FHNA Officially Opposes Roanoke Roundabout
I was unable to attend the meeting 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 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.
Please note that the following is my own editorial. I do not wish to imply that David feels the same way, endorses my position or provided the links and information below. I think it is interesting that residents state it would cause more congestion, make it harder to cross, and more hazardous. When studies point to the exact opposite result.
From September 2002 New Urban News
• Vehicular accidents overall declined 39 percent.
• Accidents resulting in injuries fell 76 percent.
• Accidents resulting in death or incapacitating injury plunged 90 percent.
From Nevada Department of Transportation
Reduces Traffic Delays / Increases Traffic Capacity
Traditional traffic signals usually stop two or more directions of traffic at one time. In roundabouts, all directions of traffic are often kept open and safely flowing. Several Insurance Institute for Highway Safety studies report significantly-improved traffic flow when traditional intersections are converted to roundabouts. A study of three such intersections in Nevada, Kansas and Maryland found that traffic delays were reduced 13-23 percent using roundabouts. Similar studies have shown a reduction of up to 89 percent in vehicle delays in roundabouts.
Can slow excessive traffic speeds while still improving traffic flow
Roundabouts can effectively and safely slow traffic and improve traffic flow.
More environmentally-friendly than traditional intersections due to less vehicle emissions, fuel use and noise
Many vehicles must wait for the light to turn green in a signalized intersection. While stopped, the vehicle’s exhaust emits more undesirable pollutants and gases into the atmosphere. Because roundabouts often eliminate such stops and improve traffic flow, they also reduce vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. In one study, replacing traffic signals and signs with roundabouts reduced carbon monoxide emissions by 32 percent, nitrous oxide emissions by 34 percent, carbon dioxide emissions by 37 percent and hydrocarbon emissions by 42 percent. Gasoline use is also reduced as traffic moves more efficiently through roundabouts, without the start and stop found at traditional intersections. Studies have shown that fuel savings can be up to 30 percent in roundabouts. At 10 intersections studied in Virginia, this savings amounted to more than 200,000 gallons of fuel per year. Without the stop and start of traditional traffic intersections, roundabouts can also reduce vehicle noise pollution.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has done extensive studies and has a good Q&A here.
The negatives brought up simply hold no water. If a roundabout will make the neighborhood safer I am in favor of the change to the intersection. We have a chance to improve the quality of our neighborhood at no cost to the city, we should take advantage of situation.
Just to add to David’s summary of last night’s FHNA meeting. Residents did request a light or some traffic-calming devices somewhere between Westover Hills
Boulevard and Roanoke St–raised ripples in the road, for example. No motion was
made to that effect, but it was voiced by a number of residents. For it to be officially recognized, I guess we need to vote on it.
The proposal for circles elsewhere were unclear–47th and Reedy, 48th and Reedy,
and somewhere on Dunston?? Will have to read Tom Flynn’s proposal. If these
streets have definite proposals, we need to be informed more clearly. Our
FHNA meeting was to discuss the roundabout at Roanoke St. It was announced in the FFHP meeting. The only other intersections mentioned in that meeting were the roundabouts at Midlothian and Roanoke St and the one at Southside Plaza. Southside seems to be deluged by roundabouts.
Many residents opposed the roundabout because it takes land from the Park. There was a cry when Flynn mentioned JR Pope’s suggestion that he would make a new entrance to Forest Hill Park at Roanoke St.
Note that there is little difference in the number of accidents at the Jahnke Road intersection and those at the Roanoke intersection: Roanoke,31, and Jahnke,33. Yet, there is no call for a roundabout at Jahnke. The number of accidents at the Westover Hills intersection (18) is about half the number at the other two intersections–probably because the light at Jahnke has slowed the traffic down before it reaches the boulevard. The speed limit is 25 mi/hr in that block as well.
We need something similar to slow traffic before it reaches Roanoke St.
Thanks for the additional information Carolyn.
Can you give any insight into why there “was a cry” at mention of a new entrance to the park? More access to the park would mean that more people use the park, which I think is a good thing.
Thanks for posting this additional information Richard. I agree with you and the people who possess the credentials to offer insights and reccemendations on the impacts of this traffic mechanism that this proposal would generally improve traffic in this area and I believe would also serve to improve pedestrian access as well as make it easier for other forms of trnaportation (me on my bicycle) to navigate the intersection. While it would be unfortunate to lose part of the park I consider it more detrimental to continue to have vehicular traffic take priority to pedestrians and other forms (bicycles) of transport through the maintaining of the status quo. Clearly the indviduals qualified to make an assesment of the situation have brought this proposal forward because their professional analysis led them to think this would be a positive improvement. Unlike other areas of policy traffic engineering is a rather exact and quantifiable area. as you stated the arguments that a roundabout would make it more difficult for pedestrians, increase traffic, and the like are simply uneducated opinions being offered by persons who lack the qualifications to make those judgements. I would have been in attendance had I not been in class last night and I consider your analysis to be more accurate in reflecting what studies have shown to be the impacts of this mechanisim and as a consequence would support efforts to install a roundabout particularly if the federal government is covering the costs.
Richard, the cry was purely spontaneous from the audience. What kind of entrance? Cars, bikes, pedestrians, all? I don’t know. The people here love the park. You can walk right into the park along the boundary with Forest Hill Ave. and there’s plenty of parking space off 41st and 42nd streets adjoining the park. Someone from administration or Kathy’s office would have to clarify that.
As to Willis’ comment, does he have problems navigating through Westover Hills on his bike. He should support money going to these intersections which have accident statistics similar to those at Roanoke St. No park land would be taken there. And since Roanoke is only the 36th most dangerous intersection in the city, a lot of money could be spent on the other 35 before they start spending on Roanoke and Forest Hill.
Furthermore, Councilman Samuels quoted from a Minnosota traffic study which stated that traffic roundabouts dis not have the calming effects that they have been touted to have. He made this comment was in the Council meeting on Oct. 26th (I believe) when Council voted to reject the roundabout at the Albert Hill statue intersection on northside. I believe that cost the city $75,000 because they had to turn around a decision they had already made. Ms. Graziano voted against that roundabout. Perhaps David can explain how that roundabout is so different from this one.
I have heard talk of roundabouts being effective traffic calming measures, as well as improving traffic flow: to me these seem to be contradictory assertions.
And as Carolyn has pointed out, FHP has what one might call ‘porous boundaries’ in that it is not a fenced park to which one gains access via set entries.
Also, the Park is on the National Register, is it not? Shouldn’t we be exercising greater care when considering major alterations to our landmarks?
Forest Hill Neighborhood Association may not want a traffic circle, but Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association has repeatedly asked for one to be considered on Idlewood.
http://www.oregonhill.net/2009/10/22/good-newsbad-news-on-planning-front/
Willis, I believe you may have a record sentence right there :)
I do not question the improved traffic flow and traffic safety aspect, but rather, the impact to both pedestrians and those trying to enter FH from side streets during rush hour. The safety studies address impact points at intersections versus impact points at traffic circles, but what about the peripheral “impacts?” If traffic does not stop, how will pedestrians safely cross? Virginia law requires that motorists yield to pedestrians, but will vehicles really stop as the law requires? Doubtful. They rarely stop at the crosswalk at Good Shepherd, so what would make this different? Again, what about those of us who live on side streets (or directly on FH) nearest to Roanoke and must enter FH during rush hour? Currently, it is only the gaps created by the stoplight that allow enough time to do so. It as also pretty appalling that Mr. Flynn admitted that the stoplight at Semmes would back traffic up to the traffic circle during rush hour. So if that’s the case, how does a traffic circle improve flow???
Maybe someone will also find money to extend the left-turn lane on southbound WH at FH. We’ll need it if the roundabout is constructed; it’ll be the only way to cross FH during peak hours. (It pretty much is already…)
If the Semmes light is going to cause a backup at the Roundabout That Ate The Park, then WHY aren’t we talking about putting it at the FH & Semmes intersection in the first place?
What kind of accidents are occurring at FH & Roanoke? Are they rear-end accidents? What’s going to happen when there’s a backup coming out of the traffic circle that’s supposed to keep people moving, rather than a traffic light where people expect to stop?
My personal observations have been that accidents occur when drivers traveling west on FH cut the turn too closely when accessing Roanoke and drive right into cars waiting at the light to turn on to FH westbound.
Can anyone explain why Rte 60 strays so far from a more natural route across 14th ST bridge, down Hull and then Midlothian (more commercial areas rather than residential)instead of the current detour up Main, down 9th, across that bridge, up Semmes, FH, and down Roanoke to Midlothian?
I was amused at the lady who askied last night “How can the city go forward with this when the neighborhood association voted aginst it?” I thought about asking them to vote against world hunger and war, as well.
There has been some comment abou the intersection of Semmes and FH as being dangerous. I have seen no data on the accident rate at that intersection. The decision whether to introduce an ordinance for the FH/Roanoke roundabout rests with the Jones Administration. There is currently no paper before council. I would be surprised to see one introduced. As reported earlier, there are plans for a roundabout at Roanoke and Midlothian being discussed. Unknown affect on FH.
Carolyn, you are presupposing you know how Mrs. Graziano would vote on an issue. You don’t have a good record on that.
David, how a member of Council votes on an issue does not always reflect whether she supports the issue or not. I think we both saw that in the vote on the construction project at the end of Lee Bridge.
Traditionally, Council members vote with the Council member in whose district the proposed project occurs unless there are mitigating circumstances like the $75,000 that the City had to pay to VDOT in addition to the rejected funds for the proposed roundabout on north side.
If Ms Graziano does not support this roundabout, she should be able to convince the rest of Council to vote with her. I don’t think her assistant would be so wholeheartedly in favor of this roundabout if she were not.
I think I called her support or non-support of the construction project correctly, however she voted. Anyone can vote against a project when they know they have enough votes to pass it. Council members pretty much already know how everyone is voting before they have their public meetings.
For the record I would support another roundabout at the Forest Hill and Jahnke intersection as well as others that are considered dangerous in our area. As far as this statement goes “As to Willis’ comment, does he have problems navigating through Westover Hills on his bike? (No because there are neighborhoods to go through, Forest Hill and Roanoke is a bottle neck for commuter bicycle traffic) He should support money going to these intersections, which have accident statistics (for autos, not bicycles) similar to those at Roanoke St. No parkland would be taken there.”
The answer would be yes I would support money going to roundabouts at other dangerous intersections but that being said the most dangerous place for me to navigate when commuting in the AM is always around Forest Hill and Roanoke. While not always right at the intersection in question, always as a result of the traffic that is created from it. Example one is a lady who was pulling out of the driveway at the apartments across from the park. I guess she didn’t feel I was legitimate “traffic” and tried to pull out directly in front of me to merge into the line of cars that had been waiting at the light, which was quite a hairy situation to say the least. Secondly I would point out that what qualifies as a “bike lane” for Richmond exists on Semmes, the city has it in their plans to put a bike lane on Jahnke, and the shoulder is pretty good on Forest Hill between Roanoke and Jahnke and even points west of there on Forest Hill (VA BIKE RT1 is Forest Hill for a bit crossing Powhite, the route goes from Maine to Florida as well). For the most part I wouldn’t ride on the section of Forest Hill west of Roanoke because it is too easy to go through a neighborhood where there is little auto traffic. The one bottleneck that exists headed east commuting by bicycle is at Roanoke (due to the turn lane and lack of a shoulder) and the bridge across reedy creek. Furthermore, while headed east on Forest Hill many drivers will make that left onto Roanoke with no regard for any oncoming bicycle traffic and as a result I end up having to do something that is legal but I don’t like doing which is block the entire eastbound lane through the intersection simply to ensure that traffic turning left will stop.
As an urban dweller, I think the policies we implement should give preference to lifestyles that are fostered by urban living. Supporting policies that encourage something other than making it easy for automobiles to pass through neighborhoods built for walking and public transport will only serve to encourage greater visibility for pedestrians, cyclists, and others who choose not to utilize autos. As a result I feel this will encourage people to be out, discourage criminals from roaming the streets having seen the public presence, and ultimately lead to more people with taxable incomes to move back to the city because of the benefits offered by urban life, as long as we decide to make those benefits a priority. In turn those incomes will drive our tax rate down, allow more funds to be allocated where they are needed (schools) and again create and foster an environment where more tax paying citizens will want to move here and contribute. Perhaps this is idealistic but I feel it is time we drive the vision for new urbanism and market urban lifestyles as an alternative to the cookie cutter life of the suburbs where you have no choice but to drive. Let’s make it easier for pedestrians, cyclists, and others to walk from their homes to the park, cycle to their place of work, and interact directly on the street with their neighbors. I feel the roundabout will lend itself to calming traffic in a way that will help drive these results and most studies have shown the same. Loss of a section of the park would be unfortunate but for decades the park was in disrepair because the city went down the tubes, autos took precedent over pedestrians, and criminals had safe havens in our area because of flight from the city. Curious to see Scott Burger posting on here as Oregon Hill already knows too well the destruction caused by placing a priority on autos over homes and neighborhoods and hence you got the downtown expressway and the destruction of hundreds of homes in one neighborhood. If we don’t take steps to calm traffic now, utilizing funds available to us today, who is to say that Forest Hill won’t be expanded into a four lane divided highway to drive straight into the center of the city and straight back out at 5pm? I’d rather have a say and take the roundabout while we can.
Has anyone looked? Is FH & Roanoke being looked at as an isolated intersection? Are accidents that may have occurred closer to the FH/Semmes intersection being counted as happening at Roanoke? If both intersections’ accidents are being lumped together, then it’s going to skew the data.
Willis, you make some good points. If we need a roundabout at Roanoke and Forest Hill, we would benefit from a roundabout at Jahnke and at Westover Hills Boulevard and possibly at Semmes and Forest Hill as they split. It makes little sense to create a flow through Roanoke to back up at Semmes and, in the other direction to back up at Westover Hills Boulevard.
And all studies do not support the calming effects of roundabouts. Note Councilman Samuels reference to a Minnesota study at Council’s Oct 26th meeting.
I am not against roundabouts–just against jumping into something that will be invasive to the park when alternatives have not been pursued. And why waste Capital funds to redo the stop lights at Jahnke and at Westover Hills Boulevard if a roundabout would be a more effective calming device at those intersections?
Preserving the park and the Forest Hill neighborhood will be the best way to lure taxpayers back into this area. The residents here want to be able to get into the traffic on Forest Hill and to be able to cross Forest Hill. The roundabout should facilitate the residents as well as those traveling through our neighborhood. That is the issue that needs to be dealt with. One should not be sacrificed for the other. I’m not certain that the roundabout is the answer.
“Curious to see Scott Burger posting on here as Oregon Hill already knows too well the destruction caused by placing a priority on autos over homes and neighborhoods and hence you got the downtown expressway and the destruction of hundreds of homes in one neighborhood.”
The traffic circle would calm traffic on Idlewood as well as allow more pedestrian/bicycle friendly features. You need to look at the current nightmare which has Expressway vehicles speeding off the Expressway through Oregon Hill. A traffic circle would also allow more construction of mixed use in the area.
Jennifer,
A little bit of data: Accidents reported years 2005-2007 on FH Avenue.
Roanoke St.
Well, that was just screwed up. Trying again.
Accidents reported on FH Avenue, 2005-2007
Roanoke St. 31
WH Blvd 18
Jahnke Rd 33
Semmes/Dundee 15
This data were in the presentation Wednesday night. I just missed it.
Okay, we got numbers. Next question, David: are the accidents broken down by type (rear-end, cutting the corner, etc.)?
Looking at the number of accidents per intersection for two years, 2005-2007, it is interesting to note that the two intersections which have lights preceding them, Westover Hills Blvd at Forest Hill
and Semmes at Dundee, have significantly fewer accidents than at the other two intersections:18 and 15 respectively. Whereas, the accidents at the intersection of Jahnke and Forest Hill and at Roanoke and Forest Hill are double those at the other two intersections. How do the traffic engineers account for the significant difference with the same traffic flowing through? Do we merely need a less intrusive calming device similar to what already exists at the other two intersections–another light or merely a blinking yellow light as a warning before traffic reaches the other two intersections. I know on Forest Hill
between Westover Hills and Roanoke St, we need something to calm the traffic before it reaches Westover Hills Blvd. or Roanoke St. The cars pick up speed through this area, making it difficult to enter traffic or cross Forest Hill.
Jennifer, that’s all I have on accidents. I do have the traffic count that was done at 42nd Street three years ago. Too large a document for me to load unto the site, but if you send me an email at the office, I will provide.
I think some of the self-educated engineers are missing a point. Flynn said clearly at the meeting that there are no other alternatives under consideration for FH and Roanoke, and that the money was not transferrable to another project. If the city administration decides not to go forward with this project, then there will be no further effort for Forest Hill Avenue for the foreseeable future, except for the traffic signals at Westover Hills Blvd and Jahnke Road. The opponents win; nothing further is done, and they can take credit for future problems.
Sundagger, no mention of another lane that will take the corner resident’s house either, yes? It’s interesting that the City has capital funds for lights at 3 intersections bordering the Westover Hills neighborhood, Jahnke, Westover Hills Boulevard, New Kent and the Boulevard; but Forest Hill residents have only federal funding for any projects in their neighborhood. I believe we have been asking for a
light between Westover Hills Blvd. and
Roanoke St. for many years. So who really takes credit for future problems?
Carolyn, You don’t listen. Tom said clearly that the lights are paid by a safety grant. The roundabout would have been paid by another safety grant. There is no funding for lights in the corridor because no traffic engineer in the past five years believes they are professionally appropriate. You want to put your judgement ahead of the engineers? That’s fine, but don’t expect them to subordinate their professional judgement.
David, I’m sure you’re a reasonable human in person, but you sure do come off like a rude jerk on this site. You make your boss and her office look bad. It would be unwise of you to forget that we are both taxpayers and voters.
I would like to say that David is a reasonable human in person and in print. I’ve no objections to his behavior here or anywhere else. He and his boss are substantial advocates for the city, the park, the river, the neighborhoods and all that surrounds. I appreciate his involvement, data, and opinion in this neighborhood forum.
We all have opinions about the roundabout. While I don’t automatically defer to the traffic engineers, once certain questions are answered we need to move on.
The need for slowing the traffic, the need for organizing the traffic and to provide pedestrian access across may be more pressing than some of the other suggestions I have heard here.
Yes, we would love to have less traffic. (This is not the battleground)
Yes, we would like to have better and more bike lanes (This is not the battleground)
Yes, we would like to not have any encroachment at all to our park but maybe it is give a little, get a lot.
Finally, this traffic circle or the discussion surrounding will not change our 50-60 year old automobile culture.
Personally, I would like to have the trolley line going from Westover to downtown back but I don’t see this as the same discussion.
Let’s solve this micro-problem of a bad intersection or intersections and begin a separate conversation to solve the more macro-problems of automobile culture, trolley lines, bike lanes, etc. city wide.
Insulting David, a substantial advocate for the park and for our neighborhoods is not a viable pathway to solving these issues.
My vote for Graziano (and her office) for the next election.
I don’t know either of them, but I just think that perhaps David could be a little more diplomatic on the Neighborhood Blog instead of telling neighbors, “Carolyn, you don’t listen,” and “Carolyn, you are presupposing you know…” (both are direct quotes.)
Thanks for the comments, pros and cons, but issues should not be about personalities. So I will remnove myself from the blog. If anyone has questions, rather than asking on the blog, just contact the office.
As the head of this blog I have to say that the quality of posts and information shared with the community will suffer if David decides to remove himself from the blog. The work providing the pictures on the lake restoration as well as the farmer’s market have added incredible value to the blog. The insights into what is going on in city government are also great. I am hoping he sticks around and have sent a private note stating such.
Personalities will never be completely removed from any debate or discussion, nor should they be. If we can remain civil we can all learn from each other and the community will be better as a result.
If anyone feels that a post has crossed the line and wandered into insulting, offensive or racist please let me know and I will deal with it directly. This was not the case in any of the posts in this thread so I had let them all stand.
Just a note of observation from someone who’s lived near FH & Jahnke for several years now: I’ve sent many communications to various city entities- Traffic Engineering, Police, Graziano’s office being the Top 3- regarding the warzone that is the FH/Jahnke/Prince Arthur intersection and the amount of traffic that takes residential side streets-typically at high speed- to avoid it. My responses thus far? One “we’ll look into it” from the police and one “it’s not our problem” from Traffic, both over 4 years ago. Somehow I suspect that if I and my neighbors were contributors to Graziano’s re-election campaigns, things might shake out a little differently.
So to those in the FHNA, at least be thankful that someone cares about some of the issues in your area.
I’ve seen some spectacular accidents at FH & Jahnke. I’ve seen spectacular accidents at FH & Semmes. I’ve seen zero spectacular accidents at FH & Roanoke. I’m all for fixing a problem – I just don’t believe in throwing money at it just because the money is there.
I would like to see type of accident and damage amounts. For example, the dollar loss and potential for (actual) injury from someone cutting the corner into another car differs substantially from a Lincoln Town Car running into The Appliance King. Both count as an “accident,” statistically. They do not call for the same level of response.
Given the amount of change that would be made to the road, it seems reasonable to ask for more time and research before committing the entire neighborhood to the project…without being told that if we don’t endorse this particular project, then we get nothing and it’s all our fault forever and ever amen.
I second Richard’s request that David continue to be a part of Hills & Heights. His input is invaluable. He is always available and responsive to our needs. If he can’t provide an answer immediately, you may rest assured that he will do so as quickly. David understands civil service at the most grassroots level, and that’s becoming a rarity these days.
I think every contributor to the comments section can be valuable. I’ve always enjoyed the…erm…wide range of personalities on CHPN, and I’d love to foster the same sort of thing here. I (obviously) don’t always agree with David or his phrasing, but it seems nonproductive to chase someone off because of an online personality conflict.
I am not holding my breath on any type of study or other improvements for quite a while. http://hillsandheights.org/2009/11/18/vdot-meeting-on-program-cuts/
Has anyone looked at the intersection right by Crossroads Coffee..when it becomes two lanes the road is quite narrow and folks park in front of those businesses narrowing it further. I’ve almost gotten in several accidents there due to people swerving into the left lane to avoid hitting the parked cars. Widening the stree there or creating a no parking zone would be helpful.
How about a roundabout? Oh, wait.
Don’t worry, Jacob – if The Roundabout That Ate The Park is put in three blocks away, all those cars will disappear, the curve will straighten out, and we’ll all get a pony.
All snarkiness aside, this is exactly why I’m not a fan of this proposal. Does anyone who actually uses these roads on a regular basis agree that it makes more sense to muck around with the Roanoke light than the one at Semmes? If so, please speak up.
David, have not been on the blog for days–
too much work to do. It was Ms. Graziano
who said in our October FHNA meeting that
the funds for the lights at Jahnke and
Westover Hills came from a capital fund.
I asked her what was the difference in
the funding. She said capital funding for those lights. My thinking was as
follows: why does the funding for
Roanoke require a roundabout, but the
funding for the other two intersections does not require roundabouts when they were being paid for with the same funds–as you say, with the same safety grants. Kathy was the one who said those lights were being paid for with capital funds. Perhaps,you were not listening–just a joke, David. I believe, it is the cost of the roundabouts at Jahnke and at Westover
Hills Blvd. that makes their construction
prohibitive. Sadly, the park will not
cost the City much money since the City
already owns the land. But it will have
other costs for those of us who live here: not only the loss of the continuous
flow of the green space and the large
trees, but the precedent it sets for
taking land from the park.
I am aware that we are fortunate to have
Ms. Graziano’s and your involvement in
our neighborhood–the lake at Forest Hill
Park which your support helped the FFHP
obtain after many years of their requesting the aid, and the conservation
easement for James River Park which the
FJRP had pursued. I only wonder why your
office did not include a conservation
easement for Forest Hill Park at the same
time since Forest Hill Park continues into James River Park.
I thank Ms Graziano and her office
for what she has done. I know she is
an excellent politician and her choices
involve many factors. I am not a politician and that is why I can be
more passionate about what I love.
I love the park. It is the heart of
these neighborhoods–and I thank you
for helping to make its paths more safe
to walk and for bringing the lake back
to more of its old self when I walked
there in the 50s and 60s.
Please find another solution to the traffic at Roanoke St. Don’t take another tree, another green space. It is beautiful to look into the park as you pass onto Forest Hill Ave from Roanoke St.It’s only in the morning
and the afternoon that the traffic is
unbearable. To destroy all this to en-
courage commuters to take Forest Hill Ave in and out of downtown would be???
And don’t abandon the blog. You definitely make a contribution.
The bottom line is this:
The center of the proposed roundabout at Forest Hill and Roanoke will be in the park. That means one half of the traffic circle will be inside Forest Hill Park. Two very old large trees will be taken down, as well as the destruction of a Depression-era granite wall, the paved path/road coming up from the lake, and a stand of pines and other trees behind it.
All GONE. And just as problematic, landfill will be brought in to bring that land 6 feet or more up to street level. The master plan of the park will sustain severe damage. As you walk up from the lake towards Forest Hill Avenue, you will be met with a concrete wall and cars flying INSIDE THE PARK.
That is why over 50 neighbors in Forest Hill came out in the middle of a nor-easter to vote on the proposed roundabout.
The vote was not necessarily a repudiation of roundabouts and their safety, although a lot of folks had concerns about a continual flow of traffic on Forest Hill with the roundabout.
And what that non-stop stream of cars would mean to pedestrian safety all along Forest Hill, with no red light to create gaps in traffic flow.
The vote was all about concerns on damage to the park, the crown jewel of our neighborhood, and how that damage would take away from the quality of our life.
The roundabout would FOREVER alter the master plan of Forest Hill Park in a really bad way.
So that’s why our neighborhood voted against the roundabout, while other neighborhoods may welcome them: their roundabouts won’t do massive structural damage to a uniquely beautiful, historic park.
An interesting commentary on Richmond’s
struggles to preserve its green spaces:
Survival, preservation and/or revitaliza-
tion are large parts of the story of the
Richmond landscape since 1942. Much of this success is due to the dogged deter-
mination of the advocates of landscape
preservation. Repeatedly, these advocates
have successfully fought off major changes to Richmond’s public landscapes.
For example, Monroe Park was considered
for use as both a medical research park and a paved parking lot for the Landmark Theatre. The Commonwealth of Virginia
once considered making over Capitol Square into concrete terraces, and more
recently a proposal to convert Joseph
Bryan Park into a golf course received
serious consideration. (T. Tyler Potterfield, Nonesuch Place,2009, p 127)
Mr. Potterfield has an interesting history of the development of Richmond’s
parks.