The Death (and future rebirth?) of Baltimore’s Red Line

Just in case you were getting too cheery about how things are going these days, you should read the recent article in the Washington Post about the death, 5 years ago, of Baltimore’s Red Line transit project at the hands of Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (available here).  Seriously, you should read it, because although a major battle was lost then, I for one haven’t given up on the war.

 

As I have repeatedly said, the Red Line is a success story waiting to happen. The proposed east-west rapid transit line would link major employment and residential centers, generate significant economic activity, transform a set of transit lines into a real network that unites the metropolitan area, partly redress the inequities in transit access in the region, and leverage high-quality urban redevelopment. It is not too much to say that the Red Line is the key to Baltimore’s emergence as a vital 21st century city.

 

And yet here we are. 

 

Despite a lot of despair in the air, there is a bunch of stuff that supporters of the Red Line can do, such as:

·      Salt the Red Line into local and regional planning documents (too many missed opportunities for this),

·      Use city planning and zoning powers to orient development around proposed stations,

·      Enlist corporate and public “sponsors” to promote transit-ready development at station sites, and

·      Continue to encourage the Legislature to support transit in general and the Red Line in particular.

 

Many people have pointed out that our country is currently facing a “triple crisis” of Climate Change, an outcry for racial justice, and an economic mini-depression.  The Red Line can help us make progress on all three fronts at once.  We need to get busy! 

Baltimore’s Red Line: We have light rail, now we need tunnels!

 It was super good news to learn that Maryland Governor Wes Moore decided to move forward with light rail as the preferred technology for Baltimore’s Red Line (story here).  Moore resurrected the Red Line after taking office in 2023.  Former Governor Larry Hogan had cancelled the project in 2015, with disastrous consequences for the city of Baltimore, the regional transit network, transportation equity, and Maryland’s long-term economic development.

I have been an active supporter of the Red Line for years (see, for instance, my blog posting here), so it was very heartening to see the project reborn, especially as a light rail line.  Bus rapid transit – while great in some applications – is not what we need here.  What we need is light rail – and tunnels!

Why tunnels?  If you have ever tried to drive along an east-west route through central Baltimore, you will know that it is very constricted both by the limited street network and by water.  Even if you could carve a dedicated surface route through it, you would be limiting yourself to providing streetcar-type service.  With judicious use of tunneling, you could provide real rapid-transit service.  Realistically, however, comparative costs (very expensive vs. very very expensive) will tend to tug decision-makers toward surface options.  (An overview of the options under consideration can be found on the project web page here.)

So, carry on, Red Line advocates!  More work to be done!

Waiting for the Red Line Train at Fells Point and Harbor East

Next Red Line train arriving in 8 years. 

Long time to wait on the platform!

Baltimore is one of those cities where transit-ready development and redevelopment is running well ahead of actual transit service.  Having recently wandered around the new development at Harbor East (next to the Inner Harbor) and the redeveloping historic area of Fells Point (next neighborhood east) I was struck by how transit-oriented these areas are (photos below).  The good news is that transit is on the way – the new Red Line light rail service will have stations in both neighborhoods.  The bad news is that the scheduled opening of this line is 2022.

Maryland is moving as fast as it can to advance this project, but this situation just underscores how slow and behind the curve the delivery of transit projects is in this country.  This is partly a function of a long tradition of tight-fisted federal funding of transit generally and new starts specifically.  It is also partly a function of the cumbersome project delivery we live with in the transportation world.  Finally, it is partly a function of the rapid changes in urban settlement patterns and travel patterns that are creating pressing consumer demands for high-quality transit. 

Time to crank it up.

Emily Lieb's "Road to Nowhere"

Emily Lieb’s new book, “Road to Nowhere: How a Highway Map Wrecked Baltimore,” provides another sad chapter in the long saga of the destruction of urban neighborhoods caused by U. S. freeway planning.  This time, though, there’s a twist:  the freeway never got built!

Lieb tells the story of Rosemont, once a stable, middle-class Black neighborhood on the west side of Baltimore which had the misfortune of lying on one of the  likeliest  alignments for laying out an east-west freeway through the city.  Through many ups and downs and changes in alignment, ultimately nothing got built in Rosemont and the whole concept of an east-west freeway was dropped.  To the east of Rosemont, however, one strip of buildings got bulldozed and a poorly connected segment of highway (now signed as U. S. 40) was built, known locally as “the road to nowhere.”  Although Rosemont won a reprieve from the bulldozer and the freeway, there was still plenty of damage caused by property taken by eminent domain and by the generally chilling effect of a dashed line bisecting a map of the neighborhood.  The long dance with freeway death put Rosemont into a social and economic decline from which it never recovered.

This long and dismal story could have a redeeming epilogue, although that hangs in the balance.  

Baltimore’s planned Red Line light rail line would follow more or less the alignment of the old East-West Freeway, with a Rosemont Station.  Unfortunately the Red Line project was shut down by former Governor Larry Hogan after it had already gotten to the approved Environmental Impact Statement stage.  Governor Wes Moore has restarted the project, but it is still unfunded, with an uncertain future.  Sadly, the transit project – which would be enormously beneficial to the city by providing a high-quality east-west transit service as well as by tying together a disjointed transit system – seems to be having as many twists and turns and dead ends as the earlier highway project.

Only a few years ago transportation professionals were beginning to face up to the legacy of neighborhood destruction caused by urban freeways and were engaging in formulating visions of “reparative transportation” projects, exemplified by the Biden Administration’s Reconnecting Communities program.  All of these policies and projects are now under the dark shadow of the Trump Administration.Thank you to Emily Lieb for telling the story of Rosemont.  It is a compelling narrative, filled with stories of human suffering (and persistence), political intrigue, and engineering hard-headedness.  

It’s up to us to write the epilogue.

 

Entries and Exits: Map of a Day on the Washington Metro

Thanks to Kenton Ngo for this excellent map (here), which provides a graphic representation of people getting on and off Washington Metro trains, hour by hour, station by station.

Aside from entertaining those of us who are transit map geeks, the map says a lot about the Metro system and how it works to move people around the main origins and destinations in the DC metro area. 

The author, I think, captures the main takeaway, which is that most stations fall pretty clearly (and visibly!) into four categories: (1) job centers, especially the downtown stations, where people arrive in the morning and leave in the evening, (2) bedrooms and park-and-rides, which have the opposite pattern, (3) transportation hubs, especially Union Station, where a lot of people are coming and going all day long, and (4) mixed-use areas, which have both housing and jobs, and where people also come and go throughout the day.

Ngo cites the inner-Arlington County Orange Line stations as examples of the mixed-use type of station, and people who are familiar with Washington (or just know the Orange Line from transportation planning circles) will surely agree.  I would cite as other examples that show up on the map (both on the Red Line) Dupont Circle, which is a real “urban” station, and Bethesda, a huge “downtown” mixed-use development in its own right.

The author notes that he uses the “geographically accurate” Metro map rather than the familiar schematic we know from placards in stations and trains.  If you are familiar with the usual schematic – but not with the geographic map – you can really see how the Metro system is mainly “arms” without a lot of connectivity outside the central area.

I also am struck by how little visible traffic there is on some lines, notably those in Prince Georges County.  I’m sure that reflects a lot of history and market trends over time, but to me it says that the existing bones of the Metro system (inadequate as they are in some ways) can support a lot more high-quality development.

Congrats to Kenton Ngo for such and enlightening (and entertaining!) piece!

New maps – Transit stations and rents (too damn high?) in DC and Boston

The folks at WeLoveDC have posted a clever new map, based on an earlier one from Boston, showing the clear relationship between rents and proximity to rapid transit.  On the Washington area map, the effects of linking transportation planning and land use planning in Arlington and Montgomery counties are clearly seen – as is the obvious lack of success in Prince Georges.

The connection is harder to see in Boston, at least beyond the northern branch of the Red Line, where one has to think that Porter and Davis squares are definitely pricier than they would be without the T.  Probably a more complicated situation there, but it raises some interesting questions.  How bad was the alignment of the Orange Line – just bad or very bad?  What will be the effect of the Green Line extension?

Good visuals!

Don’t just talk about Baltimore: Invest in it

Most of us have been appalled and disgusted by the racist and derogatory comments concerning the city of Baltimore that have been emanating from the White House in recent weeks.  I only comment on this topic because it is connected to transportation.  How, you might ask?

Those of us who know Baltimore are aware both of its many charms (“Charm City”) and its many problems.  A lot of these problems are related to concentrated poverty and economic disadvantage in the city.  This poverty and economic disadvantage can and should be addressed by targeted public investment, including upgrading the transportation network so that it can support revitalization.

Has the state of Maryland been providing this targeted investment to its central city?  In fact, the opposite is happening.  As David Alpert points out with great clarity on his Greater Great Washington blog (here), the state has been systematically disinvesting in transportation in the city and redistributing resources to suburban counties.  The cruelest disinvestment has been the defunding of the Red Line light rail initiative, which would link key city and suburban activity centers with a modern transit line while tying together the various area transit lines into a real network.  The most blatant redistribution is the plan to support colossal highway widening projects in the wealthiest suburban counties.

Yes, racist and inappropriate language should be called out.  More importantly, we should be using public investment as a tool to build infrastructure that supports opportunity and equitable economic growth where it is most needed.

Maryland DOT Launches New Long-Range Plan (and it’s a good one!)

Maryland DOT has published the state’s new long-range transportation plan (2035 Maryland Transportation Plan: Moving Maryland Forward, available here) and it’s excellent! 

I won’t summarize the main points, which are pretty standard for an “enlightened” DOT (system preservation, more transit, performance management, etc.), but it’s worth mentioning a few standout items which haven’t made it to most state DOTs:

·      It’s only 53 pages!  Those of us who do these things for a living know how difficult it is to leave out all the details demanding to get into the book.

·      The plan recognizes the importance of the phenomenon of declining VMT, stating that the data suggests that “a return to strong annual VMT growth is unlikely and per capita VMT in Maryland is actually decreasing.”  This recognition is important, although the plan doesn’t attempt to draw conclusions about what this means for future policy and investment choices.  (See here for one approach.)

·      The plan also recognizes the technological revolution affecting transportation (electronic tolling, real-time travel data, online driver services, etc.) but again doesn’t pursue the implications as far as one might wish.

·      The plan notes that linking transportation infrastructure to economic development requires a more sophisticated knowledge of economic geography.  In Maryland, “forty-two percent of all…jobs are located in 23 employment centers, which occupy just over one percent of the State’s land area,” mostly in the Baltimore and DC metro areas.  Understanding what the economists call “agglomeration” of employment centers will be critical for transportation planners in the future.

·      A “region-based” planning framework is set out, working from the realization that understanding the needs and designing strategies for each of these regions – in a state with very diverse geography – is critical.  (The regions are Baltimore, Washington, Eastern Shore, Southern Maryland, and Western Maryland.)

·      The regional framework is complemented by an analysis of appropriate policies by “transportation place types”: urban centers, town and suburban centers, rural and agricultural areas, and natural areas.  This “transect” approach is hugely important for understanding and implementing context-sensitive approaches.  (My favorite transect approach is still the Smart Transportation Guidebook – link here – for which I have paternal affection.)

·      The plan also promises more work on linking transportation to the state’s land use plan, PlanMaryland: “As part of efforts to ensure consistency with the statewide sustainable growth plan (PlanMaryland) and with the State’s Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act, MDOT is working to develop enhanced modeling and decision-support tools to better inform project evaluation and selection in the context of both land use considerations, and statewide planning and policy initiatives.”  I’d love to see those tools when they’re done!

Could the plan be better?  Yes, I think so (nobody gets a 100 in this class).

First, as I suggested above, it recognizes but doesn’t pursue the implications of major social and technological changes we are facing.  I don’t believe any long-range plan is there yet, but they need to be engaging those questions.

Second, I thought the issue of climate change was given too low a profile.  It is there, but not as a marquee item.  In a state which, according to some models (here) may yield a good deal of its land area to the Atlantic Ocean by the end of the century, it’s time to begin preparing policy makers and the public for significant challenges.

Third, and more broadly, the plan doesn’t really envision what a 21^st transportation system can be.  Building the Red Line and the Purple Line are important, but they don’t get us to what public transportation could be and may need to be in the future.  Improving the port may be justified for accommodating pressing freight needs, but manufacturing and distribution may be very different in the not too distant future.  Is Maryland ready for self-driving cars?  For non-fossil fuel transportation?  These issues – and more – aren’t being fully addressed anywhere, but they need to be.  Meanwhile, in the field of long-range transportation plans, Maryland has now put down what I think is probably the mark to beat.

The Green New Deal for Transportation

I want to talk today about the Green New Deal and how those of us in the green transportation community can contribute to filling in the policy details in our field.

The Green New Deal has stimulated lots of discussion, although perhaps there has been more heat than light in much of that discussion.  As I have said previously (here) I support the concept of the Green New Deal, believing that it provides an excellent framework for formulating the work that needs to be done to guide our nation through the dangers of this century while improving the lives of our citizens and advancing our values. 

Right now, the Green New Deal is a name, a congressional resolution setting out broad goals and objectives, and a miscellaneous set of documents.  Supporters of the Green New Deal recognize that it is a unifying concept, not a program, that now needs detailed policy work in a dozen fields.  It’s time for those of us in the transportation policy space to begin that work for transportation.

As I noted in my previous posting, the transportation provisions of the Green New Deal (as represented in the Congressional resolution, H. Res. 109, available here) are limited to a broad goal with only three specific strategies mentioned: 

“overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.”  This goal – which I think can be restated as “decarbonize the transportation sector” – will require thinking about a variety of issues, including some not mentioned or implied by the language of the resolution and related documents.

So let me do a quick review of some of those issues to – hopefully – help advance the discussion.  As I am presenting a generally “can do” assessment I will from time to time refer to the “no can do” arguments, which I think are best articulated by Eric Adams in his article in The Drive entitled “Here’s Why the Green New Deal’s Bold Transportation Ideas Are All But Impossible to Pull Off” (available here).

 Electrifying the passenger vehicle fleet

The Green New Deal resolution doesn’t actually set a target for electrifying the passenger fleet but it specifically calls for investment in EV manufacturing and infrastructure.  And it is clearly a key element in getting to a “zero net GHG emission” state by 2050.  This goal is nothing new and many of us have been working on it for several years.  Can we get to a completely decarbonized passenger fleet in the next 30 years?  Adams (my “no can do” advisor) is skeptical, citing a report that estimates that only 14 percent – at best – of passenger vehicles on the road will be electric by 2030.  And, he adds, assuming we can ramp up the manufacture and sale of EVs, how do you turn over the huge existing fleet?  In my view, although the task of electrifying the passenger fleet is big, it isn’t particularly complicated.  We pretty much know how to do everything that needs to be done.  It’s largely a matter of scaling up.  What are some of the ways ahead?

·      Subsidies and more subsidies – This is a proven way to move the market.  (And no, I have no compunctions about “picking winners and losers”.)

·      Carbon pricing – Many states are exploring “carbon cap and invest” and similar techniques for making fossil fuels more expensive and using the revenue gained to advance clean energy.

·      “Cash for Carbon Clunkers” – Adams suggests this (perhaps sarcastically?) but it worked in the Stimulus program and it can be easily scaled up to deplete the old inventory of internal combustion vehicles.

Other issues?  Yes, environmental justice (poor people drive clunkers for a reason), transitional hardships, urban/rural equity, etc.  More work to do!

Electric vehicle infrastructure

Electric vehicles need charging.  Although most EV owners charge their vehicles at home and battery range is improving rapidly, many people in the field believe that an extensive public charging network is needed (this includes me, but by no means everyone in the field – still a debated issue).  My view is that providing an extensive network of publicly accessible rapid chargers, especially on the Interstate and National Highway System networks, will enable easy intercity travel by EV owners, assuage “range anxiety” by potential buyers, and demonstrate a solid government commitment to making EVs work.  Adams (no can do) cites a report which estimates that a vast number of chargers (both home and public) will be needed and that “some sort of magic” may be required to make that happen.  I am unpersuaded.  I can cite another report (link here), which estimates that a relatively small number of strategically placed charge points can make a national travel network possible.  I believe that a vigorous national program to build a rapid charger network, perhaps spurred by making FHWA funds available at a 100% rate, can put that network in place fairly rapidly.  That strategic network, combined with the development of a smart electric grid, faster charging technology (for instance, see here), more and better home storage batteries, and improved car batteries, can solve the charging problem.

Clean, affordable, accessible public transportation

Most folks in the climate change fight believe that a better, more extensive transit system is an essential part of the portfolio of GHG reduction measures in the U.S.  Improved transit also has big transportation equity implications, as the poorest segments of society depend heavily on buses to get them to jobs and other essential destinations.  And of course better transit can support more sustainable settlement and development patterns.  Unfortunately, the Green New Deal debate has arrived just as public transportation in this country is in a crisis.  First, chronic funding shortfalls have caused the level of service to decline in most places.  Second, this decline in the level of service, combined with the rapid rise of Uber and other alternative modes, has caused ridership to fall.   Third, these factors, together with increasing capital costs, hostile legislatures, and an ideological assault funded by fossil fuels interests, have stalled or killed transit expansions in most places.  Yeah, not good times.  Fortunately, many of these factors can be turned around:

·      Funding – The answer for a funding shortfall is……..more funding!  Significant funding is needed at the federal, state, and local, both for capital and operating.

·      Ridership diversions – Some people believe that the rise of transportation delivery companies (Uber, etc.) spells the end of mass transit.  I side with the Jarrett Walker position that the actual geometry of cities (density) means that they won’t work well without the means to move large numbers of people efficiently along corridors, in other words, transit.  Transit systems, of course, need to deliver faster, more convenient services to fill their role successfully.

·      Cost of expansions – We need to make a lot more money available for transit expansions while at the same time dramatically improving project delivery and cost control.  More rapid transit lines in separated rights-of-way are absolutely needed to make cities thrive.  A prime example is the city of Baltimore, where the proposed Red Line light rail line would provide major leverage toward revitalization of that troubled city.  Killing that project (as has been done, at least for the moment) may have condemned it to decades of failure.

·      More buses – Comparatively, buses are cheap.  When run with upgraded service, as Bus Rapid Transit, they can outperform private autos and approach light rail speed and service and can be good candidates for automatic operation.

·      Electric buses – What can be done right now?  Flood the country with electric buses!  These are just now approaching market competitiveness and are ripe for robust government subsidies (see my posting on the topic here).

High-speed rail

OK, this is a tough one.  In the heyday of high-speed rail planning, following the Obama Stimulus, several projects looked promising in the near term.  Now, with California HSR imploding, no project looks promising.  Upgrading the Northeast Corridor, if not yet to full HSR standards, should definitely be in the top tier of a Green New Deal transportation program.  At the national level, the future is murkier.  If willing candidates are found, perhaps some of the 2009 initiatives can be relaunched (I’m talking to you, Wisconsin).  Beyond that, I think there will be some years of planning before there is anything like a national program.

Freight

I won’t attempt to sort through all the issues affecting goods movement in this country.  I’ll just say that this is an area where we need to count on technology to help us deal with greenhouse gases.  Fortunately, that technology is on the way (or at least almost on the way.)

Delivery trucks:  Electric power beginning to work here.

Long-haul trucks: New electric rigs debuting (my comments here).

Rail: Hopefully hydrogen fuel cells (my comments here.)

Aviation

This subject has attracted lots of attention in Green New Deal talk – although it’s not even mentioned in the resolution!  Some of the associated documents have mentioned the high GHG emissions associated with air travel and suggested that high-speed rail could replace some or all of that travel demand.  I talked a bit about the problems with HSR above.  The U.S. is a very big country, and while you can make a strong case for rail replacing a lot of air travel in 300-mile-long corridors, it’s hard to see that working for 3,000-mile trips.  I’m afraid we’re going to have to look to new technology to help us out here.

Infrastructure

There is a widely shared view in the transportation community that we need a massive investment in infrastructure in this country to restore our systems to a state of good repair, to address unmet needs, and to prepare for the future.  Many – but not all – of these needs can easily be classified as Green New Deal.  Some thoughts on the connection between the Green New Deal and broader transportation infrastructure questions:

·      Fix it first—A lot of money needs to be spent on bringing elements of our legacy systems to a state of good repair.  This work doesn’t always advance the Climate Change fight, but it needs to be done.  Funding generated for the Green New Deal must not draw resources away from these bread-and-better needs.

·      Resiliency—The Green New Deal for transportation should include goals and strategies for making the system more resilient to Climate Change and the associated extreme weather events.  This subject doesn’t seem to have attracted much discussion, but it is vitally important.  The work that needs to be done under this heading includes hardening of facilities, elevating roads and bridges, and building redundant facilities.

·      Materials—More work needs to be done in the research and development of materials (concrete, asphalt, etc.) with reduced GHG impacts during their production and application.  I’m looking forward to seeing more “smart” materials!

I want to give just a few final thoughts on how and why the Green New Deal can be accomplished. 

Perhaps the best argument I have seen for the Green New Deal – and certainly the best defense against the barrage of opposition – is the recent piece by David Roberts on Vox (available here).  The title says it all:  “This is an emergency, damn it: Green New Deal critics are missing the bigger picture.”  Roberts’ central point is that the Green New Deal represents the “courage and fresh thinking” we need to address the Climate Change crisis on an urgent basis.  The various critics “seem oblivious to the historical moment, like thespians acting out an old, familiar play even as the theater goes up in flames around them.”  He believes that the political energy generated by supporters of the Green New Deal may be the only way to jolt the U.S. political system into taking the actions needed.

I certainly agree with the need for a sense of urgency, and I suggest that we remember the real success that was achieved under the Obama Stimulus Plan.  I believe that if we had sustained that level and overall shape of a transportation program on an annual level, much of what we are seeking to do would already have been achieved.  Although “one off” and thrown together in a hurry, the Stimulus demonstrated that a high level of funding – especially when tied to high aspirations – can produce great results.

Finally, if this work is as necessary and urgent as many of us believe it is, we just really need to figure out how to do it.  My favorite analogy is the famous CO₂ scrubber scene in the Apollo 13 movie (which actually happened), in which engineers had to figure out how to solve a problem using only what materials and techniques that they had at hand.  Let’s do it.

NASTO Notes 2019

So NASTO 2019 finally saw a re-emergence of some attention to Climate Change issues (NASTO is the Northeastern Association of State Transportation Officials, which recently held its annual conference in Wilmington, DE). 

I was happy to see that Resilience was back on the agenda.  As usual with transportation people, there was little discussion of “Climate Change.”  The focus was on Extreme Weather Events and how to respond to them.  The overall takeaway is that Resilience is being mainstreamed in state DOTs, at least in the Northeast.  Elements of the developing approach to Resilience include input from academic research, long-range planning, development of greener approaches to hardening of infrastructure, and detailed planning for disaster response.  In the works – and coming out shortly – is a “CEO Primer” on Resilience issues for state DOT secretaries and commissioners (information here). 

It was also encouraging to see a session on electrification of the transportation sector, which I consider an urgent priority.  The two technologies discussed were electric buses and hydrogen fuel cells (for a variety of uses). 

Electric buses, I’m pleased to say, are making rapid market penetration throughout the country.  The technology is rapidly advancing and the business plan of the leading manufacturer, Proterra, appears solid.  They argue that electric buses are now cheaper than diesel vehicles over their lifetime, as the long-term savings in maintenance costs (electric buses are very low-maintenance) overcomes the initial higher cost to purchase.  Interestingly, Proterra has no plan for developing in-service charging, reasoning that current batteries will last through a day of typical revenue service – and these batteries are getting better at a rapid rate.

I don’t know much about hydrogen fuel cells, which certainly have many benefits but also have the drawback of requiring considerable new infrastructure.  California is rapidly scaling up so that light-duty HFC vehicles, now for sale, can have relatively easy access to hydrogen fueling stations.  HFC technology is also very promising for trucks and trains (see my blog posting here).

Unfortunately, counterbalancing these minimal, though promising, discussions on Climate Change issues was a Maryland DOT presentation touting their massive Interstate highway widening plan.  They intend to use a public/private partnership arrangement to raise $11 Billion for a major widening of the Maryland portion of the Capital Beltway (I-495) and the I-270 radial freeway in Montgomery and Frederick counties.  In my view, a widening program on this scale represents a huge setback on multiple levels to efforts to combat Climate Change (full disclosure: I have provided information in support of this view to my client, the Maryland Climate Coalition, who are fighting the MDOT plan).  Sadly, the same DOT that is advancing this oversized widening program has also stopped the Baltimore Red Line transit project, which should have been – and can still be – an enormous step forward in promoting urban redevelopment, greenhouse gas emission reduction, and multimodal mobility.

I should say a word about our host city – Wilmington – and the Riverfront Redevelopment area where we met.  The Wilmington Riverfront is a real urban redevelopment success story, transforming a derelict industrial wasteland into a vibrant mixed-use community over a 25-year period.  This success was powered by the usual forces: strong political leadership, major public investment, powerful private sector actors willing to support it, and many entrepreneurs willing to take a risk.  The process wasn’t always easy (see the video on the Redevelopment website here) but has paid off in a big way.  The Riverfront is such a success story that the former director of the Redevelopment agency – Michael Purzyki – was elected mayor!

Congrats to Delaware DOT for hosting a great conference!