Yesterday, the Post declared support for 1960s-style urbanism dead. No longer, they say, are we to be held hostage by soaring freeways, concrete office blocks, and the utter deadness of the streets and neighborhoods ushered in by the age of the car. Finally, we’ve learned how vital it is to encourage pedestrian traffic and to take advantage of our waterfront resources; We understand that you cannot design cities around automobile use.

Except where the Whitehurst Freeway is concerned. Along the Georgetown waterfront another relic sits impervious to new, and better, ideas about urban planning. The city is unable to take full advantage of one of its most appealing stretches of riverside land, because we really, really like being able to use the piece of road. Really.

Last year, The District Department of Transportation began reexamining the helpfulness of the elevated roadway in a study on how to improve the way traffic moves from downtown to the Key Bridge, and back. Of 14 potential solutions published in November of 2005, DDOT has now chosen five options to present in public meetings, all of which include the deconstruction of the road. Reception to their conclusions has been, as you might expect, chilly (see the Georgetown Current, for a second take on the public forum). Overwhelmingly, residents are concerned about the additional traffic burden on M Street, and possibly on a new and gussied up K Street (which, if the freeway were torn down, would have to be widened to help handle the additional traffic). A web site has even appeared listing the reasons the Whitehurst should be saved.