data indicating that city residents spend $239 million in the city, while they spend $216 million online.
Online spending is now up to 47.5% of all spending by city residents.
This data, which is surely similar across the greater Adelaide metro area, means that there has been a big change in shopping practices in the last 10 years.
Bricks and mortar shops in cities all over Australia have suffered. Online shopping has been a major disruptor.
The consequence of changing practices is that fewer people shop in the city. As shopping has increasingly gone on line, demand for car parking has declined.
There is now no shortage of car parks in the City of Adelaide. On street car parking occupancy doesn’t exceed 80% and UParks and other multi-level car parks are well below capacity (just look up at the top one or two floors when you pass by).
InDaily has reported in detail on the high volume of car parks in the City of Adelaide and the low average price paid for them compared with other Australian cities. Drivers to the city have never had it so good.
Worrying about losing 336 car parks in Waymouth and Pirie streets in favour of a separated bike way, or losing a lesser number in Flinders-Franklin, is an awful waste of angst.
City retail may be down – but that’s significantly caused by the internet, not the lack of city car parks.
So, what does Deputy Lord Mayor Hyde do in committee? He launches an argument for developing plans for Gouger-Wakefield, plans which will take staff at least 11 months before they are ready for debate and consultation.
If the future commercial viability of this city depends on keeping 336 car parks (or a lesser number in Flinders Franklin), we’re done!
Abundant and cheap car parking hasn’t turned Adelaide into a boom town. It’s time to take expert advice, look at the evidence about cities and to do something different with this 1960s town. – Peter Lumb
Commenting on the opinion piece: Look beyond the Crows – the park lands are in the sights of an interstate corporate
With the greatest respect to Professor Stock, he should show a little more nous around enterprise than his rather limited assessment of the AFL, given his apparent professorship.
Perhaps the reality of the corporate structure of football doesn’t suit his argument?
The AFL pays no tax because it is a not-for-profit entity that returns its surplus into football. It is in no way like Origin or SA Power Networks (formerly ETSA) or other corporate structures that are required to make a profit in order to provide a return for investors, also known as shareholders.
The shareholders of the AFL are implicitly the members of the clubs, or perhaps more accurately, football itself.
Profit from football operations are invested in … football. A community activity. Good for kids and adults alike. That sort of thing.
It is one thing to say you don’t like development on the parklands. It is another thing to characterise operations that are commercial in nature as simply profit making when they are not.
There are many other arguments that could be used against the AFC proposal, but “for profit” should not be one of them as the AFL is not a “for profit” entity.
For what its worth, I do support football and I use the Aquatic Centre.
I also believe as communities we should be open to opportunities that develop community value – and a partnership between a local government and a not-for-profit (albeit private as most are) that seeks to improve local amenity seems like too good an opportunity to pass up.
But then again it feels like North Adelaide is trying very hard to do just that. – Lauran Huefner
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.
Make your contribution to independent news
A donation of any size to InDaily goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. South Australia needs more than one voice to guide it forward, and we’d truly appreciate your contribution. Please click below to donate to InDaily.