18 Feb 1998

Background on the Woodrow Wison Bridge improvements.
     By John BelShea

Introduction:

I hope what follows is helpful for Saturday's (21st) discussion about a press release. What I heard on Tuesday troubled me in that it seemed to only orient to now and the future. There is a history that must not be forgotten because it may help the public to better appreciate our position. I hope that what follows could help us develop a common, shared, view of from where we have come.

I am talking of a history concerning the Bridge and Alexandria which goes back almost a decade. During that period I feel we've been a bit like a long wagon train, with each wagon representing some civic or public group. The train has suffered many periods of harassment, sometimes fighting them off singly or in small groups. Now, with the issuance of the ROD, we are under the most severe attack, and are pulling the wagons into a circle. To me, the CSB represents that circle of wagons for all Alexandria, and beyond.

Items

1. In 1989 a design competition was started. When it ended in 1990, "each of the five competition finalists recommended a fixed span providing 135 feet of clearance for ships on an alignment [below] Hunting Creek at least 1,500 feet south of the existing bridge. The competitors gave several reasons for choosing a new alignment. All noted the major impacts a larger bridge at the present site would have on the Alexandria Historic District, Jones Point Park, St. Mary's Cemetery and adjoining residential and office complexes. Some cited the benefits of moving bridge noise away from Old Town Alexandria. Others mentioned the expense of acquiring right of way in existing alignment, which is highly developed. Several note the difficulty of maintaining traffic during reconstruction at the present location." In Search of Solutions, Woodrow Wilson Bridge Concept Competition, p. 2. [A xerox copy of this brochure is in the Public Library on Queen Street--as are many of the EIS documents for the Project, including the Final.]

2. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued in September 1991 which proposed several replacement projects at a 14-lane capacity and a bridge width of about 256 feet. This was vigorously opposed in written comment by several community groups. In October a City Council Resolution in opposition to these plans was adopted by the City Council (1279??).

3. An new planning was begun in '93 or '94 with the establishment by the FHWA of a Coordination Committee, of eleven (?) voting members of whom only two represented Alexandria's interests -- the Mayor and the Representative to the Commonwealth. After many Committee meetings, work group deliberations, and public hearings, a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued in January 1996. This had five alternative plans for consideration, now all were for 12-lanes, and the bridge designs were for a width of 244 feet.

4. In March '96, while the SDEIS was being reviewed, the City Council held a public hearing. There was strong citizen support for two plans -- an eight lane tunnel along the current alignment, or a ten lane high (non-drawspan) bridge some half mile south of the present bridge. City Council deliberated, and within the following week adopted its Resolution 1779 calling, among other things, for a ten lane tunnel along the present alignment. The resolution was silent about protecting the east Hunting Tower from demolition, which had been supported by both of the citizen positions.

5. In May '96, at a Maryland retreat, the Coordinating Committee showed a preference for selecting a 12-lane bridge solution along the current alignment, but also requested that it be re-studied as a high bridge. Alexandria erupted in protest--(1) a rally attended by over 300 people was held in City Square on Memorial holiday weekend,and over 500 signed a petition protesting the width and height of the bridge. (2) In July Old Town Civic Association adopted a resolution stating that expansion out of the present right of way into the Historic Alexandria District should not be permitted, and recommended that the All Alexandria Alliance be formed to focus this opposition. The Alliance first acted to support a proposal put forth by Congressman Moran, in early Aug. '96, that any bridge along the current alignment should be no more that ten lanes in width, have no separated HOV lanes, should not require reconstruction of any existing interchanges, and strive to save the eastern Hunting Tower.

6. In August '96 the FHWA issued a Second Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Study providing two alternatives for the high bridge option. The seventeen organizations in the Alliance wrote Congressman Moran on August 18 asking that he personally present his 10-lane proposal at the subsequent public hearings, which he did, and again at a City Council meeting in early September. The Alliance also had most of its organizations make comment at the public hearings before the FHWA. After the City Council meeting, a new resolution, Res. 1799, was adopted by the Council which essentially supported the Moran proposal, adding some of the specific measures the City had requested in R.1779.

7. At a Coordinating Committee meeting in late Sept. '96 the 12-lane drawbridge, current alignment, alternative was selected as the preferred alternative. There was no attempt to reopen planning for the Moran proposal (as had been done for the high bridge alternative put forward in May by Maryland interests), and no attempt to have the environmental impacts summarized after public comment and before taking action (this especially was true for impacts on historic properties in Alexandria).

8. In late '96 and throughout '97, six Alexandria organizations (the 106 Group) worked together, and with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, to complete the identification of impacts to historic properties, and the Historic District. The FHWA continually backed away from a detailed inventory and analysis of such impacts, and in the development of 3 versions of a Memorandum of Agreement (in conformance with regulations put forward by the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation) moved from a substantive approach to a procedural one, which delayed inventory and analysis to the design phase. In December they forced the City to sign the MOA, though the City did so with written reservations. None of the 106 Group accepted the validity of the MOA and refused to sign their concurrence.

9. In August '97 the Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued. Written comments on the various versions of the Draft statement were not reproduced in the Final statement (as is customary) and the response to comments were lumped together in ways which may have distorted the intent of the comment. In November a Record of Decision was issued which selected the 12-lane, current alignment, drawbridge alternative with a design width of 244 feet as the recommended alternative.

Culmination

After many failures to have its concerns addressed in this lengthy process, Alexandrians went to court on January 30, 1997.