Brigadier General James Monroe Williams

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Maryland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance). Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually the Washington Post did mention (back in 1998) that the Robinson Terminal accounts for 30 percent of the bridge openings. I've cited a reference in the Robinson Terminal article. However, I do wonder about the other 70 percent and where those tall ships are actually headed. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It's incredible that Springfield, Va., even came up. Springfield is not on the Potomac River. It is several miles west of Alexandria, which is on the Potomac. Is it any wonder that the US Army needs to give its recruits a course in map reading during boot camp? 74.249.76.124 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About moving things downstream from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge: someone had not taken into account that that area is quite low in elevation, even marshland. Building there would have a dangerous environmental impact, including on bird & animal habitat. Also, that land is subject to flooding in the case of a tropical storm or a hurricane hitting that area, which has been known to happen in past centuries.74.249.76.124 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some think that this contains the only portion of the Interstate system that is owned and operated by the Federal government, but parts of Interstate 395 and Interstate 295 also lie in the District of Columbia, which is not a part of any state.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

the text now reads, "the only portion of the Interstate system that is owned and operated by the federal government." but the US Constitution reads, that the legislature, Has the power, "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;" So 395 in DC is federally owned an operated, even if home rule allows some leeway in its operation. Pdbailey (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See French wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pont_Wilson. it could be interesting. 85.69.7.6 (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC) (Reuillois of French Wikipedia)[reply]

The jargon about "Inner Loop" of the Beltway and "Outer Loop" is language that will be completely unfamiliar to people who don't live in and around Washington. I know, because I was baffled about it when I moved ot McLean, Va., in 1985. People on the rest of the continent refer to "eastbound", "northbound", etc.

Now, you have two choices: 1) Refer to compass directions for the two bridges: "eastbound" and "westbound", or 2) Refer to the route directions for Interstate-95: "northbound" and "southbound". Then, you will be writing a language that the rest of the English-speaking world understands.

When I lived in Atlanta in 1979-80, we never said "inner loop" of "outer loop" for the I-285 Perimeter Interstate. We always said "eastbound", "northbound", "westbound", and southbound", and it was always clear what these meant: there were road signs that said so. For example, going on I-285 from Marietta to I-85 is "southbound", and going on I-285 from Marietta to Doraville is "eastbound". And so forth.

DAW74.249.79.136 (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Inner loop (disambiguation) Tedickey (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this project was complete. Not so? - Denimadept (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridge is complete; the project is still ongoing, with "Thru" lane work and Telegraph Road Interchange work in Virginia continuing until 2012 or something like that, so technically the project is not complete. The pedestrian crossing is not complete yet either, and I believe there's still some minor work continuing in Maryland for a bit....but the Bridge is 99.9% done. I haven't proofed the article in a while so I don't know exactly what it says. --MPD ^{T / C} 14:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(apologies in advance if this is in the wrong place, I am new here)

Any article on the Wilson bridge would be incomplete without some mention of the years of delays in the project caused by various groups, notably local interests in Alexandria, and various environmental groups (both misusing environmental laws) that significantly delayed the project and significantly increased it's cost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.131.150 (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got sources, please edit the article and use 'em. Welcome. - Denimadept (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a maintenance tag for a disputed editorialization is not going to get consensus. Rather, what is needed to resolve this is a reliable source presenting the design as known to be inadequate (i.e., by highway designers) at the time the bridge was built. TEDickey (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]