Turner Rd and Bernard St - Proposed speed limit, safety and traffic signal changes

Turner Rd is approximately 10 metres with resident and visitor parking on both sides of the road. When vehicles are approaching from opposite directions they need to weave in and out between parked cars in order to pass. Having a speed limit of 60 is too fast for a narrow street. Given there is also playing fields for children it would be more appropriate to also have speed bumps to slow traffic down. Turner Rd is treated as a short cut rather than a residential street.

All bad ideas and will only cause inconveinience and lower livability. I've lived here long enough to realize that Council is quick to approve multi-story complexes which increase population and their rates, but are only prepared to put a band-aid on traffic issues it causes. I agree with Aleko's long explaination below, which in summary states;
" It makes little sense to impede the convenience and liveability of residents and businesses for a decision which will have marginal if any effect on safety, and if anything will further congest the local area."
and
"Speed cushions" are an abhorrent means of managing motorists. ....... inconveniencing road users who will do the right thing anyway, they're proven to cause undue wear to vehicle undercarriages and suspension components. To dampen the usability of a road which is as essential and practical for both locals and non-locals alike, when the pace of the road is just fine, would be a misuse of tax payer funding."
and finally,
" I probably speak for the majority of residents when I say we do not want our neighbourhood turned into another Prahran, with daunting, unaccessible, and dangerously narrow roads, littered with speed bumps, islands and other distractions and hazards further congesting the neighbourhood."
As Traffic managers there at Kingston, how about you do some further studies and present the results of why these streets are actually dangerous in the first place.

I support the reduction of the Turner Rd speed limit from 60 to 50 - long overdue. I also would support the speed reduction in Bernard St as since the traffic lights have been installed at Bernard St / Warrigal Rd the volume of traffic has increase dramatically as it is now used as a thoroughfare and no longer just local traffic.
I also believe that the pedestrian signals should be upgraded (including overhead lights) as this crossing is used by many school children as well as elderly. To say motorists go through the red lights because they do not expect them to change is utterly rediculous, if they are competent drivers they should be aware of all lights and crossings!
Speed humps should only be installed if they are capable of slowing down all vehicles - 4WDs included.
I also agree that the parking in front of the shops in Bernard St should be re-oriented to 45 deg so as to allow drivers better vision when reversing out of these parks.
Having lived in the area for over 20 years I would also think it was about time that the School zone was updated with illuminated signage for school hours - there are many drivers such as myself who no longer have school age children and are not always aware when school holidays are.

Hi.
As a mum of an 1 yo and 4 yo, who attend Kids Company, and members of Waves we walk with the pram, bike (and 2 dogs) down these busy streets almost daily.
On numerous occasions the pedestrian traffic signals have turned red with drivers continuing to fly through as we've started to cross. It definitely requires something that attracts more drivers attention.
Trying to cross Bernard St at either of the island refuges near the shops is safe, but still takes a long time waiting for suitable breaks in the traffic going both ways.
Perhaps a 50 or 40 zone only needs to be relevant for the shops part to cope with the perplexing parking actions some people make, and difficulty in backing out with limited vision. It's not necessary for the whole length of the street.

PS. The new local traffic only sign on the industrial end of Christensen Street has not done a thing to alleviate the commercial traffic and hooning tradies.

Thanks.

I fully support speed limit reductions, any treatment should also include the parallel streets, to ensure speeding traffic doesn't divert from Turner Road / Bernard Street.

Bernard St is quite busy at many times of day, with businesses and the school running through there -- as such, lower speeds are appropriate, and 50kmh is used in many high traffic business areas such as Nepean Hwy, without congestion; Further, many users of Turner Rd don't follow the posted limit, we routinely see cars and motorbikes speeding at 70-90kmh, a 50km limit won't affect this behaviour, only traffic calming devices will.

Speed Cushions don't appear to be ideal -- they are unpopular with drivers especially on busy roads, and cause traffic noise; Other measures (eg. Curb Extension/Road Narrowing combined with a Speed Table) will be more effective at reducing speed, more comfortable for drivers, preferable for buses and least disruptive to adjacent residents; I believe they would be more appropriate at two or more places along Turner & Bernard, located to impact side street traffic also.

I support the speed limit reductions, any treatment should also include the parallel streets, to ensure speeding traffic doesn't divert from Turner Road / Bernard Street.

Bernard St is quite busy at many times of day, with businesses and the school running through there -- as such, lower speeds are appropriate, and 50kmh is used in many high traffic business areas such as Nepean Hwy, without congestion; Further, many users of Turner Rd don't follow the posted limit, we routinely see cars and motorbikes speeding at 70-90kmh, a 50km limit won't affect this behaviour, only traffic calming devices will.

Speed Cushions don't appear to be ideal -- they are unpopular with drivers especially on busy roads, and cause traffic noise; Other measures (eg. Curb Extension/Road Narrowing combined with a Speed Table) will be more effective at reducing speed, more comfortable for drivers, preferable for buses and least disruptive to adjacent residents; I believe they would be more appropriate at two or more places along Turner & Bernard, located to impact side street traffic also.

I struggle with the logic of removing a pedestrian crossing and replacing with an "informal" pedestrian crossing. If we need a crossing make it a proper crossing, maybe with flashing amber lights so traffic can move on if no-one on the crossing - same as Beach Rd, Black Rock.
Speed cushions and speed humps are a pain and dangerous if not adequately lit at night.
If there is an issue of speeding, how about some enforcement of the speed limits, and catch those that are causing the problem, instead of inflicting issues on everyone else

I support the slow down on Bernard. My concern as a resident living off Wingrove is that the traffic will flow but it might make it harder to enter traffic on Bernard. Can we get an upgrade of the pedestrian lights to include a sensor to activate a red signal that allows us to join Bernard.

We do not need to lower the speed limit here.

Speed limit reductions from 60 km/h to 50 km/h were done using old data based on older vehicles with much poorer stopping power than most vehicles on the road these days.

There are school zones speed limits that apply for school times.

There is no need to lower the limit on this strip the rest of the time.

I have lived on Turner Rd directly across from the reserve for about 10 years and there is definitely an issue with speeding on this road. Day and night you will find quite a few reckless drivers travelling way above the speed limit from the top of Turner Rd down to Chesterville Rd.
These drivers and/or riders clearly do not care about the speed limit as you can hear them racing past at speeds over 80kmph.
There have been multiple near misses with children an people enjoying the amenities due to these speedsters but it never seems to stop them racing their vehicles along it at all hours of the day and night.
There are always loads of people and families and children in this area due to the ovals, the footy club, the park, the dog park, the MCH centre and Waves and it is fast becoming a very dangerous road for everyone.
With this in mind I do not believe changing the speed limit will change their behaviour at all.

The only way to stop this reckless and life threatening behaviour is to install speed bumps along Turner Rd in particular outside the footy club and ovals an WAVES which will force their law breakers to slow down and provide the safety around these family friendly areas.

HI,
I also live on turner road (right across from the reserve), I agree with Neil and Ahamed, changing the speed limit will only have an impact on the "law abiding" drivers, but not on the current "speeders" that frequently drive down turner road day/night - everyday. The concern my house hold has is that its only a matter of time that a serious accident happens as lots of young children cross the road towards the reserve and park, and during these school holidays we witnessed 2 near misses with cars breaking heavily (load skid) swerving to avoid hitting people.
I believe a better investment is deploying strategically place speed bumps as this will automatically force a reduction in speed and therefore make the discussion about reducing speed a mute point - that is if there is a genuine concern for safety rather than a revenue raiser activity of catching speeders.

Regarding the proposed speed change on turner rd (I live on Peace street, off Turner):
Surely the “community concerns” you speak of is in relation to cars speeding down Turner Rd, not concerns “regarding the speed limit”. Changing the speed limit will not address the speeding issue. I have cars speeding down my road (Peace street) all the time, where the speed limit is the standard 50, but that doesn’t stop them.
Turner road is a relatively wide road and I think 60 is an appropriate speed limit for such a road. At most times during the day, especially on weekends, there are cars parked on both sides along the Highett Reserve stretch and you can’t go more than 40 anyway. But evenings and late at night you get people taking advantage of the quiet and wide road and speeding. Perhaps some speed enforcement measures may do more to address the community concerns (and could be a another revenue earner for the council!) rather than wasting money changing the number on the signs.
Kind regards.

I live on Turner road, long waited changes to this street also I recommend speed humps.

Thank you

To whom it may concern.

Here is my in-depth feedback of the proposals affecting Bernard St, Residents and businesses.
Please take your time to read and consider this message as much as I will take time to write it.

Project 1: Reducing the speed limit along Turner Rd, Highett from 60 km/h to 50km/h:
Bernard St is a busy street during peak hour, as is all other main streets and roads that run through the Cheltenham and Moorabbin area. During evenings, midday and weekends, it is a relatively quiet, swift and leisurely drive connecting two important arteries of the area: Warrigal Rd and Chesterville Rd. The area around Cheltenham Secondary College already has a 40km/h speed limit when necessary time dictates. It makes little sense to impede the convenience and liveability of residents and businesses for a decision which will have marginal if any effect on safety, and if anything will further congest the local area, which in itself brings it's own hazards and will likely just result in more fatigued, frustrated motorists.

Project 2: Reducing the speed limit along Bernard St, Cheltenham and installing speed cushions near Parnell Street and Rosewarne Avenue:
"Speed cushions" are an abhorrent means of managing motorists. Aside from the potential to make speeding vehicles into airborne speeding vehicles and inconveniencing road users who will do the right thing anyway, they're proven to cause undue wear to vehicle undercarriages and suspension components. To dampen the usability of a road which is as essential and practical for both locals and non-locals alike, when the pace of the road is just fine, would be a misuse of tax payer funding. As someone who lives right across from the Bernard St shops, and even manages to enter and exit their own driveway with no issue despite the flow of vehicles, this will have no valuable affect to me and other locals who are even further detached from the affects of this decision. In fact, it would likely do the opposite.

Project 3: Bernard St Cheltenham, changing OR upgrading the traffic signal near Wingrove St:
In regards to this issue, I strongly believe the best course of action would be Option 1. As someone who has used said pedestrian crossing multiple times before, the hardware clearly is very old and outdated. For the sake of those who live closer to the crossing, and for the accessibility of families who may use it to access Kids Company on the west end of Bernard St, I do not believe the crossing serves no purpose despite its quite low frequency of use.

The traffic island and speed cushion proposal outlined in Option 2 is another misuse of the wide, high visibility, accessible and high-traffic-flow friendly strip of road that we know and love. We are very lucky to be able to enjoy the benefits of an open road and family friendly, open space suburb. I probably speak for the majority of residents when I say we do not want our neighbourhood turned into another Prahran, with daunting, unaccessible, and dangerously narrow roads, littered with speed bumps, islands and other distractions and hazards further congesting the neighbourhood. Turning this area of the street into a bottleneck would not make it safer. While adding parking spaces is a commendable and welcome idea, all other parts of this proposal, including placing traffic islands in the middle of the road to make both lanes narrower and increase the chance of motorists sideswiping parked cars, reduce the value of the proposal.

Herein I have provided some recommendations of changes that I strongly DO deem to be positive and would result in a net benefit for the area and be a positive use of resources:

Maintaining and upgrading the already existing traffic islands at the Bernard St Shops:
It's beyond absurd how often motorists leaving the shops have reversed into and knocked over the traffic island signs in the middle of the street. After these have been knocked down, replacements have either come months later or not at all. This results in motorists reversing out of parking from the shops backing in to the islands and damaging their vehicles. In one incident, a vehicle driving at night down the street was made airborne by the traffic island and destroyed a neighbours front rendered brick fence, that they meticulously build themselves. These traffic islands must be maintained if they are to stay, and if the signage is not visible and sturdy enough to be seen and is constantly knocked over by parked cars reversing out... Then bigger, sturdier signs, maybe supported by being surrounded with a small loop of metal road barrier, should be placed in. The unsigned traffic islands are a serious hazard to the street.

Searching for options to aid visibility for drivers leaving the Bernard St shops:
Probably the single most significant cause of accidents I have seen on the street has been drivers leaving the shops unable to see oncoming traffic. Most often, the accidents are not accidents per se, but mainly due to driver negligence. However, it remains that the visibility for motorists leaving the parking is awful. A 50km/h or even 40km/h speed limit will not stop this from happening. Measures need to be made, maybe using for instance parking safety convex mirrors (A potential great use of the space of the existing traffic islands in the middle of the street, as well as/or having ones placed at the front of the shops), or adjusting the angle/orientation of the parking lines, to ensure drivers have clearer and safer visibility when leaving the Bernard St Shops.

This can also be further supplemented with as much parking spots (note: not 'SMALLER' parking spots to fit in 'MORE', simply more use of existing space) close to the shops, or even the street and adjacent streets overall, as is feasible and safe. The orientation of the parking at the shops is unsafe, unwieldy and awkward, and if it cannot be changed then at the very least visibility must be assisted, and safer, better parking alternatives made available close to the shops.

I as a resident pride myself in the street and neighbourhood, and value Bernard St for both its practical and sentimental value, but more-so its practical value. I hope this message has reached understanding and considerate eyes and that this feedback is considered seriously.

Kindest regards.