March 23, 2005
Planning the Whitehurst's Possible Demise
A few months ago, we were told a story about a couple that had just bought a condo on the Georgetown waterfront with a prime view of the ... Whitehurst Freeway. (Ooops, you didn't see the highway during the open house? The curtains must have been closed.)
"Oh, we have a strong citizens' association!" the wife said. "We're going to have the freeway taken down." We thought, boy, it's amazing how far one's condo fees can go. For such a critical piece of rush hour commuter infrastructure, it's hard to think how the city could even fathom taking it down, but taking its cues from San Francisco and Portland, Ore., Washington, D.C., may get in the freeway-removal business. The District has been at least considering it. And the process is moving forward. Two meetings are planned for next month to discuss the feasibility of freeway removal.
The battle lines could cross in unusual ways. This could get just as interesting as the FDR Drive-Sutton Place garden debacle in New York. Instead of a fight involving entrenched bluebloods protecting an elevated secret private garden and views of the East River, it'll be newcomer condo owners facing off against entrenched townies upriver over lanes of decades-old elevated concrete and views of the Potomac.
In the meantime, read the District's Whitehurst removal feasability study. Do you think the Whitehurst Freeway should be torn down?
(Photo of the Whitehurst Freeway from the archives of Drew McDermott.)
|
The presumptions of the study seem wrong to me.
i cant see how the freeway prevents usage of the park. its not like the embarcadero. people can walk under it, with less traffic than there would be otherwise.
people who buy into a neighborhood then immediately wish to change that place are so infuriating to me... especially when they want to do it with my money!
we cant take down our already insufficient infrastructure.
The comparison to San Francisco is a bit misleading. The freeway over the Embarcadero was rendered unsafe following the La Preta (sp) quake in 1989 and removed soon thereafter. Quite different than condo dwellers in G-town looking for a better view.
take that ugly eye sore down! let's not make this into a reactionary class issue - but an issue of aesthetics.
Irate condo owners (buyer beware, right?) are not a good reason to tear down the Whitehurst, which, after all, serves to take some off the traffic crush out of Georgetown. I use the Whitehurst often to get from GTown to Rock Creek Parkway and onto Independence Avenue, and I could not possibly imagine having to go through M Street and Pennsylvania Avenue instead. No way, no how.
I am the homeless guy that sleeps under the Whitehurst and that is my roof. Please don't tear it down.
Since the Whithurst is so short, my intuition is that taking it down wouldn't create that much of a problem. And although I think the condo buyers are a bit ridiculous, the freeway really does mar what would otherwise be a very scenic waterfront, and taking it down might spur the development (or redevelopment) of some vacant land (parking lots) now tucked between the freeway and the river. Whenever I have been there the traffic on the freeway and on K Street below has not been heavy - although I don't know about rush hour. Does anybody use it to commute?
Sorry, but the Whitehurst is a must-keep fixture in DC. It's one of the few things that alleviates congestion and commute for people travelling to GWU/K Street from Virginia and upper Northwest DC, and without it, M Street would move from being a travesty to an atrocity. Tough shit waterfront dwellers, and by the way, that neighborhood...so five years ago!
The parking lot between the Whitehurst and the river is owned by the National Park Service so it's not likely to ever become more condos or offices as suggested above. A plan has been in place since the late 80's to extend the small park next to Washington Harbor all the way down to the Key Bridge. See http://www.georgetownwaterfrontpk.org/ for more info. I don't think demolishing the Whitehurst would be a bad idea at all as long as traffic coming off the Key Bridge could be diverted to the underutilized part of K Street already under it rather than onto M.
I've been hoping they would demolish that hideous piece of underused roadway for decades. If you want to commute to GWU - try the Metro. It's too bad that the issue will now be framed as a class issue. I expect that there will be a "Save the Whitehurst" hunger strike soon. Or, at a minimum, a hearty "No Whitehurst, No Peace" rally.
These condo owners need to step off. Seriously, you buy an over-priced condo with a view of a freeway, and then whine once you move in??? Whitehurst may not be as used as say the 9th St tunnel, but hundreds of cars (myself inculded) use it to bypass Georgetown during rush hour. Tearing it down will only further snarl traffic in Georgetown, on the GW Parkway, and the Eisenhower Bridge. Next they will try and tear out the Rock Creek Pkwy, because it diminishes the 'feeling' of nature.
do you really think that the condo owners are the force behind this change? get real. this talk about the condo owners makes a good article.
What is the Eisenhower Bridge?
Just to be clear, the condo owners are not the driving force behind this effort, but they are one element -- and an interesting element at that -- in the greater debate. The city for one is very interested in all of this, but make no mistake, there are vested interests in Georgetown.
Eishenhower Bridge=my bad. I meant Roosevelt Bridge...they were both Presidents right, so close enough.
the whitehurst needs to come down. its a relic of 60s/70s era transportation thinking. and speaking of dc transportation relics, after the whitehurst the i-395 center leg, southeast freeway, and anacostia freeway need to come down next.
I mean, really... who spends seven figures for a condo overlooking a highway?
What happened? Did the co-op board at the Watergate turn down your application? So sad...
Diverting traffic onto K Street during rush hour would worsen an already-difficult situation. In the mornings, traffic going down onto K Street backs up almost to 27th Street, as the cars merge into one lane and then get tied up at the first two stop signs. In the afternoons, the backup to get off K Street on to 27th stretches back to 30th Street, and sometimes even Washington Harbour -- it usually takes 3-4 cycles to get through the light, but often it can take as many as 5-6 light cycles to clear out of Georgetown. M Street is not an alternative, especially traveling towards Key Bridge in the afternoons.
A sign at the waterfront says that construction on the park (which will replace the current surface parking lot) will begin this spring. It will be interesting to see how/if that changes the character of the area.
Don't worry, the Whitehurst Freeway isn't going anywhere. The morons who bought these highway-view condos should take their dumb bitch asses back to Fairfax County, Boston, New York, Idaho, and Barcelona.
The Whitehurst may divert some traffic from Georgetown, but removing it won't necessarily make the traffic increase on M St. It seems illogical, but the highways in the Portland and San Francisco examples were removed without any increase in traffic in the surrounding area, and now the parks and development built in their place are big draws.
I have about as much sympathy for the people who bought those condos as I do for the ones who live in the Lofts of Adams Morgan (or whatever they're called) and complain about the noise from 18th street on the weekends. And you know if they succeed they're just going to complain about how bad the conjestion is on M street.
Which building are they in? If it's the Ritz-Carlton condos where the Regal Cinemas also went in, I'd like to suggest that, rather tear down the Whitehurst so that the couple can have their nice view from the condos, we fight to have the condos torn down instead...and bring back The Bayou.
The Whitehurst is not a "freeway" in the same way as the removed freeways cited here. It is a bypass around a hopelessly gridlocked commercial roadway (M St) that connects a busy downtown to one of the few Potomac crossings (Key Bridge).
Moreover it is a key route out of Upper Northwest for the tens of thousands of people who live far far from the nearest Metro stop. Do you all realize that there are MILES between the red line and the potomac river, an area filled with residences? The Whitehurst connects Canal Rd, the southern and western lifeline for drivers in the area, to downtown, the highways, and bridges.
Now would it have made more sense to put it underground? Yes. Would it have made more sense to have built more Metrorail lines through Northwest? Yes. Would it make sense to put a new rail line along the old right-of-way for the Cabin John Trolley, now occupied solely by high-tension wires? Perhaps. But until those alternatives come to fruition, that roadway must stay up.
To its credit, the Whitehurst underwent a major beautification facelift a few years ago, and is now very easy on the eyes for a "freeway" type road. Putting some coats of white paint on the underpinnings would probably help make it look nicer from below too.
The wealthy Georgetown fuckers should simply realize that the Whitehurst Freeway is necessary for the wealthy Upper Northwest and suburban fuckers who chose to live far far away from the subway and need to get across town without being subjected to the horrors of the bus.
Rip it down!
Too right, Frank. And might I add--WEALTHIER Northwest and suburban fuckers. When the real money starts talking, no one's going to hear peep one out of any gaggle of condo-dwelling small-timers, who should have caveated their emptor, anyway! In the meantime, I remain a happy frequenter of the Whitehurst. May my wheels never grace the M Street corridor before sundown again!
I travel the Whitehurst everyday from the Mall to Canal Road and back again. I cannot imagine having to navigate M Street during rush hour amid the short lights and illegally parked cars and delivery trucks.
If Washingtonians want to tear down this major artery, fine, but then let's address the real problem and put up toll booths on the Virginia and Maryland borders/bridges and charge those scofflaws for the privilege of overloading our roads daily.
I doubt they'd tear it down. Too much traffic will be created and there are no viable alternatives alleviate the extra traffic.
I'd rather see the E St Expressway & the Rock Creek Parkway covered up to allow more pedestrian access to the Kennedy Center.
This is crazy. The city spent millions on the Whitehurst within the last 5 years, and now wants to trash the thing because of some complaining beotches who bought overpriced shoebox condos? WTF?
I use the Whitehurst at least once a month to bypass that stinking hole that is Georgetown when I'm headed to the Heidelburg bakery from Adams Morgan. It's not just for commuters -- it's actually a very useful street for running errands and not getting stuck among blinged out suka pimps cruising M street.
first georgetown doesn't want a metro stop, then it puts in a weakass philly cheesesteak place (please! use the right bread, numbskulls), now it doesn't want a congestion-relief freeway? why not just start building housing in the middle of M st?
The best thing San Francisco did in the last 20 years was tear down that damn Embarcadero Freeway. Come visit and you will see how nice it is to walk along the waterfront.
I was in DC last weekend and I thought Georgetown was nice and would be nice if you took down that freeway, I really don't know the transportation issues.
Find some way to move people around without forcing them into cars and you will have a nicer city. The Metro is a good start, but it doesn't go enough places. Did Georgetown really reject a metro stop?
It's an urban legend that Georgetown didn't want a Metro stop. The original plan never included a stop there. Though it remained changeable, the basic design of the Metro system was created in the late 1950s and what was going on then was what really shaped what was built. The DC Transit Studies (www.dctransitfuture.com) do propose streetcar service to and in Georgetown via two different lines. The Bus Rapid Transit proposal is a way to provide service for a big chunk of one of these lines, providing service between Union Station and Georgetown, in the interim.