Tear It Down?
Yesterday, the Post declared support for 1960s-style urbanism dead. No longer, they say, are we to be held hostage by soaring freeways, concrete office blocks, and the utter deadness of the streets and neighborhoods ushered in by the age of the car. Finally, we've learned how vital it is to encourage pedestrian traffic and to take advantage of our waterfront resources; We understand that you cannot design cities around automobile use.
Except where the Whitehurst Freeway is concerned. Along the Georgetown waterfront another relic sits impervious to new, and better, ideas about urban planning. The city is unable to take full advantage of one of its most appealing stretches of riverside land, because we really, really like being able to use the piece of road. Really.
Last year, The District Department of Transportation began reexamining the helpfulness of the elevated roadway in a study on how to improve the way traffic moves from downtown to the Key Bridge, and back. Of 14 potential solutions published in November of 2005, DDOT has now chosen five options to present in public meetings, all of which include the deconstruction of the road. Reception to their conclusions has been, as you might expect, chilly (see the Georgetown Current, for a second take on the public forum). Overwhelmingly, residents are concerned about the additional traffic burden on M Street, and possibly on a new and gussied up K Street (which, if the freeway were torn down, would have to be widened to help handle the additional traffic). A web site has even appeared listing the reasons the Whitehurst should be saved.
We've often argued that getting rid of the Whitehurst Freeway should be approached carefully. It may only handle some 43,000 cars a day, but those are 43,000 less cars that have to drive through the already congested Georgetown. Fine, planners say, we'll just widen K Street and make it accessible from the Key Bridge. That's all fine and good, though the idea of expanding K Street to handle increased traffic seems to fly in the face of plans to make the waterfront an idyllic destination for residents and tourists alike. Who would really want to take a picnic to a stretch of grass sandwiched between six lanes of traffic and the Potomac River? Love it or hate it, the Whitehurst has one thing going for it – traffic on K Street is now relatively light, and once the renovations are completed, the waterfront will truly become an attractive and relaxing alternative to the hustle and bustle of M Street.
But if city planners really are dead-set on knocking the freeway down, why not think a little more radically? After all, getting rid of Whitehurst offers the District a golden chance to remake the area once and for all. The problem is not the existence or absence of the Whitehurst Freeway. The problem is the decision to route any significant amount of automobile traffic through Georgetown -- a thriving, pedestrian-oriented commercial and historic district. Traffic on M Street already takes away from the experience of living, working, or shopping in the area; that problem will exist with or without the Freeway, unless a dramatic reimagining of the neighborhood is undertaken.
In addition to eliminating the Whitehurst, the District should not allow direct access to M Street from the Key Bridge, should reduce M to one lane in either direction, and should increase the size of the sidewalks. Key Bridge traffic should be oriented to the Northwest, away from downtown. In short, the Key Bridge should not be considered a viable alternative for getting into the city.
Instead, any plan to eliminate the Whitehurst ought to also take into consideration plans for constructing an additional Metro water crossing and a Georgetown station. In that way, the city could improve Georgetown's walkability and open up the waterfront while significantly increasing Metro's ability to carry riders from Virginia to the city. And while it might seem farfetched, the city ought to turn to Virginia for assistance with the funding. By increasing Metro's cross-Potomac capacity, WMATA would be significantly increasing the value of Metro-accessible land in the Commonwealth.
A bold plan, to be sure. But if the planners of fifty years ago were bold enough to raze buildings by the thousands, the better to scar the city with asphalt and concrete, then maybe we can muster the will to try and undo their mess.
Martin Austermuhle contributed to this post. Former DCist editor Ryan Avent contributes from London.
Photo taken by Speedy Delivery.