2018 looks to have been a bad year for Yukon's carbon emissions

Greenhouse gas emission reporting always lags two to three years behind.  I find this frustrating when we are in a Climate Change Emergency and yet do not publish our pollution until three years after the fact.  How are we supposed to manage what we measure three years too late? 

Yukon generates it own emissions estimate because it has access to its own data sets for a more accurate estimate (relative to the National Inventory Report where Yukon is a mere rounding error on the national scale).  But the most recent Yukon estimate (https://yukon.ca/en/greenhouse-gas-emissins-yukon) only goes up to 2017.   It is great Yukon does this more detailed, more accurate estimate, but again, it is still so much after the fact, it is hard to get feedback on how we are doing in our climate change fight.

So I plotted road fuel usage data, as reported by Yukon Bureau of Statics and greenhouse gas emissions to see if it gives some "indication" of how we've done since 2017.  Since we know transportation is responsible for the majority of Yukon's emissions, it does give some insight: more fuel used = more emissions.  Results are below, and the answer is things are not looking good for Yukon's emissions in 2018.  Transportation fuel was up 16 million litres in 2018 vs 2017.

We are going in the wrong direction. It looks like we will need to double-down if we want to achieve our desired 30% reductions in the next 10 years.  

2019 Carbon Levy Rebate and Our Family's Carbon Emissions

At the end of April Yukoner's got their second carbon levy rebate of $43/person.

As I posted previously, I have been keeping track of our family's carbon emissions over the past year.  Below is our monthly emissions:

So did we pay more in carbon pollution fees than we got back?

Our total carbon that was subject to the Yukon's carbon fee of $20/tonne from April 2019 to end of March 2020 was 6.9 tonnes of CO₂.  So that means as a family of three, over the 12 months we paid a total of $138 for the carbon pollution we were directly responsible for.  

Over the same period, we got $258 from government in carbon rebates.  Thus we made $120 last year from the Yukon's carbon pricing scheme!

Thank you to all you folks leaving your cars idling.

Our Family's Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Carbon Rebate

On July 1, 2019 Yukon started applying a $20/tonne price on carbon dioxide pollution.  At the same time, the government committed to fully returning the levy to residents.

The rebate is currently $43 / person every six month.  We are a family of 3 and we just got our first 6-month rebate of $129 (it came to us a bit late 'cause I was late filing our 2018 income taxes :-( )

So I was curious - are we going to pay more in our pollution "tipping fee" than we get back from the rebate?  Being someone who believes in "let the data reveal the truth" I've been keeping track of our family's greenhouse gas emissions.  Below are the results for the up till end of February:

Methodology

• Gasoline and propane is simply our emissions by volume of gasoline/propane purchased (simply gas receipts)
• Electricity changes from month-to-month because the carbon intensity of the on-grid electricity varies depending on how much is renewable energy (hydropower) and how much is thermal (diesel and LNG).   I calculate the monthly carbon intensity based on the monthly hydro/thermal generation reported by Yukon Energy.
• For flying, I use the typical emission factor for a 737-400 of 3.9kg/km, then I divide by the number of seats and my visual assessment of "load factor" (how full the plane is).  Then I multiply by 2 to account for the radiant forcing effect of emitting those greenhouse gasses at altitude instead of at ground.
• Average Yukoner emissions (red line at top of chart) is from the most recent reliable GHG emissions estimate for the Yukon, which is from 2015 and presented in the Yukon Energy State of Play (Vector Research, 2018).  In 2015 total Yukon emissions are reported as 572,000 tonnes for a population of 37,745--thus about 15 tonnes CO₂e / person.

Observations

• You can see our gasoline usage is pretty steady year-round about 0.4 tonnes/month.  It was much higher in August because we took a camping road trip through northern BC. 
• The Carbon Levy (pollution price) is only paid on gasoline and propane in Yukon.  Joe has conveniently negotiated an "exception" for aviation so Air North gets to dump their garbage in our air for free (my bias is showing!)  Similarly fossil fuels burned to make electricity has been given an "exception" and no pollution fee is charged for electricity generated with diesel or LNG.  
• Thus we as a family only paid our carbon price on the gasoline and propane we burned and not the aviation or emissions from electricity usage.

Results
Over the six-month period of April through September 2019 (the first rebate was nominally issued in October, so presumably for this period), our family's GHG emissions were:

• 51 tonnes of CO₂e total emitted
• 5.1 tonnes of CO₂e that were subject to the pollution fee
• $102 in carbon pollution fees paid
• $129 in rebate
• + $27 difference

So we are ahead! 

But, given all the driving we did in August 2019 (see chart above), I expect that we'll be further ahead once a full year is paid out.

Conclusions
So yes, more is being rebated than paid by us as the Yukon Government predicted.  Thank you carbon polluters?  But why is our family's emissions so much lower than the "average?"  Well for a few reasons:

1. Firstly, the "average" emissions I show above include all government, industrial and commercial emissions as well.  Thus it really isn't representative of an individual family's direct greenhouse gas emissions.
2. We made the choice as a family to try to have a "light" carbon footprint, which includes:

• Making the conscious choice (and accept the cost) to live and work downtown.  Thus we have very short commutes.
• I try to cycle as much as possible year-round.  I'd rather spend my money on nice beer instead of buying gasoline.
• We don't travel a lot - there is lots of fun to be had close to home and lots wild landscapes to explore and experience in southern Yukon. I'm not done exploring home after almost 40 years of living here!
• We have a relatively modest, energy efficient home that we heat primary with wood and have electric backup.  No more nasty heating oil for us.

Pork Chops and Refuge Islands

I got quite a few question asking "what is a Pork Chop?" after I'd mentioned that feature in my last blog post regarding the new cycle path along the Alaska Highway.

Pork Chop
A "pork chop" it a term to describe a triangular shaped "island" or piece of alienated land created by a right-hand "slip lane" or right-hand merge/diverge lane.  They are kind of an antiquate roadway design for convenience of drivers, but are quite problematic for pedestrians and cyclists.

Unfortunately, Whitehorse is rife with them.  Here are some examples:
 

Here are the pork chops at the infamous 4th and 2nd Ave intersection.  The kids that presented to City Council spoke extensively about how dangerous this intersection for them biking home from school. Good news is we heard that the City has started planning for re-design of this intersection!

Here is the 2nd and Quartz Rd. intersection.  Look at the convoluted path (sorry about my crude drawing) that a pedestrian has to follow to cross Quartz Rd.  What a pain in the a; not good for making your walk convenient.  Also, those right-hand turning cars are moving fast across those uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.

Here is Alaska Highway and 2-Mile Hill.  Imagine if you are an on-road cyclists trying to go northbound.  You have to first cross the high-speed right-turning traffic, then move through the intersection, then again change lanes across the northbound traffic coming from 2-mile Hill.  Scary for even the most bold of cyclists, never mind pulling children in a Chariot!  Anyone who has ridden through the recently re-built Lewes Blvd and Hospital Road intersection can attest to these hazards.

Here is are examples of pork-chops from the highway through Kelowna.  At YG's recent public seminar on road safety,  highway-safety expert Paul LaFleur cited the highway through Kelowna as a bad example and not what you want to do for a highway through a City.

Some years ago we did an an-hoc survey of all the "problematic" intersections for cyclists in Whitehorse.  Interestingly, all of the "problem" intersections correlated 1:1 to intersections with pork-chops.  

Also, cities are actively removing "pork chops" because of the barriers they create for non-motorists; here is an example from London Ontario: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/pork-chop-islands-getting-axed-1.4366890


 Refuge Islands

So how do we make intersection safer for pedestrian and cyclists?  The contemporary solution is a "refuge island."  This is a protected space (created by a median) between the two different directions of travel, see an example below:

Refuge island between the two directions of road travel (from left-to-right).  This is a Dutch example, they have so much bike traffic they provide separate spaces for pedestrians and cyclists!

The refuge island makes the crossing distance shorter for vulnerable road users.  I've seen at least two examples of why this is important:

1. Children cognitively have a difficult time both keeping track of traffic from two directions AND the relative speed of the vehicles.  Thus crossing two different directions at the same time is dangerous for them as they can't judge the space/distances well.  A refuge island allows them to cross one-direction at at time.
2. I have a personal example when travelling in Mexico with my aging father last year.  The community we were in divided the roadways and in doing so created refuge islands at the crosswalks.  My father is getting increasingly stiff and so walks slowly.  The refuge island allowed him to cross the roadways, one direction/lane at a time.

In signalized intersections refuge islands are also needed because we allow cars to turn right on red lights and thus cars traverse the cross-walk even when the walk signal is illuminated.

Here is a schematic of a refuge island from busy roads in city of Amsterdam.  Notice the refuge space created between in the two directions of travel.  Again, because of their bike volumes the pedestrians and cyclists have separate spaces.  This is also a good example of a Protected Intersection.

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.