Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study - Reaction and Opposition

Reaction and Opposition

MATS became politicised as initial public reaction became a party stance. South Australians in general were opposed to freeways for various reasons. Opposition was similar to the Freeway and expressway revolts experienced in the United States. Large scale property acquisition proved to be one of the largest sources of opposition. The Noarlunga Freeway alone would have required the acquisition as many as 3,000 properties, including 817 residential dwellings. The Hills Freeway would have required the demolition of significant areas of the historic suburbs of inner south-eastern Adelaide.

The impact of freeways on the urban landscape also proved to be a large source of opposition. It was feared freeways would create urban problems. People looked at cities such as the city of Los Angeles and the urban problems it experienced such as gridlocked traffic and the division of neighbourhoods leading to the creation of urban ghettos and believed the same would happen in Adelaide if freeways were constructed. The Report on the Metropolitan Area of Adelaide 1962 contained images of the city of Los Angeles and its extensive freeways to represent a potential model for Adelaide's future transport solutions.

Many believe these problems would not be created by the construction of freeways, and comparing the construction of freeways in Adelaide with the city of Los Angeles was a misrepresentation of the realities. It is unlikely the construction of freeways would have led to urban problems experienced in large cities such as Los Angeles and more appropriate comparisons to cities of a similar size to Adelaide such as Calgary, Canada were not used.

Some wanted Adelaide to develop as a more European type city with high density housing and a stronger emphasis on public transport. The superintending engineer of the Highways Department attacked more extreme positions on public transport stating that it had been planned to the maximum extent that is economically feasible. He stated there was no shortfall of “instant experts” in the community who saw public transport as a solution to all urban problems, but being too long on imagination and too short on practicality.