Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-02-09
40 and the Potomac,

bS essS SeOabb0S
Your editorial. "240 and
the Potomac" says "Substan-
tial opposition to this route
-. came from Palisades resi-
dents who understandable
want to keep traffic in their
area to a minimum" This
statement misinterprets the
views and motivations Of the
great majority Of Palisades
residents. They are not OPP
posed to the George WASH
ington Memorial Parkway,
which would bring even more
trafflc than Route 24O into the
area. They do object to the
240 expressway for the fol-
lowing reasons among others:
(l The expressway would re-
quire a much wider right Of
way than the parkway for
the same number of lanes,
doing unnecessary damage to
parkland and private prop
erty. (2) The expressway in
the District alone would cost
about $50 million. whereas
the parkway would cost
around So million. CD The
expreSsway would cost the
District and Maryland several
million dollars apiece as their
share Of the total costs,
whereas the parkway would
be paid for entirely with
Federal funds. "a The ex-
pressway would bring trucks
into this area; trucks are not
wanted and there is no need
whatever for a truck route
here .(5) The expressway
above Key Bridge would serve
interstate passenger traffic
no better than the parkway.
CD The expressway above Key
Bridge would carry less COM
muter traffic than the park
way since it would have
poorer access. CD The express
way plans involve the virtual
abandonment of Chain Bridge
and the construction of a
$28 million bridge at Arizona
avenue which is neither
needed nor wanted: the park
way plans involve no such
extravagant blunder. 49, The
expressway plans include
connections with a projected
Glover Archbold parkway,
whereas the Memorial Park
way plans do not call for a
Glover Archbold parkway.
(9) There is no requirement
in law that a Route 240 be
built to downtown D. c. at
all.
You say THE parkway pur-
poses could be served just as
well by 240 :" We say.
Route 240 purposes could be
served better by a parkway.
Why then the efforts to fore
stall the free gift Of the
George Washington Memorial
Parkway? Because its con-
struction would not contribute
as much to local payrolls and
to construction firm profits
as the exorbitantly expensive
240 expressway?
Charles T. Stewart, Jr.
4 4 4 \
It's too bad that The Star
has continued to take a po-
sition on the routing Of 240
that tends to becloud a COM
plicated issue instead Of at
tempting to shed some light
on the problems. Based upon
an earlier editorial Of yours.
a group Of people in Bethesda
rallied around your recon-
mendations to build the ex-
presSway through the Poto-
mac River parklands along
the C&O Canal from the
District line to Cabin John.
Their choice Of this route
was based mainly on keeping
240 from Wisconsin avenue
or River road. It has not
seemed to concern them. or
you. as to whether the route
through the park was de-
sirable or practical, Of ITSELF
Your editorial. "240 and
the Potomac" interprets the
recent hearings in Maryland
as justifying your position.
/ wonder If we attended the
same hearing?
The only people who spoke
In favor Of your proposal
were those opposed to the
Wisconsin avenue and River
road routes. Although they
were quite eloquent and de-
tailed as to why it should
not 60 in their areas, they
gave virtually no reasons why
1t should 60 along the river.
In fact, some Of them we're
confused as to whether they
were supporting Route c or
your proposal. Route c vir-
tually wipes out one commun-
ity and goes through several
others: your proposal vir-