Calling Scott's Bluff

I found a clever example of irony the other day. I was reading a preliminary cultural resources assessment for Scotts Bluff, a site along the Oregon Trail just to get some FYI background material. It's a small site, created solely to mark the transnational highway that was the Oregon Trail. One of the greatest complaints from visitors, and therefore one of the criticisms we had for the management of the site, was that a train came through at regular and frequent intervals and that there was a highway too close to the site. I can understand how planes trains and automobiles can create a less than peaceful atmosphere (trust me, live in Ft. Collins for a week and try to tell me you still think trains are quaint); but I find it extremely ironic that, in a site whose sole purpose for existance is to mark a major transportation route from East Coast to West Coast-one of the most important in US history, I would wager-is being criticized for, in fact, supporting transcontinental transportation. It's only a national monument because it was an important location along a "highway" of sorts; is it really fair to complain that it loses its integrity because its still an important site along a highway?

Personally, I'd say that adds a whole new dimension to its integrity. How many national monuments and national battlefields and national military parks can say that their national and original importance is still contemporarily relevant?