Evening star., 1951-11-18

veloping an arterial route that will
relieve traffic there to some extent.
but it will be years before that citv's
vehicular mess is cleaned up.
The second item, creation of huge
parking lots on the edge of town,
has met with some success in sew
eral cities, notably Chicago and
Cleveland. Such a plan was tried
here some years ago. 1t met with
poor public acceptance and was
abandoned, probably because bus
service between the lots and town
was inadequate. City planners cau-
ton, that people usually move along
lines of least resistance, and that
fringe parking is successful only
when it is easier to park on the
edge Of town and ride in on a bus
than it is to buck traffic and park
downtown. Cleveland's success in
Strengthening out a bad situation
downtown resulted from co-opera-
ton between city and transit COM
pany that not only gave drivers am
pie parking space, but also provided
fast, cheap and convenient bus serv-
ice the rest of the way in. Chi
cago's lots on the lake front are
connected to the Loop by shuttle
buses, and are satisfactory as far
as they go; they are, however, in
adequate to meet the demand for
parking facilities.
No Porkins
An absolute prohibition against
central on-street parking has not
been tried out in many places.
New Yorks canyonlike downtown
district has had restrictive parking
laws for years, and on some streets
Nassau, in the financial district,
fer example-an automobile Is a
rarity. Philadelphia has clamped
down on downtown parking to the
extent of charging IS for a down.
town parking violation against 81
for one elsewhere in the city.
No city has gone to the extreme
recommended by the more starry
eyed planners, of banning all We
hicular traffic.
One commonly suggested cure for
cities that are clogged with vehicu-
lar traffic but lack a rapid transit
system is: Build one. This has been
urged in Los Angeles-and the
price tag on the job is marked $500
million. Other cities have made
similar surveys, but have been
scared away from action by the
prohibitive cost.
No Subwoy Here
The only type OF rapid transit
facility that is seriously considered
nowadays is the subway. Elevated
lines-unsightly and depressing to
property values-have not been
built for many years. And city
planners say that it takes popula-
ton of l million with easy access
to the subway line to make it ap-
proach a break-even proposition.
Planners emphasize that there is
no central artery in Washington
under which subway line could be
placed to serve population of any
thing like million riders.
And even supply of riders is
no guarantee a subway will make
money. New York's subways, for
example, are heavily in the red, and
fare increases are being considered.
Another type of subway has been
suggested for Washington-the sub
surface streetcar line that has been
used so long In Boston. But aside
from the great cost of sending the
cars underground, a number Of
other factors initiate against sub
way systems: The high water-table
near the Potomac might inundate
the tubes, steel and other materials
restrictions almost certainly would
delay the program, and-most i'm
portant of all, the streetcar gradu-
ally is yielding pre-eminence to the
bus as mass-transport medium,
here and all over the country.