Talk:Woodrow Wilson Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join us.

The statement about the Robinson Terminal being in Springfield, VA and having the government buy it to relocate it downstream from the bridge is confusing. The paper-carrying ships (from Newfoundland) arrive at a warehouse upstream of the bridge in Alexandria and the paper is then taken to the Springfield printing plant for producing the Washington Post. It is this terminal on the river which could be moved to allow a lower bridge and not the printing plant in Springfield.

Contents 1 Original research about bridge use 2 Inaccuracy in article 3 Confusion about opening 4 Bridge Demolition 5 the map 6 Original bridge photo

[edit] Original research about bridge use

This is potentially controversial original research that needs to be better substantiated before presented as fact:

Privately among some residents of the area, it is noted that the only major site which requires the bridge to be opened because of shipments, is the Robinson Terminal, located in Springfield, Virginia. It has been pointed out that it would have been less expensive to have the government exercise eminent domain on the Robinson Terminal site and pay the owner to move the terminal to a point below the bridge, than it would be to build the bridge to the higher standards needed to avoid openings. This is mentioned as "privately" because this idea has not been proposed in the newspaper, probably because the owner of the Robinson Terminal Company is The Washington Post, the primary newspaper for the region.

Novasource 22:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the Robinson Terminal is located in Alexandria, not Springfield. The new bridge is being constructed because the old bridge is deteriorating. A LOT of that information doesn't make sense, and is an opinion of disgruntled residents. This "research" isn't necessary to the quality of the article and I feel it should be left out. MPD01605 20:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy in article

The article states:

"The original bridge is to be demolished in the following months, ***whereupon the second six-lane bridge (the future permanent home of the Inner Loop) will be built in the space previously occupied by the original 1961 bridge.***"

WRONG. The second six-lane bridge ***will not*** be built upon the space vacated by the demolsihed old bridge. The supports for the second span have already been constructed just downstream from the old span, and just upstream from the newly opened span. Strictly speaking, once the old span is demolished, nothing will be built in its place. See http://www.wilsonbridge.com/powerpoint/2006-0524_projectBrief/2006-0524_projectBrief.htm

Nope, the only reasy they used explosives to blow the bridge instead of heavy equipment, was becuase they wanted to complete the project faster. They had to get the old span out of the way asap so they could build the approach to the new span. KeepOnTruckin 13:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion about opening

The caption of the photo indicates that the new span is open, however, the article says it won't be done until 2008. Can this be clarified? -- cmh 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two spans, and one is open (the outer loop span), and the inner loop span (second span) will open in 2008. --MPD01605 (T / C) 04:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make the change. -- cmh 04:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge Demolition

FYI to anyone interested, the bridge will be detonated by the winner of a contest on 24 Aug at midnight. Expect "total destruction" parties along the Potomac waterfront. -- The previous unsigned comment was made by 72.192.241.170, 20:54 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The bridge is no more! --Thisisbossi 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the current event tag (still/again) on there? The event happened four weeks ago, and there's nothing current about it. The construction is an ongoing event, but I would certainly not qualify that as a current event. --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the tag to a section tag on the part about the construction. KeepOnTruckin 23:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the map

Well, I'm no cartographer, but it doesn't feel right to have the state of Pennsylvania labeled as "Maryland" on the map. Perhaps I'm being too picky but this could be confusing to folks not familiar with US geography. Not that I have a better map or anything to offer really, rather than constructive criticism. yawn.Gabenowicki 19:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good eye on pointing that out. I added a line from "Maryland" to the actual state. The label won't fit in the actual state, so I did what I could. Hope it's better. --MPD01605 (T / C) 19:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Could the map be changed, to label D.C. and highlight its boundary, to show the bridge's location at the southern corner of the district? —wwoods 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the boundary is there, and I can add a "DC" or if space permits "Washington DC" on the closest zoom. I'll do that in a bit. --MPD ^{T / C} 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just updated the map to show "Washington DC" in the closest view. I'm going to get to work making a new map that's clearer and better. --MPD ^{T / C} 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original bridge photo

Since OrphanBot did its work and commented out the image, we have a quandary. Does anyone know the source of the photo of the original bridge (Image:Woodrow wilson bridge 1961 from virginia.jpg)? Or does anyone have another photo that we can either use here as fair use, or, even better, that is available under a free license? A photo of the original bridge is most helpful to the article, but we need one that's compliant... SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I found another fair use image to put in its place. However, it would be optimal to get one that is public domain or otherwise under a free license. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how this qualifies as fair use. It was a private photo taken by Scott Kozel and put on his website. --NE2 09:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a few free ones. Does [1] or [2] look better? --NE2 09:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I chose the former and have tagged the new "fair use" one as orphaned. --NE2 10:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)