Evening star., 1925-11-16
PLAN TO RESTRICT
SOL|D-T|RE TRUCKS
SHARPLY ATTACKED
Merchants, Builders and
Owners Vigorously Oppose
Limited Use.
CURTAILiNG OF LOADING
ALSO BRINGS PROTEST

Higher Speeds on Boulevards De-
clared Unwise-Chance for
Pedestrians Urged.
Merchants. truck owners and build
erS concentrated their forces in op-
posing vigorously the barring of solid
ire trucks and horse-drawn vehicles
from certain streets III Washington
at the public hearing held by the
commissioners at the District Build
ing today OF the list of proposed
amendments to the traffic code.
The truck operators also attacked
the regulation adopted several months
ago limiting the load Of trucks TO
The rated capacities fixed by the truck
manufacturers. They sought TO show
1he city heads that the rated capaci-
les of the manufacturers are not
standardized and that the effect of
enforcing the regulation would be to
multiply greatly the number of trucks
on the streets and increase the cost
Of living
Up TO noon only one person had
taken the floor TO discuss the proposed
regulation OF pedestrians, which
would require walkers to obey signals
When crossing at an Intersection
where there is a policeman or auto
matte device. The proposed rule would
not prevent pedestrians from crossing
IN the middle of the block, nor would
u affect them at any corner where
traffic is not regulated.
Wants Chance for Pedestrians.
The speaker was Mrs William II.
Strong, SiSter-in-law of the late Com
missioner Henry L. f. Macfarland and
daughter of former Commissioner
Douglas She stressed the importance
OF requiring traffic policemen to leave
an adequate interval of time for
pedestrians to cross before releasing
opposite traffic and also voiced the
belief that It IS in many places easier
and safer TO cross in the middle of the
block where there are no turning
vehicles to watch.
Mrs. Strong's statement brought
from Commissioner Fenning the an
nouncement that all semaphores
bought In the future would be of the
type recently tried at Fourteenth
street and Pennsylvania - which dis
plays n stop" sign in all directions
for an interval before the direction
Of traffic is changed, to enable those
in the middle of the intersection to
reach the opposite side.
Opposes Greater Speed.
The new regulation. which would
empower Director Eldridge to fix in
Crea ased speed limits on certain ar
terial highways, was opposed by DR..
George .. Harenner, who declared %
miles an hnnr is fast enough arr
vehicle to go within the District and
added: The time has come TO step
off instead of on the gas
Charles j. Columbus of the Mer-
chants and Manufacturers Associa-
ton. and Henry L. Stringer. repre-
Scnting q concern which operates
trucks, both raised the question OF
rrovtding proper protection for bou-
!cEard stop streets.
Mr.. Columbus asserted boulevard
and arterial highways should not be
put into effect until the city is able
20 guard them either with policemen
or synchronized signal lights, and Mr..
Stringer laid stress on the necessity
for n better method of marking them
by the mere painting of stop" on the
pavement. These stop signs cannc<
he seen at night, he said. and some of
them are half worn out from usage.
Only One supporter for Plan.
Mrs. Edward IT. Gheen of 1919 New
Hampshire avenue was the ONLY one
who spoke in favor Of barring trucks
and horse-draWn vehicles from four
Of the main highways She told of
damage which. she said, has been
done to her home by trucks using
New Hampshire avenue.
In opposition to this innovation In
Thara kfnS
thew f. OBrien, representing certain
individual truck owners: Jerome
Fanciulli and Jerry Matthews, rep
reSenting the Commercial Motor We.
hicleS Owners Association; Jesse C.
Suter. Coal Merchants Board of
Trade: Charles J. Columbus, Mer-
chants and Manufacturers Associa-
tion: Rufus s. Lusk of the Operative
IuilderS' Association and a number
of individuals.
They all took the view that the
time has not arrived to put such re-
StriCtiOnS on commerce in Washing
ton. arguing that the proposed regu-
lation is unnecessary and that ii
would create Il greater danger by
dlVerung heavy trucks to the mar
rover streets.
Answering the argument Of vibra-
ton caused by trucks on the four
arteries proposed, Mr.. Suter pointed
out that the same objection might be
raised on the streets to which the
trucks would be diverted
Cites Possible Inconyenienres.
Mr.. Fanciuili and Mr.. Stringer
both called attention to the difference
between Washington and New York
city on the subject of barring trucks
from certain streets. They said that
truck drivers would not try to use
Fifth avenue because they would be
caught in traffic jams, when they
can go straight up and down the city
on other parallel thoroughfares In
Washington, they said, if trucks are
prohibited from using Sixteenth street.
New Hampshire avenue. Rhode Island
avenue and Massachusetts avenue.
they will have TO wind their way by
devious routes through narrow streets
where greater danger would be created.
Attorney O'Rrien, in discussing the
'ruCk restriction, argued that the
highways were designed primarily for
he movement Of commerce and that
: is n mistaken idea of the traffic
iircctor that they are primarily for
pleasure ears.
Mr.. O'Brien declared that there are
nanv sections of the traffic code which
are vague and which should be re-
written, because they are in defiance
If court decisions" Mr.. O'Brien add
ed that persons are fined under such
regulations because they do not take
Them to the Court Of Appeals. He
urged that the traffic code be made as
sin1pIs as possible in all respects.