A ride on the new Alaska Highway bike path

This weekend I took a ride on the recently completed new multi-use path (MUP) paralleling the Alaska Highway from the north end of the airport to Range Road.  It was built as part of Yukon Government's widening/twinning of the Alaska Highway through this area.

It is a nicely paved section of trail that partially extends the MUP 800 m further northward from the airport trail. It ends abruptly partially along Range Road and is not connected to anything at this time.  YG stated that City of Whitehorse will complete the trail northward to 2-Mile Hill at some point in the future (City has yet to confirm when this might occur).

Since we will hopefully starting to build a lot more protected spaces for cyclists in the coming years, I'm going to focus on "lessons learned" from YG's first attempt at this type of infrastructure:

Start of the new path.  Nice smooth asphalt, good gentle grade. LESSONS LEARNED: no drainage on the up-slope side, especially runoff from the highway will result in ice accumulating on the path, leading down to the intersection in the foreground. PS - this gate is terrible!

T-junction at Range Road.  Main path loops off to the right unnecessarily.  Note already the pedestrian in distance has left the path to walk directly via the road!  I suspect this is what many will do. LESSON LEARNED: Keep bike paths straight, convenient and designed for 30km/hr.  They need to be designed like a road with no unnecessary turns, bends or hills.

Path looping around Range Road.  This route causes the path to cross three driveways/entrances that could have been avoided if the path crossed Range Road at the signalized intersection with Alaska Highway.  LESSON LEARNED:  Plan cycle routes to minimize interruptions and crossing with motor vehicle traffic.

Pedestrian crossing of Range Road at Alaska Highway (signal lights remains to be installed).  This is where the MUP should have crossed Range Road as a Protected Intersection.  Nice cut-through of the "pork chop", but the pork-chop is very problematic for road-cyclists.  The create a difficult and dangerous situation for cyclists and should not be used.  LESSON LEARNED: Do no use pork chops as they create unnecessary difficulty and hazard for cyclists and inconveniences for pedestrians.  A refuge island between the lanes would be the better, safer solution.

Alaska Highway Crossing to unpaved trail on west side of highway, leading to Valleyview.  Note the trail sloping down to crossing.  LESSONS LEARNED:  We need to 1) avoid unnecessary climbs on bike paths; and 2) if there is a decent, drop the trail well in advance of the roadway crossing so cyclists are not carrying excess speed coming into the intersection. 

Looking towards the mid-block crossing where the trail crosses Range Road.  Note the additional driveway crossing here at Toyota.

 

Looking back south towards the airport.  Note, contrary to YG staffs' claim,  there is ample space between Range Road (on the left) and the Alaska Highway (on the right) to accommodate the trail directly to the intersection in the distance.  LESSON LEARNED:  Cycle paths should be as straight and direct as possible and do not require much space. 

Again the path looking southward.  Some sections are well elevated with ditching on both sides, however other locations like this one do not have a ditch between the road and the path.  At this location, melting snow runoff will flow from the road onto the path, creating ice on the path.  LESSON LEARNED: provide good drainage and ditching for bike paths, same as done for roadways.

And here is the abrupt north end of the path.  A path to nowhere.  LESSON LEARNED: To build a cycle network, it needs to connect.  With $6 million spent on this project, it is shame that path couldn't have gone another 500m north to connect with the multi-use path at 2-Mile Hill.

Summary:
 Well, it is great to see another piece of the Alaska CycleHighway being built.   Certainly the lack of a paved path between airport trail and Range Road was a missing piece.  However, for spending $6 million of public funds to build additional highway lanes that are not needed, the cycling component is disappointing. 

Overall verdict:  Should have done better.

How can Yukon Government Support Cycling in Whitehorse

I was recently asked what role Yukon Government (YG) has in developing cycling as a mainstream mode of transportation within the City of Whitehorse?

Most of the roads and trails within Whitehorse are the City’s responsibility, but Yukon Government plays a role in enhancing cycling in at least 6 areas:

1. There will be a forthcoming Climate Change, Energy and Green Economy Strategy that is to replace the existing separate Climate, Energy and Biomass Strategies.  This new Strategy should set overall direction for government to increase support for sustainable transportation.  One aspect for this could be subsidies for electric vehicles.  I hope this includes full subsidy for e-bikes as the GHG reductions for an e-bike is FAR higher than an electric car.
2. Updating the Motor Vehicles Act to become a more inclusive Road Safety Act (as per the resolution passed by the Association of Yukon Communities in 2019).  This should include several measures and changes that make cycling safer and reduce barriers to convenient cycling. Whitehorse Urban Cycling Coalition provided input into the Motor Vehicle Re-write and we look forward to all of that input being reflected in the new act.
3. YG provides funding for projects, either directly from its resources, or through bilateral funding.  The bilateral funding is Federal money that flows to the Yukon Government which then in turn is used to fund municipal infrastructure projects.  This includes both Gas Tax and more significantly, funding from the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program.  This latter is moving so much money to the Yukon that the municipalities cannot spend it all.  In the words of the municipal mangers “[capital] money is not the limitation; it is our capacity to manage the projects that is the barrier.”  Thus, YG plays a key gatekeeper role to funding municipal infrastructure projects.
4. The Alaska Highway is a key transportation corridor that slices through Whitehorse and it is owned and managed by Yukon Government.  It is used daily by citizens to move about Whitehorse and as such is a major opportunity, or as seen recently, barrier to cycling.  The Alaska Highway acts as a major barrier or wall segregating Whitehorse in two halves.  But, since YG controls this land, they can build infrastructure that promote safe, convenient cycling connections both across the highway and along it.
5. Schools are a major destination for cyclists in Whitehorse (many, being underage, do not have the privilege of operating a motor vehicle).  Department of Education has the resources and responsibility to provide safe routes to school. They can enhance connectivity on-school property to the cycle network.  Furthermore, they could invest in active transportation routes & connections to the schools.  Kids who arrive at school by active transportation (cycling or walking) are known to have better education outcomes.
6. Lastly, YG is the largest employer in downtown Whitehorse.  They own and operate many workplaces, and like schools, can facilitate active transportation to those workplaces.  This would include both onsite infrastructures to support cycling such as high quality, covered, secure bike parking, workplace showers/change rooms as well as physical, convenient connectivity to the adjacent bike network.  These measures would help make cycling to work easier and more convenient, thus reducing barriers to cycle commuting. 

The more Yukon Government supports cycling through the measures above, it improves cycling for EVERYONE through the force multiplier effect.  Yukon Government just declared a “Climate Emergency” this week and here is a tangible way to put that declaration in action, save money and help build a healthier, happier community.

An idea to help balance Yukon's books: Stop subsidizing oil and gas.

The current Yukon Government realized they are going to be facing a $40-$60million shortfall (deficit) starting in 2018.  So they convened the Financial Advisory Panel to think up what to do.  This group did some online consultation this summer, which I did not hear about and missed the opportunity to provide input on.  Now they are doing consultation in the communities and an online survey (see https://yukonplans.ca/)

Here is my suggestion to help address this deficit:  stop subsidizing the use of oil and gas (propane).  This post is a bit of a work in progress as I mull through this idea, but I thought I’d get the idea out there now and update/revise this post as I think the matter through further.   If this topic piques your interests, please check back and I’ll provide more specifics.  

Based on my breakfast-table estimates this morning, I figure Yukon Government foregoes somewhere between $10million and $20million per year in revenues by subsidizing consumption of fossil fuels.  The perversity of these subsidies are:

1. Yukon produces no oil or gas, so there are no benefits flowing to Yukon from these subsidies (increasing oil and gas consumption does not benefit our economy); 
2. almost every dollar spent on oil and gas is a direct loss to the Yukon economy (all of those dollars are economic leakage and leave the Yukon); and 
3. for most of the uses, we have made-in-Yukon cleaner, safer alternatives and solutions that would keep the money in the Yukon.

The Yukon subsidizes fuel usage in two ways:  firstly, Yukon has the lowest tax rate on gasoline in the Canada at $0.062/L. This is less than HALF the rate changed in any Province (lowest is Alberta at $0.13/L.)   That alone is worth $4million a year on tax revenue!  Secondly, Yukon offers tax exceptions on burning oil and propane for heating.  That means NO tax charged on these hazardous materials that are costing us a lot (for example spill cleanups, leaky tanks, heath-care costs, deaths by carbon monoxide poisoning, etc.).   Tax exceptions (which are subsidies) are also issued for commercial use such as mining.  Sure, there may be industries that we want to help support, but giving them a subsidy for how much fuel they burn is crazy.  Wouldn’t it be much better to give those vulnerable industries direct support that is in someway inversely proportional to their success?  These total tax breaks, based on the current tax rate of $0.072/L for diesel (which is what heating oil) is worth about $6million a year.  

I have a lot more specifics and details on this which I hope to write up and post here, but this is the gist of the idea now.  If you think this idea has merit and it seems wrong to your for government to raise your income taxes or cut service, but continue to subsidize burning of these dangerous and polluting substances, then please go to https://yukonplans.ca/ and complete the survey.  Participate in the public meetings if you can.

The Details:

Current Fuel Taxes

• Yukon has lowest fuel taxes in the country.  See: http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/gas-taxes-canada.aspx
• Current Yukon Fuel Taxes on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel: http://www.finance.gov.yk.ca/fueltax.html.  Note "no tax" on propane.  Really? 

Who I'm voting for in 2015 Municipal Election and Why

Historically I always felt voting was a "private" matter.  But this year, I've become more engaged in the Whitehorse municipal election, primary through the Whitehorse Urban Cycling Coalition (wucc.ca).  So I thought I'd share my thoughts on this election.

What I'm looking for primary is candidates that will work towards a sustainable future for Whitehorse.  Something we can afford and creates a high quality of life.  What we do know is that the automobile is a killing us financially, socially and of course, environmentally.  The car is a dead-end.  Yes, I own and operate not just one, but several automobiles.  And yes, we will never be "car-free." But what we need to do is work really hard to build a community where we can minimize the usage automobiles so we can afford the future we want.

We see that when we have people-oriented development, it is a much lovely town, as opposed to car-centric development.  I've traveled and explored communities that are moving away from the car, and they are so much richer places to be.  Unfortunately, in Whitehorse we've inherited a town that has been built for the car.  We need to deal with that sad reality.

The WUCC put together eight questions for the candidates and to date we've gotten an amazing 15 complete written responses from the 25 mayor and councilor candidates running  (you can see the questions and answers on the WUCC website).  If you look at the question, there is a lot more going on there than just "give us more bike lanes".  In fact, what I find is that the candidates responses are are pretty good proxy for how well they share my vision for a sustainable community.

So, based on this, my councilor picks will be (as of today):

• Helen GEISLER - quite cycle supportive and what I thought were some smart measured answers to some questions.
• Betty IRWIN  - She did not benefit from participating in cycling as part of her generation, but seems open minded and supportive of sustainable transportation and has practical experience with council. 
• Roslyn WOODCOCK - downtowner and totally supportive of sustainable transportation.
• Jocelyn CURTEANU - good positive commitment to cycling, but probably needs more information about the importance of good, contiguous cycle infrastructure to open doors for more of the community.  

 Yes, just 4 I guess.  The point was well made that you don't need to vote for all six positions.  If you don't know them (or are only voting based on name recognition), then don't vote for them!  Really, you are stealing votes from yourself for the candidates you DO want in.



Now, who NOT to vote for.  Well, based on the WUCC feedback, there are a few candidates who, in my mind, are clearly "yikes, not friends of bikes:

• George ARCAND
• Dan BOYD

And the zeros (candidates who did not respond to WUCC's queries in any form) are:

• Mike TRAVILL
• Garth BROWN

Remember, voting is sexy!

-->

-->

Whitehorse Wasteland

Below is a map I made of all the "blank spaces" downtown.  All of the dead and wasted land downtown makes me crazy, yet we are developing new land.  In this map, all of the "white" areas represent undeveloped, vacant and underutilized land in downtown Whitehorse.  Obviously you can pick out the road network, but beyond that you can see a lot of white.  By comparison, look up in the residential area (west of 6th, far left of the map) and you can see how the downtown grid of Whitehorse should be filled out.

Pretty obvious we are wasting our downtown.  What do you think, maybe 20% of downtown not used adequately? Maybe time to do something about it.  Maybe it is time we start to move to land value taxation so we can at least start generating some revenue off of all that empty land.

A tour of cycling infrastructure in Toronto

I've been in Toronto to see family and run in the Canadian orienteering championships in Hamilton this week.  Weather has been very nice, and so I decided to dig out my father in-law's bike which was abandoned in his basement and go for a ride (unfortunately, I didn't take my camera, so all of these pictures are shamelessly stolen from the internet).

I had a copy of the new Toronto cycling map and decided to take a route so I could check out the new "Cycle Track" on Sherbourne Street. I'll describe it a bit later on, but for those not familiar with it, a cycle track is a type of "bike lane"  that is somehow physically separated from the roadway.   It might be the premier type of bike infrastructure because it is fast and direct like a bike lane, but provides cyclists extra security and comfort by separating the bike lane from the car lane.  I noticed that when I was in Sweden this summer that this is the most common type of bike infrastructure there, even in the far north winter cities we visited.

Raised cycle track on Sherbourne Street, Toronto

Anyway, back to my route.  The first thing the struck me is the random, disconnected nature of the bike infrastructure - take a look at this map, do you see any logical routes or connectivity? 

Section of Toronto Cycling Map - random bits of bike infrastructure, not connected nor logical routes.  Blue lines are simply "recommended" streets to use and don't represent bike lanes or other infra.

Diminutive bike route signs

I started by following some of the blue routes, which are "shared roadways" that are supposed to be signed, on-street routes.  Well, there is signage, but it is tiny, and has route numbers on them that don't mean much to me.  Where does "18" lead me to?   Then the route was terrible, every intersection had stop signs, so no flow, stopping always - why could they have not just turned the signs?  And it was on rough, neglected streets!  I got lost a couple of times and had to check my map.  A one spot I even ended up on Bayview Extension (not a bike friendly place), looking up at a pedestrian overpass with on clue how to get up there.  A cyclists yelled down to me directions on how to get off the expressway and find the bridge!

Now, at this point I was pretty disappointed with how terrible cycling in Toronto is.  But then, I thought back to when I lived here in 2001, and back then there was NO bike maps, NO bike infrastructure, so I guess they actually have come a long way.  But, definitely the Car rules in Toronto.

Finally I made it to the Sherborne cycle track.  It runs north-south pretty much the length of downtown - so you can traverse downtown on separated bike route, which is quite nice (I've circled in in red on the map):

Sherbourne Street cycle track running the length of downtown north-south.

 It is pretty nice - fast and comfortable.   I found a little YouTube video of the track; it is of the upper part of the track which has a divider between the roadway and the cycle lane:




The upper section of the cycle track uses a low barrier to separate the roadway from the bike lane.

Cycle track with barrier type separation.

I don't know how well this would work in a winter city from a plowing perspective as it would have to be plowed separately, which is in fact what they do:

Plowing of Toronto cycle track

Raised cycle track with low roll-over curb.

Lower down on Sherbourne, the cycle track changes to a raised cycle track that is separated from the roadway with a low roll-over curb (shown below and as first picture above).  This type of track I think would work very well in Whitehorse because it could be plowed from the roadway with a wing-plow on the grader, but would keep all the road debris and snow-berm from the roadway out of the cycle lane.  If you look at the newly build Industrial Road, it has this type of low roll-over curb, so I know we can build them in Whitehorse!

Another thing I noticed was the abundant use of markings (paint/thermoplastic, etc), which  I'm always suspect of because in Whitehorse it always gets worn off in the winter.  But, then I remember that in low-traffic streets, the paint on our streets does last a long time.  I think we just lose the paint where there is a lot of motor vehicle traffic that tears the paint off when the streets are sanded.  So now that I think about it, I think the paint on a cycle track in Whitehorse would last pretty well.

Another neat thing was how the bus stops are integrated with the cycle track.  The track rises up so there is a good curb at the bus stop (there is also a good view of it at 0:35 in the video above):


After my fun ride down the cycle track, I then proceeded to get lost in the mayhem of downtown Toronto.  I think the car congestion in Toronto is worse than I ever remember it.  All the more reason this city needs to spend on getting people out of their cars.  

The rest of my ride was back to ratty old bike multi-use bike trails/paths up the Don Valley.  The trails are badly neglected, lots of pot holes, twisty and convoluted routes that go through parking lots, use road ways, etc.

I did get to ride along a new cycle path (two way) along Queen Quay which looks like is just getting finished and is obviously incomplete with a few gaps - it is a two-way shared pathway with laneway markings.  I didn't find any good pictures, but here is one earlier on in its construction:

http://www.ibiketo.ca/taxonomy/term/21?page=1

This trail/bikeway was nice, but the curbs at each driveway were very rough, so it made riding it a bit unpleasant.  Too bad, it would have been an easy thing to build t the curb cuts smooth so you could have a better ride. 

Anyway, the weather was amazingly nice for first week of October and so it was great to get out for a sunny, warm bike ride.

Problem intersections in Whitehorse

The City of Whitehorse has recently embarked on a "Transportation Demand Management" study.  Which is basically a fancy way of saying "how do we get better at getting out of our 1-ton death machines and start enjoying our community more?"

As part of this, the City and their consultant solicited a list of "problem" locations which pose problems/barriers for cyclists.   When I looked at the list of issue points on the roadways, what I realized is there is a particular type of intersection in Whitehorse that is causing problems:  it is the triad type intersection that incorporates separated diverge/ merge lanes.  Examples of this include Lewes Blvd+Hospital Rd., 2nd+RSW, 4th+2nd, 2nd+Quartz and 2MileHill+Industrial. 

Right turn merge/diverge lanes that cause conflicts with cyclists.  Example shows 2nd and 4th Ave. intersection with red "X" showing conflict points for rapidly right-turning motorists.  Do we REALLY need these "express" lanes?

The problem with these intersections is rapidly right turning motorists, which cause a cycle/auto conflict.  Do we REALLY need merge/diverge express lanes at these locations in this town?  Let's be honest: No. 

We can all slow down and execute a normal right-hand turn with a slowed, shoulder/mirror check for a cyclist, then proceed with a normal right-hand turn as per almost all other intersections.  Will gridlock and traffic chaos erupt?  No.

What I realize is ultimately when these intersections get re-built, they should get rebuilt as normal T-intersections (multi-lanes okay) which will result in a safer environmental for all of us, including when we drive our cars. 

Why Whitehorse Needs to Allow Bicycles on Sidewalks (with conditions)

With the proposed Bicycle Bylaw re-write, I have been an advocate for allowing riding bicycles on sidewalks.

What? The horror, right! Bike terrorists knocking over little old ladies! No, that is not what I mean, but I do mean a bit of a shift in our 1960’s vintage thinking that Whitehorse residents are trapped in. (I know, we are a bit off the beaten path and get left a bit behind the times).

In fact, the reason we need to allow bicycles to be ridden, with limits, on sidewalks is actually so little old ladies CAN take up cycling as a viable transportation option.

Here’s what I mean, but first, the conditions:  

1. Use of a sidewalk for cycling should only be in a controlled, slow speed manner.
2. the cyclists yield to pedestrians,
3. give audible warning when overtaking pedestrians (must equipped with bell)
4. no riding bikes on Main Street sidewalks (that just makes sense for a pedestrian dominated environment). 

Allowing bicycles on sidewalks is a matter of equity and community inclusiveness. There are two reasons why we need to change our thinking and allow bicycles on sidewalks:

1. Reduce Barriers to Cycling: It opens up opportunities for people to start riding bikes and recognize that cycling, even year-round, is a viable transportation option for them. A majority of Whitehorse residents would likely use cycling as a primarily means of transportation, but are intimidated or concerned about riding on motorways. Whitehorse’s roads are designed for automobiles, and are hostile, intimidating places for cyclists--this is a barrier to cycling. Only the enthused and confident cyclists ride on the road, especially year-round.  However, if Whitehorse’s citizens were allowed to use the sidewalk, when not comfortable or feeling safe on the roadway, then this would act as a “gateway” to cycling and open up cycling to them. Over time as they become more confident and recognize cycling as a viable transportation option.  Then they would likely become more comfortable riding on the roadway. Plus, the roadway is much quicker, so any “commuter” cyclist, moving quickly, will graduate to the roadway. Allowing cycling on sidewalks reduces barriers to cycling for Whitehorse‘s citizens. 
2. Personal Transportation Equity and Accessibility. Not all people in our community have the skills and capacity to operate a bicycle in an automobile environment. This maybe a child, a senior or someone with mobility or other physical impairments. Many of these members of our community may not even have the privilege of operating an automobile. For these folks, it becomes a matter of transportation equality in allowing them a personal transportation option. By permitting riding of bicycles on sidewalks, it allows these members of the community to travel independently in a safer, low speed environment. Again, it just open up transportation independence to a broader cross-section of our community.

And Whitehorse has yet another compelling reason to allow cycling on sidewalks: WINTER. Winter is a reality for us; but it is not a barrier. During the winter, SNOW sometimes accumulates on the shoulders of the road. This forces cyclist to either operate unsafely in the debris, or move further left into the travel lane – which both endangers the cyclist and enrages privileged motorists. Ideally, the City would have super-duper snow clearing and all of the snow would be removed from the entire travel-way shortly after falling. However, our economic reality is we can’t afford to have unlimited snow removal (and I thing that would not be fiscally responsible anyway). I do believe snow clearing of bike routes should be improved, but I also recognize the financial and physical realities of the City. This is why we should give cyclists the ability to use the sidewalk when they do not feel safe or comfortable using a snow/debris obstructed (or icy) roadway.


So, now we agree that kids, seniors, people with disabilities and newbies should be able to operate bicycles on sidewalks as a matter of equity, personal independence, and safety. We also all agree that when the roadway is unsafe during our never-ending winter, that cyclist should be able to use the sidewalk to travel safely (and nobody wants to run-over a cyclist). Oh, and cyclists do need to access the sidewalk at traffic-light controlled intersections to activate the light because there are no bike-triggered loops in the roadways. So, at this point we have a whole bunch of really, really good reasons for bicycle operation, with conditions, on sidewalk. So, why don’t we just take the plunge and do the right thing.

Now, this is not a radical notion. In fact, many, many cities allow use of bicycles on sidewalks. Reportedly this is quite common in European cities. The example I am well familiar with is Portland, Oregon. There, they allow bicycles on sidewalks outside of their urban downtown, and it works very well. In fact, operating bikes on sidewalks is permitted in under the State of Oregon’s Motor Vehicle Act. If we want to incorporate the legal language into our Bicycle Bylaw, here is what they have in Oregon:

Unsafe operation of bicycle on sidewalk; penalty.

(1) A person commits the offense of unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk if the person does any of the following:

(a) Operates the bicycle so as to suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and move into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) Operates a bicycle upon a sidewalk and does not give an audible warning before overtaking and passing a pedestrian and does not yield the right of way to all pedestrians on the sidewalk.
(c) Operates a bicycle on a sidewalk in a careless manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property.
(d) Operates the bicycle at a speed greater than an ordinary walk when approaching or entering a crosswalk, approaching or crossing a driveway or crossing a curb cut or pedestrian ramp and a motor vehicle is approaching the crosswalk, driveway, curb cut or pedestrian ramp. This paragraph does not require reduced speeds for bicycles at places on sidewalks or other pedestrian ways other than places where the path for pedestrians or bicycle traffic approaches or crosses that for motor vehicle traffic.
(e) Operates an electric assisted bicycle on a sidewalk.

(2) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, a bicyclist on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk.

That’s pretty easy eh? The key point is we need to change our head space. Recognize that bikes CAN be operated on sidewalks, but that they need to be done so in a manner compatible with pedestrians. This does work. Whitehorse residents are not too stupid to figure this out. We are smart enough, we just need to make the paradigm shift and move beyond of the “happy motoring” age.

Why Whitehorse Sucks Reason #8* - Sprawl

My brother recently moved to the far side of Riverdale.  I was biking over there the other night from my house downtown, and I was thinking "My god, this is a far.  Why did he have to move so far away?"

This got me thinking about the winters we lived down in Portland Oregon, and I didn't think it seemed that far to bike places.  So, I decided to do some checking.  Straight line distance from my place to the far side of Riverdale is 3.2 km.  Below is a 3.2 km radius circle from my house.  You an see how much of Whitehorse is encompassed.

By comparison, the second picture shows the same 3.2km radius circle centered on the house we rented in one of the nice old streetcar neighborhoods in Portland. I was shocked:  3.2 km took us full across the entire downtown core of Portland.  Not only does this circle encompass the downtown core, it includes many of the interesting trendy neighborhoods, several of the charming bungalow neighborhoods and even seven bridges over the river!  A majority of our tourism time in Portland was all contained in this 3.2 km circle. I can't believe how much of the community was in such a compact area - no wonder Portland is such a great bike town. And no wonder that Whitehorse sucks for biking--there are too many blank spaces and low-density sprawl. 

Now, I'm not complaining about the amount of awesome wild land in Whitehorse that I have direct access to in that 3.2km circle, but I definitely see we are wasting the space we are using.  I see we can have both.  If we made better use of the developed land (and the wastelands between), easily doubled up the density, then we would have a much more vibrant, interesting and livable community, and still have the real green space immediately accessible too.


* I haven't settled on the other nine reasons why Whitehorse sucks, but I'm sure I will eventually come up with them!  

Idea for improving affordable housing availability

Late last year the Government of Yukon sought ideas for improving affordable housing availability. The following is my suggestion that would help deal with all the vacant and under-developed lots downtown:

My specific suggestion is to move to land value taxation from our current property improvement tax system. A solution lies in how property tax is assessed and would be revenue neutral (ie. wouldn't cost government anything). Our current tax assessment process is primarily based on the value of the improvements on the property, with less emphasis given to the land value itself. This assessment method is actually a disincentive to redevelopment and development of revenue generating buildings (e.g. rental or multi-housing). In fact, under our current property tax assessment system, holding fallow or underutilized land for speculation is encouraged. This is because if a developer wishes to develop a high quality, multi-use building, the tax on that property rises, whereas if they do nothing, or construct a low-quality development, the property tax is lower.

The alternative to property tax assessment is land-value taxation. Under this system, the tax on real estate is commensurate with the site's potential value, regardless of what buildings may occupy the site. Therefore, holding fallow or underutilized land is a cost to the developer. The developer will want to construct the highest quality (and highest income yielding) development on the property as possible, comfortable in knowing the taxation will not change significantly. Under the land-value taxation system, holding land is expensive, and high-quality re-development is actually encouraged by the taxation system. A good overview is found on wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax, or another nice summary of this system can be found at: http://www.sprawlwatch.org/taxincentives.html

Obviously the land-value taxation would be gradually moved to over a number of years so land-owners know it is coming and it doesn't cause a tax-shock for them. For example, increase the land portion of the tax assessment by 10% and decrease the improvement portion by 10% every year for 10 year. At the end, the tax would be assessed 100% on land and 0% on improvements. The specific rates would need to be looked at so that on balance the tax is revenue-neutral relative to the current tax base.

This would be an easy, revenue neutral way to get some of that fallow-land in Whitehorse into providing housing for people, and would ultimately lead to a better built environment for the community. Some have criticized the City (perhaps unjustly) for "not doing its part" by allowing all these derelict lots downtown, but instead going and developing in new areas. This could be a means to directly show that the municipality, supported by YG, is doing its part to provide sustainable housing to the community.

bicycle events & cycling advocacy links

At our Transition Whitehorse meeting tonight we discussed the ideas around doing a bicycle event and perhaps establishing a cycling coalition in Whitehorse.

On the topic of events, many cites are now doing Sunday street events were streets are closed to cars and they have community cycling and active recreation events.  The grandaddy of this in recent times is Bogota's Ciclovia:





Portland Oregon has something similar called "Sunday Parkways":

As for bicycle advocacy groups, here are a couple I know of:

• Portland's Bicycle Transportation Alliance 
• Victoria has Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition

Street Pickles

I love pickled carrots.

I figure I could eat a jar a week.  That means I need 52 jars, plus enough to give away for Christmas.

So I started a carrot farm in the boulevard.  The boulevard is that useless piece of grass between your property and the curb.  Technically, it is the City's land, but I still have to mow it.  So I built a raised carrot bed in that space last year, and then a second one this year.  All I grow in there is carrots, easy peasy.

This weekend I harvested and pickled my "new" bed - the bed is about 12' long x 4' wide and I got 47lbs of carrots out of it.  Of course, it is new dirt, which really helps.  We'll see what I get out of it next year.

 Here's the pickling setup this weekend.  All of this is from the one bed. Note the milk crate behind me that still needs to be cut up.

 I got 39 jars (about 25L) of pickled carrots out of this bed.  I should be good till New Years...

Whitehorse to Mayo & Return on one tank of gas (821 km)

I had some work last week up in Mayo drilling a couple of new water supply wells for the town.  Over the past couple of years I've gotten interested in "eco-driving" - that is modifying my driving behaviour to maximize fuel efficiency.  So, I decided to see if I could make 1000km on one tank of gas.  I didn't quite make that, but I did get to Mayo and back on 66L of gas.  I turns out my car has an 80L tank, but that includes a 12 L "reserve", so it tells you are empty at 68L used.

And no, I don't drive a Prius or a Fit - it's my big old German tank - a 1991 Audi turbo quattro - a big all-wheel drive sedan.  Not bad eh?

So, how did I get this far on one tank?

Here is the secret: I drove the speed limit.

Yup, that's pretty much it.  Imagine if everyone drove the speed limit - we could probably reduce vehicle fuel usage in the Yukon by 20%!  Ok, I had a couple of other "hypermileing" tricks, but I don't know how much of a difference they made:

• light load (just me in the car)
• coasting down big hills with the clutch depressed
• very slow acceleration
• shift up early (5th gear as low as 60km/hr)
• NEVER touch the brakes if you can avoid it
• no radio or other electrical loads

Another interesting thing is I had a really good tailwind going north to Mayo.  I averaged about 31 mpg on the way up.  On the way back to Whitehorse, there was almost no wind (or even a slight headwind), and my mileage was much lower - 28 mpg.  Interesting that the wind could make a 10% difference, even for a low-drag car such as mine.

David MacKay has a nice summary of the effect of speed on fuel efficiency of a car in his excellent book "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air".

Eco-Beer

No fossil fuels were harmed in the drinking of this beer (well almost no fossil fuels):

Heard of the "100-Mile Diet"?  Well this is my "100-Mile Drinking Diet" - that is drinking products only made within a 100 miles.  Here in Whitehorse, this pretty much limits us to Yukon Brewing Company products.  I just re-discovered my growlers, and so I refilled them on my way home from work today.  Fossil-Fuel-Free elements of tonight's refreshment include:

• locally produced beer, using local, sustainably produced City of Whitehorse drinking water,
• powered by renewable hydroelectricity for the Whitehorse dam,
• decanted directly into my growler bottle at the brewery (no transportation, other than rolling the keg over to the taps)
• using a re-usable glass bottle,
• and conveyed back home in my Xtracycle!

I'm sure the grain and other ingredients are from outside, but really that is a small proportion of the total embodied energy to this tasty beverage.  

Local Economic Leakage from Fossil Fuel Usage

Inspired by the film "Economics of Happiness" hosted on Friday by Transition Whitehorse, I thought I'd look at how much money we are shipping out of the Yukon from using fossil fuels. Specifically:

how much could be re-invest in the Yukon's economy if we used locally produced energy?

Based on 2009 energy usage data for the Yukon, and current fossil fuel prices, we lost:
 

• $30 million / year in heating oil (26 million litres were used at a current price of $1.17/L);
• $7 million / year in propane for heating (7.2 million litres were used at a current price of $0.98/L);
• $2.5 million / year in diesel to generate electricity (2.5 million litres at an assumed price of $1/L); and
• $114 million / year in vehicle fuel (87.5 million litres were used at a current price of $1.299/L).

In total, that is $154 million / year spent on fossil fuels, the majority of which was lost to the Yukon's economy.


Looking at the $37 million spent on space heating alone ($30 million in oil and $7 million in propane), this is delivered-energy equivalent to 256 GWh/yr with a weighted average price of $0.147/kWh.  Surely for this price and quantity we could supply this from our locally abundant renewable resources, such as hydro, biomass (wood and/or pellets) and wind, thereby re-capturing all of this expenditure to the Yukon's economy?  And it's carbon-neutral as a bonus.

Now, I'm no economist, so perhaps someone who understands these matters more can comment here, but as I see it re-capturing $37 million in leakage from the Yukon's economy is equivalent to a 2.2% increase in the Yukon's GDP.  In 2009, the Yukon was Canada's poster child for economic growth with an GDP growth of just 1.4%.  What an easy GDP boost--stop sending money Outside for fossil fuels, buy Local Energy!

Any current or aspiring politicians listening for an easy win?

Dmitry Orlov: Social Collapse Best Practices

When thinking about issues such as peak oil, it is important to consider broader social implications. Here is very entertaining lecture by a fellow named Dmitry Orlov.:

http://fora.tv/2009/02/13/Dmitry_Orlov_Social_Collapse_Best_Practices

It's a video, about an hour an half you can watch online. Dmitry is a Russian-American fellow with a very classic Russian black sense of humour. What is really interesting about this lecture is he sees the United States on the same route of superpower collapse that the Soviet Union went on. If you listen to some of the rhetoric coming out of the States lately (particular from the far right wing), you can hear a lot of the reminiscence / anger at the loss of their former "glory" that Demitry described as happening after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The second observation he makes is how men are particularly poorly equipped to deal with social collapse.