Proposed traffic calming measures on Westbrook

I am completely for a calming plan, and maybe I am being too paranoid here, but:

While it may slow down the traffic on Westbrook, it may not be beneficial in the overall scheme of maintaining a clean, aesthetically pleasing neighborhood. Here are some concerns:

1) While traffic may slow at the proposed traffic circle at Westbrook
and Crestwood, it will create more emissions pollution from cars, noise pollution from cars playing stereos, and litter. When
cars are slowed to a yield, they are idle longer, therefore emitting more exhaust at that area for a longer period of time. Neighbors have landscaped yards that will suffer from this, as well as the breathe ability of the many joggers and walkers that frequent the sidewalks. In the Westbrook area now, when one hears a car blasting music, it is only for a moment or two as they continue to drive through. When the new pattern comes into play, the music will stay there longer at the slowdown or yield. These are a quiet group of
houses, just like in the rest of the family oriented Northside neighborhood that enjoy the peacefulness of the birds in the backyards and the quite evenings in the house. The traffic circle at this intersection will impede that. Litter. Front yards are already cleared of litter at least once a week; usually bottles, food wrappers, cans, cigarette boxes and butts. That is at 35 miles
per hour and it is already substantial. A traffic circle would seem to breed more litter, look at merge ramps and other circle areas; there are a lot more bottles and butts etc. These issues with the traffic circle do not make a neighborhood more aesthetically pleasing.

2) Driveway traffic. Now the more personal issue is the driveways
for the people on Westbrook. Looking at the Phase I proposed plan, it appears that there are 2 proposed splitters and the one traffic circle.
Leaving and entering driveways might prove to be much more difficult
with the slower traffic as a result of these plans. This means more
time, traffic issues and fuel emissions. For some residents to get out, say to go left on Westbrook to Hermitage or Lakeside, they will be unable to make that
turn because the splitter islands will keep them from doing so. That
means more time, fuel emissions and traffic to go around and through
the Northside neighborhood. This seem like it would not make the
traffic plan any more calm, if anything there may be more frustration and possible accidents on Westbrook and in the Northside neighborhoods. And if this is Phase 1, what is Phase 2 going to mean at the traffic circle? They are just painted lines right now, but will phase 2 mean concrete? This is vague and daunting.

3) Westminster Canterbury’s concerns at Westbrook and Crestwood. Is a lot of this portion of the proposal at the opinion of W.C.’s concerns of being able to enter and leave their premises? This can be a difficultly but the proposed traffic circle may not help. The security gate already holds a line of visiting cars on occasion, perhaps causing backup onto Westbrook. A traffic circle would only deepen the line not only into the street, but the proposed circle. And that means more back up traffic on Westbrook, then add driveway merge traffic, then add pedestrian traffic. Currently the street is wide enough to
allow traffic to pass whether the cars are entering Westminster
Canterbury or going into the Northside neighborhood on Crestwood. This would complicate matters.

4) Construction and the loss of sidewalks. Noticing the proposed
plans photos, there will be a loss of sidewalk/walkable
space on the Richmond side of Westbrook at Crestwood and NOT on the
Henrico side of Westbrook at Westbrook Court. This is a big
concern as well. The entire “city” side of Westbrook Avenue is used
much more often for foot traffic than the Henrico side. A lot of
Northside residents use this side of the sidewalk for jogging and
walking, to lose a part of that will not only threaten pedestrians at
the traffic circle, but also threaten the very idea of a pleasing,
walkable neighborhood at Westbrook. The other concern with this is
that people live closer to this sidewalk on the City side, rather than
the County side at the retirement home. That means more cars and
trucks CLOSER to where people are trying to enjoy their lives in their
homes (see concern #1 for those issues). If this plan is going to
still go through, why can’t the sidewalk loss be on the Westminster
Canterbury side? It seems to me to be the more logical and
aesthetically fair to Westbrook Avenue residents since Westminster
Canterbury does not have residents living so close to the road at that
intersection. This brings me to the next issue.

5) The budget concern. Westbrook is a border street; Richmond City on
one side, Henrico County on the other. Is Henrico paying for some of
this proposed plan? If not, and this traffic issue is primarily a
Westminster Canterbury concern, then Henrico County should be fitting
the half of the bill if this plan is to go on. While there is
concern for vehicles going in and out of Westminster Canterbury, this particular proposal is not a particularly good answer. Here are a few alternate solutions:

1) If speed is the issue on this road, then why not install speed
bumps at intervals along Westbrook instead? It would
seem to be a more cost effective way in these tight financial times to take care of that. Then money could go towards other streets in the area (Brook Road pot holes!).

2) Left turn lanes. The street at the concerned area of Westminster
Canterbury seem wide enough to paint left turn lanes.

3) More traffic enforcement. The digital traffic speed checks seem to
do well. Motorcycle police ticketing always helps and benefits the
city budget.

Or am I just over reacting here? If I can be convinced that my above concerns are shash or something, then I can get behind this plan. I love my Northside neighborhood and like the idea of a traffic calming plan throughout the area, but part of me thinks it could be done with less expense and impedance on the residents that live on the “outskirts” of the city line. It just seems to me that this current plan may create more issues than solves them.

Point taken on the plant thing versus children playing in front yards, but address the rest of the issues for me, and my possible solutions?

I am sorry you feel that way. I’m not a traffic engineer either.

Richard,
Cops can’t be everywhere all the time. If RPD had more resources, I hope they would do a better job enforcing traffic violations. Nevertheless, a properly designed road can help to manage traffic in a neighborhood setting to reduce the likelihood of excessive speeding. It won’t eliminate the problem but it will help reduce it and will do so for the entire design life of the road. A cop on the road will only reduce speeding for the length of time he or she is there.

Richard,
No biggie, I know we all gotta rant sometimes. I just wanted to point out that often a design solution for traffic calming will be more effective on an every day basis rather then waiting and hoping on the vicissitudes of the local police to enforce the speed limit.

BTW, we should really follow up with Mr. Bridewell. I noticed a couple of weeks back that there were some count tubes on Fendall and I wondered if the City was getting traffic counts and speed studies in the neighborhood again.

Phil,
I am not familiar enough with the designs or the street in question to give a detailed answer to your questions, but as a transportation planner who works on traffic calming issues I can tell you that the city is very unlikely to install speed humps, mostly because of the impacts they have on fire and ambulance services. Fire trucks especially have to slow to nearly a stop to go over speed humps, otherwise they risk breaking an axle (which costs a lot of money to fix). Therefore, while speed humps do work very well at slowing vehicles, most cities don’t like to put them on anything but the smallest neighborhood streets.

I couldn’t give a more detailed professional opinion on the overall plan without more details (the plans are hard to read on the PowerPoint slides). There certainly appear to be some reasonable questions regarding how the entrance to Westminster Canterbury would operate and whether there is any queuing of traffic there. Generally though, what has been recommended would likely reduce speeds for most vehicles, probably bringing the 85th percentile speed down somewhat (the notes from the presentation indicate the 85th percentile speed is 39 mph). Even bringing that down 5-8 mph would significantly improve safety as the likelihood of pedestrian fatalities decreases dramatically when speeds start getting below 35 mph.

This was my reply (or “tough luck buddy” response) from Mr. Bridewell, I guess I was too little, too late, being that we’re relatively new to the neighborhood. Damn:

Hello,

I appreciate your comments. Let me give you some background and our
progress to date. The motivation for traffic calming on Westbrook was
via City Council Resolution No. 2007-R218-2008-6 adopted on January 14,
2008. We worked with Carolyn O’Leary of the Bellevue Neighborhood
Traffic Committee and held at least five neighborhood meetings. At these
meetings we discussed our concept drawings and eventually shared with
the neighborhood the formal highway construction plans. Final design was
approved by the Urban Design Committee on March 4, 2010 and the City
Planning Commission on March 16, 2010.

There is also information about the planned calming on the Bellevue web
site: http://www.bellevueweb.org/news/traffic_calming.htm

This project is fully funded by City funds and below is our schedule for
construction:

Item Anticipated date
Contract award June 1, 2010
Begin construction July 1, 2010
Construction complete October 1, 2010

We are ready to move forward. I am sorry that you have concerns about
our plans to calm traffic on Westbrook Avenue.

If you want to review the road construction plans to see specifically
how the improvements impact your area then let Maritza Feliz-Reyes know
at the email address above.

Travis Bridewell