Forest Hill Widening on Monday Planning Commission Docket
The Forest Hill Avenue widening project has been placed on the Planning Commission docket for Monday, February 7th at 1:30 pm. The meeting will take place in City Hall in the 5th floor conference room. As far as I know the city is still planning a public townhouse meeting to discuss this as has been promised. It would be a good question to ask if you do go to the meeting.
A word of warning on the meeting. One of the other items on the docket is Carytown Place. If you haven’t been keeping track Carytown Place is the contentious project that is attempting to turn the old Verizon building into retail space. There is a lot of passion on this subject so expect the meeting to be a long one.
If you can’t make it to the Planning Commission vote, you can email your comments to tarisa.moran@richmondgov.com (put FOREST HILL in the subject line) — Issues raised at the last public hearing include (1) forcing traffic to stop at a T when exiting the RMA and heading west, so that drivers will not have to look back over their shoulders when trying to merge into traffic (this is where MOST of the accidents occur); (2) slowing the speed limit down on the corridor to recognize that it is a residential neighborhood; (3) placing a stoplight at Rettig road to assist drivers and cyclists in making a left turn; (4) removing the planned median altogether, or having a flush median so that residents are not prohibited from left turns onto Forest Hill; (5) actually designing safe and thoughtful pedestrian crossings; (6) design bike lanes that protect cyclists either by delivering full 5? lanes that are well marked and contain no gutter or by giving cyclists a dedicated lane next to the sidewalks; and (7) include traffic calming mechanisms so that drivers are encouraged to keep their own speed down (don’t design a road that’s main purpose is to make cars go faster).
I am a homeowner directly located on Forest Hill and this is not the first time that I have heard the comment that the widening’s “main purpose is to make cars go faster”. While I understand the sentiment, I would like to understand exactly how the changes encourage a faster speed. As a layperson in traffic management, the changes seem to me to encourage slower speed. Can anyone explain?
The issue before the Planning Commisssion is a conceptual review. The design elements will not be final and not part of the presentation, I am told. DPW is scheduling a full public hearing in late February or March, where the plsn will be more complete. The the design will come back to Planning in a few months for final approval.
Several of BikeForestHill’s points seem to be misguided, would lead to huge open swaths of pavement that would actually speed up traffic as well as increasing areas impervious to stormwater. A raised median with dedicated turn lanes is not only desperatley needed for safety, it is a form of traffic calming. A median with curbs and landscaping would tend to slow cars down. It would also provide a safe place in the middle of the road for people crossing, and unlike the “flush” median proposed by BikeForestHill would allow some absorbtion of stormwater. We don’t need another traffic light on Forest Hill. Traffic volumes on Rettig appear to be light. Turning safety would be improved here by the raised median, and timing of the existing signals could be improved to allow more of a time gap at Rettig if necessary. Another light would mean more stopping cars – noise and air pollution. Increasing the bike lanes to be 5′ asphalt in addition to the 2.5′ gutter on each side adds even more impervious area and pushes the road farther out, closer to the houses. So with that proposal, we would have 20′ feet of pavement dedicated to pedestrians and bikes (almost the width of two lanes of traffic). I would rather see less pavement with a combined pedestrian/ bikeway (using paint markings to delineate the uses) moved out of the roadway. This could possibly be located only on one side. Combining the two would be more environmentally sound, safer, and would save our tax dollars.
Forest Hill needs bike lanes and sidewalks going both directions for its entire length — period.
It’s treacherous to ride a bicycle on Forest Hill anywhere west of Westover Hills Blvd. I could take or leave a median or a additional traffic light at Rettig. For me, east/west bike lanes are absolutely crucial, but if they can make it all work, then that’s even better.
The addition of sidewalks on both sides for the length of Forest Hill should be a no-brainer, but ESPECIALLY where there are bus stops. It’s crazy that there are no sidewalks — at least on the south side of the street — for bus commuters to use to even REACH their bus stop.
To both of these points, by improving the infrastructure to accommodate alternative modes of transportation (cycling, public transit), then motorist traffic along this corridor will decrease. Until then, it’s just not safe to bike or walk along Forest Hill.
I feel you on the amount of pavement but a combined bikeway/pedestrian route wouldn’t be safe and, being on one side only wouldn’t really work for cyclists either because now you have pedestrians and bicycles attempting to navigate both directions in very limited space. Remember, we’re not talking about beach cruising here; I commute on my bike and quite often travel at speeds in excess of 20 mph. If I am not mistaken (sorry, I’m a commuter and mtn. biker) part of this is also US Bike Route 1 which stretches all the way through Virginia and North Carolina and is planned from the Canadian border to Key West. Putting bicycle tourism on the sidewalk isn’t a good way to show Richmond as bike friendly.
[...] posted by Forest Hill driver at February 7, 2011 10:12 am [#]: [...]
@Forest Hill driver
I have posted a response on my website to avoid the use of Hills and Heights as my soapbox since I already have one. I feel your position is misguided but would love for you to comment or read about the position I take. Please feel free to follow the link below and comment away. I think you’ll see that better separated facilities for bikes and pedestrians is really the only option here:
http://rvabikecommuter.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/a-response/
It is a simple fact.
Wider roads= more elbow room for cars=increased speeds.
Narrower lanes force drivers pay closer attention and drive more cautiously, i.e. more slowly.
A fine example would be to compare two of Richmond’s bridges: Boulevard Bridge, with its narrow lanes and lack of median requires a driver’s full attention, and drivers tend not to pick up significant speed.
Belvidere bridge, with three roomy lanes of traffic in each direction on a divided roadway, invariably sees cars reaching highway speeds (over 50mph) at any given time.
There need to be a couple more traffic lights on Forest Hill Ave., even if they are actuated signals for the side streets.
In the meantime, how about we all try driving at or below the posted speed limit, like we’re supposed to?
The current measured width of FH Avenue in the affected portion ranges from 10.69 feet to 11.27 feet. So if my math is correct, the new travel lanes will be 11 feet, .02 feet wider than the current average. I think that’s a quarter inch.
I have lived on Forest Hill for 23 years and have witnessed many accidents. From what I can tell, most of these were caused from speed and the short merge onto Forest Hill west from Powhite. Lower the speed limit back to 35, maybe put a light at Windsorview or even the country club. The # of accidents will drop drastically.
Yesterday, the Planning Commission sent the proposal back and directed the Department of Public Works to work with the public and the Urban Design Committee to come up with a plan. I hope everyone will stay involved and engaged so that this will be an actual improvement, rather than just a change.