Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-04-18
Planning Unit Chief,
Prentiss 10 Meet on
Bridge Cost Conflict

District Engineer Commissioner
Louis w. Prentiss and National
Capital Planning Commission
Chairman Harland Bartholomew
will meet Tuesday to draw up an
explanation of conflicts in cost
estimates of the proposed
Reaches Run bridge.
The explanation will be sent
to a House subcommittee, headed
by Representative Kearns, Re-
publican. of Pennsylvania. which
is studying Washington area
bridge proposals.
In public testimony before the
subcommittee, the planners esti-
mated the Reaches Run bridge
which they favor-would cost
1858 million. District highway
engineers said the same bridge
which they oppose-would cost
closer to $50 million.
The main reason for the vast
difference is that District Off
Gals figured many more approach
road improvements would be
necessary than did the planners
The Planning Commission, at a
meeting last month, voted to
make clear exact reasons for the
cost conflicts.
Disclosed by Prentiss.
Gen. Prentiss disclosed on the
Report to the People" radio
program over Station WWDC
last night that he had invited
Mr.. Bartholomew to straighten
out the matter with him at the
Tuesday meeting.
Meanwhile-in q much more
far-reaching move - District
highway experts are compiling a
detailed analysis of conflicting
proposals in their master high
way improvement plan and that
of the planners.
These differences, funda-
mental in nature, are at the root
of the continuing controversies
between the two groups. The diff
ferences show up in the High
way Departments project-by-
project improvement program
and in the Comprehensive Plan
for the city. adopted by the plan
ners in 1850.
A long list of the project-by-
project differences - ranging
from minor disagreement to
headon conflicts - already has
been made by aides to j. N. Rob-
ertson, District highway director.
BY Wednesday, the aides hope to
give him detailed reasons for
each difference.
This analysis will be turned
over to Gen. Prentiss. He, in
turn. hopes to confer later with
Mr.. Bartholomew in an attempt
to bring the two master highway
plans together.
Actually. the Planning Com
had a somewhat similar
analysis made in October, 1852,
by the city planning firm headed
by MI. Bartholomew, at that
time a consultant to the COM
mission. The 1852 study ex-
amined each project of the Dis
trict plan to see how it departed
from the Comprehensive Plan.
Major Differences.
The report pointed out major
differences in aims of the two
plans. The Highway Depart
ment program, backed up by
actual traffic studies, proposes
mprovements-within limits of
money available-for correcting
traffic ills. The Comprehensive
Plan deals with factors be-
yond traffic correction, including
effects of roads on residential
areas and expected long-range
changes in the nature of the
city.
The report said major conflicts
were:
1. Different streets proposed
by the two groups to form boun-
diaries of the proposed inner
belt" road system around the
congested central part of town.
2. Conflict over the Districts
proposal to extend a major road
way through Rock Creek Park
from the Maryland District line
to downtown Washington. The
planners want to extend the
Rock Creek and Potomac park
way northward only as far as a
connection with Colorado ave-
nue. NV.
8. The Districts proposal for
an E street bridge. Out of oppo-
sition to this project grew the
planners idea of a downtown
river crossing at Reaches Run.
Delegate Asks Reflection
CHARLES TOWN VI We