Urban Adaptation: Preparing US Cities for the Impacts of Climate Change
Benjamin McNeil, Associate Director, Healthcare System Preparedness, Response and Recovery, Boston Public Health Commission, NLC Boston
The significant rise of population growth in cities worldwide has been a remarkable shift in historical population trends. While in 1950 less than one billion people of lived in urban areas, now 54 percent live in cities, and by 2050 around 66% of the world’s population will live in cities.[i] To meet this population shift, cities around the world are developing land and building new housing at rapid rates.
This unprecedented growth clashes with the reality that most of the world’s largest cities are prone to severe hazards that are being exacerbated by the effects of climate change. As sea levels rise, coastal cities will experience either chronic inundation or more routine flooding, resulting in subsequent damage to critical infrastructure — often which is located along waterways — such as water and sewer systems; energy infrastructure such as dams, oil and gas operations, and hydro or nuclear power plants; healthcare facilities; and transportation networks such as roads, bridges, ports and airports[ii],[iii]. Warming oceans will create more severe weather systems[iv] that will have even further damaging impacts due to the loss of natural barriers that have been replaced by coastal development or land loss. Rising global temperatures will affect coastal and inland cities alike by magnifying the urban heat island effect: residents will suffer from more premature heat related deaths or more heat related illnesses due to the increase in extreme temperatures and duration of heat waves than they are used to, and city energy grids will have to keep up with the demand for electricity spikes as people, organizations and businesses try to cool themselves off. Heat waves are already the number one cause of US weather-related fatalities on average over the past 30 years, and those totals are expected to grow as temperatures increase.[v]
The impacts of climate change to cities and their residents will be severe. Public health will be severely impacted as city residents will not only face prolonged extreme heat, but an increase in poor air quality, reduced food and water quality, increased exposure to infectious disease transmission, and increased mental health and stress consequences.[vi] The healthcare system will struggle to meet these increase demands, driving up healthcare costs and increasing an already taxed critical infrastructure. As financial hubs for their respective states, regions and/or countries, the economic toll will be severe. A recent study by the World Bank[vii] forecasts the average global losses from floods alone will be $52 billion a year, up from $6 billion per year in 2005. Adding in additional climate change impacts, this same study estimates damages could cost $1 trillion a year if adaptation measures are not taken.
These impacts will also perpetuate existing inequities. Impacts from disasters are not equitable, in that populations that already experience other vulnerabilities, such as physical (location to hazards) and social (such as race, class and age) vulnerabilities, will suffer disproportionately to other populations[viii]. Rising income inequality — a problem further stratified in cities — increases these vulnerabilities and decreases the resilience of individuals and their communities to face the acute and chronic impacts of climate change. On a larger scale, while climate change will have negative impacts for all regions, the poorest regions of the country, which area also the hottest, will suffer greater losses.[ix] A June 2017 study in the journal Science revealed that the largest losses due to climate change in the United States will be, on average, in the poorest regions of the country, thus furthering existing income inequalities. “Unmitigated climate change will be very expensive for huge regions of the United States… If we continue on the current path, out analysis indicates it may result in the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the country’s history.”
Cities, with significant support from their state and federal partners, will need to expand upon current climate change adaptation plans and strategies. New York City, Nairobi, Mexico City, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul, Los Angeles and my home of Boston (to name just a few) are examples of cities that have established strategies with concrete action items, but continued political support and innovative funding mechanisms will be need to pay for these expensive measures. Initiatives like the Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities and C40 Climate Cities Leadership Group have empowered cities to incorporate resilient policy and actions into their city government, but additional support is needed to facilitate these plans as well as encourage the development of plans for cities that have yet to participate. Increased investment in inclusive and equitable climate adaptation strategies and actions, such as smart development, grey and green infrastructure, reducing carbon emissions and green financing should be a priority at the local, national and federal level.
Cities and their administrations will inevitably want to pursue growth opportunities in order to build stronger economies and livelihoods for their residents. However, these opportunities should not put people, businesses and industry in harm’s way through dense overdevelopment in hazard-prone areas, or building without the use of hazard resilient building codes. Instead, cities should pursue smart development strategies that begin and end with climate adaptation plans and policies such as the enforcement of updated zoning laws and building codes, or providing incentives to developers to construct energy-efficient buildings or transportation infrastructure using reduced emission construction practices.
Cities worldwide are already pursuing a variety of mandatory zoning and building regulations and incentive or voluntary programs that are designed to force or encourage commercial, industrial and residential construction to pursue new or retro-fit projects that decrease vulnerability to future climate events and increase the ability to recover more quickly following a disaster. Furthermore, because the building sector consumes almost half of all energy produced in the US[x], these risk reduction policies and programs should work within a larger multi-purpose adaptation strategy that incorporates sustainable building practices that reduce carbon emissions during construction and result in buildings with higher energy efficiencies.
Examples of effective climate adaptation construction policies and programs include:
· The South Florida Building code, which was passed in the wake of 1994’s Hurricane Andrew is considered a gold standard in resilient building codes. The regulation increased the region’s resilience to future storms by requiring various best practices such as installing storm resistant windows and prohibiting the use of certain cheap building materials.[xi]
· New Orleans’ City Planning Commission updated its Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in 2016 to require most new development projects to be able to effectively manage the first 1.25” of storm water on their project site. Additionally, new development or reconstruction must mitigate runoff using on-site water catchment techniques that slow surface flow and reduce subsidence.[xii] [xiii]
· In the City of Boston, the Boston Planning and Development Agency’s Resiliency Policy requires all large project proposals to analyze and describe climate preparedness initiatives through a Climate Preparedness Checklist, and the Massachusetts Building Code applies flood-resistant construction standards to all new or substantially renovated structures within areas designated by FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps.[xiv]
· The Netherlands flood risk management standards are globally renowned, and are based on providing a basic level of safety for an individual dying that is no higher than 1 in 100,000, and minimizing severe economic loss.[xv]
· The City of Chicago has supported the Retrofit Chicago Energy Challenge, which aims to improve energy efficiency across the public and private sector through education and encouragement of voluntary energy reduction actions. The program currently covers 62 buildings and 43 million square feet.[xvi]
· San Francisco passed The Mandatory Soft Story Retrofit Program in 2013 requiring the retrofit of 5,000 the city’s most seismically vulnerable buildings. The city’s office of Resilience and Recovery aims to expand this program to cover 180,000 homes most vulnerable to earthquakes.[xvii]
To further discourage and prevent development in hazard prone areas, cities should work with state and federal partners to reform the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP provides federally subsidized insurance to coastal (ocean, river and lake) communities, in addition to providing floodplain maps, risk analysis programs, and grants for hazard mitigation projects. However, the NFIP has largely failed to reduce the damages and costs caused by floods, which continue to be the most expensive natural disaster in the US. The NFIP’s artificially low insurance rates don’t accurately represent the true risk of coastal communities, thus allowing both development in hazard prone areas for costs cheaper than they should be, and expensive insurance bailouts paid for by the federal government. Furthermore, under investment in the NFIP has resulted in outdated floodplain maps and a reduction in the risk analysis and hazard mitigation programs.
Cities should encourage reforms such as limiting coverage to properties that flood repeatedly (there are about 11,000 severe repetitive loss properties in the country — a small fraction of the NFIP’s active flood policies — that account for 30% of NFIP claims, and in the past two decades the number of properties reporting a second loss has increased by 67%)[xviii], raising rates to accurately reflect the risk (in order to discourage development that would otherwise be too expensive) and re-investment in FEMA floodplain maps so municipalities have a more accurate understanding of what the need to prepare for.[xix] Strong support from the federal government will be required for these investments, but unfortunately, the current administration is looking to cut various NFIP programs in recent budget proposals.[xx]
Grey and Green Infrastructure
Cities will have to invest in a variety of built and natural infrastructure
projects that strengthen cities ability to withstand extreme weather events and allow cities
to live within their new climate change affected natural environment. Grey infrastructure
projects include the construction of storm barriers and floodgates, which can provide
increased protection to cities and their surrounding locales. The Netherlands extensive network of flood protection systems, built following a series of disasters in the early and mid 19th century, has made the country the leading expert on grey infrastructure. In addition, the Netherlands has invested in a series of green infrastructure projects that complement hard construction by living more within the country’s natural boundaries. One example is The Room for the River program, a national design plan incorporating four rivers of the Rhine Delta that has invested in projects such as relocating dykes or creating and deepening flood channels in order to allow for storm surge to flood into more natural environments as opposed to just trying to keep the water out.[xxi]
In Louisiana, government officials and planners have learned from the Dutch as evident in their 50-year, $50 billion Coastal Master Plan, which combines extensive built hurricane protection and storm water management systems ($14.5 billion was spent strengthening and building 133 miles of levees, floodwalls and pump stations around Greater New Orleans) along with investment in green infrastructure initiatives to build multiple layers of storm protection. Projects include the restoration of wetlands and barrier islands, which were originally removed to make way for various energy infrastructure and land developments, to serve as natural storm surge and flood protectors.[xxii] Other US cities, such as NYC and Boston, are researching and pursuing similar combinations grey and green infrastructure to protect their residents and built environment.
Investments in green infrastructure can also be used to combat the urban heat island affect, a growing problem facing cities as global temperatures rise and dense urban cores become more developed and attract larger populations. The US Environmental Protection Agency recommends a variety of green infrastructure investments, including green infrastructure improvements to regular street upgrades and capital improvement projects; planting trees and other plants to increase a city’s tree canopy acreage; building cool pavements, which reflect solar energy, enhance water evaporation and reduce storm water run off more than conventional pavement; and building green or cool roofs because they provide ambient cooling effects and lower energy consumption.[xxiii]
Stuggart, Germany is considered one of the best examples of urban heat island management in the world. The city’s multi-tiered approach includes building ventilation corridors and extensive cycle paths; implementing a land-use plan that emphasizes urban-compact-green which preserves and promotes green spaces such as urban parks; utilizing cool building techniques that promote passive cooling concepts when constructing municipal buildings; and supporting expansion of green roofs by setting requirements for certain new buildings to install green roofs and subsidizing the construction of more than 300,000 square meters of green roofs.[xxiv] In Portland, Oregon, the city’s Ecoroof program from 2008–2012 provided a $5 per square foot construction incentivize to property owners and developers to build green roofs. The program helped fund over 130 projects that created more than 8 acres of ecoroofs that manage an average of 4.4 million gallons of storm water annually.[xxv]
Reducing Green House Gas Emissions
One of the key provisions of the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement was a commitment to hold the increase in the global temperature to below 2
in order to reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. As both leading contributors to climate change and economic engines for their respective regions[xxvi], cities play an instrumental role in making sure this commitment can be met. To do so, they will have to pursue a variety of greenhouse gas reduction efforts that also support economic development and sustainability. Fortunately, administrations around the world are pursuing a variety of methods to ensure this goal is met. In the US alone, 36 cities are committed reducing their carbon emissions by 80% or more by 2050. A variety of methods and actions currently being pursued or proposed are listed below:
· Investments in renewable energy infrastructure and storage, which, if pursued on a large enough scale has shown to improve job growth and the overall economy.[xxvii]
· The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast was the first mandatory cap and trade program in the US to attempt limit CO2 emissions from certain power plants. However, the program has been more successful in raising money for clean energy products, and needs significant reform to increase it’s carbon reduction impact.[xxx]
· Investments in multi-modal transportation networks that emit low energy and allow city residents to navigate from home to work to recreation by walking, biking or taking reduced or zero-emission public transportation. The transportation sector is the second largest CO2 contributing sector in the US, responsible for 34% of total emissions.[xxxi]
· Tokyo’s Carbon Reduction Reporting for Small and Medium Entities mandates annual reporting for small and medium-sized facilities, which account for 60% of the cities total CO2 emissions.[xxxii]
· City owned utility companies, such as Austin Energy, which generate energy from renewable sources and can encourage energy efficiency and sustainable building practices through a rating system for home and commercial construction
· Mandating municipal energy be purchased from a renewable energy source, such as Washington D.C.’s 20-year Power Purchase Agreement which purchases 30% of the city’s electricity from a wind farm and is expected save taxpayers $45 million due to lower electricity rates[xxxiii]
· Regulations requiring energy to be produced by renewable resources, such as a recent proposal in the California Senate which would require all retail electricity to be developed from renewable resources by 2045.[xxxiv]
To pay for these expensive adaptation strategies, cities will have to pursue innovative partnerships and financing schemes in order to develop and implement sustainable development, energy and transportation infrastructure projects. Green or sustainability bonds, such as those issued by Mexico City[xxxv] or Portland, Oregon[xxxvi] and countries such as Poland and France (not to mention companies like Apple and Starbucks), function similarly to conventional bonds except the proceeds can only be used to finance green initiatives or those that combat climate change such as infrastructure improvements that incorporate efficiency, renewable energy or adaptation components. The green bond market grew at record levels in 2016, and will need continued public sector support and investment to help countries meet their country-level climate commitments set forth in the Paris Climate Agreement.[xxxvii]
On smaller, yet still important scales, cities are pursuing innovative actions to fund climate adaptation projects that would otherwise not have a funding source. San Francisco expanded its Property Assessed Clean Energy Program to support property owner’s investment in seismic retrofit projects that built using sustainable building practices.[xxxviii] … In Philadelphia, the Water Department established a competitive grant program to incentivize private property owners to develop green infrastructure.[xxxix]
Addressing Climate Change Inequity
Finally, a comprehensive urban climate adaptation strategy to deal with the impacts of climate change must address city’s socially vulnerable populations and the disproportionate and inequitable outcomes they will face. Dr. Atyia Martin, current City of Boston Chief Resilience Officer and NLC Boston Alumni, stated in her 2014 study published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, “ socially vulnerable populations have a disproportionate exposure to risk and a decreased ability to avoid or absorb potential harm… At least half of the American population can be considered vulnerable to disasters because of their existing social circumstances. The approach to emergency planning has to shift to incorporate the diverse needs of socially vulnerable people into mitigation, response and recovery.” City officials and planners should invest in identifying, understanding and then addressing the unique circumstances and needs of their socially vulnerable populations when planning for climate change impacts to ensure equitable health and civil rights outcomes are secured for all populations both prior to and after an emergency. For example, city planners should acknowledge and prioritize environmental justice concerns that will only be exacerbated during a disaster (in Massachusetts, communities of color have a 70.6% of living in the most environmentally hazardous towns compared to white communities which have a 1.8% chance[xl]).
Dr. Martin advocates for cities to use the Social Determinants of Vulnerability Framework, a planning tool that integrates social vulnerability analysis into existing hazard risk assessments, in order to enhance social resilience in cities. Use of the tool will also allow for more effective community engagement strategies that ensure members of the community from all background are represented, and their unique needs are acknowledged during climate change planning and mitigation, and prioritized during emergency response and recovery.
The recently released City of Boston Resilient Strategy embodies these commitments as evident by the document’s development — led by Dr. Martin but significantly informed through an extensive community engagement process that included consultation with over 11,000 stakeholders — and by focusing planning initiatives around creating equity in economic opportunities and addressing Boston’s history of racism.[xli]
The impacts to cities and their residents due to climate change realities and projections will be severe and consequential. To address the concerns of rising coast lines, more severe and routine flooding, increased extreme temperatures and heat waves, and other hazards brought forth by climate change, as well as prevent the worsening of these impacts through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, integrated partnerships and initiatives will need to be pursued across the local, state and federal landscape. While it is certainly discouraging that the current presidential administration and other federal agencies are moving away from climate adaptation actions, such as the President Trump’s declaration to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, there is significant progress being made every day at the local level that we can be inspired by and learn from.
California has set even more aggressive goals and timelines to further cut greenhouse gas emissions across various industries and move towards increasing reliance upon renewable energy sources. California lawmakers in July of 2017 extended their already aggressive cap-and-trade program until 2030, and set a requirement to get 50 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030.[xlii]
Cities across the US remain committed to the standards set forth in the Paris Climate Agreement, as evident in a recent statement signed by 364 mayors representing 66 million Americans. New initiatives emerge regularly, such as in Los Angeles where the local transit authority agreed in late July to spend more than $138 million dollars to purchase 95 electric buses — an initial step of a larger plan to have an all electric bus fleet by 2030.[xliii] In Phoenix, the city taken on a variety of initiatives, such as increasing the tree canopy to 25% by 2030, particularly in low-income communities, and developing a heat wave outreach campaign to inform residents about cooling and hydration centers, senior centers and churches.[xliv]
And similar efforts are underway around the world. The United Kingdom is banning the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2040, as part of a larger strategy to phase out petroleum-fueled cars and light trucks altogether by 2050.[xlv]
The effects of climate change are clearly taking a toll on people, environments and economies around the globe. However, significant progress can be made to combat these impacts and ensure conditions do not continue to worsen. Furthermore, following the strategies and actions described in this paper and those similar will produce healthier and richer communities for years to come. As noted by journalist Michael Kimmelman in a April 2017 piece for the New York Times, “Prosperity will ultimately belong to cities and nations around the world that find ways to capitalize on strategies of resilience against the inevitable impacts of climate change. Those cities will retool themselves for new technologies and global businesses.” [xlvi]
[i] http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html By 2030, 1 billion people are expected to live in Chinese
[ii] Erika Spanger-Siegfried, Kristina Dahl, Astrid Caldas, Shana Udvardy, Rachel Cleetus, Pamela Worth, Nicole Hernandez Hammer. “When Rising Seas Hit Home: Hard Choices Ahead for Hundreds of US Coastal Communities.” Union of Concerned Scientists, July 2017, http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/07/when-rising-seas-hit-home-full-report.pdf
[iii] Rachel Cletus, “Phoenix heat, Tropical Strom Cindy show how climate change is a threat to our infrastructure,” Washington Post, June 23, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-week-made-it-clear-climate-change-is-a-threat-to-our-infrastructure/2017/06/23/2ae38e30-576b-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b3441902440b
[iv] NOAA Annual Climate Change report; https://thinkprogress.org/extreme-weather-2015-climate-change-c105d5a04015
[v] USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A., J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J. Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M. Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX
[vi] The Medical Society Consortium on climate and Health, “Medical Alert! Climate Change is Harming Our Health,” https://medsocietiesforclimatehealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/medical_alert.pdf
[viii] Susan Cutter, Christopher Emrich. “Moral Hazard, Social Catastrophe: The Changing Face of Vulnerability along the Hurricane Coasts.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 604 (2006). 102: accessed May 15, 2017, doi.org/10.1177/0002716205285515.
[ix] Hsiang, Robert Kopp, Amir Jina, James Rising, Michael Delgado, Shashank Mohan, Dr. Rasmussen, Robert Muir-Wood, Paul Wilson, Michael Oppenhemier, Kate Larsen, Trevor Houser. “Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States.” Science, 356 (2017): accessed July 7, 2017, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362.full
[xi] Clarkson, “As anniversary approaches, Hurricane Andrew’s legacy remains strong in South Florida,” LA Times, May 27, 2017, accessed on May 30, 2017 http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hurricane-andrew-20170528-story.html
[xiv] Martin J. Walsh, “Climate Ready Boston — Final Report,” December 2016, https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/20161207_climate_ready_boston_digital2.pdf.
[xv] H. van der Most, I. Tanczos, K. M. de Brujin, and D. Wagenaar. “New Risk-Based Standards for Flood Protection in the Netherlands.” Paper Presented at the Sixth International Conference on Flood Management, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 2014
[xvi] C40 and Arup, “How U.S. Cities Will Get the Job Done.”
[xviii] Ryan Smith, “Deluge of Repeat Claims for NFIP,” Insurance Business Magazine, July 25, 2017, Accessed July 25, 2017, http://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/catastrophe/deluge-of-repeat-claims-for-nfip-73951.aspx
[xix] Brooke Jarvis, “When Rising Seas Transform Risk Into Certainty,” New York Times, April 18, 2017, accessed April 21, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/magazine/when-rising-seas-transform-risk-into-certainty.html?_r=0
[xx] “Trump Budget Disregards Science, Puts Public Health, Innovation at Risk.” Union of Concerned Scientists, May 23, 2017 http://www.ucsusa.org/press/2017/trump-budget-disregards-science-puts-public-health-innovation-risk#.WS4biRPyv_8
[xxi] Michael Kimmelman
[xxii] NOLA Resilient Strategy
[xxiv] Reeman Mohamed Rehan, “Cool city as a sustainable example of heat island management case study of the coolest city in the world,” Housing and Building National Research Center Journal (2016) 12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.10.002
[xxvi] C40 and Arup, “How U.S. Cities Will Get the Job Done.”
[xxvii] David Hoschild and David Olsen, “Renewable energy is a California success story,” LA Times, March 11, 2015, accessed June 29, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-olsen-hochschild-california-solar-energy-20150312-story.html.
[xxx] David Roberts, “The Northeast’s carbon trading system works quite well. It just doesn’t reduce much carbon,” February 28, 2017, accessed on July 5, 2017, https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/28/14741384/rggi-explained.
[xxxi] Architecture 2030, http://architecture2030.org/buildings_problem_why/#lightbox[group-158]/0/
[xxxii] , G., Takagi, T., Nishida, Y., Downy, F. 2017. Urban Efficiency II. Seven Innovative City Programmes for Existing Building Energy Efficiency. Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Environment, C40 Cities Climate Leadership. http://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/en/int/files/UrbanEfficiencyII_FINAL_LOW_RES.pdf
[xxxiii] C40 and Arup, “How U.S. Cities Will Get the Job Done,” http://c40-production-images.s3.amazonaws.com/researches/images/62_C40_DL2020_America_.original.pdf?1484666230.
[xxxiv] “Fighting Trump on Climate, California Becomes a Global Force.” May 23, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/us/california-engages-world-and-fights-washington-on-climate-change.html?_r=0
[xxxvi] C40 and Arup, “How U.S. Cities Will Get the Job Done.”
[xxxviii] Resilient San Francisco Strategy http://sfgov.org/orr/sites/default/files/documents/Resilient%20San%20Francisco_0.pdf
[xxxix] NRDC, “Expand Green Infrastructure Financing.” https://www.nrdc.org/issues/expand-green-infrastructure-financing
[xl] Dr. Daniel Faber, “Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards 2005: Environmental Injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” A Report by the Philanthropy and Environmental Justice Research Project, Northeastern University, October 12, 2005, Accessed July 20, 2017 http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2017/07/Final-Unequal-Exposure-Report-2005-10-12-05.pdf
[xlii] Brad Plumer, “Just How Far Can California Possibly Go On Climate?” NY Times, July 17, 2017 Accessed on July 18, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/climate/california-cap-and-trade-approved-jerry-brown.html
[xliii] Laura J. Nelson and Emily Alpert Reyes, “Metro agrees to buy 95 electric buses, in the first step toward an emissions-free fleet,” Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2017 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-metro-electric-buses-20170727-story.html
[xliv] Daniel Vock, “How One of America’s Hottest Cities is Making Summer a Little More Bearable,” Governing, July 24, 2017, http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-phoenix-summer-heat-were-cool-trees.html
[xlv] Sonari Glinton, “First Customers Get Tesla Model 3 Electric Cars,” National Public Radio, July 29, 2017 http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/29/540166855/first-customers-get-tesla-model-3-electric-cars