Sensational-Adelaide.com

They should name and shame the businesses threatening to sue council over the provision of on street car parking, so that I and everyone I know can avoid ever spending a single cent at their business.

This revised proposal is a joke.

Why does everything to do with the Adelaide CBD come back to on-street car parking?

Adelaide CBD has more car parking station spaces available than either Sydney CBD or Melbourne CBD, why do people still expect on-street parking immediately at the front of the CBD business they are visiting as well? The stretch of Flinders Street in question has up to a dozen car parking stations within 200m of the street.

The same stretch of Flinders Street has up to a dozen legal firms, and these are the real culprits in this sorry saga – who in the hell do they think they are to threaten legal action against the ACC for losing on-street car parking? They don’t own the street, The ACC needs State Govt backing here, and call their bluff, take the original Flinders-Franklin proposal back to the preferred option and open it to public consultation as per proper process.

This all goes back to a disjointed transport plan for the CBD, what supposed to be in planning is:

• Grenfell-Currie PT corridor upgrade
• CBD underground rail with stations at Hindmarsh Sq and Victoria Sq
• NS thru and direct route bikeway from South Parkland to North Parkland
• EW thru and direct route bikeway from East Parkland to West Parkland
• Tram extension to North Adelaide and an agreed Tram City loop – the latter still has no route agreed.

And what is the use of Infrastructure SA? And where are they, not only in this saga, but on all the items above? So far their reports released to date have just been regurgitation of previous information.

PT, cycling , walking - all the things needed to operate smoothly in a modern city, and here we are still thinking like its half a century ago with on street car parking.

What a crock of shite.

ACC have failed massively on this one. Embarrassing.

mshagg wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:32 am

They should name and shame the businesses threatening to sue council over the provision of on street car parking, so that I and everyone I know can avoid ever spending a single cent at their business.

Sadly the law firms which would make those threats would probably also be happy to cause difficulties based on any such action.

However it is nice to know that if ever looking to find a street park during the day in town the place to try and take them is on Flinders Street.

Nice of the Lord Mayor to admit the lobbying, but it's a bit pathetic to blame the administration for minimal consultation rather than the elected members who've obstructed this every step of the way. It'd be nicer for her to face down the naysayers and actually show some leadership on the issue, as is supposed to be her role! Honestly, with her background in the arts, I thought Sandy Verschoor would be a stronger advocate for a more progressive city. Perhaps she should take a trip to Sydney and learn something from Clover Moore.

Also, I'm confused how this is only costing $5.8m when the state has $12 million on the table and it's a huge stretch of road.

Disappointingly the bicycle interest groups are encouraging members to offer vocal support for the proposal (the fatally compromised design they've come up with isn't even guaranteed to pass at council).

What a terrible precedent to establish, as if ACC wasn't already beholden to on street car parking.

mshagg wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:22 am

Disappointingly the bicycle interest groups are encouraging members to offer vocal support for the proposal (the fatally compromised design they've come up with isn't even guaranteed to pass at council).

What a terrible precedent to establish, as if ACC wasn't already beholden to on street car parking.

Sadly BikeSA has quite a narrow view of who is a "cyclist", and both their lobbying and their campaigns reflect that.

Council voted against the design.

Sorry, I should say - Team Adelaide voted against the design.

Probably the only sensible thing Team Adelaide has done.

It was voted down, but for very much the wrong reasons. It's laughable that the ones that voted it down, were the ones that pushed for the compromised dog leg in the first place. Their interest isn't in doing it right, it's in fucking with the project enough that it ends up never happening.

The state government announced funding for it back in 2016. The last thing the project needs is more fear mongering at businesses in the area, veiled as "consultation".

Article in the tiser today, seems St Marys, the cathedral and orthodox church have hired a consultant to deliver a report claiming the bikeway is a "major threat to public safety".

Im not sure what parallel universe we ended up in that deems infrastructure to support an active mode of transport for school kids is a bad thing. Welcome to Adelaide.

mshagg wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:12 am

Article in the tiser today, seems St Marys, the cathedral and orthodox church have hired a consultant to deliver a report claiming the bikeway is a "major threat to public safety".

Im not sure what parallel universe we ended up in that deems infrastructure to support an active mode of transport for school kids is a bad thing. Welcome to Adelaide.

Of course, The Advertiser would air this nonsense too.

So multi-lane traffic bordering the church and school (both Franklin St and West Tce) is perfectly safe for school children and church go-ers, but a separated bike lane is a major threat?

So I'm not a news ltd subscriber, nor will I ever be, but Adelaidenow seems to have an article outing Greg Griffin as the chief a-hole threatening to sue council over the proposed Bikeway.