Drawing Bridges - Pushing the Limits: New Adventures in Engineering - page 56

The Bridge (Potomac River Crossing) shall be a structure designed with high aesthetic values,
deriving its form in relation to the monumental core of Washington, D.C., and shall be an asset
to the Nation's capital and the surrounding region.
The concepts for the bridge shall be based on arches in the tradition of notable Potomac River
bridges (e.g., Key Bridge, Memorial Bridge).
The bridge design shall employ span lengths which minimize the number of piers occurring
in the viewshed of the Alexandria Historic District and other historic properties. Every effort
shall be made to minimize the footprint of the project without adversely affecting safety and
operations.
Nine further goals were specified, including the minimization of impacts on parklands, river
views, and a cemetery in the area. Thus, in many ways, the Wilson bridge project was very similar
to the Severn River one but on a much larger scale. The replacement bridge across the Potomac,
including the reconstruction of four interchanges in the vicinity of the bridge, was described as “the
biggest public works project in the Middle Atlantic states” and was expected to cost on the or-
der of $1.8 billion, or sixty times the project at Annapolis. Unlike the new Severn River crossing,
however, the new Wilson bridge would retain a draw span, in large part because local politics and
the approach conditions did not allow for a sufficiently high-level bridge. The approach grade for
such a bridge would have exceeded 4 percent, slowing trucks as they climbed the grade and thus
hampering the smooth flow of traffic on the interstate. The new bridge will, nonetheless, provide a
twenty-foot-higher clearance beneath the closed draw span, thereby reducing the estimated annual
openings of the bridge from 220 to 65, or approximately one per week.
The selection process for the new Wilson bridge was to resemble the earlier design competition,
but with the more or less autonomous jury replaced by a selection panel, which in turn was advised
by four different committees—one each to address technical, constructability, historic, and citizens'
issues. This last, especially, highlights the more highly politicized nature of the Wilson bridge pro-
ject, and the establishment and continued operation of a Woodrow Wilson Bridge Center not far
from the construction site in Alexandria emphasized the importance of public relations in dealing
with nontechnical aspects of such a project. There was also a very effective and informative Web
site.
The overarching objective of the competition was “to produce a fittingly world-class design” for
the bridge, and seven design teams expressed an interest in pursuing that goal. Four teams were se-
lected as finalists, and they were allowed to submit up to two entries each in the competition. There
were seven entries, and they were considered by the advisory panels, whose input was taken into
account by the selection committee, which was headed by Harry R. Hughes, former governor of
Maryland and former secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation, and included Pro-
fessor Billington. The design chosen was produced by the team of Steinman, Boynton, Gronquist &
Birdsall in partnership with DeLeuw, Cather & Company, which are now both units of the Parsons
Transportation Group.