Evening star., 1952-10-29
Traffic Relief and Parks

The Bartholomew advisory report to the Ma
uonal Capital Planning Commission will help to
bring an early agreement among the various
planning agencies on most of the major phases
OF the Districts overall highway program. The
basic layout of traffic -expediting thoroughfares
proposed in the District Highway Departments
immediate and long-range plans seems assured
OF general acceptance All of the planners sup
port the wheel idea of distributing traffic
through radlal routes to and. from the heart of
the city to peripheral inner and outer "belt"
highways There are minor disagreements on
particular sections of the inner belt but it should
not be difficult to work out adjustments that
would be satisfactory to everybody. All of this
is encouraging. But the outlook is anything but
encouraging in one important particular
bridges.
The growing bridge controversy involves the
principal planning authorities and several con-
sulting firms. That Congress will be drawn into
the dispute eventually is foregone conclusion.
Underlying the discord is the old clash between
esthetic and practical considerations in the
planning of growing cities-between those who
are properly intent preserving parks and
other natural resources and those who have the
responsibility of reducing traffic strangulation
and its blighting effects.
Since the chief concern of the District High
way Department is the practical problem of
providing means for facilitating the movement
of automobiles into and out of the city, it relies
largely on traffic counts to guide it in planning
for new bridges. Such a study-the recent
"orgin- land destination survey-indicated the
urgent need for new bridge across the Potomac
River about midway between the Memorial and
Key Bridges The District Highway Department
suggested location in the vicinity of street
and New Hampshire avenue for the District end
of this bridge and point convenient to Arling-
ton boulevard for the Virginia abutment A
firm of consulting engineers strongly supported
this site, after studying traffic trends.
But an street bridge would invade Federal
park property on both sides of the river and. in
addition, would cut across one end of Theodore
Roosevelt Island, memorial sanctuary close to
the Virginia shore. The National Park Service
and the National Capital Planning Commission
are against any more encroachments on park
lands unless absolutely unavoidable. Both agen-
cies have the support of engineering firms in
opposition to an E street bridge, although the
consultants' reports are at variance. The pro-
fessional report to the NPS proposed either a
tunnel to minimize interference with the parks
or bridge close to and parallel to Key Bridge.
The NCPC and the Bartholomew firm oppose
another crossing between Memorial and Key
Bridges. They prefer a bridge to Alexandria
from Shepherds Point and one above Key Bridge.
In view of all of the conflicting proposals,
the NCPC wisely has named a representative
committee to try to work out solution of the
bridge problem that will be satisfactory to all
concerned. On the committee are representa-
tives of the District Commissioners, the National
Park Service the Bureau of Public Roads and
the Public Buildings Service. Another group OF
intersectional scope, the new National Capital
Regional Planning Council will make special
study of bridge Sites In the end, however,
Congress probably will have to make the choice.
In that event, of course the congressional job
will be much easier if the dissident parties can
arrive at some compromise that will meet the
realities of the developing bridge-bottleneck
problem without too much disturbance of the
long-view park program.