Long-term Decisions Every Day

The enduring nature of local government decisions can be seen in the lifespan of the physical elements that make up a community. Some examples of the lifespan of community assets are:

Lifespan of Community Assets

Community Element	Typical Lifespan  (years)
Subdivisions and roads	75-200
Buildings	50-100
Municipal infrastructure	20-100
Landscape	10-100
Systems and equipment	5-20
Vehicles	5-15

Shaping energy decisions

Local governments influence approximately 45 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in BC.    Elected local government officials, planners, engineers, and developers affect energy through a myriad of long-lived decisions about community and regional growth, urban form, transportation and infrastructure, local energy generation, and building construction and retrofits.
Land use decisions can have wide-ranging implications for energy use and  resulting local government finances, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, community livability, and other local priorities.
Planning with energy in mind can mean substantial economic, environmental, and social benefits for the community

Influence over Energy

Local governments have the means and authority to affect how energy is used in some key sectors:

• Road transportation – a high degree of influence through urban form, growth policies, transportation planning, investment in public transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, municipal vehicle fleets, and other programs (e.g., anti-idling)
• Residential buildings – moderate influence through urban form, growth policies, district heating, renewable energy policies, infrastructure and landscape planning, and support for retrofit programs
• Commercial and institutional buildings – a high degree of influence through building retrofits, green building design, infrastructure and landscape planning, and district energy systems,
  

Land-use, Energy, and Transportation

Land use decisions are energy use decisions.  The findings of two key studies on the topic of land use and energy are summarized below.   

Comparing Neighbourhoods for Sustainable Futures

A study by the http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/buho/sune/index.cfm Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation looks at five Canadian cities and compares different kinds of neighbourhoods within them in terms of some key sustainability features.
For example, if finds that in centrally located neighbourhoods of the GVRD (e.g., Kitsilano, Yaletown):

• Homes are closer to destinations like work, school, and shopping, as well as to public transit, which encourages alternative transportation choices. 
• Residents own fewer cars and drive less for weekday urban trips (accounting for the average number of people and income per household).
• Households produce correspondingly fewer greenhouse gas emissions from weekday urban driving.
   

National Climate Change Process Municipalities Issue Table 

The following table, taken from work by Canada's National Climate Change Process Municipalities Issue Table (and adapted from Allen et al. 1996), shows how various land use changes can affect energy consumption.

Land Use and Energy

Land Use Decision	How it Affects Energy	Energy Implications
Combination of land use factors (shape, size, interspersion, etc.)	Travel requirements (especially trip length and frequency)	Variation of up to 150%
Interspersion of activities	Travel requirements (especially trip length)	Variation of up to 130%
Shape of urban area	Travel requirements	Variation of up to 20%
Density / clustering of trip ends	Facilitates economic public transportation	Variation of up to 20%
Density / mixing of land uses / built form	Facilitates cogeneration of heat and power	Savings up to 15% Efficiency of primary energy use improved up to 30% with district energy
Layout / orientation / design	Passive solar gain	Energy savings of up to 20%
Siting / layout / landscaping materials	Optimize microclimate	Energy savings of at least 5%; more in exposed areas