Why Are Cities Taking the Lead in Sustainability?

One reason American cities lead on sustainability policy (particularly climate change policies) is that they fill a gap where the federal government has failed to act. More often, they exercise competencies relevant to sustainability strategies, particularly emissions reductions. Cities are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and are reacting to these threats. Municipalities often serve as innovation centers and laboratories for policies. They have also been less ideological on these issues than political actors at the federal level.

U.S. local governments have emerged as sustainability leaders in part because national institutions have not. Despite recent energy and climate proposals from the Obama administration in the United States, most notably the greenhouse gas regulations proposed in June 2014, the most significant activity associated with climate change policy has occurred at sub-national levels (Dierwechter, 2010, 60). Local and regional actors in the United States have attempted to “fill the void left by the absence of leadership at the federal level” (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007, 449). While acute in the United States, this policy void is not unique to this country, as many cities throughout the world have taken proactive sustainability action prior to federal mandates—or taken steps that go further than national requirements.

Local governments often have greater control over a wide variety of key actions that affect sustainability directly than do state and federal governments. According to James Svara: “City and county governments are uniquely positioned to make a significant contribution to the effort. They are directly involved in providing or regulating many of the human activities that affect resource use, promote economic development, and affect the protection and inclusion of persons from all economic levels and racial and ethnic groups” (Svara, 2011).

Cities can influence climate change mitigation and adaptation through their responsibilities over land use zoning, transportation, natural resources management, buildings, and waste and water services. Cities also have significant power over public transportation systems, the built environment, renewable energy and energy efficiency measures, and the sustainability of services delivery (Kamal-Chaoui and Robert, 2009, 11). Mayors and other local officials can set out a vision and then drive an overall policy agenda (Arup and C40 Cities, 2014, 18).

Local governments are often more willing to tackle issues like climate change because they deal directly with the consequences illustrated by disasters like 2010's flooding in Pakistan and heat wave in Moscow, and 2012's Hurricane Sandy on the U.S. East Coast. According to Jan Corfee-Morlot and her colleagues: “Metropolitan regions are particularly vulnerable to climate change, given their relatively large populations, exposed infrastructure, high degree of economic activity, and concentration of poor populations” (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009, 7). Sea level rise, flooding, and increased storm surges can heavily damage local infrastructure. Most of the largest cities in Europe (70 percent) have neighborhoods that are less than 10 meters above sea level (Kamal-Chaoui and Roberts, 2009, 9). Precipitation changes can also have serious impacts on critical water supplies to urban areas. Further, as climate change begins to take its toll, climate refugees could flood into cities, increasing the strain on local infrastructure.

Ellen Bassett and Vivek Shandas have written that cities can create “robust place-based strategies that reflect local biophysical, political, and economic realities rather than needing to conform to federal standards that may not be applicable to each location” (Bassett and Shandas, 2010, 436). Individual municipalities can address challenges and identify opportunities using tools and programs matched to their local needs. Because their policies are implemented at the local scale, cities have more freedom to experiment with policy options and test out different strategies (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009, 11).

Finally, political reasons often allow city governments to take greater risks in designing policies and strategies than the federal government. Cities tend to be free from the heightened political polarization seen at the federal level. Local policies typically do not draw the media frenzy that can contribute to the partisan bickering that stagnates progress at the federal level. To paraphrase former New York mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, there is no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage.

What Makes City Efforts So Successful?

There are a number of key features that are critical to successful urban sustainability policy: 1) networks for information sharing and partnerships; 2) political support from the top; and 3) holistic policymaking, linking sustainability and the high quality of life that comes with a clean, safe environment to local efforts at economic development.

The Growth of Sustainability Plans in the United States

As of November 2009, 56 cities, towns, and counties in the United States had completed or were in the process of completing a sustainability plan, while 141 had completed or were in the process of completing a climate action plan (ICLEI, 2009). We expect that number has already grown and will continue to grow. According to a survey by Living Cities, a collaboration of 21 large foundations and financial institutions, four out of five cities are reporting that sustainability is among their top five priorities, with over half of the large cities surveyed in some stage of a sustainability planning process (Living Cities, 2009).

Portland and Seattle were among the first cities in the United States to tackle issues of climate change and sustainability. In the early 1990s Portland recognized the importance of slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases and participated with other local governments around the world in the Urban CO₂ Reduction Project, coordinated by ICLEI (City of Portland, 1993). In 1994, Seattle issued a comprehensive sustainability plan called Toward a Sustainable Seattle, to become a more healthy and vibrant city (City of Seattle, 2014).

San Francisco started a sustainability planning process in 1995. Sustainable San Francisco is a collaboration of city agencies, including the Planning Department, Recreation and Parks Department, Solid Waste Management Program, Energy Conservation, and businesses, environmental organizations, elected officials, and residents. This team developed goals, objectives, and actions modeled after the European Community's Agenda 21 Implementation Plan. The Sustainability Plan was finalized in 1997, and acted as a blueprint for actions the city could implement on a regulatory or legislative level; an environmental department was formed to oversee implementation of the plan (Sustainable City, 2014).

Denver was one of the first cities to link sustainable and economic development. Sustainability planning in Denver began in 2005 when the Mayor signed a nationwide pledge under the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. When Denver hosted the 2008 Democratic National Convention (DNC), it announced that it would be the greenest DNC ever. These greening efforts were housed in the mayor's office within the Greenprint Denver Office, established by an executive order (Geary, 2011, 2). The city's experience with the DNC was able to demonstrate that sustainable practices were good for both the community and for businesses, which eased the transition into green economic development after the convention ended (Geary, 2011, 3).

New York City's PlaNYC 2030 is one of the most notable sustainability plans in the nation. It was developed in response to projections that the city would house another million residents by 2030. Michael Bloomberg, mayor at the time, understood that the city needed to act immediately to initiate plans to accommodate this growth while ensuring NYC remained an attractive place to live and do business.

Created in 2006, the NYC Mayor's Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability brought together more than 20 city agencies to develop PlaNYC 2030's 10 overarching goals and 127 initiatives to address issues of land use, parks and open space, affordable housing, transportation, air and water quality, energy supply and demand, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Since its release in 2007, PlaNYC has been upheld as a global model for best practices. Some of the key factors in the success of the plan included:

• Strong buy-in from the mayor;
• Central management and coordination from the mayor's sustainability office;
• A fact-driven plan based on research and analysis (and specific milestones and metrics identified in the plan);
• Guidance from stakeholders across sectors;
• Aggressive but achievable initiatives;
• A transparent and inclusive planning process; and
• Institutionalization of the plan in city law (ICLEI, 2009, 7).

New York City's sustainability agency, the Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, was institutionalized in the city charter through a new local law, which also requires that the office issue both an updated sustainability plan every four years and annual progress updates (City of New York, 2013, 410). PlaNYC has contributed to achieving New York City's cleanest air in 50 years, planting over 750,000 new trees, and passing the city's halfway mark of reducing GHG emissions 30 percent by 2030.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Increasing energy efficiency reduces energy consumption and saves money. For example, cities can upgrade incandescent signal and traffic lights with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and also develop plans to optimize the timing of traffic signals (C40 Cities, 2011b). LEDs are brighter and last longer than incandescent bulbs, so they require fewer replacements, and save money on both electricity and maintenance costs. Chicago initiated an LED traffic-light program, installing new lighting at 2,900 intersections. Chicago projected this program would generate $2.55 million annually in energy savings and reduce yearly carbon dioxide emissions by 23,000 metric tons (C40 Cities, 2011b).

Similarly, Los Angeles (LA) retrofitted over 140,000 streetlights with LED bulbs (City of Los Angeles, 2012). This project will save the city over $7 million annually. The project was made possible by collaboration between the LA mayor's office, the Bureau of Street Lighting, C40 Climate Group, and the Clinton Climate Initiative. This partnership proved to be particularly important in providing technological and financial advice and public-private implementation models (City of Los Angeles, 2012). The project cost was funded primarily through a loan from the LA Department of Water and Power, which will be paid back through cost savings from the project itself.

PlaNYC 2030, New York City's long-term sustainability plan, specifically targets energy efficiency in large existing buildings. In 2009, the city released the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, an effort that covered 15,000 buildings in the city. These large buildings consumed 45 percent of all energy used by New York City buildings and accounted for 74 percent of the city's greenhouse gas emissions (City of New York, 2014). The plan projected greenhouse gas reductions of 5 percent, a savings of $7 billion, and the creation of more than 17,000 jobs over 10 years (City of New York, 2014). The plan was institutionalized through a series of four local laws, which require energy benchmarking, energy audits and retro-commissioning, and sub-metering.

These laws were only one part of New York City's broader efficiency strategy. In 2008, then-mayor Michael Bloomberg asked the Urban Green Council, the New York chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, to make recommendations on how to make the city's codes and regulations more sustainable. The New York City Green Codes Task Force included architects, corporate tenants, public health experts, city agencies, and environmental organizations. Their 2010 report made 111 recommendations for changes in the city code; 48 were incorporated into local laws and practices (UGC, 2014).

Zone Green amendments were proposed in 2012 by the Department of City Planning based on recommendations from the Green Codes Task Force. Building owners who wanted to install solar panels had faced obstacles such as building height requirements and area-of-insulation requirements; Zone Green amendments removed many obstacles faced in the construction and retrofitting of green buildings (NYC Department of City Planning, 2014). Zone Green supports technologies such as energy efficient building walls, which can better insulate buildings and reduce heating and cooling demands; sun control devices and awnings to reduce cooling and lighting demand; solar energy installations in strategic areas; eased bulkhead rooftop provisions to allow for more equipment to be placed on roofs; and wind turbines that can exceed building height (Larsen, 2012).

In 2003, the mayor of Boston and the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) formed a task force to study how to encourage green building practices; the group released a set of recommendations under Article 80 of the Boston Zoning Code (AIA, 2009, 36). These zoning code changes were an important policy change to encourage greener practices in both commercial and residential buildings. The Boston Redevelopment Authority is now required to review the design of real estate developments and their effects on the community and city. In 2006, Boston became the first major city to require new buildings larger than 50,000 square feet to earn a certain number of construction points from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (BRA, 2014, 5). LEED is a nationally recognized green building certification program that assigns ratings to buildings based on certain criteria. The Boston building amendments also encouraged green building materials as part of an affordable housing program (AIA, 2009, 37). And, since 2013, all projects subject to Article 80 reviews are now required to complete a climate change preparedness and resiliency checklist (BRA, 2013).

Seattle is considered a leader in green building programs, particularly for residential buildings (AIA, 2009, 15). In 2000, its High Point neighborhood was one of the first communities in the nation to incorporate sustainable design techniques on a neighborhood-wide scale (AIA, 2009, 58). These standards were rare at the time, but the basic principles used in this pilot neighborhood—such as eliminating lead paint, asbestos, and other harmful materials—are now much more widely incorporated in urban sustainability planning. Seattle also had a green building team as early as 1999, which eventually joined with the Office of Sustainability and Environment in 2012 to combine urban sustainability policy development with the permit and code development functions (C40 Cities, 2011e).

Globally, we see similar trends. In 2003, the city of Melbourne, Australia, set an ambitious goal of having net-zero emissions in the city by 2020, and has devoted significant resources to influence improvements in commercial sector buildings, which generate a little over half of the city's greenhouse gas emissions (City Climate Leadership Awards, 2014). In 2010, Melbourne released the 1200 Buildings Program, which provides a platform for building owners and industry stakeholders to engage and collaborate on the retrofit of 1,200 commercial buildings (approximately 70 percent of the total). The goals of the program include: eliminating 383,000 tons of CO₂ emissions annually by 2020; reducing potable water consumption by 5 billion liters (1.32 billion gallons) annually; raising AUD $2 billion in private sector investment; creating green jobs; and positioning Melbourne as a leader in global climate change efforts (NYC Global Partners, 2011, 1). Since the beginning of the 1200 Buildings Program, 43 buildings owned by corporations, private business, government, and nonprofits have committed to undertaking these retrofits.

Encouraging Renewable Energy

While energy efficiency is the low-hanging fruit of sustainability, it will not be enough to transform the fossil fueled economy; we also need to increase the amount of energy we use from renewable sources. Many cities have initiatives related to a specific source or sector. Increasing solar energy capacity has been a major focus for many large cities. For example, Boston launched its Renew Boston Solar program to encourage the installation of solar technology, maximize participation in state incentive programs, and map renewable energy systems. The overall goal is to increase solar energy system capacity to 25 MW by 2015. This was made possible through a partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, local utility providers, and a range of other clean energy stakeholders (City of Boston, 2014).

In 2005, Austin Energy, a community-owned electricity supplier, won the U.S. Department of Energy's 2005 Wind Power Pioneer Award for its “leadership, demonstrated success and innovation in its wind power program” (US DOE, 2005). It runs one of the leading renewable energy programs in the nation (MacDonald, 2012). The program increased demand for renewable energy by providing new energy options and showing the importance of renewable energy sources when the local government adopted the option into its own operations.

In 2011, the government of Austin became the largest local government in the nation to power all of its facilities with 100 percent green energy when it enrolled all its electric accounts in GreenChoice (IRENA, 2014, 5). As of 2012, Texas had over 40 grid-scale wind farms with a capacity of 11,000 MW—more than 20 percent of the total installed wind capacity in the United States (IRENA, 2014, 4). Austin is also home to the 30 MW Webberville Solar project, a solar field that covers about 220 acres and produces enough energy to power 5,000 average homes per year; it is the largest project of its kind (MacDonald, 2012).

Emissions from Buildings

Combustion of heating fuels represents a significant source of local air pollution emissions, particularly in urban areas (NYC DOHMH, 2011).

New York City has the highest density of fine particulate matter (PM_2.5), or soot pollution, of any large U.S. city (City of New York, 2013, 39). The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene projects that, every year, PM_2.5 pollution in New York City causes more than 3,000 deaths, 2,000 hospital admissions for lung and heart conditions, and approximately 6,000 emergency department visits for asthma in children and adults (NYC DOHMH, 2011). The city has targeted a number of different particulate sources such as idling automobiles and diesel-powered vehicles, including school buses and trucks. However, in New York City, building emissions account for a higher percentage of PM_2.5 pollution than transportation, and for this reason, New York focused on the burning of building heating oil under PlaNYC.

The city developed a multipronged policy approach to reduce emissions from heating oil, with a combination of laws, regulations, and voluntary efforts. First, they improved air quality monitoring at the neighborhood level with the 2008 implementation of the New York City Community Air Survey, the largest urban air monitoring study in the country (City of New York, 2013, 39). This monitoring quickly revealed that neighborhoods with more buildings with boilers that burned residual heating oils No. 4 and No. 6 (the dirtiest types of fuel oils) had higher levels of fine particles, sulfur dioxide, and nickel in the air (NYC DOHMH, 2013, 1). The city estimated that approximately 10,000 buildings, or 1 percent of total buildings, burned No. 4 and No. 6 heating oil, making them responsible for more air pollution than all of the city's cars and trucks combined; this made those buildings an obvious target for air pollution reduction (NYC DEP, 2011).

In 2010, New York City Council passed Local Law 43, which reduced the sulfur content of dirty No. 4 oil by half, and required all heating oil to contain at least 2 percent renewable biodiesel. In 2011, the city adopted regulations to phase out all No. 6 heating oil by 2015 and No. 4 heating oil by 2030. The city worked with state officials to pass a state law that reduced the sulfur content of No. 2 oil by 99 percent; low-sulfur heating fuels release fewer by-products and harmful emissions. It also partnered with Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to launch the Clean Heat program to reduce PM_2.5 emissions further by providing information, technical assistance, and financing assistance and incentives to building owners. The goal was to help building owners phase out dirty fuels prior to regulatory deadlines to accelerate air quality benefits.

Vehicle Emissions

The negative health effects of motor vehicle air pollution have been long established, but recently, scientists have examined street-level exposure and found a high-risk zone of about 500 to 1,500 feet (County of Los Angeles, 2013). Individuals living within that range of a heavily trafficked road face greater risks than those living at a greater distance from the road. The soot and fumes from cars, trucks and buses are linked to asthma, lung and heart disease, and cancer (American Cancer Society, 2013). For these reasons, many cities around the country are working to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.

Cities are frequently targeting municipal vehicle fleets, through either changing fuel sources or plugging into the city's electrical grid. San Francisco has one of the largest clean air municipal fuel fleets in the country: more than half of the city's municipal railway fleet is made of Zero-Emissions Vehicles (C40 Cities, 2011a). In 2005, the mayor issued Executive Directive 05–103, requiring that 70 percent of new vehicles use alternative fuel, and 90 percent of new light-duty purchases be alternative fuel or high-efficiency vehicles, and in 2006 an executive directive required fleet managers to transition to a 20 percent biodiesel blend (C40 Cities, 2011a).

Another way San Francisco is reducing emissions from vehicle traffic is by employing technology for smarter parking management. The SFpark program uses meters, sensors, and demand-responsive pricing to provide real-time parking information available online, via text and smartphone apps, to help people find parking, minimize traffic, and reduce idling, circling and double-parking (SFpark, 2014). This program was piloted in 7,000 metered spaces and 12,250 spaces in city-owned parking garages, funded primarily by the Department of Transportation's Urban Partnership Program, and made possible through collaboration with local businesses and communities (SFpark, 2014).

Portland is optimizing traffic lights to reduce idling and acceleration of vehicles, saving fuel and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Timing parameters are specified to reflect traffic patterns at specific intersections, as well as specific times of the day and week. The city has done this at 135 intersections resulting in estimated savings of 1,750,000 gallons of gas annually (C40 Cities, 2011c).

Seattle is cutting vehicle emissions by targeting vessels that are sitting at port. “Simply by ‘plugging in’ to the city grid and turning off their engines, participating vessels are cutting annual CO₂ emissions by up to 29 percent annually, with financial savings of up to 26 percent per call” (C40 Cities, 2011d). Vessels that sit at port often are guilty of hoteling, continuously running diesel engines for onboard equipment. Through a collaboration between the Port of Seattle, major cruise lines, regulators, and industry, some of Seattle's vessels are voluntarily cold ironing, turning off their engines and plugging into the city grid, which eliminates emissions from the ship. This could be taken a step further, pairing these plugged-in vessels to local electricity generated from renewable energy sources at or near the port.

Public Transportation

Public transit affords greater mobility for more people, reduces congestion, and provides economic benefits (US DOT, 2014). Greater use of public transportation also reduces the number of cars on the road, curtailing emissions of harmful pollutants. While vehicle efficiency has increased, the global growth of the vehicle fleet has reduced it impact (UNDP and GEF, 2006, 6–7).

In the United States in 2007, the use of public transportation was calculated to reduce gas consumption by 1.4 billion gallons each year (Bailey, 2007). Transit travel can also be 26 to 79 times safer than auto travel (Litman, 2006). Public transportation can improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; heavy rail transit like subways produce about 76 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions per mile than an average car (US DOT, 2014).

Public transportation can also support higher density land development, which reduces the distance and time people need to travel to reach their destination. In 2013, Americans took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation, which was the highest number in 57 years (APTA, 2014). From 1995 to 2014, public transit ridership increased 37.2 percent, which is higher than population growth and the rate of vehicle miles traveled (APTA, 2014). Recent studies show that Americans are buying fewer cars and getting fewer licenses. Driven by the millennial generation, who sometimes prefer urban spaces where they can walk and take public transit, many Americans do not see owning a car as an aspirational goal in the way the past few generations did. The car culture may well be fading – and to accommodate that change and retain young people, cities are improving and expanding alternative transportation systems.

According to WalkScore, the top 10 cities in the United States with the best access to public transit are New York, NY; San Francisco, CA; Boston, MA; Washington, DC; Philadelphia, PA; Chicago, IL; Seattle, WA; Baltimore, MD; Los Angeles, CA; and Portland, OR (Benfield, 2014). New York City's public transit and subway system is one of the most extensive in the world, and the majority of the city's commuters use public transit. In 2012, on an average weekday, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) moved close to 8 million people through its subway, bus, and bus company services (MTA, 2013). NYC is expanding its system and building new subway lines in Manhattan, a rapid bus transit system, new ferry services, and car sharing. It is also directing new city growth to areas that are transit accessible, increasing residential capacity close to transit, and decreasing allowable densities in areas of the city where people depend on cars (City of New York, 2011, 20).

Although New York has one of the best public transit systems in the United States and the world, it is used at a lower rate than its counterparts in major Asian and European cities. Cities like London, Singapore, and Tokyo have recognized that providing more mass transit options creates a cleaner, healthier, more efficient urban environment.

Encouraging Active Transport

Active transport is powered by human motion, making it a zero-emission transportation option that also improves personal wellness. Currently, bicycles are the most popular active transport vehicles, and many urban areas are working to develop robust programs for urban bicycle transportation. Expanded bike lane and bike-share systems have been growing in popularity as ways to encourage active, sustainable transport that make cycling easier, safer, and more appealing. In 2013, there were more than 500 bike-share programs around the world; the largest are in Hangzhou City, China and Paris, France (Guide to Greening Cities, 2014). These programs are typically funded through public-private partnerships that involve corporate sponsorships and some type of public subsidy.

In 2008, the first U.S. public bike-share program, Capital Bikeshare, launched in the Washington, DC, metro area with 100 bikes and 10 stations. The system grew quickly and now has over 1,800 bikes and 200 stations; more than 80 percent of trips taken were by Capital Bikeshare members, demonstrating the program's importance to the local transportation system. Two key factors in the success of this program were managing the public's expectations, as the program was slow to start and expand, and building in flexibility to accommodate changing ridership programs (Guide to Greening Cities, 2014).

New York City's Citi Bike program launched in 2012 with 6,000 bikes and 275 docking stations. To choose sites for the program, the city initiated an inclusive planning process with over 400 meetings with stakeholders, community boards, and members of the City Council (NYC DOT, 2014, 6) and 21 field demonstrations to introduce the program to the public (NYC DOT, 2014, 9). In the first 200 days of the program, Citi Bike users took 5.8 million trips, including more than 19,000 trips on a day in December when temperatures were below freezing (NYC DOT, 2013).

The transportation initiatives under PlaNYC were vital in making this bike-share program possible. To help the program succeed, in the first six years after PlaNYC was adopted, the city installed over 300 miles of bike lanes, including 20 miles of protected bike lanes, which are separated from car lanes by physical barriers. Ultimately, these efforts doubled the number of people who commute by bike and have increased bike safety and convenience (City of New York, 2013, 30).

The city of Boston recognizes the importance of bicycling for health; its Prescribe-a-Bike program allows doctors to give patients $5 bike-share memberships, which is a significant savings over the regular $85 membership (Gaitan, 2014).

In Copenhagen, Denmark, the city is developing a PLUSnet system for cyclists consisting of Green Routes, Bicycle Superhighways, and local routes. PLUSnet will ensure plenty of space, safe intersections, and regular maintenance so that cyclists can travel at their own pace safely and securely. The goal is to have three bike lanes in each direction for at least 80 percent of the biking routes (City of Copenhagen, 2011, 11). New shortcuts will also be built over water and railways and through squares that will greatly improve travel times and allow for safer travel (City of Copenhagen, 2011, 23).

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

Electric vehicles (EVs) can be an important element of a comprehensive sustainable transportation plan. Cities are increasingly purchasing electric vehicles for their fleets, replacing fossil-fueled vehicles with zero-emission cars. In addition to purchasing these vehicles directly, city governments can implement a number of policies to increase the uptake of electric vehicles. It is important to note many cities do not want to encourage more cars, regardless of their fuel source. The goal is not to add more cars to the road, but to increase the percentage of EVs. With that in mind, there is a lot that local governments can do to ready their communities for electric vehicles, much of that involves the charging infrastructure, rather than the cars themselves.

Electric vehicle charging stations must dovetail with parking regulations, as all charging occurs while the car is parked. City parking ordinances can address EV infrastructure issues by providing charging stations or pre-wiring so they can easily be installed later. Other issues that need to be addressed include on-street charging and parking, and the management of user rotation, access, and violations (WXY Architecture, NYSERDA and TCI, 2012, 12). For example, the city of Lacey, Washington, restricts all non-electric cars from parking in specially designated charging stalls. The local law adds parking enforcement to the zoning regulations required by the State of Washington (WXY Architecture et al., 2012, 12–13).

Zoning is a necessary part of electric vehicle deployment. City officials can use zoning ordinances to allow, incentivize, or even require EV infrastructure. In London, the city's development plan requires charging stations in all new construction, and 20 percent of new parking stalls must be allocated to electric vehicles (WXY Architecture et al., 2012, 10).

Vancouver, Canada, was the first city in North America to require electric vehicle connections in all new city development. In 2011, the city modified its building bylaws for new construction to require that charging stations be ready-wired for EV support in 20 percent of all multiunit residential parking spaces and in 100 percent of single-family homes (WXY Architecture et al., 2012, 17; City of Vancouver, 2012). The city also decided that simple EV installations were safe and minor enough that they no longer required any permit filing for these projects (WXY Architecture et al., 2012, 20). Cities such as Houston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles offer automatic and instantaneous online permitting for standard charging station installations, reducing waiting times and administrative costs for the projects (WXY Architecture et al., 2012, 21).

Congestion Charging

A common problem facing many cities is that there are simply too many people moving at the same time in too small an area. Manhattan, for example, has a resident population of 1.6 million, but serves approximately 4 million people every weekday and 2.9 million people each day of the weekend (Moss and Qing, 2012, 1). Although only 4.6 percent of New Yorkers commute to Manhattan by car, average commute times continue to be among the worst in the United States. Like in the central business districts of many other cities around the country, it is virtually impossible to drive in midtown Manhattan during the day. Congestion pricing could be a powerful tool for localities to reduce unnecessary driving, promote environmentally sound practices and raise money for transportation infrastructure.

No U.S. city has a comprehensive congestion charging system, due primarily to low public support. Despite its lack of adoption in the United States, congestion pricing is not a new idea. In 1952, Columbia University professor William Vickery recommended it for the New York City subway system, proposing that prices be increased during peak times and on the busiest stretches of track (Columbia University, 1997). Whether used on subways or roads, the increased prices would encourage people to travel at different times or use alternative modes of transportation.

In 1975, Singapore became the first city to adopt congestion pricing (Transportation Alternatives, 2013). The Singapore program was designed to reduce rush-hour traffic into the central business district. Exemptions were included for emergency vehicles (e.g., ambulances, fire trucks, etc.) as well as high-occupancy vehicles carrying four or more passengers (Anas and Lindsey, 2011, 73). The program has expanded and evolved since 1975, and today it relies on technology similar to the E-ZPass electronic toll system, which, in the U.S. Northeast, was the world's first electronic road pricing system, charging tolls in accordance with the flow of traffic. While there has been no comprehensive cost–benefit analysis on the congestion pricing program in Singapore, the benefits are generally considered to outweigh the costs in the system and one report concludes, “Singapore's Congestion Zone has seen a 13% reduction of traffic during charging period. It has also led to a reduction of 24,700 cars driving during peak and a 22% rise of traffic speeds” (Transportation Alternatives, 2013).

In 2003, London Mayor Ken Livingstone implemented a fee for driving into London's central business district. The London system charges a flat fee (starting at £5 in 2005, rising steadily to £11.5 in 2013) to enter the specified zones. In London, cameras are set up at the entrance and exit of the taxed zones and images are taken of the license plates entering and exiting the zone. The pictures are then compared to a database of exemption, and users are issued fee notices, which can be paid online (Transport for London, 2014).

The charge was originally very controversial, but it has reduced congestion, emissions, and travel times (Transportation Alternatives, 2013). London has seen about a six percent increase in bus passengers during congestion fee hours since the beginning of the program. This congestion charge also funds London transportation infrastructure; all net revenues (£148 million in 2009–2010) are invested in improving the city's transit (Qureshi, 2013). Cost-benefit analyses found that the “combined benefits to motorists, public transport users, and the environment exceed system setup and operating costs” (Anas and Lindsey, 2011, 82).

Case Study: New York City's Water Supply

New York City's drinking water is among the best in the world, exceeding stringent federal and state water quality standards. New Yorkers get their water from three upstate reservoir systems that the city owns and operates: the Catskill, Delaware, and Croton watersheds. This extensive water system provides over 1 billion gallons of water daily to over 9 million people in New York City and the surrounding counties (City of New York, 2007, 78). The Catskill and Delaware watersheds, which together provide 90 percent of the city's water, are so pristine that their water does not need to be chemically filtered. This is a significant accomplishment; in fact, there are only four other major American cities that are not required to filter their drinking water: Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland.

To keep the sources of water clean, the city works hard to protect the watersheds from activities that can threaten their water quality. New York City actively engages in land acquisition when available and feasible, and has acquired more than 78,000 acres since 2002 (City of New York, 2007, 81). City ownership guarantees that crucial natural areas remain undeveloped, eliminating threats that could taint the water supply.

The city enforces an array of environmental regulations designed to protect water quality while also encouraging reasonable and responsible development in the watershed communities. New York City also invests in infrastructure—such as wastewater treatment facilities and septic systems—that shield the water supply, while working with its upstate partners to ensure comprehensive best practices for land use that curb pollution at the water's sources. While these efforts take significant investments of time and money, the alternative to maintaining these watersheds is far more costly. If the water quality deteriorated, the city would be forced to build a filtration plant that could cost as much as $10 billion to construct, which would cost of roughly $1 billion a year in debt service and operation expenses. This would also cause a rate increase of at least 30 percent to New Yorkers (City of New York, 2007, 78).

Most of New York City's water supply is protected and filtered by the natural processes of upstate ecosystems. To environmental economists, this can be considered an environmental service. By calculating the price of a filtration plant and its annual operational costs, we can place a monetary value on the natural environment that already provides this filtration. This comes to $1 billion per year minus the $100 million we spend annually to protect the upstate ecosystems. The remaining $900 million a year is savings that we lose if we don't protect these fragile environments. It's a graphic illustration of the point that what is good for the environment will often be good for our bank accounts, which is the essence of sustainability management.

Determining the value of such environmental services is only possible with a strong knowledge of how these ecosystems function. If our fundamental understanding of these natural processes is flawed or incomplete, we cannot figure out the financial benefits and costs of related projects. This reinforces the necessity of basic and applied science, which provide the foundation for critical public policy decisions, often involving substantial sums of public dollars. We can see that science is one of many critical inputs that managers and leaders need at their disposal to process complex problems and arrive at the best solution.

Case Study: Green Infrastructure

Cities must collect and manage used water and stormwater, which is the runoff after a storm or flooding event that can contain trash, heavy metals, and other pollutants, and which is commonly discharged into nearby waterways. Cities are investing in local improvements to infrastructure and water management programs in efforts to reduce the negative environmental and public health risks posed by polluted stormwater as well as to comply with the Clean Water Act (NRDC, 2012, 2). One of the main problems with storm water is that most American cities, particularly those with older infrastructure, have combined sewer systems, handling both stormwater and sewage through the same pipes.

About 800 communities nationwide manage their stormwater through a combined sewer system (NRDC, 2012, 6). In combined systems, residential wastewater is combined with that from street sewers being piped to the local sewage treatment plant. Problems occur when heavy rain suddenly sends a high volume of water into street sewers. This can overwhelm treatment plants and push raw sewage into local waterways before it is treated. The traditional approach to dealing with the combined sewer overflow problem is to build tanks and other facilities to hold excess water during storms and then release it into the sewers once the storm has ended.

Increasingly, cities are turning to green options to manage this challenge. One option, termed green infrastructure, is an approach to water management that combines natural ecosystem processes with the built environment. Instead of using traditional pipes and tanks (called gray infrastructure) to manage water runoff, green infrastructure uses vegetation and soil to absorb rainwater where it falls, allowing it to be stored and managed naturally. According to NRDC: “Green infrastructure manages storm water onsite through installation of permeable pavement, green roofs, parks, roadside plantings, rain barrels, and other mechanisms that mimic natural hydrologic functions, such as infiltration into soil and evapotranspiration into the air, or otherwise capture runoff onsite for productive use” (NRDC, 2012, 2). Green infrastructure systems are not only important to help control stormwater runoff, but they are also beneficial to public health by reducing urban heat island effects, improving air quality, and contributing to a more livable urban environment (Daigger, 2011, 15).

The problem of combined sewer overflow remains one of the most difficult water quality issues facing New York City. In September 2010, the city released its Green Infrastructure Plan, which makes use of green infrastructure to augment traditional investment in gray infrastructure. These low-cost techniques reduce the impact of storms on the city's water treatment plants. They can also quickly reduce the flow of wastewater to treatment plants since it takes much less time to plant greenery or put out rain barrels than to site, design, build, and operate a holding tank. The city's 2010 plan estimates costs that are $1.5 billion less than the traditional gray strategy (NYC DEP, 2014). The plan called for a multi-agency taskforce to build partnerships and coordinate capital planning between the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and a wide range of other city agencies.

A 2012 agreement between New York City and the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) included many of the innovations proposed in the city's plan. The agreement modified the city's existing method of improving local water quality by calling for investment of approximately $187 million in green infrastructure projects by 2015 (NYC DEP, 2012, 20). The agreement calls for a total of $2.4 billion in public and private investment in green infrastructure over the next 20 years plus $2.9 billion in traditional gray infrastructure projects and upgrades (NYC DEP, 2012, 1). It also calls for cooperation with the DEC to reduce combined sewer overflows using a green/gray hybrid approach. The plan features city and state efforts as well as collaboration between the public and private sectors.

The agreement also promotes flexibility and accountability. The state and city have institutionalized a form of adaptive management that builds in milestones and performance measurement and allows for changes as data, technology and processes improve over time. According to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection: “The decentralized and diverse nature of green infrastructure demands non-standard approaches to capital planning and streamlined processes to meet aggressive targets” (NYC DEP, 2012, 23).

New York, of course is not the only locality active in this effort. Kansas City, Missouri, made improvements in its sewer systems, at a cost of $2.5 billion over the next 25 years to upgrade systems and incorporate green infrastructure into its water management program (EPA, 2010b). Cincinnati, Ohio, has a green infrastructure strategy that received support from regulators, environmentalists, and businesses. The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati won the 2014 Water Prize from the United States Water Alliance in 2014. Its green infrastructure plan is expected to save taxpayers $200 million upfront and remove 1.78 billion gallons of combined sewer overflows annually from the city's Mill Creek (Simes, 2013).

Philadelphia's Green City, Clean Waters is a 25-year plan to enhance watersheds by using green infrastructure. The Philadelphia Water Department is committed to a balanced “land-water-infrastructure” approach by implementing land-based stormwater techniques and reconstructing aquatic habitats. Under the plan:

Philadelphia will transform at least one-third of the impervious areas (think concrete and asphalt) served by its combined sewer system into ‘greened acres’—spaces that use green infrastructure like roadside planting strips, rain gardens, trees and tree boxes, porous pavement, cisterns, and other features to infiltrate, or otherwise collect, the first inch of runoff from any storm. That amounts to keeping 80–90% of annual rainfall from these areas out of the city's over-burdened sewer system (Levine, 2011).

The plan includes $1.67 billion to be invested in greened acres, $345 million in sewage treatment plant capacity, and $420 million dedicated to a combination of green and gray infrastructure improvements (NRDC, 2011, 4). Philadelphia's program is unique because it is the first plan in the nation to invest more in green than gray infrastructure, make greater use of private investment, and include enforceable requirements for thousands of acres to be retrofitted with green infrastructure throughout the entire city (Levine, 2011). The program also constituted a legally enforceable update to the city's Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan under the Clean Water Act (NRDC, 2011, 4).

Green infrastructure requires significant investment. Like energy-efficiency retrofits, stormwater retrofits also face financial challenges, but “policy frameworks can play a crucial role in attracting private investors to greener stormwater management efforts that focus on restoring hydrologic function in urbanized areas” (NRDC, 2012, 5). Previously in Philadelphia, the charge for municipal storm water services was based on the volume of drinking water used by the property, but since 2010, charges have been based on the size of the property and amount of impervious surface; this structure directly correlates fees to the volume of stormwater runoff that a lot produces (Philadelphia Water Department, 2014). Philadelphia established a parcel-based stormwater billing structure, which encourages installation of stormwater management practices onsite by providing a large credit (sometimes up to 100 percent) for nonresidential and condominium owners who can show onsite management of the first inch of rain over their entire parcel (NRDC, 2012, 2).

Brownfield Redevelopment

Brownfields are properties that contain a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant, making the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of that property complicated and difficult (EPA, 2014a). Brownfields can be as small as a corner lot or as large as an abandoned factory site. These sites often sit empty and idle, due to the complicated process of environmental remediation. The term brownfields is meant to contrast these potential building sites with more pristine greenfield sites in exurbia. An environmental goal is to concentrate development on brownfields in order to preserve the rural environment and take advantage of existing infrastructure.

Redevelopment of brownfields has been shown to reduce crime, increase property values, create jobs, and encourage private investment. Local governments can offer tax breaks, low-interest loans, expedited permits, or rezoning to allow residential or commercial uses. The EPA studied five communities that undertook brownfield redevelopment at 163 sites and compared the environmental performance of those sites to projects on greenfield sites. The results showed that the brownfield designs emitted between 32 and 57 percent less carbon dioxide and air pollutant emissions per capita relative to conventional greenfield developments, and between 43 and 60 percent less stormwater runoff compared to alternatives (EPA, 2011a, 2). By concentrating development in urban areas with mass transit, energy, water and sewage infrastructure in place, these developments averted the larger environmental impacts associated with development in exurban or rural greenfields.

The first brownfield policies were developed in the 1970s; but the program did not really have a significant impact until the 1990s. Christopher De Sousa from the University of Milwaukee observes that, “Since the mid-1990s, the redevelopment of brownfield sites has been a central imperative of government efforts in the U.S. as part of a general strategy of revitalizing urban cores and promoting smart growth” (De Sousa, 2005, 312).

Milwaukee's industrial past has left it with a large number of brownfields. Since 1990, the city has actively redeveloped these sites, making it a leader in brownfield remediation. The city has initiated 87 brownfield developments, generated $766.1 million of redevelopment investment along with 3,384 jobs (City of Milwaukee, 2014).

In neighboring Illinois, the Chicago Brownfields Initiative was established in 1993 to:

acquire, assemble and rehabilitate properties, returning them to productive use. The Initiative links environmental restoration with economic development by cleaning up and redeveloping brownfields and by improving policies to promote private redevelopment of brownfields. The purpose of the Chicago Brownfields Initiative is to create jobs and generate tax revenues through redevelopment, thereby improving Chicago's environmental and economic health (City of Chicago, 2014).

Seattle has developed brownfields for new uses, such as to house office buildings and shopping centers (Carlton, 2011). In the South Lake Union district, 6.4 million square feet has been built on reclaimed properties since 2004 (Carlton, 2011). Seattle is an attractive place for brownfield redevelopment because it is a land-poor port city in need of room to expand.

New York City's PlaNYC set a goal of cleaning up all of the city's brownfields, and established a strategy based on economic development and community planning. Thus far the program has enrolled over 95 projects on more than 200 lots, most of which had been vacant for more than 20 years. Cleanup on these lots is projected to yield $3 billion in new private investment, create 3,100 permanent jobs, and provide over 1,400 units of affordable housing (City of New York, 2013, 20). The city also launched the Clean Soil Bank, to encourage the reuse of clean soil from brownfield site excavation, which is expected to save developers $5 million annually (City of New York, 2013, 21–22).

Parks and Green Spaces

Parks and open spaces make a city more pleasant, reduce air pollution, mitigate the urban heat-island effect, and act as wetlands for climate resilience. Simply planting trees provides a number of environmental and health benefits, and can also help reduce crime and increase property value. In 2006, Los Angeles launched Million Trees LA, a partnership between businesses, community groups, and the public (Arup, 2014, 205). Austin, Texas, also has an urban forest plan, and a cost–benefit analysis showed that the urban forest provides millions of dollars a year in social, economic, and environmental benefits (Arup, 2014, 205).

New York City, in addition to its own goal to plant 1 million trees, aims for all New Yorkers to live within a 10-minute walk of a park or playground. Since the city does not have a lot of undeveloped land, the plan focused on using existing assets like schoolyards. The High Line, one of New York's newest parks, is a perfect example of repurposing land. The park was created from abandoned elevated rail tracks, and was built through a public–private partnership between the city and the nonprofit Friends of the High Line. It is now one of the most popular public spaces in New York City—attracting millions of tourists and residents alike to its airy, innovative green space with unique views of the city and the Hudson River.

Portland's Healthy Connected City initiative has a goal of “improving human and environmental health by creating safe and complete neighborhood centers linked by a network of city greenways that connect Portlanders with each other” (City of Portland, 2012, 73). This initiative combines elements of transportation, land use, infrastructure, human health, ecosystem health, and watersheds to determine how to best design a city (City of Portland, 2012, 80). It also encourages active transportation and integrates nature into neighborhoods, providing increased access to destinations across the city.

San Francisco's Pavements to Parks program—a collaboration between the planning department, public works department, transportation agency, and mayor's office—involves creating new street plazas and sidewalk platforms that replace parking spaces by reclaiming street space. San Francisco's streets make up more land area than its public parks, so the city saw an opportunity to convert underused land into pedestrian spaces (Pavement to Parks, 2014).

Cleveland, Ohio, started a program where community groups garden on unused land. Cleveland has about 18,000 empty lots and community and market gardening has grown substantially. The city has a working group on land use and planning that is leading these efforts, fostering partnership between government agencies and other stakeholders. The group was instrumental in passing two pieces of legislation around land and farming operations (Cleveland-Cuyahoga County, 2014).

Sustainable Action

Unfortunately, smaller and poorer cities are less likely to develop and enact sustainability policies (Homsy and Warner, 2013, 1). Generally, the rate of sustainability policy adoption increases with a city's population (Homsy and Warner, 2013, 3). However, across the country you can find what we call unlikely innovators, small towns able to implement sustainable initiatives against the odds. They often are not recognized like major cities like New York, Seattle, and San Francisco, but their efforts and successes play a crucial role in transforming our nation's sustainability development.

Columbia, Wisconsin, with a population of about 5,000 was actually one of the first cities to convert all of its streetlights from incandescent bulbs to high-efficiency LED lights as a way to boost economic development; the city reduced electricity usage by 15.4 percent between 2007 and 2012 (Homsy and Warner, 2013, 2–4). The city of Homer, Alaska, was one of the first in the nation to make sustainability and energy/waste reduction a mandatory part of orientation for any municipal employee (Homsy and Warner, 2013, 6), and South Daytona, Florida, which is only three square miles in size, has undertaken grey-water reuse by buying millions of gallons of reclaimed sewage water from a neighboring municipality to use for landscape irrigation (Homsy and Warner, 2013, 5). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Siemens Corporation named Grand Rapids, Michigan, the most sustainable mid-size community in 2010; it was also recognized as a member of the EPA's Green Power Leadership Club for renewable energy efforts (Svara, Read, and Moulder, 2011, 18). There are many other examples of small-scale sustainability initiatives.

One article about these unlikely innovators summarized the factors that helped them make sustainability a priority. The researchers found that all these cities have entrepreneurial leaders who made it a priority to “reframe environmental issues in terms of cost savings or increased efficiency,” and who started with the easiest and most sensible initiatives, while educating staff and the public. These entrepreneurial leaders focused on the connections between environmental protection and economic development (Homsy and Warner, 2013, 9).

Homsy and Warner identify six critical steps that city governments (large or small) should take to purse a long-term plan that results in environmental, economic, and social sustainability:

1. Obtain a formal commitment and pursue a broad sustainability strategy.
2. Develop an engagement process to broaden community outreach.
3. Appoint a citizens' committee to engage the community.
4. Develop partnerships with key institutional, private sector, and nonprofit actors.
5. Make changes to break down silos and encourage coordinated action.
6. Measure performance to assess the sustainability effort (33–35).

In our view, these are the same features that make sustainability planning successful in large megacities. In 2014, C40 Cities and Arup, a consulting firm, released a quantitative report on the efforts that C40 member cities have taken to reduce GHG emissions and improve urban resilience. In just the C40 cities alone, 8,000 collective actions have been undertaken, from introducing cycling lanes to increasing urban mobility, and from reducing transport emissions to reducing carbon emissions from outdoor lighting. It also shows that ideas and best practices are flowing equally between developing and developed cities (Arup, 2014, 6).

The collective action of these cities is making an impact. Sustainable cities enable us to have hope that we can and will transition to a sustainable global economy. Local governments all over the United States continue to grind out small scale (but big impact) initiatives designed to make their regions more sustainable. Local level sustainability initiatives are examples of bottom-up innovation, and in our view they have helped overcome the absence of top-down strategy and resources that the U.S. federal government is not now able to provide.