MATS Plan - Available Now

[ChillyPhilly]

I have uploaded this to LibGen.

https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=C3 ... 8DB6504D16

[Algernon]

Thanks very much for sharing this and for the time taken to get it scanned.

Whilst there are sensible elements, mostly around public transport, much of it feels like overkill, even with modern traffic volumes. For example I can't see the need will ever exist for a combined eight lanes of freeway and surface roads to cover the 6km distance between Port Adelaide and Hindmarsh. Port Road as it stands today is actually quite nice for a six lane road, especially since the landscaping of the wide median has been completed. Having that entire space occupied by concrete and bitumen would look terrible, as well as doing nothing to mitigate against rising temperatures.

I'll take current Adelaide over MATS Adelaide any day.

I was studying urban planning some 20 years ago and the MATS plan was something that came up very early (like, first few weeks early). The consensus among students and lecturers alike was that the MATs plan was wrong on many levels. The freeway construction was hopelessly committing the city to being a car city and there would have been a whole lot of consequences of that which are coming sharper into focus as the years go by and we learn more every day about how environmentally, economically and even socially unsustainable that is. But for all its faults, it still did have some accommodations for public transport which go above what the state had managed to achieve or even envision decades later. In the outright positive column, the one standout feature that nobody could argue with (no matter how much they disagreed with much of what it proposed) was that it was the first and only comprehensive transport plan the state ever actually had. And to that point we were discussing it, it was still the only holistic plan the state had ever had.... 40 years later. TLDR: it was a flawed plan, but at least it was a plan.

[bits]

What is the different outcome from a plan that isn't followed and a plan that doesn't exist?

As far as I can see the creation of the MATS plan was a waste of time and money.

[[Shuz]]

Thanks very much for sharing this and for the time taken to get it scanned.

Whilst there are sensible elements, mostly around public transport, much of it feels like overkill, even with modern traffic volumes. For example I can't see the need will ever exist for a combined eight lanes of freeway and surface roads to cover the 6km distance between Port Adelaide and Hindmarsh. Port Road as it stands today is actually quite nice for a six lane road, especially since the landscaping of the wide median has been completed. Having that entire space occupied by concrete and bitumen would look terrible, as well as doing nothing to mitigate against rising temperatures.

I'll take current Adelaide over MATS Adelaide any day.

I was studying urban planning some 20 years ago and the MATS plan was something that came up very early (like, first few weeks early). The consensus among students and lecturers alike was that the MATs plan was wrong on many levels. The freeway construction was hopelessly committing the city to being a car city and there would have been a whole lot of consequences of that which are coming sharper into focus as the years go by and we learn more every day about how environmentally, economically and even socially unsustainable that is. But for all its faults, it still did have some accommodations for public transport which go above what the state had managed to achieve or even envision decades later. In the outright positive column, the one standout feature that nobody could argue with (no matter how much they disagreed with much of what it proposed) was that it was the first and only comprehensive transport plan the state ever actually had. And to that point we were discussing it, it was still the only holistic plan the state had ever had.... 40 years later. TLDR: it was a flawed plan, but at least it was a plan.

The closest 'plans' we've had since was the much maligned ITLUS (Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan) and the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide that came about approx. 2010(?) to address transport, planning and land use solutions for Adelaide. Although both of them have both appeared to be quietly 'put back on the shelf' and their intent and execution hasn't exactly been followed through since.

Even the so called 'review' of the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide as part of the 'planning reforms' will amount to nothing more than more political spin and hot air.

[Aidan]

What is the different outcome from a plan that isn't followed and a plan that doesn't exist?

As far as I can see the creation of the MATS plan was a waste of time and money.

That's a good question, but actually There's an enormous difference, for two reasons:
Firstly there were bits of the MATS Plan which did eventually get built, including the Southern Expressway and the Port River Expressway.
Secondly the backlash against the MATS Plan shaped our transport policy for decades. It was understood that if our transport system wasn't going to be freeway based, alternatives needed to be provided. SA became world leaders in transport network simulation. Public transport was improved and the O-Bahn was built. And our urban arterial roads are much better than Sydney's.

[Nort]

What is the different outcome from a plan that isn't followed and a plan that doesn't exist?

As far as I can see the creation of the MATS plan was a waste of time and money.

Aidan made good points about this. It can be incredibly valuable to know what would be required to execute a plan so you can make informed choices. In this case the MATS plan laid out a bunch of goals and then what would be required to reach them. It has impacts not just in which parts to execute or not, but also in what choices to make in terms of other development, where growth shouldn't and shouldn't be focused, and so on.