Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-12-01
SnorIs in Planning

NO one Is III DeCCef position than
District Highway Director Robertson to
report on the Illustrations which the Dis
trict's highway and bridge program has
suffered as result of decisions-and in
decision-by the National Capital Plan
ming Commission. Mr.. Robertson related
the whole sad story, with an impressive
array OF supporting facts, before the
Citizens Advisory Council yesterday. The
Star, too, has protested the pulling and
hauling by the commission over bridge
designs and locations, highway routes and
the like We agree with the highway
director that, over the years, the con-
fusing and sometimes conflicting actions
Of the Planning Commission have cost
the District lot of money. We do not
agree with Mr.. Robertson, however, that
the remedy for the continuing problem
is to make the commission an arm of the
District Government.
The troubles which the present high
way director has experienced with the
Planning Commission are not of recent
origin. Mr.. Robertson's predecessor, Cap
tain WhitehurSt, was beset with similar
difficulties. AS Mr.. Robertson told the
council, the current Stalemate between
the District and the NCPC on the pro-
posed Constitution avenue bridge had it's
counterpartS in the haSsles over the new
Highway Fourteenth IStreet) Bridge and
site for new AnacoStia bridge In
both instances the controversies finally
were settled by Congress-in favor of the
District. The chronology Of progress (?)
on the central-area Potomac bridge prof.
ect is typical of the changing attitudes
of the commission on important projects.
Mr. Robertson recalled that the NCPC
has reversed or reconSidered its decisions
on this bridge on at least three occasions
and is considering another change, this
time involving the District approaches.
1t Is obvious that something is wrong
with commission which produces this
sort of confused. uncertain planning. We
do not share Mr.. Robertson'S belief that
the basic Setup of the NCPC is at fault.
We believe that the root of the trouble
is not organic but administrative. We
firmly believe that the orderly develop
ment of Washington and of the Metro
politan Area of which it is the hub re-
quireS effective overall planning by just
such body as Congress has provided
under the National Capital Planning Act.
No agency under control of the District
Government could provide the broad,
impartial, INTERPRETATIONS planning
that can be done by an effective quasi
Federal commission. The Federal Gov
ernment's paramount interest in building
a better Capital requires the services of
an advisory commission capable of pro-
tecting that interest, while cooperating
with local authorities. The Federal and
local interests need not necessarily clash.
The problem, then, as we see it, is
how to make the present Planning Com
mission function as Congress intended
1t to function, namely, as a respected and
authoritative advisory planning agency,
capable of making up its mind with rel
alive promptitude on vital issues and
handing down reasonably firm decisions.
Until this transformation takes place
the National Capital Planning Commits
sion will continue to merit the criticism
of District authorities and to lack the
public confidence which such an impor-
tant appncV should have