Forces Gathering to Oppose Forest Hill Ave. Construction Project
We have covered the proposed changes to Forest Hill Avenue quite a few times and most recent sketches are here. The next official meeting for public input is Thursday March 17th, 5-8 p.m. at the Southampton Elementary School. I’ll be posting an official reminder next week.
A group of concerned citizens will meeting this Monday, March 7th at 6:00 pm at the Community Room on the second floor of the Martins Supermarket on Forest Hill Avenue. The group is opposed to the current plan and is rallying the troops for the upcoming public meeting on the 17th. I’m reposting an email that was sent to me by several readers.
AN IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THE FOREST HILL AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PLEASE READ!!!!The city has finalized its design for the $12 MILLION DOLLAR project for the 1/2 mile stretch of Forest Hill Avenue that runs through our neighborhood. If you’ve seen it, you should be asking yourself:
IS THIS THE RIGHT DESIGN FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
IS THIS THE BEST ROAD WE CAN GET?????A group of your neighbors don’t believe the proposed design is in the best interest of the neighborhood and actually will ultimately reduce the quality of life for all of us!
Consider the following:*THIS DESIGN WILL DESTROY THE FRONT YARDS OF MOST FOREST HILL AVENUE RESIDENTS!
*THIS DESIGN WILL BRING EVEN MORE TRAFFIC THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!
*THIS DESIGN WILL BRING FASTER TRAFFIC THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!
*THIS DESIGN WILL REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES!
*THIS DESIGN DOES LITTLE TO IMPROVE SAFETY OF BIKERS, PEDESTRIANS, AND VEHICLES!
*THIS DESIGN WILL TEAR DOWN THE MATURE TREES ALONG FOREST HILL AVENUE!The city engineers are NOT listening to individual input on this project; we’ve tried asking for changes over the past year, and very little of our input has been incorporated into the final design.
EVEN THE CITY’S OWN PLANNING COMMISSION (the ultimate approver of this project) HAS TOLD THE ENGINEERS TO COME UP WITH A BETTER DESIGN!!!!
NOW IS THE TIME FOR US TO SHOW THE CITY A UNIFIED FRONT–WE MUST SPEAK AT THE NEXT PUBLIC MEETING AS A LARGE AND UNIFIED GROUP AND OPPOSE THE CURRENT DESIGN!! BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!!!
WE DESERVE A BETTER ROAD! AFTER ALL, WE’RE PAYING FOR IT!WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Attend our organizing meeting on Monday, March 7th at 6:00 pm at the Community Room on the second floor of the Martins Supermarket located at 7045 Forest Hill Avenue.
We will share more information about the plan, gather your input, and finalize our approach to oppose the current plan.TIME IS SHORT—THE NEXT PUBLIC MEETING IS MARCH 17th and AFTER THIS THE CITY WILL START WORK ON THIS FLAWED DESIGN, AT WHICH POINT WE’LL BE
POWERLESS TO STOP IT!Contact cmnovak@gmail.com for more information.
Published by the IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DO Committee
Point by Point:
1. (…destroy the front yards…”
The design calls for a Right of way of 92.5′ Most of the corridor is already at or near that ROW, so little or no taking will be necessary for most or all the stretch.
2. “…bring even more traffic…”
Traffic projections call for significantly increased traffic over the next 29 years, no matter if nothing is done.
3. “…bring faster traffic…”
The proposal calls for a lowered speed limit, a raised median to separate travel directions, and traffic calming landscaping.
4.”…reduce property values…”
Landscaping, curbs and gutters, reduced stormwater runoff, sidewalks and bike lanes will reduce values?
5.”…does little to improve safety of bikers, pedestrians and vehicles.”
Current road: no bike paths, no sidewalks, no turn lanes.
Proposed: sidewalks on each side of the street, bike paths on each side of the street,segregated turn lanes.
No question off which is safer.
6. “…tear down mature trees…”
See 1 above.
Thanks for the counterpoint Sundagger, I agree. I own a home directly on Forest Hill Avenue on this stretch. While I am concerned about any “shrinkage” of my front yard, I can verify that something needs to be done. While I’ve heard lots of opposition to the proposed plan, I personally see very little that wouldn’t be an improvement. In fact, the city seems to be listening to those who have thoughtful ideas about how to improve the design and have tweeked it accordingly.
Some responses to Sundagger:
1. The current road has four lanes. The proposed design adds an additional center turn lane/median, a 5′ bike lane, buffer zone, and sidewalk, for a total of nearly 35 additional feet of width.
2. The traffic projections have never been justified by DPW. The area is built out, so the only way you would get significantly more traffic would be to expand the roadway to encourage people to not take Powhite or Chippenham. Expanding the road is a self-fulfilling prophecy. In addition, a main justification given for the project is accidents, but the vast majority of those occur at the intersections with Powhite and Hathaway, and this design does NOTHING about those problems.
3. A raised median, in addition to 11′ lanes and turn lanes, will only encourage faster driving, and posted speed limits are much less important than the road design.
4. Yes, having a house right next to a major thoroughfare with fast traffic will that home’s value.
5. Sidewalks and bike lanes are a nice idea when the rest of the design is pedestrian and bike friendly. In the existing design the bike and pedestrian amenities are clearly an afterthought. If the increased traffic projection were true, there would be no opportunity for pedestrians or bikes to get across the road, especially with the speeds that will be encouraged by the design.
6. Do the measurements and see #1. There are many mature trees within 10′ of the current road, plus there will be additional space needed during construction.
Finally, “something” needing to be done does not mean THIS design needs to be done. There are very good alternatives but DPW has refused to present them fairly or with anything other than biased explanation.
The information about the Right of Way Is misleading: from what I can see on the plans, a considerable amount of widening of the route is called for, widening to the road to the limits of the ROW. Since the existing road does not currently extend to the limits of the ROW, there will be a loss of what is now acting as a buffer area, and the project will extend right up to the property lines. SO, while technically not taking away any private property, the road WILL be considerably closer to their homes. This WILL likely erode property values
Lowering the speed limit is no guarantee that traffic will slow down!
One of the main hazards of this stretch is the fact that, while the speed limit is 40 mph, cars typically travel at a faster speed than that.
Also, curbs and gutters facilitate and accelerate runoff, which is why some more enlightened municipalities are moving away from automatically requiring paved surfaces for roads and parking lots.
I wish some of the city planners would do a better job of focusing on redirecting through-traffic to the highways that are already designed to manage large volumes of higher speed traffic.
I am open to any and all ideas. What are some of the good alternatives and how are they better than what’s proposed? I can be swayed to support better ideas.
And I strongly disagree with the statement that most of the accidents occur at Hathaway and Powhite. I’ve witnessed tons of accidents along the road between those points. The main culprit being the absence of turning lanes as “rear-enders” are the vast majority of the accidents I’ve seen. This design seems to alleviate that problem to me.
I also have a tough time believing that flush medians will encourage traffic to move slower than a raised one. DISCLAIMER: the raised median will prevent me from turning directly into my driveway when traveling west on FH–so I have reasons to oppose it. It just seems more logical to me that a raised one WOULD encourage slower speeds as it would require driver to be more steadfast in staying in their lanes and couldn’t wildly cut corners while speeding.
This proposal is so unrealistic. When was the last time you saw a Porche 911 and an old model Suburban driving down Forest Hill at the same time?
I appreciate your open-mindedness, JoJo. I think we need to ask the city to bring in Ian Lockwood to give a presentation on alternatives. The flush-median design was a compromise based on an earlier alternative he came up with. That’s the only way to really evaluate the possibilities with full information because the DPW engineers will never present the alternatives fairly — they don’t want them.
I can’t speak to the accidents you’ve seen, but DPW’s own statistics support what I said: see their original presentation (esp. pages 9-11) at http://goo.gl/yujee
If the problem were really just the lack of a turn lane, the accidents would not be so concentrated at Powhite.
I’m a bit unclear on what you mean about flush vs. raised medians. The raised median encourages higher speeds because drivers are more separated from traffic moving the opposite direction. What’s really needed is serious traffic calming, which could include signals and other measures, but raised medians do not calm traffic even if they look nice. Check out Laburnum Ave. or Brook Rd. around Ginter Park at rush hour and you’ll see. The posted limit is 35 and most are going 45 at least.
I’d have to disagree that DPW has made any substantial changes: sure, they’ve widened the bike lane, narrowed the median a bit, and taken out a right-turn lane or two, but more than tweaking is needed. The question for residents does not have to be whether they want some version of this plan or nothing, but the DPW design is going to expand Forest Hill as a major arterial and only encourage more traffic. Is that what we want?
“I wish some of the city planners would do a better job of focusing on redirecting through-traffic to the highways that are already designed to manage large volumes of higher speed traffic.”
Well stated Stuffa. Forest Hill is already a mini highway based on the sheer speed and volume of traffic. Rather than accepting the projected increase in traffic and planning a road around it, they should definitely investigate alternative measures that direct traffic elsewhere. I’d love to hear some ideas on how this could be done. Has the city proposed anything in this regard?
My concern continues to be that the bike lane design does not include a safe route through the Powhite/RMA interchange nor a safe connection to the Stratford Hill Shopping Center and the light right there.
Fact being that we just recently in the last week had another cyclist hit at the Toll Road — it us UNSAFE because cars are exiting the toll road and heading West without any clear line of sight to merge into traffic. There is also no bike lane here.
The current plans also do not complete the use of bike lanes through the corridor. They shop short of the Shopping center.
Additionally, the designs require traffic to exit the neighborhoods by taking a right and then making a u-turn if you want to head in the opposite direction. How will this work for cyclists?
I am glad they changed the designs to include full five foot bike lanes, but right now they don’t connect well with either end of the cooridor.
Lowering the speed limit on this stretch of road will do nothing for safety as most will drive the speed they feel is appropriate. Most all drivers ignore speed limits that are set for “feel good” reasons that lack logic and knowledge of road design.
The accident excuse? I’ve seen accidents all over this stretch of road. There may be a cluster at one point or another but driving that road everyday I see accidents at EVERY intersection.
I like the idea of a bike lane and sidewalks. I’ve walked and biked on that road. Those bike lanes and sidewalks are sorely needed. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t bike or walk that stretch as it’s extremely dangerous to do either with the road as designed.
Lowering home values? That’s too bad. When you buy a home, for a good price I’m sure, on a busy road you run the risk of the DOT coming along and commandeering portions of your yard. That sucks for the home owner. If they don’t like I suggest they move or advocate for more public transportation. When you buy a house on a large road this is the risk you take. This also only affects a very small percentage of home owners while the road improvements help us all via safety, travel time, and less draw on fire and police resources.
Traffic projections not justified? I’ve lived in Forrest Hill for decades. Forrest Hill is busier and busier along that stretch. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realize those numbers are only going to go up. The only portion of the road that requires widening more is the portion that runs by Forrest Hill park. That two lane stretch by Crossroads is abysmal.
Sounds like a ginned up controversy to me.
I think the proposed plans are good and valid.
I’m really angry about the Hills and Heights redesign. It’s only going to encourage increased traffic volumes and faster speeds. Furthermore, when were the meetings held to discuss these changes? As a local citizen I am outraged.
@Jason-
Whats unrealistic are the suburban and the Porshe traveling in the same direction. Everyone knows that the suburban would be headed east coming from Chesterfield and that the Porshe would be headed west turning out from the country club to head back to the county.
Well played Willis, well played.
A few comments:
* Drivers will drive where they are most comfortable. If you give them smaller width lanes, they will encroach on the bikers. If the bikers are there, they will encroach on the other lane.
* Ian Lockwood is unlicensed in Virginia. The City cannot hire someone in responsible charge to design the road who cannot seal the plans. BIG NO. Prohibited by code.
* Traffic projections are legitimate calculations. Those trips will happen. If they do not happen on Forest Hill, they will happen on Huguenot. They cannot happen because the city will never fight the battle to widen Cary Street to 4 lanes between River Road and Three Chopt. If the traffic projections inferred by some posters are inaccurate, it is logical to assume that the population of the city would be about 75,000 people in the city. Forest Hill Avenue will be of small concern at that point.
* RMA owns and controls Powhite Parkway. They are independent of the City and call their own shots.
* Norfolk Southern owns the Railroad just beyond Powhite. They would be impacted by some of the proposals mentioned here and have to be involved. There are 2 ways things get done when working with the railroads: 1.) Their way, or 2.) Not at all.
* The city has already expended Federal money on this project to pay for surveying and preliminary engineering work. They can opt to stop all work on the project, but would be obligated to reimburse the Feds. They may be able to use the funds in a manner as required elsewhere. An example might be a traffic circle at the AP Hill monument. I reserve the right to be completely incorrect on that specific project, but I think it illustrates the example I want.
Full Disclosure: I used to work for the engineering firm designing this project. I still own stock in the company. I have been completely uninvolved in this design.
Great info, Jonathan. You just mentioned RMA and the following would be be in their hands so I guess impossible?
Outside of how the road is designed, I think traffic gets heavier on the FH corridor every time they raise the tolls on the Downtown Expressway and Powhite Parkway. To use both to get downtown would cost you more than $2 a day. When I worked downtown, many of my colleagues took the Manchester or Cowardin bridge to Semmes/Forest Hill just to avoid the tolls! Even adding a southbound access to Powhite would reduce the traffic between Powhite and hathaway/chippenham. Probably not physically possible.
Just trying to think outside of this plan for additional things that might impact the corridor.
And as an aside about the email that sparked this post, anyone who uses that many capital layers smacks of nutbag. Just sayin’.
Mr. Mallard, please give us a little background on these “legitimate calculations” of projected traffic volume. Just calling them “legitimate” is not convincing. All such projections are made in part on assumptions, so since you’re in the know, please share with us the assumptions and other information being used in this case. The DPW people have never done that. If you could clarify what exactly Norfolk Southern won’t tolerate (a flush median?) that would also be helpful. The city has never brought that up as an issue.
No one is insisting that the city hire Ian Lockwood. But he has brought a fresh perspective to this project and is behind the compromise “plan B” that DPW has represented in a very biased way. I and others simply want to hear another point of view.
To the points about a lot of the accidents being at the Powhite intersection – a big reason for that is because the traffic backs up further west because of cars sitting in the left lane to make a left turn and traffic backs up behind them all the way to Powhite.
Not real pleased that the meeting was scheduled for St. Patrick’s day. I’m sure there will be many at the meeting who would rather be elsewhere at that time.
@Jake67 – There are folks out there who are experts in this particular field. I am not. From what little I got into, you’re basically generating trips from sources (Residential, Chesterfield, points West and South) to destinations (downtown, other facilities [read I-95 North], and other job centers) along facilities (Forest Hill Avenue). They will generally flow along the path of least resistance (two lane bottleneck on Cary Street, tolls on Powhite, 4 lane Forest Hill) I’m not much help here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_forecasting
The flush median may not enter into the discussion relative to Norfolk Southern. My statement was that *some* of the topics discussed will necessitate their involvement. If, however, you’re talking about dedicated bike lanes or other improvements beyond the Powhite Parkway bridge, that gets into their right of way, and they will be involved.
@Page, the city has some seats on the RMA board. I would expect them to be easier to work with than N/S.
[...] Forces Gathering to Oppose Forest Hill Ave. Construction Project ‹ Hills and Heights. Posted in Planning, SOUTH, [...]
For those arguing the flush median will discourage speeding, I recommend taking a drive down Hilliard Rd or Dumbarton Rd sometime and asking the residents there about there experience. From my experience driving the northisde, people drive just as fast, or faster, on these roads as they do on comparable roads with raised medians (such as Lakeside, Hermitage, Brook or Chamberlayne).
Ugh, I meant “their experience”. Too early on Saturday. Also, @PageH, totally with you on the capitalization. Really unnecessary and it just screams nutjob.
Let’s do a little experiment: I assume (dangerous I know) that somebody already has a daily traffic count on this road–let’s drop the Powhite toll for ONE WEEK, while also counting Forest Hill traffic–if it drops big time, take the money for the widening and drop the toll!
When the houses along a street lose their value, other
homes in the neighborhood also suffer. The houses on
the main street serve as a buffer to the traffic for the rest of the neighborhood. If these houses lose their value, they will become rental properties or be torn down and replaced with apartments. Witness Chamberlayne Ave. after it became a thoroughfare.
An effort should be made to slow traffic on Forest Hill
Avenue from Stratford Hills to Semmes Avenue, rather
than provide uninterrupted 4 lanes for high-speed traffic. We ask the DPW and Ms Graziano to do what is
best for the neigborhoods along Forest Hill Avenue, not
what is best for the thru-traffic or for the engineers
and builders who will benefit from this project and
those projects that will follow to complete the plan
for all of Forest Hill Avenue.
As for bikers, part of the attraction of riding on
Forest Hill Avenue are the stable neighborhoods along
the way. Broad Rock Road has wide bike lanes all the
way from Southside Plaza to Chippenham. I never see a
single bike using those bike lanes, and I have driven
that route for 20 years.
Yes, to bike lanes, but yes to our properties along Forest Hill Avenue as well. Do not sacrifice one for the other. Encourage the use of the expressway! Lower
the tolls. Encourage a design that will maintain property
values, slow traffic, and allow for bikers.
Hey, instead of lowing the tolls on the RMA, we could just add tolls to all the other roads including Forrest Hill. That would discourage traffic and then no one would have an incentive to cut through. They’ve done it in London with their congestion charge and in Toronto with the 407 ETR open road tolling. Even better, we could set it up on the city line and only charge those darned county folk.
One last comment on the projected increase in traffic in response to Mr. Mallard and the DPW engineers… 1) We still have never been told what data and assumptions the projections are based on; 2) a huge assumption the DPW plan makes is that the main goal is to move more car traffic through an area faster; 3) another assumption they are most likely making is that there will be no changes with respect to land use (sprawl), public transit, or use of alternative transportation. Even Chesterfield is starting to see the light on these issues. The problem can be summed up this way: traffic engineers (somewhat understandably) think primarily about car traffic and not about communities. They also (at least in Richmond) envision the future as equally car-centric as the present is. Guess what: some forward-thinking cities have begun putting some other priorities above cars, and they are reaping the benefits.
Thumbs up to the organizers of tonight’s meeting to oppose
the present plan to shuttle traffic down Forest Hill Ave
as quickly as possible with no concern for the property
owners along Forest Hill Avenue. If you have concerns
about the widening of Forest Hill Avenue, attend the City’s
public meeting on March 17th from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Southampton School.
25 comments on this topic. It should be given priority.
[...] public meeting next Thursday to discuss the plans on widening Forest Hill Avenue. If you are for or against you need to show up to let your opinion be known. It would also be a good place to get the facts so [...]