INNER BELT

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

At the end of his thoughtful article on the Inner Belt highway Peter S. Britell says "Almost everyone will grant that the Inner Belt means progress, at least in terms of improving the Metropolitan highway situation." Actually there are many (myself included) who do not grant as much.

Of course if "improving the Metropolitan highway situation" simply means building more highways, then any addition to the system constitutes progress. But to expand is not necessarily to improve, for the construction of new roads like the Inner Belt may well add to a city's transportation problems in the long run. Cities build big roads to purge themselves of traffic jams; but the big roads attract more cars, until soon the traffic jams are as bad as ever, and the shortage of parking downtown is much worse. More cars downtown mean more use of space for parking, less for buildings, parks, and so on. The end, relentlessly being approached in some cities, is a vast highway system leading in to one huge inner parking lot where the center of the city used to be. Now the Inner Belt is not so offensive as some plans from this point of view, but it is offensive. Almost any way of spending the same amount of money on transportation (preferably rail transportation) would pay off in far more mobility for Bostonians and far less confusion and ugliness.

As Britell suggests, it is too bad to make much-needed urban renewal projects an appendage to the construction of this anti-urban monster. Richard M. Ohmann   Junior Fellow