Evening star., 1953-10-01

r WISH the Potomac River bridge
l. problem were half as simple as you
make it out to be in your September
26 editorial-merely conflict between
traffic needs and the Dissertation" of
Theodore Roosevelt Island.
Undoubtedly the fate of the island
looms large in the thinking of the
Theodore Roosevelt Association and the
National Park Service about the D. C.
Highway Departments proposal for
new bridge from E street to Arlington
boulevard via the island. The National
Capital Planning Commission is just
as strongly opposed to the E street site,
but for entirely different reasons. In
deed, if the island were suddenly to
cast of it's moorings and float down
to the Chesapeake Bay, there is every
reason to believe that the commission
would not change its view.
take exception to the masterpiece
of overSimplification with which your
editorial undertakes to summarize the
disagreement between the planning
commission and the Highway Depart
ment. You refer to the city planners
as "those who i. give first place in
their thinking to overall park and
parkway development and conserva-
ton" I'll keep the word overall"
but the rest of that definition is way
out in left field.
The city planning commission, here
as in every other city, has no buSi-
ness taking sides emotionally or pro-
fessionally with either the park people
or the highway people. Parks and
highways are both essential elements
of the city plan. When conflict arises
between the two, the city planners job
is to weigh the merits dispassionately,
decide which is best in the overall
public interest, and then undertake
the difficult and thankless task of rec
onciling the feuding departments.
This function is particularly impor-
tant in Washington, where the high
ways and bridges are District of Co
lumbia responsibility, while the major
parks come under the United States
Department of the Interior. That is
one Of the reasons why Gen. Prentiss,
the District Engineer Commissioner,
and Director Wirth Of the National
Park Service both sit as members of
the National Capital Planning Com
mission.
You are probably correct in surmis-
ing that the E street bridge situation
is Stalemated beyond the point of re-
conciliation and will have to be settled
by Congress. AS matter of fact, it
would have to go to Congress anyway.
All the lawyers agree that the bridge
cannot legally be built over Roosevelt
Island until some new legislation eff
fectively amends the guarantees given
to the Theodore Roosevelt Association
in the original act which accepted the
associations gift of the island to the
United States. Thus it is fair to say
that the current debate has caused no
waste of time that would not have had
to be wasted anyway. And if the time
element is SO important, I can't help
pointing out that there are plenty of
other bridge locations which do not
require a special Act of Congress to
clear the way.
Here are some Of the factors-plan-
ming, financial, and political-that
cause us to shy away from the E street
site:
/. A city bridge must do more than
span river. It must be able to collect
and distribute its traffic on both sides
with speed and efficiency. The best
ones, such as Henry Hudson and Bronx
WhiteStone in New York, are served
by llnited-access expressways. Arling-
ton boulevard is being improved by the
Virginia Highway Department. but it
is long way from being an expreSSway.
Nevertheless, Arlington boulevard looks
like the New Jersey Turnpike compared
to the District approaches to the pro-
posed bridge-D street, E street and
poor old New Hampshire avenue. The
Highway Department proposes to de-
press and grade-Separate D and E
streets as far east as Twentieth street.
The chaos will start wherever they
come to the surface, whether it be Vir-
ginia avenue, Twentieth street, Seven
teenth street, Fourteenth street or
Pennsylvania avenue. The pressure of
this new flow Of east-west traffic on
the very limited number of east-west
passages between the White House and
the Mall can't help causing trouble.
The bridge will simply move the bottle
neck several blocks eaSt-into the heart
of the city.
2. The other main bridge approach in
the District would be New Hampshire
avenue, which, in its lower reaches, is
about as useless as an avenue can get.
The Highway Department plans to
bring the bridge ramp to grade south
of Virginia avenue, which suggests
total impaSSe when the bridge traffic
tangles with Rock Greek parkway traf-
f1c on Virginia avenue. If the bridge
traffic survives that ordeal, it comes
next to Washington Circle, where pre-
ferential treatment has already been
assigned TO X street and Twenty third
street. A three-level treatment is the
only solution. Finally, New Hampshire
avenue gets to Dupont Circle, where
the existing tunnel favors Connecticut
avenue and the surface channelization
fayors Massachusetts, avenue. Some ex-
preSSwayl
3. The cost of the E street bridge was
estimated at $22,310,000 by the District
conSultantS, Modjeski and Masters. The
important thing to remember. however,
is that the estimate covers no construc-
ton east of Twenty fifth street-no
grade separation at New Hampshire
and Virginia avenues and no depressing
of D and E streets from Twenty fifth
street to Twentieth street. do not see
how the E street bridge and its ap-
proaches can fail to cost the District
less than $50 million.
1. The E street bridge would inevi-