What is the biggest transport-related challenge or opportunity facing SA that the Planning and Design Code needs to consider?

Please let us know your thoughts by leaving a comment in the box below.

Comments closed

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team

03 Dec 2018

Hi Jordan

In light of Stefan's original comment about the impact of living near the northern airport, we have registered what you've said and thank you for your comments, which will be included in our report about all the issues and concerns raised by you, members of our communities and by people who work in the planning industry. While this issue is beyond our immediate ability to directly change, we hope that a new planning system will be able to exert some positive influence over the relevant departments and industries to effect a better outcome in this and other transport-related scenarios. We have also heard your comment about consultation sessions being held on weekdays, and are considering the logistics involved in putting on some sessions on weekends in future, if it is possible, given most working peoples' time commitments on weekends too and the extra costs and resources involved. Thanks again for your involvement.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team

03 Dec 2018

Hi Stefan,

thankyou for your comments about the situation you and other residents are experiencing with the northern airport. While it does not respond directly to some of the issues raised in the discussion paper, it is nevertheless a concern that is impacting people who live in this area and is something which require further examination. Planning can only influence a part of the operation of a facility such as this, however, but there is potential for a new planning system to be able to interact with other government bodies, legislation and established businesses to determine the future activities in and around this zone, especially when it is affecting the quality of life of communities in urban spaces. Your comments have been noted and will be included among the key concerns we have heard about this and a number of other transport-related issues, even the ones which our state's future planning system may be able to have little impact on in the short term. While there is no guarantee that a new planning code will be able to influence the way this facility is operated, your comments and those of your community will be factored in when considering new planning policy around our state's transport hubs, and new places where development may occur in the future.

phillip mackenzie

03 Dec 2018

It is critical that rail in regional SA be looked at again in a whole different perspective for moving both passengers and freight.
SA is the only mainland state that does not have any intercity/intrastate passenger rail service. Apart from 2 mainline "tourist trains"
the only interstate passenger service remaining is the Overland (which is due to cease shortly due to a short sighted SA government)
SA could do with modern day passenger services to link Adelaide to the Iron Triangle to the north and to Mount Gambier in the South.
New rail freight services could recommence from Mount Gambier if the line was regauged and reopened. Other recently closed lines to the east and north east have potential for reopening and extension interstate.
Regarding metropolitan services - a re link to Mount Barker would get busses off the freeway to Adelaide and provide a direct connection to Steam Ranger.
The airport to Adelaide needs an underground heavy rail connection via the interstate rail terminal and the Port Adelaide line requires electrification and a new station complex at Port Adelaide with tourist facilities and information for cruise ship passengers
The line from Gawler to the Barossa Valley needs reopening for both commuters and to increase tourism in the area.

Peter Lumb

03 Dec 2018

What is the biggest integrated transport opportunity facing SA that the Planning and Design Code needs to consider?
There is an easy win for integrated transport in SA which is cost effective, recognised in most other jurisdictions and almost totally overlooked in SA.
SA, and Adelaide in particular invest considerably in car parking, including car park n ride at tram stops, train stations and bus interchanges. Planning codes and the current Discussion Paper, while showing a concern for the over-abundance of car parking have a strong focus on car parking, and the expectation that technology will rationalise car parking into the future. Cycle parking as an alternative is almost totally ignored (one mention in the discussion paper).
There is no mention of cycle parking integration with public transport. There is no discussion about public bike share cycle parking either docked or dockless, (a significant contentious issue which is bound to re-appear) and there is no discussion about the possibilities or benefits of increasing cycle park n ride at public transport despite the desire to increase public transport use, while dampening demand for car use.
Some thought should be given to the quantity and different cycle park n ride options for cycle parking (including all kinds of large and small bikes and disability mobility aids) at tram stops, train stations and bus interchanges as well as at significant bus stops. Installation of cycle park n ride appears at present to be ad hoc and not well connected to planning and design codes in SA. So many other successful cities take cycle parking and cycle park n ride integration with public transport very seriously. Some simple research could yield rich pickings for this Planning and Design process).
Integrating cycle park n ride into Planning and Design Code could lead to a more confident roll out of cycle park n ride infrastructure such that
• Fewer short cold start trips in cars were undertaken
• Local roads would be quietened and less polluted
• Roads would be safer
• Young people’s independent mobility could be increased
• Congestion around schools could be diminished
• Huge savings to the tax payer could be realised as cycle park n ride numbers increased at the expense of car park n ride
• Visual amenity around public transport infrastructure could be improved
• More trips would be made by public transport, as some people valued the link by cycle to public transport
• Fare recovery would increase
• Some health benefits of active transport would be realised.
The fact that cycle park n ride and cycle parking infrastructure is entirely overlooked, is not surprising, given Adelaide’s car dominated culture. However, it is a culture which these documents seeks to challenge. I would characterise the documents positively as rational. bureaucratic. To me they are generally persuasive.
However, the information and ideas contained in them is not well understood in our car dominated culture. The challenge for the Planning Commission is not only how to improved Planning and Design documents, but how to communicate with South Australians in such a way that the information and the ideas contained in these documents is more widely appreciated. That is also a challenge if cycle park n ride is to be considered as an attractive option when people connect with public transport. Good Planning and Design codes require good communications strategies.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team

03 Dec 2018

Dear Steve M and Irene G,

Thankyou for your comments; we thought we would respond to both of you together because there are some related themes here. Firstly, we would like to preface our reply by saying that some of the transport issues you raise don't fall within the areas that planning can have a direct influence over, and putting more capital into rail infrastructure instead of roads is the work of other parts of our department's and the state government's business - but the issue Irene raises about more parking for commuters along our transport corridors is a very valid one, and something that does require more of our attention if we are to encourage more walkable urban environments and cities less congested with cars. Please be assured that all of the comments we receive, whether they apply directly to planning or not, will be recorded and captured in our report coming out in a few weeks, which will summarise everything we have heard on this engagement platform and during other consultations with the community and planning professionals.

stephen darling

01 Dec 2018

To get cars off the road and people onto public transport. A transport that meets the needs of the people today.

Jordan Craig

01 Dec 2018

I also want to note that all of your policy discussion sessions are conveniently scheduled during the week, making it extremely difficult for those who have to work to attend. For instance, I would like to attend the next session on the 7th of December but will be unable to make it because like the majority of people in this country, I work Monday - Friday.

Jordan Craig

01 Dec 2018

Seconding Stefan Johnson's comment below. Where is the protection of communities? The residents who are forced to suffer every single day to allow private business to profit? Parafield Airport training flights are out of control and the recent Master Plan approval is set to make things even worse. The serious detrimental health effects of constant aircraft noise are damning and people must be put before business interests.

I can't enjoy my own home and I'm not alone - when will policy put people first?

More information available at: http://www.stopparafieldnoise.com

Stefan Johnson

30 Nov 2018

I disagee with the policy to protect the secondary Airport in Adelaide. Parafield Airport is used almost exclusively for training pilots and this is very detrimental to many thousands of families in numerous suburbs surrounding the Airport. The cost of providing noise insulation would be astronomical and that is possibly why there is no full time noise monitoring to cover up the facts. Legisation should also be changed becuase these noisy training aircraft are exempt from noise laws that apply to everyone else. While I understand the need for an exemption for larger Airports this should not apply to what is happening around Parafield Airport. The Government has been advised and instead chooses to protest big business and Chinese/other Asian airlines training there at our expense. This has been going on since the early 90's so don't say you are not aware of the issues. We are being polluted by noise and other fallout from a at least 300,000 overflights every year. Do a cost benefit analysis - do not accept what paid consultants have come up with about employment there. That is false and misleading and so are the alleged economic benefits. If there are any benefits , they are not flowing to the local area. Our health and mental health is being affected and no one seems to care. I don't care if the Airport was there first or the usiual rubbish we are told, the situation has changed since Parafield Airport was dumped in the City of Salisbury becuase other suburbs did not want it in their backyard. It is time to use this land for other purposes and not have a very busy Airport in the middle of what is now a predominantly residential area. Better uses could be found for a parcel of land that has good transport links to the City.

Irene Giannikos

30 Nov 2018

As a commuter who lives 40kms from the CBD the focus on cyclists needs frustrates me. Transport hubs with multi storey car parks built next to existing public transport locations would ease congestion. Just try & get a park @ Mawson Lakes after 8am. Cycling is not an option for the majority of road users. More underpasses, overpassed & roundabouts will improve safety & travel times thus reducing congestion.

Steve Moritz

29 Nov 2018

Rail needs to be properly considered the same as in most other states. IE Corridor management where money spent on the rail corridor instead of the road gets more trucks off the road and reduces the road maintenance costs. and cost of deaths due to accidents The grain movement is a classic example where dollars spent on rail has been proven beneficial particularly in NSW Provision of rail corridors in all freeway developments as in WA & Qld used as dedicated bus lanes until the commuter levels warrant the cost of rail.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team

13 Nov 2018

Appreciate your thoughts and comments, Ben and Keith - the points you raise are valid and highlight the different perspectives of those who want to use the roads for vehicles and the community who would like to be able to access our roads riding bikes, but feeling safe while they are doing so. While we have a limited number of safer bikeways, they do inevitably cross main roads and busy thoroughfares, and it will take careful and imaginative planning and significant infrastructure spending to create better routes for active transport, bicycles and scooters etc. The discussion paper does not propose how to solve this, aiming instead to highlight issues, gauge how important they are to South Australians and then devise ideas on how to achieve better outcomes for road-users and commuters with community input. 'Vision' and 'imagination' are terms you've both used that are critical in the development of new ways to support active travel, and it's a widely held view that governments cannot simply introduce this sort of change, that it must come from local residents, supported by government, sporting bodies and other agencies. Please be assured that your comments and suggestions will be noted and included in our reporting about planning's influence on our future transport systems.

Keith Baldry

13 Nov 2018

To add to my previous comment, government has committed to the following:
"For a variety of social, environmental and health reasons, the South Australian government is aiming to double the number of people cycling by increasing the number of people choosing to cycle for everyday trips."
https://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/cycling

Your discussion paper does not address how to achieve this, and your planning and design code needs to.

Keith Baldry

09 Nov 2018

Increased cycling can play a part in all of the traffic, integration, public space and amenity, livability and environment issues that you are trying to address. The discussion paper has pictures of people cycling, but no substantive ideas for moving people from cars to bikes.

End of trip facilities, bike parking, and putting objectives into codes, is all tinkering. A few more sharrows and paint will make life marginally easier for existing cyclists, but are not going to result in a substantial change in the number of cyclists.

We have plenty of sports cyclists, in fact lycra is the common perception of what cycling is in Australia. What we need is ordinary people doing ordinary things like going to work or the shops, but using their bike rather than their car. International experience shows that they will do it if it is safe and accessible. Canberra is a good example of this too.

Adelaide should be perfect for cycling. Flat, mostly good weather, mostly wide streets. The reason peple don't cycle is because we have so few integrated bike routes. About two separated bike lanes in all the CBD, and bike paths that chuck you out at major road junctions. Cycle lanes that are made of paint and used for parking 22 hours a day. Most people don't think that this is safe and accessible.

We have more and cheaper city parking than any other city, and we still let a handful of people store their cars in a way that blocks off whole lanes. We have the space. One of the scariest roads to cycle in Adelaide is King William Street, and that is 40m wide.

There are so many international examples on how cycling can dramatically improve life for everyone in the city. Cyclists of course, but also businesses, residents and visitors, and car drivers. Seville showed how you can quickly and relatively cheaply transform a city. New York and London showed how you can move huge numbers by bike. Studies show that business takings go up when areas become cycling and pedestrian friendly. Every place it has worked has one thing in common: infrastructure.

Adelaide's struggles show that creating a cycling and pedestrian friendly environment needs both vision and leadership. Your discussion paper is lacking the vision that the politicians and planners will need. Every person you can move from a car to a bike achieves your objectives; more roads and autonomous vehicles won't. Your policies and codes should recognise this.

Ben Smith

09 Nov 2018

This report lacks an imaginative vision for Adelaide cycling.

I know there is a bit of an anti-cycling backlash in Australia and Adelaide but this line in the report says a lot;

"With the rise in infill development in Adelaide, there will be many opportunities to increase cycling and walking uptake as 75%
of daily trips are predicted to be short journeys of between three to six kilometres"

Although there are a number of mentions in the report of a desire to increase cycling numbers in Adelaide, there is no clear vision of how this could be done. Adelaide is really perfectly placed to become a great cycling city if there was a focus on creating a really safe expansive network and thinking seriously about closing a number of roads in the CBD to cars to allow for safer walking and cycling.

Cars rule in Australia but the fact is that the more roads you build and the more focus there is on space for parking the cars - the worse the congestion and pollution becomes and the more likely it is that people turn to their cars for transport as a "safe" option.

I am nearly 50 and don't expect to see much change in the next 10-20 years but with some more imagination, Adelaide could really become more like a beautiful European style place with most people pootling around on their bikes - that's the kind of place I would like my kids to grow up in, not a city where there are cars flying around at 60kmh ruling the roost.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team

26 Oct 2018

Thanks for comments about transport and movement systems, Fred. As you would be aware, the discussion paper comes from a planning perspective and is about guiding development of planning policy, which can change the way places look and operate over time. However, the paper and its recommendations don’t affect the current operation of our public transport networks, and don’t control who can use certain roads or seek to regulate road or public transport users.

In terms of the connection between in-fill development and public transport viability and your comments on bus travel, current evidence from around the world suggests quite different outcomes to those you are suggesting or experiencing, although this may vary from city to city, and even suburb to suburb.

Nevertheless, your point about families and dropping off children to school or sports activities is a good one, and is of real concern for families who have limited options in private vehicles. It would be nice if we could all live in neighbourhoods where all our facilities were local and in walking distance, but this is not the reality for many people. Over time, however, better planning may be able to look ahead and address these issues, with improved connections across our suburbs and cities.

Some of the matters you’ve raised belong in affiliated areas aligned with planning that we do need to consider in a bigger picture sense, such as how to encourage more active transport options and providing bikeways, for example, while ensuring riders are safe and not competing with heavy transport road users. While these are important themes, they are not necessarily among the issues that planning can influence or resolve in the formation of policy in the state’s first planning and design code.

Fred Morris

25 Oct 2018

It is entirely appropriate that the State Government is focusing on securing freight routes for the future growth and benefit of the State. Unfortunately the Discussion Paper fails to address the needs of people/families. Public Transport is not an option for many young families. Dropping off and picking up children at Childcare, Kindergarten, school and sport is not catered for by Public Transport. Recent Public Transport 'fails' in the Eastern States have demonstrated that parents/children are left vulnerable by relying on Public Transport. 'Infill' which is promoted partly on the basis of making Public Transport more 'viable' is a highly questionable proposition, and buses are an option of last resort.

The Portrush Rd to Dry Creek Route and in particular the travel of 'B' Doubles and the future introduction of HPV's is an example of cynical compromise with 'bikeways' in operation. Cyclists and heavy trucks do not mix and the B Doubles/HPV's exacerbate the risk.

I appreciate the need for a secure freight route to the intermodal facilities at Dry Creek, BUT bicycles should be banned from the Portrush Rd to Dry Creek Route.

Janelle Brown

03 Oct 2018

There is life outside the CBD. Train lines need to be built between suburbs and out to the further reaches of the state. There are so many wonderful places in SA that visitors cannot get to because it requires a car. Look beyond the CBD for a change. I am sick of trains just going to CBD and it would take more cars off the roads if people didnt have to go into city and out again to get to west or east suburbs. For too long there has been a lack of foresight and intelligence when it comes to transport.

paul allan

29 Sep 2018

Convert all pedestrian crossings to smart crossings. Too many people press the button to stop traffic but don't wait. Then traffic is forced to stop for no reason. In peak traffic times, this has a negative impact on traffic flow. If sensors were used, similar as traffic light road sensors are used, there would be no need for a button, and they would only stop traffic if people are waiting to cross.

Ben Smith > paul allan

09 Nov 2018

Hi Paul - I don't really understand this - if they don't wait, what do they do? Cross the road? I find the lights in Adelaide pretty unfriendly for pedestrians. Often you have to wait for 1 or 2 minutes to cross when the traffic is heavy anyway and allowing pedestrians to cross would make no difference to the flow of traffic. I think lights should change to green (for pedestrians) as soon as the button is pressed (maybe this is what you mean?!) - might encourage more people to walk or cycle.

paul allan

29 Sep 2018

Better road maintenance. The poor state of road surfaces in this city is atrocious. Potholes, sunken manhole covers, heavy vehicle tracks / rutts, patchwork from connected services etc... Port Rd seems to have speed humps or tree roots every few hundred metres in some parts. Try riding a motorcycle over them and listen to unladen trucks all day hitting these bumps. The list goes on. How about an app for reporting road maintenance issues?

paul allan

29 Sep 2018

The allowance of wide footpath and median strips for motorcycle parking as done in Melbourne.

paul allan

29 Sep 2018

Replace all railway level crossings on main arterial roads with grade separation.

Taffy Baker

27 Sep 2018

A curfew on trucks heading to Adelaide on the SE Freeway and other major inbound roads between 7am and 8:30am. Number of times you come to a screaming halt from 110 when one truck travelling 50km/h uphill decides to overtake the one doing 40km/h when all the cars are sitting on 100-110. Going to be a big accident one day.

Bryce Routley

21 Aug 2018

On a recent trip to see our daughter in Gothenburg Sweden, I noticed that their buses used the same platforms as the trams which reduced road congestion. This could be a useful variation that makes better use of the tram tracks. It would only require buses to be fitted with doors on both sides.
Also in Lucerne Switzerland, they used trolley buses - electric buses but not rail tracks. It seems an easier option than the controversy we currently have with tram tracks in the city.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Bryce Routley

10 Sep 2018

Hi Bryce. Certainly an innovative and efficient approach when different modes of mass transit can be integrated in such ways. In terms of future transport technologies, the next leap to battery-powered vehicles (buses, trams included), as well as greater automation and on-demand services will change the way we all interact with our movement networks. Not only are we witnessing the manifestation of these changes in many cities across the world, but also right here in Adelaide. The Commission is particularly interested in asking South Australians how our planning rules and frameworks (i.e. the way we use land) can be best designed to take account of future changes like these, and to ensure our cities and regions continue to be great places to live. How can we best design the Code to take account of rapid, ongoing changes like these?

Phillip Rollas

17 Aug 2018

Connectedness of public transport services, especially heavy rail. An underground CBD loop is a must - all other major Australian cities have underground rail beneath their CBDs. This will make cross-city travel by train far more viable, and deliver benefits of every form across the city. It would reinforce the value of transit-oriented developments and encourage urban regeneration and allow for healthier and more walkable suburbs.

The light rail network should be extended as much as possible. It should never have been opposed by any government, including the new Liberal State Government. Light rail is about more than moving people; it encourages investment and regeneration in suburbs and wherever else it is built. Accordingly, the Planning and Design Code should effectively demand this form of transport to encourage increased residential density, increased amenity and increased intensification of activity (social and economic) in these areas.

Government Agency

Planning Reform Team > Phillip Rollas

21 Aug 2018

Thanks Phillip. Perhaps the most important core principle underpinning the policy responses of the discussion paper is the effective alignment of our growth (or future development areas) with our transport infrastructure networks.

The policies of the Code will be used to guide built form as land is developed over time - and they must work in partnership with the soon to be established South Australian Public Transport Authority (SAPTA), key transport plans (ITLUP is currently being updated) and Infrastructure SA to deliver a more integrated system into the future.