19 Responses to “Forest Hill Lake Restoration Fall Update”

1. posted by Carolyn Paulette at November 10, 2009 10:36 pm [#]:
   

   David, yes, it is a beautiful park. Let’s not lose an acre of its green space to create a roundabout at Forest Hill and Roanoke St. It’s also beautiful looking at the sycamore and oak trees beside the road that meanders into the woods toward the lake. Remember your photos of the snow sleds on the hill. The roundabout will put a bit of a damper on that scene! I guess FHNA will hear from Tom Flynn to-
   morrow night. Let us go round and round about the roundabout!

2. posted by David at November 11, 2009 8:13 am [#]:
   

   Carolyn,
   Thank you for bringing up the issue of the roundabout, as it relates to the park. Speaking solely as a single member of the Board of the Friends of Forest Hill Park, and not suggesting that I speak for the organization, let me make a couple of points. The amount of land taken has been estimated by two different sources as somewhere between one/seventh and one/sixth of an acre of a 105 acre park. DPW will replant any lost vegetation with native specie trees and plantings, will landscape to the specifications of the parks department, and will relocate the service road that roads past the area. The stone wall along the path will be relocated and rebuilt. The project is endorsed by the Parks Department and Mr. Pope, who sees this as an opportunity to create a southern gateway into the park, connecting to the trail system in place and being built. Unlike many who speak on this project, I don’t pretend to be a traffic engineer, but I have been an aggressive and active advocate for Forest Hill Park for a number of years. This project, whatever its engineering values, is not a threat to Forest Hill Park. By the way, I can’t take credit for photos of the snow. I have never taken any pictures of the sledding, which takes place about 300 yards from the roundabout location.

3. posted by Matt at November 11, 2009 10:38 am [#]:
   

   Thanks for this update David on the roundabout! Sounds great to me!!

4. posted by PDM at November 11, 2009 11:53 am [#]:
   

   Let’s see how the lake looks after this:

   Flood watch expanded; up to 7 inches of rain possible

   The National Weather Service office in Wakefield has expanded a flood watch that applies through 6 p.m. tomorrow, and forecasters say the Richmond area can expect 2 to 5 inches of rain in that period.

   The weather service also says up to 7 inches are possible in some spots as the remnants of Ida slide through the region.

   Forecasters say the rain may cause flooding of creeks and small streams through tomorrow, and river levels are expected to rise significantly with minor flooding possible later in the week.

5. posted by Carolyn Paulette at November 11, 2009 2:17 pm [#]:
   

   David, my apologies on the acre. I misread your response to the letter Friends of Forest Hill Park wrote in opposition to the roundabout. I thought you were saying it was only an acre! Even 7,500 ft or 6000 ft is a large chunk of land. Even worse, it will set a precedent to chip away at the edges of the park.

   Carolyn

6. posted by PageH at November 11, 2009 3:18 pm [#]:
   

   But it doesn’t have to be looked upon as chipping away at the park but actually enhancing it by improving that intersection. I saw the presentation on the roundabout that was made to the Friends of Forest Hill Park and the plan includes tree plantings within the circle and to replace the two trees that would have to be taken down. It will also make it much easier to cross into the park from the south of Forest Hill. I think if you look at the pros vs the cons, with an open mind, the pros win out.

7. posted by JC at November 11, 2009 5:01 pm [#]:
   

   I don’t see how the pros win out over the cons when the whole purpose is to make Forest Hill Avenue more of a thoroughfare for traffic heading into the city – the point of this roundabout is to increase traffic flow – that is not good for Woodland Heights, Reedy Creek, Forest Hills, Westover Hills, The Park, the Creek or any part of the neighborhoods. We are being sold a bill of goods to increase traffic and because we are told the funding is there!!

8. posted by David at November 11, 2009 5:10 pm [#]:
   

   The stated purpose, as was made clear at the meeting, is that this is the 36th most dangerous interesection in the city, and the department is working it’s way through the list. The roundabout is the preferred solution, based on the engineering work. The alternatives are to add a turn lane, thereby requiring comdemnation of the property onm the southwest corner, or to do nothing.Ironically, Mr. Jewell has asked for a roundabout at Roanoke and Midlothian, and will get it.

9. posted by Stephanie at November 11, 2009 5:20 pm [#]:
   

   If this intersection is 36th on the list, then why is it taking priority over more problematic intersections?

   Also, Roanoke and Midlothian is a four-way intersection and could use a roundabout. And the Forest Hill and Roanoke intersection already has turn lanes, and East bound on FH the street is wide enough to accommodate one.

   I wonder if some of the problems associated with this intersection wouldn’t be alleviated by relocating the bus stops.

10. posted by CSB at November 11, 2009 6:04 pm [#]:
    

    Why don’t they slow down traffic on all the roads leading to that intersection to force drivers to slow down? I still say we need more stop signs on Forest Hill between Westover Hills & Roanoke.

11. posted by Jennifer C. at November 11, 2009 7:20 pm [#]:
    

    Oh, no stop signs. Please no stop signs.

    I was unable to come to tonight’s meeting. I grant the point to David that I’m not a traffic engineer, but I would like to know if the question of why Roanoke is a better location than the mess at Semmes was brought up. If so, what was the response?

12. posted by David at November 12, 2009 8:17 am [#]:
    

    The Forest Hill Neighborhood Association voted last night to oppose a roundabout at the corner of FH Avenue and Roanoke Street.
    The roundabout was one of several proposals made to the association by city traffic engineer Tom Flynn. Flynn argued that roundabouts are the preferred method by both the Federal Highway Administration and VDOT to improve traffic safety and reduce conflict. Neighbors countered with concerns that the roundabout would actually increase congestion along FH Avenue, create spot situations where residents in side neighborhoods would be unable to access FH Avenue during peak hours, and increase the risk to pedestrians trying to cross FH.
    The debate lasted more than an hour and was generally civil. At the end of the meting the association voted almost unanimously to oppose the roundabout. They took no position on the proposals for improved traffic signals at FH and Westover Hills Blvd., FH and Jahnke and Westover Hills and New Kent, no position on the proposal for additional pedestrian crosswalks, and no position on suggestions for traffic calming in the neighborhood south of FH Avenue.
    There is currently no paper before City Council to authorize the roundabout, and it is unknown whether the city administration will introduce a paper for the project. It would have been funded with federal dollars channeled through VDOT, and the money is not available for an alternate project. There are no current plans for any alternate suggestions for the intersection. In related information, there are apparently plans under consideration for a roundabout at Roanoke and Midlothian. That request apparently bears the support of City Council Member Marty Jewell.
    It is unknown whether engineers plan to go ahead with any additional crosswalks or with the traffic calming suggestions for the Forest Hill South area.

13. posted by Hills and Heights » FHNA Officially Opposses Roanoke Roundabout - Richmond, Virginia at November 12, 2009 9:33 am [#]:
    

    [...] last night but David Hathcock has given us the summary below. The comments below were posted in the Forest Hill Lake Restoration Fall Update thread but that is not the most logical place to look for information on the roundabout. The [...]

14. posted by PageH at November 12, 2009 10:26 am [#]:
    

    JC, the roundabout will not INCREASE the number of cars going through that area, it will IMPROVE the flow of cars that are already there. The purpose is not to make it the preferred thoroughfare to the city but to make an already busy/unsafe intersection more efficient and safer.

15. posted by Stephanie at November 12, 2009 11:27 am [#]:
    

    Typically, when traffic flow improves, traffic volume increases: Drivers will usually find and take the path of least resistance.

16. posted by Jennifer C. at November 12, 2009 12:17 pm [#]:
    

    In related information, there are apparently plans under consideration for a roundabout at Roanoke and Midlothian. That request apparently bears the support of City Council Member Marty Jewell.

    I would be interested to see how he expects that to work. There are residences on two opposing corners, and Ephesus and a church that just finished their building a couple of years ago on the other two.

17. posted by Stephanie at November 12, 2009 2:16 pm [#]:
    

    Back to the subject of FHP lake: I was just down there and saw that Reedy Creek is starting to overflow in places at the southern end, the lake itself is high with several of the street lamp bases in the water, and there is very little space between the water surface and the underside of the bridge/dam at the northern end of the lake.
    And we have more rain in our forecast.

18. posted by Phil Licking at November 12, 2009 3:11 pm [#]:
    

    Back on subject (thanks Stephanie!) this will be a good test of the engineering that went into the project. If the lake sustains this rain event, it bodes well for the future.

19. posted by Stephanie at November 12, 2009 3:35 pm [#]:
    

    I sure hope so.

Leave a Comment