Let's talk about the Adelaide City Council, which last night had a meeting in which the proposal, and it's only a proposal at this stage, to introduce thirty kilometer an our speed limit through the city. I don't know if it includes all the Adelaide City Council area North Adelaide as well. We'll find out. Henry Davids councilor Adelaide City Council on the line, good morning, good morning, thirty k's an hour seems slow? Heinley Street is that already? Which I suppose when you can get up to speed in Hindley Street, maybe this time of the morning, thirty k is not a bad idea given it's narrow and there are people, but the rest of the city King William Street, Grenfell Street, I don't know would it work?

Let's talk about the Adelaide City Council, which last night had a meeting in which the proposal, and it's only a proposal at this stage, to introduce thirty kilometer an our speed limit through the city. I don't know if it includes all the Adelaide City Council area North Adelaide as well. We'll find out. Henry Davids councilor Adelaide City Council on the line, good morning, good morning, thirty k's an hour seems slow? Heinley Street is that already? Which I suppose when you can get up to speed in Hindley Street, maybe this time of the morning, thirty k is not a bad idea given it's narrow and there are people, but the rest of the city King William Street, Grenfell Street, I don't know would it work?

No, absolutely not, Madness, I don't even know why we were sitting in council meeting for about an hour and a half considering this as a viable option. I mean, we already have people, you know, we struggle to get people into the city. We have massive commercial vacancy rates, huge congestion that we've just come out of Adelaide five hundred and now a lot of councilors are entertaining an idea of a city wide thirty kilometer an hour speed limit, all in the name of safety. To my mind, this is absolute madness. You would shut down the city if that was the case.

No, absolutely not, Madness, I don't even know why we were sitting in council meeting for about an hour and a half considering this as a viable option. I mean, we already have people, you know, we struggle to get people into the city. We have massive commercial vacancy rates, huge congestion that we've just come out of Adelaide five hundred and now a lot of councilors are entertaining an idea of a city wide thirty kilometer an hour speed limit, all in the name of safety. To my mind, this is absolute madness. You would shut down the city if that was the case.

All right, thirty case North Adelaide two.

All right, thirty case North Adelaide two.

Yes, I believe that's the case. So the proposal is for there was three options. One was thirty kilometers for the entire city. I think there was another one for forty kilometers for the entire city, and then a third option of a mixed kind of reduced speed limit in some areas but not others. But a good number of councils are actually entertaining this idea of a thirty klumbus speed limit for the entire city. It's absolute madness and it should have been rejected immediately.

Yes, I believe that's the case. So the proposal is for there was three options. One was thirty kilometers for the entire city. I think there was another one for forty kilometers for the entire city, and then a third option of a mixed kind of reduced speed limit in some areas but not others. But a good number of councils are actually entertaining this idea of a thirty klumbus speed limit for the entire city. It's absolute madness and it should have been rejected immediately.

I imagine a lower speed would take longer to get through, which builds up. Probably the thing the Adelaide City Council hates the most emissions.

I imagine a lower speed would take longer to get through, which builds up. Probably the thing the Adelaide City Council hates the most emissions.

Well, that's right, but the actual intention behind this is to really stop cast coming into the city, to force people to ride in. So this is idea particularly by pro bike people, which is great where they want to encourage people to ride bikes, but they want to do that by banning cars and making it nearly impossible for people to park and people to come into the city. And we saw the same thing with Hut Street. So there's this narrative of saying that we want to build a city to fifty thousand people. We want all this investment, we want all these people to come in, but we just don't want you to drive. It's absolute madness and it's going to hit traders. It's going to increase commercial vacancy rates and these types of messages. If the City of Adelaide isn't clear about its priorities, it's going to stop investment. Because if you're a large company and you're looking at where you're going to base your headquarters or where you're going to take commercial space, you're going to be frightened off by this notion that no one can actually get to your office. So what's the point in investing in it?

Well, that's right, but the actual intention behind this is to really stop cast coming into the city, to force people to ride in. So this is idea particularly by pro bike people, which is great where they want to encourage people to ride bikes, but they want to do that by banning cars and making it nearly impossible for people to park and people to come into the city. And we saw the same thing with Hut Street. So there's this narrative of saying that we want to build a city to fifty thousand people. We want all this investment, we want all these people to come in, but we just don't want you to drive. It's absolute madness and it's going to hit traders. It's going to increase commercial vacancy rates and these types of messages. If the City of Adelaide isn't clear about its priorities, it's going to stop investment. Because if you're a large company and you're looking at where you're going to base your headquarters or where you're going to take commercial space, you're going to be frightened off by this notion that no one can actually get to your office. So what's the point in investing in it?

And look, fifty thousand in the city, whatever that might mean long term, one thing's for sure. They're not all going to be international students, so there'll be people living there who will have a car too. Because I want to take the day trip to Victor or whatever the case may be, or to go visit people in the suburbs, they will want to cart and say they've got to be parked somewhere.

And look, fifty thousand in the city, whatever that might mean long term, one thing's for sure. They're not all going to be international students, so there'll be people living there who will have a car too. Because I want to take the day trip to Victor or whatever the case may be, or to go visit people in the suburbs, they will want to cart and say they've got to be parked somewhere.

Well, exactly right. So there's this very contradictory view. This is the biggest problem is that we've got the city saying, you know, we want more investment, and then on the other side, on the other side of things, the lord mayor's criticizing you know what a building looks like, in criticizing individual development. So we want to build the city, but we don't want you to do anything about it. And so they're trying to cater to these two different opposing sides, which is, you know, this extreme kind of less nobody should own a car and everybody should walk and ride their bikes everywhere. And on the other hand, they want more investment development in the city. Well, I think both groups are just going to be angry by these types of proposals, and there's no clear strategy as far as I can see, on how to actually achieve this goal. So I don't think it'll ever happen.

Well, exactly right. So there's this very contradictory view. This is the biggest problem is that we've got the city saying, you know, we want more investment, and then on the other side, on the other side of things, the lord mayor's criticizing you know what a building looks like, in criticizing individual development. So we want to build the city, but we don't want you to do anything about it. And so they're trying to cater to these two different opposing sides, which is, you know, this extreme kind of less nobody should own a car and everybody should walk and ride their bikes everywhere. And on the other hand, they want more investment development in the city. Well, I think both groups are just going to be angry by these types of proposals, and there's no clear strategy as far as I can see, on how to actually achieve this goal. So I don't think it'll ever happen.

Okay, parking in the city hat Street are the changes proposed there?

Okay, parking in the city hat Street are the changes proposed there?

Yes, So now this was actually really concerning, and basically there was an original concept proposal which was going to remove a lot of car parks. How many we didn't actually get the number last night, but it's at least sixty, and probably more so going down from in a certain section, which is like the village section, going from one hundred and thirty down to seventy. So we considered five different options, and there was different options about how that parking works. Now I've heard very loud and clear from the traders that they need those car parks to survive. I drive in from the hills, and some people in the city just walk, so some other councilors don't have the same perspective as I do. So I drive in. I usually park on Hart Street, grab a coffee and a Croissan because I'm too lazy to make breakfast, and that's my usual routine. If there's no cars there, if there's no car parks there, no one will do that and those businesses will really suffer. And there's been a real push now from the traders that say, hold on, these car parks are essential to our business and what is the actual plan? So what I was really concerned about mostly is that there was five different options with different angled car parking because there's issues around safety with angled car parking. That's true, but there was a rhetoric from the Lord Mayor saying, well, hold on, if we don't get a substantial change, if we don't go with your original concept, why don't we just can the whole project? Now None of the other councilors are on board with that, but that's a pretty big threat to say, do as I say, or we're going to cut your funding. And I really didn't appreciate that kind of view from the Lord Mayor. We need to consult with our traders and just because they have a different view to say, hey, car parks are essential for my business, doesn't mean we can a fifteen million dollar project.

Yes, So now this was actually really concerning, and basically there was an original concept proposal which was going to remove a lot of car parks. How many we didn't actually get the number last night, but it's at least sixty, and probably more so going down from in a certain section, which is like the village section, going from one hundred and thirty down to seventy. So we considered five different options, and there was different options about how that parking works. Now I've heard very loud and clear from the traders that they need those car parks to survive. I drive in from the hills, and some people in the city just walk, so some other councilors don't have the same perspective as I do. So I drive in. I usually park on Hart Street, grab a coffee and a Croissan because I'm too lazy to make breakfast, and that's my usual routine. If there's no cars there, if there's no car parks there, no one will do that and those businesses will really suffer. And there's been a real push now from the traders that say, hold on, these car parks are essential to our business and what is the actual plan? So what I was really concerned about mostly is that there was five different options with different angled car parking because there's issues around safety with angled car parking. That's true, but there was a rhetoric from the Lord Mayor saying, well, hold on, if we don't get a substantial change, if we don't go with your original concept, why don't we just can the whole project? Now None of the other councilors are on board with that, but that's a pretty big threat to say, do as I say, or we're going to cut your funding. And I really didn't appreciate that kind of view from the Lord Mayor. We need to consult with our traders and just because they have a different view to say, hey, car parks are essential for my business, doesn't mean we can a fifteen million dollar project.

Yeah, all right, Henry Davis, appreciate your time, Thank you, thank you. The Lord Mayor is on the line. Doctor Johann Lomac Smith, good morning, good mine. Good. Likewise, so thirty k's through the city. This really isn't viable, is it? How could this be a good idea?

Yeah, all right, Henry Davis, appreciate your time, Thank you, thank you. The Lord Mayor is on the line. Doctor Johann Lomac Smith, good morning, good mine. Good. Likewise, so thirty k's through the city. This really isn't viable, is it? How could this be a good idea?

Well?

Well?

I think we shouldn't get our niggas in a twist at this stage because this is a long standing discussion. I understand the last council requested that the speed limits be investigated and we had a workshop, so there were no decisions made, and for all of us, it was the first time we'd actually thought about the patchwork across the city. And I hadn't really considered it seriously because when I drive, I drive often on the same routes across and I go to Hut Street and I go sometimes up to North Terrace, but I don't really notice the speed limits because you know, I vaguely go around forty k an hour and I don't speed up to seventy. But the reality is that we do have a patchwork across the city, and there's a nuance about speed limits. On one side, it's the risk and the safety, And if you go to the road accident and research people, they tell you if you're hit as a pedestrian at fifty k you've got a ninety percent chance of dying, whereas if you're hit at thirty K you've got a ten percent risk of dying. So that's the data, they're the stats, and that's on one side of the argument. The other side of the argument is people's convenience and how easy it is to get around, and a lot of those issues who are pretty anecdotal without the fact that we can get more data about traffic routes, and there's always a balance. I know that it's much safer to drive a car if you were a crash helmet in the driver's seat, but we don't do that because the risk advance the advantage in reducing risk is quite small. So we have to actually have a balance, and we haven't got to that stage yet. We were just looking at the stets, looking at the data, looking at the death rates, looking at the accident rates, and it's a long way to go before and make a decision. I initially thought that it would be good to have a uniform speed across the city, but I think that we do need faster routes around the ring parts and the outer roots and the through traffic. There's an argument that if we lower the speeds and the CBD, it will stop people driving through the city. Well, you know that's why you have bypasses. It's not a bad idea to reduce the absolute three through traffic. We don't need the city to be on the main route between on Growing and Salisbury. If people are coming to the city we want them in here. If they're going to stop, we want them to stop having through traffic just congests the roads. And every big city I've been to in the world wants to discourage through traffic by having a ring route for a bypass. And that's not a bad idea. But we've got a long way to go before we've nutted out where the nuance, where the compromise will be, so I wouldn't get excited yet, but it's a good idea to think about it and think about whether we want to go towards a safer city, a more pedestrian cycle friendly city. And it's a good, good point of discussion.

I think we shouldn't get our niggas in a twist at this stage because this is a long standing discussion. I understand the last council requested that the speed limits be investigated and we had a workshop, so there were no decisions made, and for all of us, it was the first time we'd actually thought about the patchwork across the city. And I hadn't really considered it seriously because when I drive, I drive often on the same routes across and I go to Hut Street and I go sometimes up to North Terrace, but I don't really notice the speed limits because you know, I vaguely go around forty k an hour and I don't speed up to seventy. But the reality is that we do have a patchwork across the city, and there's a nuance about speed limits. On one side, it's the risk and the safety, And if you go to the road accident and research people, they tell you if you're hit as a pedestrian at fifty k you've got a ninety percent chance of dying, whereas if you're hit at thirty K you've got a ten percent risk of dying. So that's the data, they're the stats, and that's on one side of the argument. The other side of the argument is people's convenience and how easy it is to get around, and a lot of those issues who are pretty anecdotal without the fact that we can get more data about traffic routes, and there's always a balance. I know that it's much safer to drive a car if you were a crash helmet in the driver's seat, but we don't do that because the risk advance the advantage in reducing risk is quite small. So we have to actually have a balance, and we haven't got to that stage yet. We were just looking at the stets, looking at the data, looking at the death rates, looking at the accident rates, and it's a long way to go before and make a decision. I initially thought that it would be good to have a uniform speed across the city, but I think that we do need faster routes around the ring parts and the outer roots and the through traffic. There's an argument that if we lower the speeds and the CBD, it will stop people driving through the city. Well, you know that's why you have bypasses. It's not a bad idea to reduce the absolute three through traffic. We don't need the city to be on the main route between on Growing and Salisbury. If people are coming to the city we want them in here. If they're going to stop, we want them to stop having through traffic just congests the roads. And every big city I've been to in the world wants to discourage through traffic by having a ring route for a bypass. And that's not a bad idea. But we've got a long way to go before we've nutted out where the nuance, where the compromise will be, so I wouldn't get excited yet, but it's a good idea to think about it and think about whether we want to go towards a safer city, a more pedestrian cycle friendly city. And it's a good, good point of discussion.

All right, And that's what we're doing. And look, it makes sense to me to have some not to have a uniform speed. You'd have fifty k's for instance, down King William Street because it's a wide street and when it's quiet a weekend, weekday, even at this time the day, reasonably quiet, clearly at peak hour, you can't do fifty anyway, So that's fine. Heinley Street at thirty I think makes sense. It's a narrow street, there are people around, especially at the eastern end, and thirty ks well given the nature of the street parking on either side all of that people popping out makes perfect sense, But why would you do that across You shouldn't do that, Agros.

All right, And that's what we're doing. And look, it makes sense to me to have some not to have a uniform speed. You'd have fifty k's for instance, down King William Street because it's a wide street and when it's quiet a weekend, weekday, even at this time the day, reasonably quiet, clearly at peak hour, you can't do fifty anyway, So that's fine. Heinley Street at thirty I think makes sense. It's a narrow street, there are people around, especially at the eastern end, and thirty ks well given the nature of the street parking on either side all of that people popping out makes perfect sense, But why would you do that across You shouldn't do that, Agros.

I've come to your view. I mean I started looking at the data thinking, oh god, it's too difficult to have different rules across a small city. But I've come to the conclusion that you've reached that maybe we do have some faster routes through the city. It does make sense. But having said that, we've got a long way to go yet, and we've got to work out which of those roads might be, whether it's a thirty or forty degree forty k limit. I think we've it's going to take a lot of argie bargie and discussion, and this is just the first cup, the first view, and I think for many members council the haven't understood the physics and the basic safety risk issues, and I think for people to come to grips with that, you have to understand that data before you then balance it with a nuance of what's good for business. So it's a difficult argument, and of course everyone's got a view. The last I'm sure that your listeners will have lots of I'm.

I've come to your view. I mean I started looking at the data thinking, oh god, it's too difficult to have different rules across a small city. But I've come to the conclusion that you've reached that maybe we do have some faster routes through the city. It does make sense. But having said that, we've got a long way to go yet, and we've got to work out which of those roads might be, whether it's a thirty or forty degree forty k limit. I think we've it's going to take a lot of argie bargie and discussion, and this is just the first cup, the first view, and I think for many members council the haven't understood the physics and the basic safety risk issues, and I think for people to come to grips with that, you have to understand that data before you then balance it with a nuance of what's good for business. So it's a difficult argument, and of course everyone's got a view. The last I'm sure that your listeners will have lots of I'm.

Sure they will. The last thing you need is anything that discourages people coming from the city, because if people look at thirty across the city and think that is way too hard, not going to bother with that. Of course, it's going to affect creators. And I'm sure counselors are smart enough to understand that well.

Sure they will. The last thing you need is anything that discourages people coming from the city, because if people look at thirty across the city and think that is way too hard, not going to bother with that. Of course, it's going to affect creators. And I'm sure counselors are smart enough to understand that well.

I think it's nuanced. I think that there are lots of cities that have a slower speed limit in the central district, and we just have to not get excited without thinking what the impact will be. I think there are behavioral changes people adopt, and I know that when there's a one way system, it only takes me a couple of drives around the place to work out the best way of avoiding it. Human nature is that we do find ways to accommodate change. And I got pretty aggravated when the council put in all those little islands of planting by street corners, because it stopped it made it more difficult even to turn left, and I thought this was pretty dopey. But eventually you find a way of driving around to accommodate it. I think people can change their habits. We are creatures of habits, but we change them and it's going to take a while to get to landing. I don't think anything's going to happen quickly.

I think it's nuanced. I think that there are lots of cities that have a slower speed limit in the central district, and we just have to not get excited without thinking what the impact will be. I think there are behavioral changes people adopt, and I know that when there's a one way system, it only takes me a couple of drives around the place to work out the best way of avoiding it. Human nature is that we do find ways to accommodate change. And I got pretty aggravated when the council put in all those little islands of planting by street corners, because it stopped it made it more difficult even to turn left, and I thought this was pretty dopey. But eventually you find a way of driving around to accommodate it. I think people can change their habits. We are creatures of habits, but we change them and it's going to take a while to get to landing. I don't think anything's going to happen quickly.

Okay, hot street and parking along there shouldn't trade as us be considered.

Okay, hot street and parking along there shouldn't trade as us be considered.

Absolutely, and that's again why we've had the lgibargie about whether we have bicycle routes, whether we widen the footpath, whether we narrow the road. And I think it's got to the stage where everyone has a different opinion, and that's why the consultation is going to be quite problematical. I think asking people if you like to even vote on five choices is probably too many because it's difficult to tease out the type of angles where the bike path goes. And to my view, unless there is a clear preference for something to happen, we shouldn't waste money on a project that nobody wants. And it looks to me as if we're moving towards improving the footpath, improving the planting, but not doing a major upgrade because we can't decide on what people want. That doesn't bother me, but one of my only prejudice, and I do have a prejudice because I do drive to put Street and I do park in Hut Street. My prejudice is I hate reversing back over a cycle path. It actually makes me really anxious. And unfortunately only one of those plans suggests the bike path goes if you like inland from the past paths, I personally, as a driver not a cyclist, hate reversing back over a cycle path. I think it's a high risk activity and it makes me uneasy. So that's another factor. It's not just the parking, it's where if we're going to have a bike path we put it. And the five options, apparently after the committee are going to be presented to Counsel and then council will decide which ones go out to the public. But I think that we have to be careful. It's pretty I mean, we could see the heated arguments around the five projects that were put forward. There were another five. I think the work put forward pen Overall, designing a road is a bit like designing a camel. Doing it at a committee is pretty hard. We do have to eventually take the advice of experts and I think that's where we will get to. But we want to canvas opinion because I shop and I go to cafes and bars in Hunt Street, and I know that the traders don't want to lose parking. I get that. But if you don't want to lose parking, you don't want to change anything. You don't want to reduce the number of lanes, you don't want a bike path. That's beginning to sound like Levia though as it is, and I think we have to recognize that.

Absolutely, and that's again why we've had the lgibargie about whether we have bicycle routes, whether we widen the footpath, whether we narrow the road. And I think it's got to the stage where everyone has a different opinion, and that's why the consultation is going to be quite problematical. I think asking people if you like to even vote on five choices is probably too many because it's difficult to tease out the type of angles where the bike path goes. And to my view, unless there is a clear preference for something to happen, we shouldn't waste money on a project that nobody wants. And it looks to me as if we're moving towards improving the footpath, improving the planting, but not doing a major upgrade because we can't decide on what people want. That doesn't bother me, but one of my only prejudice, and I do have a prejudice because I do drive to put Street and I do park in Hut Street. My prejudice is I hate reversing back over a cycle path. It actually makes me really anxious. And unfortunately only one of those plans suggests the bike path goes if you like inland from the past paths, I personally, as a driver not a cyclist, hate reversing back over a cycle path. I think it's a high risk activity and it makes me uneasy. So that's another factor. It's not just the parking, it's where if we're going to have a bike path we put it. And the five options, apparently after the committee are going to be presented to Counsel and then council will decide which ones go out to the public. But I think that we have to be careful. It's pretty I mean, we could see the heated arguments around the five projects that were put forward. There were another five. I think the work put forward pen Overall, designing a road is a bit like designing a camel. Doing it at a committee is pretty hard. We do have to eventually take the advice of experts and I think that's where we will get to. But we want to canvas opinion because I shop and I go to cafes and bars in Hunt Street, and I know that the traders don't want to lose parking. I get that. But if you don't want to lose parking, you don't want to change anything. You don't want to reduce the number of lanes, you don't want a bike path. That's beginning to sound like Levia though as it is, and I think we have to recognize that.

All right, maybe that's because it works, despite despite your.

All right, maybe that's because it works, despite despite your.

An argument for that, there's definitely an argument for that. And let's face it, Hot Street looks pretty nice, though street.

An argument for that, there's definitely an argument for that. And let's face it, Hot Street looks pretty nice, though street.

It's good, absolutely all right. Well, thankfully we'll never ask the Adelaide City Council to redesign a camel. So thanks for your time this morning.

It's good, absolutely all right. Well, thankfully we'll never ask the Adelaide City Council to redesign a camel. So thanks for your time this morning.

Thanks a lot.

Thanks a lot.

Bye.

Bye.

Doctor Joan Low Macksmith, Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide, twenty seven to ten on five Double A

Doctor Joan Low Macksmith, Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide, twenty seven to ten on five Double A