Sensational-Adelaide.com

Wilfy 2007 wrote:

AtD wrote:I agree with the Greens. This will be a car dependant bedroom community at best, and a ghetto at worse.

AtD,

It will only be car dependant if the SA Government do not build a branch line off the SG line which goes north to Crystal Brook.
A U shape connection could be made into the northern end of the Proposed Buckland Park Town centre in my opinion.

Regards,

If people choose to live outside the boundries, then surely they cannot expect the government to prop up PT just for their sake. Many more PT priorities within the boundry that must be attended to first. Hence, the certainty of a car reliant community.

Brando wrote: If people choose to live outside the boundries, then surely they cannot expect the government to prop up PT just for their sake. Many more PT priorities within the boundry that must be attended to first. Hence, the certainty of a car reliant community.

Can you not see the nonsense in building 12,000 homes that are essentially part of the Adelaide metropolitan area, and not providing them with any services and public transport?

Brando wrote:

Wilfy 2007 wrote:

AtD wrote:I agree with the Greens. This will be a car dependant bedroom community at best, and a ghetto at worse.

AtD,

It will only be car dependant if the SA Government do not build a branch line off the SG line which goes north to Crystal Brook.
A U shape connection could be made into the northern end of the Proposed Buckland Park Town centre in my opinion.

Regards,

If people choose to live outside the boundries, then surely they cannot expect the government to prop up PT just for their sake. Many more PT priorities within the boundry that must be attended to first. Hence, the certainty of a car reliant community.

How was the problem solved when Elizabeth was built?
Does anybody know, or remember what happened then.
Regards,

Wilfy 2007 wrote:It will only be car dependant if the SA Government do not build a branch line off the SG line which goes north to Crystal Brook.

Sorry mate, but building a railway line ain't going to make this place not a car dependent dump

I have posted a comment on News.com.au. Planning fail in general.

I tried ignoring this, but it hasn't gone away. Bother.

I think you people need to read the Impact statement, all of your comments against this proposal have been addressed.
Good work Walker Corp, I hope it all works out.

Brando wrote: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 01,00.html

If the Delfin plan goes ahead on the salt plains, i seriously doubt this proposal will..

Sorry, is there are thread about this Delfin plan on the salt plains? (Or maybe even a website)

P.K.: I doubt they've managed to relocated Buckland Park to Mile End, so I sincerely doubt the concerns of the Greens have been addressed.

http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/buckland-park
The EIS expects 50% of all trips within the township to be via walking, bike or public transport in a development of low-density detached homes far from any employment centres, yet mentions nothing on how to achieve this other to mention a single community bus service.

It mentions nothing that I could find about public transport between the township and the rest of Adelaide. It is too far away and too low density for anything like the public transport numbers they talk about to be realistic. Google Maps says it's a 30 minute drive to Elizabeth, 45 minute drive to Galwer and an hour drive to Adelaide. Add peak hour travel times to those numbers and you're looking at commute times on par with the outer west of Sydney. I'd hate to take those commutes by bus. It'll be a slum of people trapped by high transport costs leading to few employment or education opportunities.

The EIS goes on about job opportunities and community facilities in the centre, yet stage one looks like it will have a supermarket and little else.

It's no different to any other sprawl development proposed in the last 25 years, it just has more greenwash than usual. It'll be car dependent and will suffer greatly at the hands of oil prices.

adam73837 wrote:

Brando wrote: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 01,00.html

If the Delfin plan goes ahead on the salt plains, i seriously doubt this proposal will..

Sorry, is there are thread about this Delfin plan on the salt plains? (Or maybe even a website)

Bit of a read here for you mate.

http://www.ridley.com.au/verve/_resourc ... in.pdf.pdf

AtD wrote: The EIS expects 50% of all trips within the township to be via walking, bike or public transport in a development of low-density detached homes far from any employment centres, yet mentions nothing on how to achieve this other to mention a single community bus service.

It mentions nothing that I could find about public transport between the township and the rest of Adelaide. It is too far away and too low density for anything like the public transport numbers they talk about to be realistic. Google Maps says it's a 30 minute drive to Elizabeth, 45 minute drive to Galwer and an hour drive to Adelaide. Add peak hour travel times to those numbers and you're looking at commute times on par with the outer west of Sydney. I'd hate to take those commutes by bus. It'll be a slum of people trapped by high transport costs leading to few employment or education opportunities.

The EIS goes on about job opportunities and community facilities in the centre, yet stage one looks like it will have a supermarket and little else.

It's no different to any other sprawl development proposed in the last 25 years, it just has more greenwash than usual. It'll be car dependent and will suffer greatly at the hands of oil prices.

Keep reading the EIS, there is quite a bit on public transport.
You seem to have got through the document pretty quickly considering it was only released 2 days ago?!?!

As far as driving goes, without breaking the law, I can tell you for a fact, it takes 45 to 50 minutes to drive to North Terrace from Buckland Park in 5-00pm traffic, it takes 15 to 20 minutes from Buckland Park to Elizabeth Shopping Centre car park anytime of the day, 20 to 25 minutes to munno para shopping centre anytime of the day and it takes about 45 minutes to the centre of Gawler in the middle of the day.
35 minutes and your at the sub base and destroyer base.
These are facts, not computor estimated times. This is not even close to comparable to Sydney traffic.

The greens are idiots, for some reason they seem to think that there is no electricity or water out here either.

The whole world will suffer at the hands of high oil prices not just a devellopment in Buckland Park!

Thanks for repeating the trip times I posted. It shows how far away this place is even from the outermost suburbs. Morning peak is statstically worse than afternoon peak, BTW.

There's two chapters in the EIS that talk about public transport. I love these gems:

12.4.2

A further objective of the proposed public transport service arrangements is to contribute to achievement of the
State Strategic Plan target to ‘increase the use of public transport to 10% of metropolitan weekday passenger
vehicle km travelled by 2018

Which is followed by two huge contradictions:

An indicative peak bus period bus route structure was prepared in conjunction with DTEI for 2031, and beyond

Table 12.7 shows that forecast PT usage will peak at just 4.8% of daily trips by 2036 - and that's assuming the place somehow becomes a hub of employment despite having no redeeming features.

The issue isn't water or electricity, it's simply the three defining laws of Real Estate: Location, location, location. Effective, high frequency public transport will not be achievable because population densities are too low and the distances are too great. If this is such a perfect new development, why must it be significantly worse than the rest of the city when it comes to PT provision and use? It should aim to be significantly better, not so far below par.

The urban growth boundary exists for a reason. Adelaide covers far too much land for its population and essential infrastructure suffers as a result.

Minister for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, Patrick Conlon, was quoted this week:
http://www.adelaidereview.com.au/proper ... m=&ucat=19&

the Minister pointed out that we cannot continue to spread forever and higher density living without sacrificing quality of life is to be achieved through developing along the rail corridors. However, he does admit that for this style of living to catch on, there will need to be a change in attitude, emerging as we are from an era where the car was king. “There will need to be a paradigm shift, but with increasing fuel costs and carbon emissions, public transport will be necessary to get around. We want to match our transport objectives to the overall plan for South Australia.”

He should turn his words into action and deny this development.

Clearly AtD you are the expert here, and have indisputably more knowlege than the team assembled by Walker Corporation. I wish you well in the future as with your wealth of knowlege will undoubtably land you a planning career earning 6 figure plus annual salaries, but you're probably already doing that now.

Cute. It's not that Walker Corp don't know what they're doing, it's that they're a corporation. They're out to make a buck and you just need to take what they say with that in mind. The EIS is a sales pitch to get the project though planning approval and has of course been engineered to that end.

Once the land is sold and their obligations fulfilled, they'll bugger off and leave the inherent expense of sprawl to be shouldered by taxpayers, ratepayers and residents. The long term costs are of little concern to Walker Corp. The government should acknowledge this, as Minister Conlon appears to have in the quote above.

P.K., you're very prickly about this one topic - would you happen to have property near this area?

You're not happy with arguments against Buckland Park from infrastructure, or energy use, or environmental impact, would you consider one about our reputation as the "above ground graveyard"?

Earlier in this forum you used the phrase "[Adelaide] can't stay sleepy-hollow forever". It is because I agree with that idea that I don't like seeing this development go ahead (nor the similar expansions around Gawler, Mt Barker, or Murray Bridge). Adelaide manages to have a million people and yet be considered "sleepy" in large part because we are so frigging spread out that you rarely have the feeling that you're in a "real" major city. Density is interesting, exciting, stimulating; dispersion is dull, unengaging, isolating; Adelaide is going to be stuck with the "boring" tag for a long time to come if we continue spreading ourselves thinner, ever thinner.

Ask people to start naming interesting cities, places that they think "I love it here" when they visit, what answers are you going to get? There'll probably be Melbourne, Sydney, and then places like London, Paris, Rome, Barcellona, Amsterdam, New York, LA, San Francisco, Tokyo, Beijing, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore. All big cities, certainly, but also dense cities - cities that give you the feeling "there's a lot going on here". Let me tell ya, you'll be waiting a long time for someone to say "Houston" even though it's HUGE (imagine a city with 5x Adelaide's population spread out over 10x its area - that's what you get when all the money is from petroleum); likewise, what people love about SF is not the vast tracts of suburban houses in the Valley, nor have I met anyone that said they loved LA and by that meant San Berdino.

Yes, changing this means changing the single-house-on-big-yard landscape. Yes, that's going to upset many people who take a rather narrow view of the matter (typically those in the immediate area that are worried about what's going to happen to their house). Yes, the TODs 'n' stuff are going to take time to come to fruition. But there are people that are ready to start working on convincing the people that need to be convinced.

Also, as it stands I keep seeing arguments that are based on this location being not as bad as somewhere else. It's a long way from the city, but it's not as bad as the outer suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne; the EIS compared the area to other new subdivisions and concluded that although the distances were huge it wasn't as bad as those around Gawler, Mt Barker, Murray Bridge. I'm starting to see a follow up to the '"Heaps Good" t-shirts - "Adelaide - there are worse places".

Prince George wrote: San Berdino.

Is calling San Bernadino San Berdino a bit like us calling Port Augusta Portagutta? I've also seen James Ellroy refer to it as San Berdoo. I like to call Naracoorte Nackeroote, but it tends to piss off the locals.

Anyways, I'm with you and AtD on this one. Someone (Walker Corp) is out for a quick buck.