Commenting on the opinion piece: Knoll enters the No-Go Zone

Tom Richardson wrote about a “respected Adelaide business leader” and that person wanting a “different lens” on the question of public transport.

That person basically questioned why buses clogged up traffic when perchance they only had a few passengers. My question is why look at the bus as a problem, when there is a huge number of cars with just one person travelling in them, and that is certainly causing more of an issue than public transport?

Just look at any major road heading to the city in the morning, where there are hundreds of single occupants in a car more than likely heading to an all-day park in a multilevel car park in the city. In the afternoon the reverse applies.

Get most of those cars off the road and get those single occupants into a bus and immediately traffic congestion is reduced. Less cars and more buses would be sensible. Perhaps a tax on single occupied cars is worth considering?

Minister Knoll is partly on the right track with more Go Zones with more frequent buses, which should make public transport more attractive. 

Regrettably he has overlooked the elderly, the disabled, the parents with two or three or four kids, the aged care homes, the schools, the hospitals, etc, etc that under the new plan will no longer be near to a bus route.

The bright brains need to address the fact that public transport is there to actually serve the public – not to make a huge slice of the population too far from a bus route, which this plan has done.

Surely far more thought is needed to satisfy both fast and frequent bus services, but not overlook the need to provide for a more complete coverage, plus get more cars off the road. 

The current proposal fails to address the second and third parts of this conundrum. – Paul Turner

I truly hope the relatively inexperienced Transport Minister Stephan Knoll reads and learns from the article written by veteran political journalist Tom Richardson about the axing of 1000 bus stops.

I’ve heard from a mutual acquaintance that Mr Knoll is a genuinely good person. I think what’s missing in his handling of the issue is a lack of first-hand personal experience of public transport and dare I say it, a reluctance to gain any real understanding that would inspire empathy for those impacted by the proposed axing of bus stops.

As a resident of the Barossa Valley, Mr Knoll might do well to spend some time catching buses in the Adelaide suburbs he intends to deprive of bus stops.

On paper his plan might make savings. On the road he might witness the human cost of his proposal and know in his heart the right thing to do. – Carol Faulkner

Commenting on the opinion piece: Ringing the bell on Adelaide’s latest bus shake-up

Reasoned and authoritative information on the proposed bus shake-up helps understanding of an infuriating proposal.

It makes no sense in terms of having a walkable city for public health in a time of horrendous, deadly summer temperatures and the urban heat island effect.

Why such a crazy proposal now? Could it be to distract from an equally ridiculous proposed planning system due to start soon?

 Both are Department of Transport and Infrastructure projects with a plethora of systemic flaws, impenetrable failing online platforms and appalling public consultation. There are capable public servants in DPTI under intolerable pressures.

Perhaps forensic accountants could discover who is benefiting from DPTI projects, because it’s not the South Australian public.

These two issues will indeed backfire on the government – Virginia Ward

Commenting on the story: Controversial Hutt St Centre legal review to cost up to $40k

The tiny but vocal group opposing the Hutt St Centre have tried everything.

First it was false claims about increased crime in the area, which the police have denied, time and time again.

Then it was false claims about local opposition to the centre. In fact, there is very considerable local support, demonstrated again last week when 40 or so residents had a street lunch in honour of the centre.

Now they are trying a legal challenge about compliance with land use regulations.

The Hutt Street does a great job, as it has for more than sixty years. The community needs it where it is, and we want it to stay there. – Phil Butterss

What a truly appalling waste of money and an unnecessary distraction from the great work the Hutt Street Centre does.

“Of course I’m all for social inclusion but…” is just trying to put a veneer of respectability on bigotry and exclusion.

On a positive note tax time is near – Give because you can! – Bill Jackson

So the legal review will cost council $40-$60k but how much will it cost Hutt Street?

Not just financially, but in time and energy?

For every charity donor who says “I want my donation to go 100% to frontline services” and then criticises charity managers for “too much overhead”, here is part of the reason why it is unrealistic.

Charities need to hire professional managers, to manage difficult situations not just in their work with the vulnerable community – but also the community at large. – Paul Edginton, CEO, SYC Adelaide

Commenting on the story: Tenders open for city concert hall but Govt wary on funding

We are a Unesco City of Music and we’ve been without a dedicated concert hall long enough.

Just please, please, please, apply the seven principles of universal design now at the beginning, so that the facility is properly and fully accessible and inclusive.

Leave none of us who might have disability, be elderly, require different types of access behind. We have a right to enjoy these facilities to the same extent as all other citizens.

If the building and its surrounds do not meet these principles, we will have failed (and been failed) once again. Start now in the planning phase. – Nicola Stratford

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.