New public right of way threat: "Douglas Development" 557 unit residential building, architects HOK Architects, to be built upon now empty triangle between O Street and the heavily used North Capitol Street and New York Avenue.
See: https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/douglas-development-pitches-557-unit-development/17764
O Street is by far the best alignment for a tunneled extension of I-195 (I-395 is being re-named) to the northeast, presenting the best geometry (the curved transition has a greater turning radii of any of the alternate plans, even those from the 1950s, let alone the horrifically deficient 1996 "Ron Linton" plan) with comparably little displacement.
The O Street Tunnel would use the entire right of way with, as defined by the northern edge of the recently built Dunbar High School building, removing the buildings to the east along the southern side of that street for one (1) block, with that right of way continuing due east of North Capitol Street through the now empty lands to the vicinity of the Wendy's ("Dave Thomas Circle"), before turning to follow the northern side of New York Avenue to the confluence of the two main railroad corridors.
Where is new U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on this?
Does he support an O Street I-195/I-395 tunnel to fix that area so it can be better developed than it would otherwise be as an open traffic sewer? Does he support of a truly comprehensive transportation plan that gets our Capital City highway system back on track with a modern primarily underground express system, with its centerpiece of a multi-model, linear park covered North Mall/Grand Arc project establishing needed highway links, along with improved rail service, all designed to fit together.
Or does he support Washington DC's traditional economic/environmental racism of "de-emphasizing" the 3rd Street Tunnel/Center Leg (see my numerous posts on this blog regarding DEVELOPER THREATS TO OUR RIGHT OF WAYS), with the longstanding local Washington D.C. racist polices of pushing the traffic burden disproportionately upon the area's least affluent areas in SE?
