Town Green on Life Support; Maud Calls Sun Gazette for Spin

In the Blog someone asks what business the town runs in Vienna. We now know of one, the TG. The charging of fees to use the TG reminds me of this story: A man puts a couch in front of his house with a sign FREE. No one would take it. He then changed the sign to read $300 and someone stole it.

Before they start charging these new fees, does anyone know if they are going to fix the grading of the plaza with the leaking fountain, replace the dead trees, and provide some sort of barrier or separation between the fountain and Maple Ave?

I suspect that these new fees are being collected to pay for liability insurance. Some day, just as surely as the sun rises in the East, some kid is going to fall off that fountain and crack his skull open.

... and then roll into traffic and be struck by a car.

Drove past the park last Friday night. I would guess there was about 100 people, mostly families there. Looking like a nice fall evening.

And with regard to fees... why don't you check out the Parks and Recreation site. There are usage fees for groups for most of the facilities in town. That they have articulated a policy for the Green is not surprise.

And Vienna Mommy - if you can't control your kinds, don't take them there - there are plenty of fenced in playgrounds and tot lots around the area. It did not seem to be an issue with all the families I saw there last weekend. I prefer not to lower everything to the lowest common denominator.

And Vienna Mommy - if you can't control your kinds, don't take them there - there are plenty of fenced in playgrounds and tot lots around the area. It did not seem to be an issue with all the families I saw there last weekend.

Leadership involves looking ahead. How can it be appropriate for Vienna leaders to induce moms and kids to come to a park along Maple Avenue with no fence? Do you have no common sense? Or would you wait for the first person to be killed there to act? Opps, forgot, someone already died there in the front of the TG.

In a very unfortunate incident, yes, an adult biker. And how would a fence have prevented that? Again, if you can't trust your kids to sit with you to watch a show a good distance from the street, then don't take them. Its simple. Do you not allow your child to walk on sidewalk that does not have a fence? Do you want to shut down all the sidewalks too?

In a very unfortunate incident, yes, an adult biker. And how would a fence have prevented that? Again, if you can't trust your kids to sit with you to watch a show a good distance from the street, then don't take them. Its simple. Do you not allow your child to walk on sidewalk that does not have a fence? Do you want to shut down all the sidewalks too?

You are right. The chance of a small child, at a park on Maple Avenue, getting near the street is slim. Even if a child does get killed, after all it would probably be only one child, there is no big need for a fence. The fact is that if a child can't be constrained, and doesn't listen, that child probably didn't deserve to live anyway.

Do you not allow your child to walk on sidewalk that does not have a fence?

This is the logic of Maud Robinson. The person who wrote this either has not been around kids below 6 years of age or is so far removed from kids that clearly they are not in touch with the reality of mom's today. Go to regular Council meetings, if you ever hear Maud talk about kids, or if you ever see Maud around kids, it's clear she views them as necessary evils.

As a parent of a very active 6 year old boy, I understand the challenges that come with keeping a child safe. When I've gone to the town green, I stay very close to him by the fountain, and he's certainly not climbing on it. It's called responsible parenting. Take some responsibility for yourself instead of blaming it all on the town. Any parent with the gift of sight can see that the town green is not the world's safest place for a child. Neither is a pool, an athletic field, or even a crosswalk. That's not going to stop me from taking my son swimming, or to soccer, or teaching him how to cross the street safely. It's our responsibility to educate our kids about safety, because there are countless ways a kid can get hurt in this world. Yes, a fence, bollards, or some other kind of barrier would be an appropriate addition to the very nice new public space in our town, but even after it's there, you still have to watch your kids!

The person who wrote this either has not been around kids below 6 years of age or is so far removed from kids that clearly they are not in touch with the reality of mom's today.

I get the feeling it is from a parent of small child who is feeling superior over their parenting skills - "MY child can sit and watch a puppet show. Why can't you make your two boys sit still and watch a lovely Maud Robinson approved event for children."

Sorry, some of us have boys who love to run very fast and jump very far. It's the nature of the beast.

But, I will not take my kids. Call it a protest over my wasted tax dollars. Or, the lack of a donated bike rack. Or, Maud's plan to kill the Inn. The reasons are long and varied.

as most of you know, I'm not a fan of the town green. I think it's the wrong place, wrong design, and wrong use of land. but I don't think a fence would be appropriate.

Anne,
Then where would the right place in town and right design be in your opinion?
(I am trying to understand whether the people against the town green on this website are really against it being anywhere or just against where it is now)
If you are against it being anywhere, that's fine, but if you think it is in the wrong place and wrong design I would be interested to hear where the right place and right design to you is. Thanks.

I think the design is lame and the location is really lame. Nestled along Maple is never a good idea.

Corner of Church/Mill/Dominion would have been a better idea.

new resident,
I'm not so sure that Vienna HAS an appropriate place for this kind of town square. first and foremost, a town square should be accessible by foot, which leaves out most places along Maple Avenue. the strip is simply too long, too sparsly developed, and with traffic too untamed to be a real pedestrian district. Church Street has better physical characteristics, but so far has limited ability to attract the retailers necessary for a pedestrian district.

Another issue is that the town green took prime commercial land out of the inventory without a plan to bring better commercial development around it. usually when a town creates a public space it is partly to encourage private investment. Here, the town actually discourages private investment, so the green serves no economic purpose. so what was the green's purpose? if it's a gathering place, well, the town already has several parks that could have been beefed up to accomplish that. The area around the rec center, for example, is well-located & could be improved to become a town green.

As for the design of the town green, it seems like a haphazard little bit of everything without a unifying design theme.

There is no question that parents have a responsibility to watch their kids. At the same time, society puts part of the burden on others who are able to reduce the danger. For instance, the law has the “attractive nuisance doctrine.” If you put a swimming pool in your backyard but do not install an adequate fence, you will be found liable if a child trespasses and drowns. Arguing that the child’s parents were irresponsible will not inoculate you. The Town Green is a lawsuit waiting to happen; the location of the fountain is particularly questionable.

The passing of the one cyclist was mentioned above. In the interests of public safety, a bridge should be built over Maple Avenue at the W&OD Trail. Many cyclists take a detour along Park St. to avoid the Maple Avenue-W&OD intersection. This is another disaster waiting to happen. One could follow the line of argument above and say that the cyclists deserve whatever happens to them. Even if I believed that, which I do not, my compassion for the family and friends left behind would still lead me to support a bridge.

Finally, the Town Green is often praised for providing new green spaces. While it does that, the Town Green does not hold a candle to the W&OD trail, Northside Park, Foxstone Park, etc.

gridlock,
yes! Everyone should be pushing for that pedestrian bridge. it seems that the only people in town who are against it are town council members. so who's interests are they serving????

Anne,
Thank you for your response. You mentioned the rec center and this was another area I too thought was a possibility. It's crowded though so probably something would have had to go there too (either fields, parking, or another commercial building). The bank building next to the library could have been a decent location, but that would not have helped Church St. and I'm guessing they just weren't interested in selling. My feeling is that the current green is still very close to the rec center. I often walk from one to the other in a matter of a couple of minutes. I kind of feel like it's the outdoor extension of the rec center. The rec center side of Maple also already has a lot of public facilities so it's nice to have more of a balance.

Sorry you do not feel the green is a plus to the town. I feel like it adds something the other parks do not and I really like it that Church Street is becoming very pedestrian friendly because of it and the new zoning there. The town could do more, but they have definitely made a start at moving toward pedestrian friendly zoning there. Church St. adds another mixed use pedestrian street to give the area some depth instead of just having a linear commercial strip along Maple. Since the Town Green fronts on Maple and Church, it is a great area to start revitalizing both streets. I hope now that the Church Street area already has an identity and the town has a better idea of what works with the new zoning, they can move on to implement pedestrian friendly zoning that encourages growth elsewhere in the town.

I'm not sure what else you'd like the town to do with their other parks. Meadow Lane is one of the most popular parks in this part of Fairfax County, A dog park has just been added and they are looking at adding a skating park. The other parks in town are nice and there are church and school playgrounds throughout the town as well. I've heard the ball fields are crowded though - maybe the Oakton Park will alleviate some of that. I haven't heard any other complaints.

I wish the green was designed somewhat differently like many here, but my issues are only to the design instead of not liking the location or idea of a town green. I guess that is somewhat due to the fact that I'm new to the town and wasn't involved in the location or design of the site. I like the main parts of the green's design - I think the spinal walk and the stage work well next to the historic setting of the other buildings. I am in complete agreement though with you that the town should be encouraging additional growth elsewhere along Maple and Church. This will attract more people to the space and make it more lively. And it would help if the town green's design was slightly modified to encourage more spontaneous interactions by town residents of all ages at the same time instead of just focusing on one age group at a time whenever a performer comes to play. A Town Green/Square/Common/Center area in history has been a place for all people in the town to come together and interact with each other - on article said they are a great source of education for kids to see how people interact. As it was quoted in Fairfax Extra "It's a traditional green. When you go to Europe, you see things that have been there for centuries. The idea is for this to last centuries."

My hope for the green is to see the benefits of a traditional town green/square become a reality here. One way I wish the town could help this is to install some small square picnic tables instead of just bences. The tables could encourage interaction, provide a place to put your laptop to use their wireless service - currently I don't know what people do - and possibly play a game of chess if they got those kind of tables with the boards already printed on top. The chairs could be situated so you wouldn't have to have your back to the performers - maybe two or three to a table. I think many different age groups would use the tables. I also wish like others that there was more than just the planters at Maple to make it a little more comfortable for parents watching their kids and preferably another area on the green away from Maple where little ones could be entertained while adults watched their kids and listened to a concert. I don't know why the planting bed along Maple wasn't just continued with a more vibrant plant palatte along the green. It could be low enough to see the fountain from the street. The paving between the fountain and the road would still be wide enough for a large walkway and small gathering. These are a couple of ideas I have for the green to make it a more usuable space and I'm sure others have ideas like these too. If nothing else gets done, it will be a help if they at least fix the grading and the trees at the fountain.

As to the fees, I don't think they are too high but I am concerned about the restrictions. I hope the town will encourage many different events, preferably some community sponsored, Restrictions like those listed sometimes prohibit certain events(music is great, but there are lots of other events too). There were larger tents than 12x12 this summer - why the reduction in size? The grass isn't going to die if you space out the days between putting up tents over the summer.

BTW, Anne, is this your posting from the Fairfax Extra blog on the town green I just looked up? Did you used to be neutral on the green? If so, what made you change your mind?
"Having grown up in NE where no town is a town without a common, I am curious and want to pose the following clumsily worded (!) question:
"Are those opposed to the town green opposed to having a green no matter where it is located -or- are they okay with a green in principle, but opposed to the location along 123 that was chosen for it?"
Posted by: Anne | June 7, 2006 09:29 PM

new resident,
no, that's not me in the Fairfax Extra.

I agree with many of your comments. But as someone who's lived in vienna for a long time, I've given up thinking that the town will know how to do what needs to be done. It's been more than ten years since they did the Church St plan (which i do think is a good thing) but they don't know how to implement it. since it was put in place, we've gone through a national real estate boom, but it pretty much passed Church Street by. Look at Arlington, Silver Spring, and other places in the region. they completely reinvented themselves, taking advantage of all the real estate money that was out there. Vienna's town government curled up & protected itself from any of those "evil developers" who might have wanted to invest here. Now money is drying up again & we'll probably have to wait years for another boom. yes, i know there've been some small changes, but we could have really had something great happen in Vienna & we didn't because of the lack of leadership. Oh, and by the way, those more foreward-thinking communities have learned how to extract things like town squares, brick sidewalks, street trees, and public parking from the "evil developers" so that taxpayers don't have to foot the bill. With good leadership, it CAN be a win-win situation. the public gets green space and good new development, and the rich developers foot the bill.

I really like it that Church Street is becoming very pedestrian friendly because of it and the new zoning there.

Am I just not aware but what new zoning is on Church Street?! I did not know Church Street was rezoned. When?

Church Street is not any more or less "pedestrian friendly" than it was 5, 10, 15, or even 25 years ago. If anything, it was much more pedestrian friendly years ago since the traffic wasn't quite as bad. We used to walk nearly every day, across Lawyers, down Church Street to Center Street to buy a candy bar at Hawthorne's Drug. On weekends, we walked to Vienna Movie theater. Today, I doubt any parents would say this kind of walkability is possible for children because of the cars and lack of respect for pedestrians.

new resident, I have only lived in the Town for a year myself, but I am nonetheless irked by the cost of the Town Green. As readers of this site know all too well, taking land worth over $4 million, and spending another $2 million for design and construction comes out to over $1,000 per household. Even if you take the conservative estimate and say that the land was purchased for $2 million (several years ago), the cost is still $800 per household. Talk to a TC member and you will hear that out-of-town restaurant patrons and restaurant owners are paying for the Town Green. But even if Bill Gates had given $5 million and said that it could be used to build a Town Green or to reduce taxes, building the Town Green would have cost every household $1,000. Had TOC chosen a different location and not tried to cram so much in, the Town Green would have been more palatable.

I believe that a Church St. location would have been cheaper and better. One additional negative for the current location is that the Town Green stands in the way of building a pedestrian bridge. Talk to a TC member long enough and you will hear that a bridge will have deleterious effects on the Town Green. Please keep that in mind the next time a cyclist is struck by a car near the Town Green.

the TC was also against a bridge because it was too expensive. i believe the cost estimate when it was being proposed was about $1mil. compare the cost/benefit of the $1mil bridge to the $???mil town green.

>>One additional negative for the current location is that the Town Green stands in the way of building a pedestrian bridge.

Not a problem. The Town Green is basically a vacant lot waiting for the bridge. The only thing in the way is the Vienna Town Council.

Vienna Mommy,
At the public information seminar on Planning and Zoning at the Town Hall in September it was explained that the CB-1 district was rather new - either it had been significantly modified, or altogether new within the last couple of years. I do not know the history of it and will check on that, but they said this district was created to improve the pedestrian quality of Church Street and offered incentives to developers in order to achieve this. At that seminar, the planning dept also talked about updating their website and about redevelopment issues, but no one in the audience asked any questions even though there are obviously a lot of questions and concerns floating on this website. It was a shame because the department and mayor were very open to some dialogue.

I also wanted to weigh in on the bridge across 123. First, I looked up how Dave died from this website and it says he died crossing Mill Street - he was not even on the bike trail. It was a tragic accident, but a bridge across 123 would not have saved his life. If there is a problem with the crossing the light timing could probably be re-worked to make things safer (I currently find it easier to cross 123 there than any other place along the bike trail because of the stoplight). A pedestrian bridge would be like having a bike bypass - the last thing that should be done if you are trying to redevelop an area. The idea of a pedestrian friendly downtown area is to make it a destination point. You either start and stop at Vienna or you bike to Vienna, have lunch or take a break, and then bike back. The bridge across Rt. 7 in Falls Church has done nothing to improve that area. Also, the ride through Vienna has very few crossings of the bikepath (from Ayr Hill to Hunter Mill is about 2 1/2 miles without crossings and it's about 1 1/2 miles from Park to Cedar). Why should bikers need to bypass 123 when they have a clear ride through the rest of town?

New resident, let me try one last time. Cyclists leave the bike trail because they want to avoid the intersection with 123 (and because they want to avoid the pedestrian traffic around the Community Center). They assume (correctly) that they can cross 123 more quickly by going with vehicular traffic on Park St. Having crossed 123, some travel a short distance along 123 to get back on the trail. The accident in question occurred on 123 at Mill St., which is half way between Park St. and the W&OD Trail.

Building a bridge will not prevent people from stopping in Vienna. As at Route 7, there could be ramps to the sidewalk. But even if that were not the case, you cannot seriously think that forcing cyclists to stop is an important part of any redevelopment plan; the business generated is just too small. (Sorry, I am not going to stop for a latte at 7 a.m. when I am finishing a run or ride.)

>>First, I looked up how Dave died from this website and it says he died crossing Mill Street - he was not even on the bike trail. It was a tragic accident, but a bridge across 123 would not have saved his life.

It is not generally known why Dave was riding sidewalks and/or jumping intersections without due caution... and it is also not known if he would have chosen his route with preference for the safety of crossing 123 by way of a bridge. A bridge very well might have saved his life that fateful day.

>>If there is a problem with the crossing the light timing could probably be re-worked to make things safer

The trail and 123 both have sufficient traffic to deserve a bridge in the interest of improving safety and traffic management for both pedestrians and drivers. Falls Church built one. Perhaps one of our neighbors from Falls Church will comment on their bridge experience.

>>A pedestrian bridge would be like having a bike bypass - the last thing that should be done if you are trying to redevelop an area.

A bridge is an overpass, not a bypass... it would have ample pedestrian access on each side, like a crosswalk. It would make it easier to get around, not more difficult. All of those fat cat trail users with their wallets full of cash out shopping for merchandise to carry home on their bikes and baby strollers would have no trouble getting off a bridge on either side of 123 to do so.

>>The bridge across Rt. 7 in Falls Church has done nothing to improve that area.

It's just a pedestrian bridge, not an economic development plan! Safety, utility, and quality of life... saving lives, avoiding injury, protecting families and property, linking pedestrian districts, and improving traffic flow.

>>Why should bikers need to bypass 123 when they have a clear ride through the rest of town?

The trail crosses 4 roads. A bridge is proposed to eliminate the worst of these crossings to the benefit of both pedestrians and drivers.

Sorry, but I don't understand why it is easier to cross at Park Street verses at the light on the bike trail. I've never even considered doing this. And based on the description from this website, it does seem that he was in a pedestrian crosswalk rather than on the road where bikes are supposed to be. I don't know any details other than from this website however. With a stoplight at the bikepath and 123, I do not consider this crossing to be most dangerous road crossing along the bike path through Vienna. You can't have a bridge at every road crossing. At some point, you have to make things safer for all types of vehicles and pedestrians to travel together. There need to be other solutions other than bridges and underpasses to accomplish this.

Vienna Mommy,
I thought about this again, and I still don't understand how your explanation of the way bikers travel has anything to do with crossing Mill. To cross Park Street and get back on the trail, you would not normally cross Mill, you would simply cross 123 at Park.

May I please point out, it is illegal to run over anyone who is in the crosswalk. No matter what their reason for being there or how they arrived there, you CANNOT run them over with your 18 wheeler truck.

Of course you cannot. I have no idea of what happened (although if on Mill, he was not crossing 123 to get back on the bike path) and certainly can understand why someone would have been on the sidewalk at Mill since there is no bikepath along 123. Whether it is legal to ride there or not, it is also dangerous to be on the street - this is an unfortunate occurance on many streets because bike lanes were not originally considered. If your argument had been for a bikepath along 123 due to this accident, I would have been understanding (although I do not believe this is easy to build). There is no reason though to say that a current road crossing that has a specific bike crossing lane and an upgraded stoplight is not safe enough because of Dave's accident and so instead there should be a bridge across 123.

Vienna Mommy,
My apologies. I went by that intersection, and I guess it is possible, however unlikely, that he could have been crossing Mill to get to the bikepath. I don't understand why anyone would or should consider doing this, but it is possible. I hope you agree though that the two wrongs of having a biker on the sidewalk and the 18 wheeler not paying attention is not a reason to look at changing the way an intersection works.

I do not know why I bother, but here is one last try: "On August 17, 2005, Dave was riding home through downtown Vienna on Route 123. As he attempted to cross Mill Street in a cross walk, he was struck and run over by a tractor trailer truck turning onto Mill from Route 123" (http://www.bikeleague.org/media/press/081606_press.php). Many cyclists heading westbound leave the W&OD at Park, travel down Park to 123, turn left onto 123 and rejoin the trail in two blocks. (This is not a theoretical argument; it is based on empirical observation.) And, yes, they cross Mill St. along the way.

A 2004 report commissioned by the National Park Service estimated that there were over 1.7 million trips annually on the Trail (http://www.nps.gov/phso/rtca/Economic_Impacts_of_W_&_OD_Trail.pdf). The number of users who cross 123 far exceeds the number who venture into the Town Green, which should be known as the Town Lavatory since the restrooms are its most popular attraction. I wonder where all those people went potty before there was a Town Green.

Your supposed to contact the town officials and learn why they did not consider a bridge over Maple Ave. a feasible alternative. I believe that one problem was that due to the handicap program the incline necessary would create a bridge starting at the community center and extending past Church St. An underpass was considered unsafe from a mugging standpoint. But, has anyone seen the new underpass at Waxpool Road in Loudon County. There is no police station within one minute of that underpass and I do not believe it lends itself to video monitoring as it simply would be in Vienna.

"I don't know why I bother"
I wish you would have bothered to list the evidence that supports why the current 123 crossing is unsafe. This discussion about going down Park and turning onto Mill doesn't say anything about the safety of the 123 crossing. It only says (per your theory) that people try to save a couple of seconds by taking a non-bike route to cross 123 when there is a route designated for them just down the street. I'm not willing to pay $1 mil. to help them save a few seconds and I find it funny that the people who continually talk about the spending of the town think our money should be spent for this. I do not see people crossing this way anyway. Are you sure they are not headed to Coldstone or something? The bikers I see use the bike path from Park to Church as they should since it's quicker and safer. It takes the same amount of time to cross 123 at Park as it does at the bike trail. I wouldn't dream of trying to turn left onto 123 from Park and then back onto the trail where there is a much safer alternative. The 123 crossing is one of the safer crossings in Vienna if the signs and lights are followed. Why is the 123 crossing a target when there is no light or stop sign at the Park St. crossing? Could this crossing be the reason for the alternative route you say exists - people don't want to cross Park? I'm all for biking safely through Vienna, but there are other alternatives than a bridge. No sell on the bridge idea for me yet and according to Wylnt it is unfeasable anyway.

New Resident: Wyltn is correct on his 'observation' of bikers going down Park/Maple/crossing Mill to rejoin the path. I've seen this for years.

Since I'm not a biker, I can't tell you the exact reasons for doing this but I've observed it many times.

And, I cannot speculate on Dave's route home from work. I do not know why he was at the corner of Mill/Maple but after the accident you could clearly see the very big tire marks 6 feet up on the sidewalk and a repair had to be made to the bricks.

For the record, I never said that the W&OD crossing at 123 was unsafe so there is no need for me to provide evidence. I am glad, however, that you finally agree that Mill St. is between Park and the W&OD.

Gridlock,
This was your previous posting:
"In the interests of public safety, a bridge should be built over Maple Avenue at the W&OD Trail."
Now your new post says you never said the bike path crossing at 123 was unsafe? I'm sorry, but these two statements seem to oppose each other. Where is the public safety concern at that crossing to persuade me to support a bridge?

The bike path is the most direct route from Park to Church and the time to cross 123 at Park or at W&OD is the same. If there is any reason these people divert from the bike path, I can only speculate they prefer to cross Park at a light and probably illegally use the sidewalk. A bridge would not improve the crossing at Park. You've given me reason why people make the maneuver you speak of (and this manuever is only one way apparently - there seems to be no problem crossing 123 toward the community center). Couldn't the intersection at Park be improved to allow an easier crossing, the light timing at 123 and W&OD be improved so bikers don't have to wait as long on the weekend to cross, signs posted up to keep people on the trail and off sidewalks, etc. instead of a much more expensive bridge?

BTW, my feeling against the bridge in terms of redevelopment is that it would create a barrier between the town green and redevelopment for at least the first two stories of a new building (I'd love to see cafe's, shops, and residences along the other side of the bike trail. This type of redevelopment does not really want to look out onto a bridge). In addition I believe a bridge would not encourage people to stop in town as much as they do now, and yes a lot of people stop here as you've seen at the potty house. If safety were a big concern, I would support a bridge and not worry about sacrificing costs or any negative redevelopment effects, but if there is no major safety concern with that intersection and a bridge would be expensive, I don't see the need for the town to consider a bridge to cross 123.

Vienna Mommy,
Well unlike you, I a biker, and I have to tell you my family does not have a hard time biking through Vienna at all.

Are there any bikers reading this who have a hard time on the bike trail in Vienna? Can you give us a reason why people deviate from the trail? Would a bridge across 123 resolve any safety issues and be worth the cost?

The only "hard time" I have on the bike trail is with all the Lance Armstrong want-to-be's who pass dangerously (over solid lines, or between riders, particularly those with small kids and only allow a few inches). Those who don't signal passing ("On your left"), or those that ride side-by-side over the line into oncoming riders. Those that feel the only appropriate speed is full blast. Pretty much the same stuff I'm sure they do in their cars. I only cross 123 at the controlled signal on the trail (in the Town, that is), and rarely at Park Street. If people would merely obey the signal, I don't believe that an overpass is necessary. Have the Town spend the money saved there on sidewalk repairs. If people choose to ride in traffic, let them take their chances. I'm fortunate in that I can use back roads (Windover, Ayrhill) to get to the trail.

Vienna resident, you cannot discuss the safety of the WOD crossing at 123 until you review the accident reports for that crossing. The Vienna Police should be able to provide that information to you. Secondly, you need to read the town ordinance before declaring riding a bicycle on the sidewalk illegal. It is not illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalks in Vienna.

Thank you. I will check out the ordinance. I was always told it was dangerous to ride on sidewalks and not "proper biking etiquette" unless there was a bike path. Similar I guess to using signals, etc. You are probably right about the legality however - I don't know.
As for the safety, if the Vienna police think it needs to be a bridge, I'm sure they will push for it. Since there have been no deaths or bad accidents (as reported from the W&OD website) I have enough justification as a biker myself to write about the safety of this crossing, (especially when non-bikers and people who claim bikers don't use the 123 crossing but can't explain why not contribute). I don't think I have anything more to contribute to this bridge topic though. The bridge issue was a tangent on the original discussion started.

Believe me there were very bad accidents at the crossing. Again, ask the police.

If I get a chance I will.

I thought based on this conversation it would be good to post links to some bike safety websites. Accidents happen, but a lot could be prevented just by following recommended safety precautions.

How not to get hit by cars:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:PqTQHoEIOcMJ:bicyclesafe.com/+bike+safety&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Bike Safety for Kids:
http://www.kidshealth.org/kid/watch/out/bike_safety.html

New Resident:

As a resident of Vienna for a year, do not easily dismiss someone who has been using the Bike Trail in Vienna for over 30 years. I am a walker/runner on the trail and that is often the most dangerous thing to be out there. Last time I was down there, about three bikers even used audible warnings.

But, I deviate. The topic was our roads, safety and crossing. Two deaths on our roads in the past two years is not good. More will come. Vienna is dangerous for anyone not in a car.

>>Accidents happen, but a lot could be prevented just by following recommended safety precautions.

You are being ridiculous. Of course people should be cautious, but the pursuit of public safety is not about expecting everyone to fend for themselves. I suppose you think smoke detectors are unnecessary... that everyone should just be more alert and pay better attention to all things combustible? Nonsense!

Making a busy pedestrian trail crossing as safe as possible is a recommended safety precaution. The W&OD crossing at Maple/123 could be made more safe. Drivers zone out all of the time. They don't always expect a stop light in the middle of the block when looking for the next intersection. They don't always see a stop light overhead when pulling out of a nearby driveway or when distracted by commercial strip activity. They don't always notice pedestrians coming quickly from the side, emerging out from behind signage and garden club plantings. The Town of Vienna has been historically negligent when it comes to pedestrian safety... the increasingly congested W&OD crossing at Maple/123 is just another example of their senile lack of vision.

At the very least, the Town could install highly effective in-pavement lighting. AND STOP HANGING BANNER ADVERTISEMENTS OVER A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING... it makes no sense to distract drivers with ads when they should be watching for pedestrians in a crosswalk.

AND STOP HANGING BANNER ADVERTISEMENTS OVER A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING...

Thank you. I've been wondering about this for years. When we should be focused on expecting a pedestrian or biker to suddenly appear in the crosswalk, the dips**ts place a banner to make everyone look up. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Thank you. I've been wondering about this for years. When we should be focused on expecting a pedestrian or biker to suddenly appear in the crosswalk, the dips**ts place a banner to make everyone look up. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Worse yet? The banner is often something along the lines of: "Come watch Maud talk about made up history with three people at the Freeman Store."

But when most of the people who vote for Maud don't leave the house, don't view the internet, and simply know to caravan to the polls one day a year to fight some imaginary "fight" with their vote, what can you really do? The 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 somethings in Vienna have given control of Vienna to the 70, 80, 90 year old set and that set is out to lunch by and large. And as we learned last year that "old" crew plays real dirty when it comes to polls - they will do anything to hang onto power - including breaking the law. I have no respect for them. Cheaters and blow hards.

I do expect everyone to follow rules and fend for themselves, esp. along a busy road. They should drive, bike, and walk defensively - 123 is not a place to be wearing you headphones (and in my opinion not a place to be biking unless absolutely necessary). Vienna Mommy seemed to jump all over that truck driver who apparently was not driving this way and hit Dave. I also expect people biking in busy areas to follow biking safety recommendations that have been around for years. If the biking community wants to encourage more people to bike, which they do, they really need to do more education on bike safety. I don't like spending money to fix crossings unless things are still unsafe even after following safety precautions.

As for the banner, that is a good point to avoid distraction, but note drivers are also looking up at the light to see if they need to stop or not. Bikers and walkers should not be crossing till the white man appears, not whenever they see a break in traffic.

So I guess to sum up, you think the Town of Vienna (not NVRPA) should invest 1 mil. in a bridge crossing which will mostly protect people who for some reason do not follow recommended bike safety precautions. Have you talked with NVRPA to at least get them to pay for some of the cost? It is their trail.

As a long time biker in Vienna, the idea of a bridge appeals, but not sure its the best thing for that site. (but also do not get the wacky argument about going down to the cross street to avoid the trail light???? who does that, its much less safe with the turning traffic there....). What are the facts about ADA requirements on inclines? Under best case scenarios, what are we talking about with regard to where the bridge would have to start? With a bridge at least a second story height, it would create a very visual barrier cut through the middle of Vienna. Not convinced those asthetics are worth it. I think the lights are pretty safe - have never had a problem either running or biking (and Vienna Mommy, I have been using the trail too for a long time, at least 15 years) and in fact find it much safer than crossing at Lawyers or any of the crossroads because of turning traffic not paying attention.

So what are the facts? What are the details of what a bridge would entail. Its not enough to say... "gee, wouldnt it be nice...."

New Resident who posts here knows as much about Vienna as most old residents. The bridge over the WOD was nixed by the Town Council of Vienna. Paying for the construction of the bridge has not been discussed here because it is a known how the funds are garnered. The Town Green is an example.
BTW has anyone noticed that what appear to be newly planted trees along the WOD near Park St. are turning brown for lack of water?
Also, I would like to make an issue regarding the bikers crossing Park St. Could we get a feel for what drivers are experiencing? Am I the only one who sees a serious problem with bikers? There is a similar problem at the Cedar Lane crossing especially at night. Is the trail closed at dark and if so why the is blinking light on at park st. 24/7.

They should drive, bike, and walk defensively - 123 is not a place to be wearing you headphones (and in my opinion not a place to be biking unless absolutely necessary). Vienna Mommy seemed to jump all over that truck driver who apparently was not driving this way and hit Dave.

I'm just telling you right now, you need to stop being so cavalier about this. You do not know the story. You are offending.

Vienna Mommy,
The only thing I take issue with is your statement that the bridge would fix the problem of bikers traveling on Park and crossing Mill while also saying you do not know why they do this. I need to know why this would fix that problem in order to support the bridge. I welcome any comments and do not mean to offend. It is difficult here, however, because the responses seem very attacking if you seem to support the town in any way. I apologize for any offending comments regardless.

Everyone's off the main topic - the disastrous Town Green. Has anyone noticed that one of the most prominent features of the TG is the outhouse? What nitwit decided to put the outhouse right smack in the middle of the TG? Why not hide behind the stage area or put it anywhere but where it's located. And to think, as one of the commenters rightly mentioned, this mess has cost each household a $1000. I want my money back!

where are the facts:

On the idea of a bridge over 123 I'm guessing the ramp would need to start very close to Church Street (rough calculation) to get high enough to clear the street traffic. This isn't much different from the one in Falls Church. I believe a ramp would be in the neighborhood of a 1:20 slope (1" rise in 20" length). ADA allows 1:12 slopes for ramps with landings but I wouldn't think would be appropriate here as that seems fairly steep for 2-way traffic, requiring handrails, etc.

I like the idea of a pedestrian bridge but I can see that cost is a big issue.

Why doesn't anybody see that the disastrous Town Green is another failed program that is sapping us of more useless spending of our valuable tax money? It’s bad enough that it cost every household $1,000. We now have a never-ending spending binge to keep it afloat. Did you notice that the Town's budget increase for Parks and Recreation is 10.26 %? The Town Manager tells us why with these two statements in his big fat padded budget:

(1)"We have increased the Programs budget to allow for additional summer programs, spring camp and special events including programs at the Town Green."

(2)"In the Parks Maintenance budget funding has been increased for parks repairs. We have also included funds for the replacement of damaged holiday decorations and the purchase of new ones for the Town Green Park."