Evening star., 1953-10-01
Another Bridge Plan

The Star is pleased to print on this page
today an interesting letter from Blair Lee Sd,
executive officer of the National Capital Plan
ming Commission, arguing that the best sub
Stitute for an street bridge over the Potomac
to serve the central area of the city, is one
which would be constructed just downstream of
the railroad bridge. This substitute represents
he says, "the virtually unanimous view" of the
staff of the Planning Commission. The staff
is composed of himself, John Nolen, 1jr, and
three other gentlemen, one of whom is general
counsel and secretary.
This plan, although advanced by the COM
mission staff, has not been approved by the
National Planning Commission. It is being put
forward by the commission staff as counter
proposal to the street site, which has been
approved by the District Commissioners, the
Highway Department., the Bureau of Public
Roads, the Regional Highway Planning Com
mittee and others. Before the commission
staff plan is given serious consideration, it
should at least receive the approval of the Ma
t1onal Planning Commission.
Mr.. Lees objections to the street loca-
tion, and it's approaches in Washington and
Virginia, find ready answers from the Highway
Department. 1t may be taken for granted that
MIR. Lee and the commission staff will have
answers to objections to their plan, such as the
network of bridge approaches which is involved,
the concentration of vital bridge crossings
within small area providing an excellent
bomb target; the extensive underpassing or
overpaSsing of Mall roadways (Which probably
would be labeled "desecration" of the Mall and
the pouring of mass of left and right turning
traffic into and across Constitution avenue,
which carries more traffic now than any other
street in Washington. These and other objec-
tions can be amplif1ed in detail and supported
statistically by the Highway Department Mr..
Lees estimates of cost are mere guesses,
unsupported by engineering studiess
But the purpose of this comment on Mr..
Lees letter is not to pass judgment on the
merits of proposed bridge locations. The pur-
pose of this comment is to emphasize once again
that the appropriate committee or committees
of Congress must hear the pros and cons of the
bridge dispute and settle it on the facts and in
the public interest. Everybody is agreed on the
need for new river crossing to serve the down.
town area. Any river crossing will require ac
t1on by Congress, and Congress should give the
pros and cons full hearing with ample op-
portunity for both sides to present the facts
supporting their opinions The issue should not
be settled by the lobbying activities of the COM
mission or the Roosevelt Memorial Association.
There is an interesting statement in Mr..
Lees letter, relative to the function of the
planning agency. It's job, he says is to weigh
the merits of disputes "dispasSionately," decide
what is best in the public interest then reconcile
the differences. That has not been the policy
of the commissions staff. 1t dreams up and
CruSadeS for its own plans, discovering in them
a unique and surprising virtue, with no re-
sponSibility whatsoever as to where the money
is coming from. It is and always has been dom
mated by the Interior Department. If it has
ever succeeded in reconciling any dispute, the
incident escapes recollection. If Mr.. Lee is
advocating new policy for the staff of the
Planning Commission, more power to him!