Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-03-28

ali ICopCCJo W oCdCu uIIfC III
Rock Creek Park.
Strong opposition was lodged
against the project. however. 1t
came chiefly from conservation
and wild-life enthusiasts, who
wanted the area retained in its
natural state. Presidents of
some communities along the
route joined in protesting the
proposal.
Last year. the Maryland leg
islature authorized 1866 900 to
be spent to acquire enough land
to increase average width of
the route to about $40 feet. This
land was to be decided to the
Federal Government for devel-
opment and maintenance as a
parkway by the Park Service.
Park officials said this proce-
dure is a common one in the
development of national park
areas.
walking parkway.
In January. the National
Capital Parks Office contracted
for studies to show the actual
land needed. to determine the
parkway route and to point
canal restoration and recrea-
tional areas. Officials estimate
the development would cost
about 81 million.
Three months ago, Harry T.
Thompson, National Capital
Parks associate superintendent
told the National Capital Re-
gional Planning Council that
the thinking of park officials
was to develop the canal area
between Hancock and Great
Falls as a walking parkway"
but to leave the question of a
road to the future.
Conrad Wirth, National Park
Service director. said yesterday
the departments position was
one of "a general review" of the
1850 recommendation.
/ He said the review had come
about because of considerable
I opposition" and that officials
particularly wanted to take an
other look at effects of such a
road on the canal.
| BeaIl Fights for Parkway.
| Senator Beall, who has taken
the leadership IN the fight for
the parkway. said he thought
the project got a push last year
when Congress provided riparian
rights for municipalities which
must get across the parkway
to the river.
The Senator said he wanted to
stress that the canal and an ad-
jacent area would be restored
through the project.
There still would be room for
pedestrians and horseback rid
ing" he said. This would re-
store, not destroy, the historical
scenic part of Maryland and also
the historical part of the canal"
In another development yes
terday. the HagerStown Cham
ber of Commerce-opposing the
parkway - proposed an alter
nate plan"
! In essence, it was a suggestion
that except for a 25-mile area
along the canal near Paw-PaW
where a new roadway could be
built-existing county and State
roads already provide a route
near the Potomac River from
Washington to Cumberland.
Present Roads Near Canal.
These State and county
roads," the group said, form
continuous existing road from
the District through Cropley.
Potomac. Seneca, Poolesville
Dickerson. Brunswick. Weaver e
ton. Dargan, Sharpsburg, Downs
vile, Williamsport, Pinesburg.
Fort Frederick State Park and
Big Pool to connect with Route
40 just north of Big Pool.
From this road there are a
great many existing roads lead
ing to and along the canal and
the Potomac River, providing
many points of access. The
same may be said of Route 81
from Paw Paw to Cumberland. ="
The Chamber said use of such
a route would have many adj
vantages over a parkway. Among
them were immediate use of
the canal lands" minimum ex-
pense, no highway interior
ence" with recreation and con-
servation and mo permanent
commitment of the entire Mary
land shore to a single-purpose
USE"