Thursday, March 14, 2019

Icy roads and intimate drivers

It's finally getting warmer. Everything's melting. Unfortunately, it's also re-freezing overnight. This is the part of the year that I once referred to as the "muddy mess of March". It's also one of the reasons why March is the worst month for bike riding in New England.
Ice-skates anyone? (This is not a new picture but it illustrates what we have to deal with on the Minuteman Bikeway).

Anyway, I had an accident some time ago. No, not a close encounter with a car or anything like that. I was on the way to work when I realized that my rear tire rubs against the brake. It turned out that the steel wire in the tire bead broke and as a result the tire lost its shape. It came off the rim and there was no way I could push it back on. The tire was trashed. Unfortunately, that was a studded tire, which I could really use right now.

The Minuteman Bikeway is currently covered in ice on early mornings. Not having studded tires to my disposal, I had to adjust my commuting schedule. I take main roads now in the morning and return by the Bikeway in the evening, when all ice melts during the day.

The vehicular cycling is not my favorite part of the day. "Sharing" the road with speeding cars and trucks isn't what I would really like to do. Judging form the behavior of some drivers they don't like to see me there either.

I read an interesting article recently (I won't give a link here since it wasn't written in English) that could be described as "what to do in order to make driving better". Just from the tone of that article it was very obvious that it was written by a driver with total disregard of the less-protected road users. You probably have heard many such opinions already.

My favorite part was about requiring bicyclists to ride "as close as possible to the right edge of the road" and banning riding two abreast. It's because "only then it's feasible to pass a cyclist while maintaining enough distance". It's pretty clear this means passing a cyclist without the need of crossing the centerline.

After this week's commute on our suburban roads and "sharing" the space with cars I can tell that only someone who drives everywhere and never rides a bike could write something like this. Taking the lane or riding two abreast is the best "weapon" we have against those too-intimate drivers who get too close. If you only drive, you will never understand the feeling of a 2-tonne truck trying to "hug" your left shoulder when passing you at high speed.

At this point I really don't care if I'm inconveniencing drivers too much by delaying them by several seconds when I ride 2-3ft away from the curb. In fact, this is exactly why cyclists can be safer when taking the lane. It forces drivers to put down their phones for a while, slow down, look around, check if they can cross the centerline safely and then proceed if allowed. Riding too close to the road's edge gives drivers a chance to ignore cyclists completely, not even imaging a possibility of side-sweeping them.

 I'm impatiently waiting for all the snow to finally melt. I want to move back to the bike path so I don't have to "share the road" anymore.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 21, 2019

We did it - we are #1!

Great news Boston - we did it! We are number one... among U.S. cities with the worst rush-hour traffic congestion in 2018. So why is it so bad? Apparently, there are number of reasons, like too much of too cheap parking and the crumbling public transportation to name a few.

Solutions exist, just not here in America. Unfortunately, we just naively think that old-school American ways are better than anything imported and we would rather keep building more roads than dig deep to discover the true nature of the problem.

And the first step to solve any problem is to recognize there is one.

For some, such as Tim Jackson, CEO of the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, even this task is too much. Tim, who looks like someone born in the late 40's, asks "When did driving become a problem that needs to be solved?", to which the right answer is - about the time he was born. It's pretty clear that Tim has been sitting in traffic his whole life, which is likely why he considers this to be a perfectly normal situation. This may be why it's so difficult for people like Tim to imagine that it's possible to live in a city where traffic is non-issue. It's just they would have to leave their cars behind once a while.

I'm not going to argue with Tim here or anywhere else - simply because it's impossible. I mean, you can't argue with someone who begins his editorial with "A fundamentally American freedom is under attack." Since when driving a car has been a part of the First Amendment, Tim?

Well, at least Tim understands what the goal is:
The bottom line is they want to force more residents to use alternative transportation by making driving as unpleasant as possible.
Good call, Tim. Although I wouldn't say "unpleasant" - more like "unnecessary". Nevertheless, Tim will probably love to shake hands with our local hero - Jeff Jacoby, whose brain got stuck in 1972:
I honestly have no idea where he would fit those "more highways" anywhere in Boston. Maybe he's willing to give up his house so we can run a road through it?

What both Tim and Jeff fail to recognize is that (1) free space in city centers is very limited and adding more parking or traffic lanes would be extremely expensive and difficult, and (2) cars with just a driver inside are very inefficient in using this space. As Carlton Reid put it - "Motorists ride two abreast even when driving solo".

Since we have a free market economy in this country, it's time then to finally start charging drivers for goods (roads) that are in short supply (during the rush hours). This is called congestion pricing and it's very difficult to implement because nobody wants to pay for something that was always free.

I know that at this point Tim would tell me that driving is an American right and you can't charge for it. He probably very much likes our socialist transportation utopia:

That's right - when it comes to transportation we are a very socialist country even though most drivers would be appalled if you point it out. Essentially, "the way we use roads right now is a bit like the Soviet Union’s method of distributing bread".

It's time then to find other real solutions. Congestion pricing is one of them, as it would stimulate better distribution of road usage during the day (i.e. it's unlikely that 100% of all those morning trips into city must happen at exactly the same time). Dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes are a good addition. High-speed rail as an alternative to driving and flying as well as efficient commuter rail are necessary as well.

Yet when a high-speed rail was considered around Los Angeles, a counter-proposal suggested... new highway lanes with no speed limit travel as an alternative. Seems like someone didn't get the memo that the problem isn't lack of speed but how inefficient driving "two abreast" is.

Fortunately, not every politician is blindfolded. Boston's councilor Michelle Wu suggested recently making our MBTA fare-free. While this may seem a bit radical for many of you, maybe it's not such an unrealistic idea and that's because the most important part of Michelle's argument is this:
In Massachusetts, fares from bus and subway riders contributed just over 20 percent in revenues for the MBTA budget in 2018.
If only 20% of annual revenue comes from fares, it shouldn't be very difficult to forgo fares completely. By going fare-free MBTA could potentially save the lost revenue in form of faster boarding on buses (no need to board through driver's door only), no maintenance of ticket machines, less staff, etc.

But that's probably utopia, just like limiting the "American freedom" to own a car. They do it in Japan though:

In Japan when you purchase a vehicle you must prove that you own or rent a private parking space suitable for the vehicle. There is no assumption that motorists have the right to store their vehicle in public spaces for free.

In other words, Japan does not spatially subsidise motor cars. Right. We are so much behind...

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, January 21, 2019

Autobesity epidemic - is bigger always better?

A cold day today. For the first time this year it feels like a typical New England winter. Of course, this means that if you need to get anywhere, you should probably drive. Roads always get plowing priority in America and bike lanes or sidewalks are now used for snow storage.

If you've driven to work today, chances are you were sitting inside your comfortable, over-sized SUV, starring at a large infotainment screen on your dashboard. Before work you wanted to grab a cup of coffee at your favorite cafe but there was no place to park your truck, err... I mean, car. Most parking spots were gone since they put that stupid bike lane there and the only ones left were too small for your new SUV. You gave up on coffee and drove straight to your office instead, bitching on the way that "Whoopi Goldberg was right and this city is going to hell".

Apparently, that's what some New Yorkers thought as well posting these home-made signs in the middle of street and announcing that now bike lane on 12th Street is cancelled because it "only benefits other people".
I see. So whoever posted these signs is trying to tell us that since he/she doesn't use bike lanes, they are not needed. Great! Now we can officially "cancel" all senior centers, retirement homes and baseball stadiums - it's because I don't have any use of these facilities and they "only benefit other people".

This is exactly the kind of antisocial behavior we have to daily deal with here in the United States. It's always about "me" and not "us". This is why we don't have good public transport, national health care, public kindergartens, etc. Basically we are acting like a bunch of selfish idiots on a desert island.
But at least we have something great. I mean, literally great - giant cars.

During the last 4 years SUVs have surpassed sedans as the best-selling vehicles. Essentially, what we have now is "autobesity epidemic" in this country.
You may think - "So what? These cars are safer, right?" Well, they are - but only for those inside. For everyone else, large and heavy SUVs are just much more dangerous. If you're a driver of a small sedan you are unlikely to survive a collision with giant SUV or a pick-up truck. The difference in mass and kinetic energy is substantial so your logical decision is to buy a SUV as well. This leads to an "arms race" and soon everyone will be driving large SUVs around.

Unfortunately, things look even worse if you like to walk or ride your bike instead. That's because big cars kill. The hoods are so much higher above the ground, compared to a small sedan that drivers simply can't see anything right in front of their cars.
These problems are evident in numbers. Here's a couple of charts I stole (or borrowed) from  Twitter. As you can see, "between 2010 and 2016, the number of US pedestrians killed by cars went up a staggering 39%":
Which can be attributed to more and more large cars (SUVs and similar) being sold.
Of course, that's not the only reason why more Americans drive in traffic collisions. Driver's distraction is certainly another factor. It's not the news anymore that drivers look at their cell phone screens more than they look at the road ahead. And if they drive a giant car, they might not even know they hit you. When they do - they will just drive away and issue some ridiculous apology later on.
But it gets worse. As we have seen on the last Consumer Electronics Show, car manufacturers plan a very bright future for us. It's going to be bright from all those screens placed in front of drivers eyes. Apparently, car makers think that today's drivers are still not distracted enough with their cell phones and it's perfectly acceptable to place a widescreen TV on the dashboard and an iPad on the steering wheel.
Byton's prototype for the "dashboard of the future".

I hope something like this will never become legal but on the other hand, I'd be fine with it, but only if these screens were disabled when car is moving, when cars finally come with systems that disable cell phones inside moving vehicle and when cars would automatically slow down to 10mph when you take your eyes off the road.

Unfortunately, I realize that's not what most people would want to buy. Instead, we are entering a post-jaywalking era, when pedestrians would not necessarily be blamed for just crossing the street, but for either "distracted walking" or... not wearing appropriate sensors!

This was a big news at CES too - something called C-V2X technology that makes vehicles smarter. It allows cars to communicate with each other, possibly avoiding collisions. Sounds good? Maybe. The problem is - pedestrians, bicyclists and dogs do not have built-in C-V2X sensors and that would make them invisible to these automated cars.

While it may look bad now when media is reporting that a cyclist hit by a truck wasn't wearing a helmet (thus implying victim's fault), soon we may see reports that "pedestrian wasn't wearing a C-V2X sensor" and that wasn't driver's fault even though he was playing Fortnite on his steering wheel-mounted iPad.
I certainly hope that's not what the future really brings.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, January 11, 2019

Building a perfect commuter bike

And just like that it's nearly mid-January, yet winter remains somehow... undecided. On one hand, the lack of snow means less shoveling. On the other, my kids complain and keep asking when will the snow come.

The wet season with frequent rain/snow mix and road salt sprinkled all over "just in case" means that my bike requires frequent cleaning and chain maintenance. Because of this I started pondering about a hypothetical "what-if" scenario - if I could build a perfect year-round commuter bike, what would it look like?

Of course, a year-round commute means something very different depending on where you live. Those of you lucky to reside in the sunny Southern California may never need fenders, not to mention studded tires. But since I'm spending my winter in New England, let's focus on an all-weather bicycle.

Frame and fork
If I could afford it, my top pick would be a titanium frame, simply because it's virtually indestructible by elements. It doesn't rust so it doesn't need paint and any scratches can be simply buffed out with some fine grain sand paper. My second choice would be likely either a well-protected steel or even aluminum frame.
Titanium frames last a lifetime. Even when covered by road salt.

Regarding the fork, a rigid fork is all I would need. Suspension is really unnecessary in the city and just adds weight and complexity.

I would want the fork and frame to have all possible mounts for fenders, racks, lights, etc. Internal routing for electrical wires is certainly a good idea too.

Wheel size
Wheels for my ideal commuter bike would be certainly build around 700c rims but I think that the 26" MTB standard could also work quite well. The worst choice (apart of some tiny 16"-20" wheels) would be the more-and-more popular 650b format. Why? Well, it's all about...

Tires
Basically tire choices would determine what wheels I consider using and the major limitation comes from studded winter tires. There's plenty of them available in 700c size but studded, urban tires (i.e. without a very aggressive off-road tread) are essentially non-existent in 650b size. In general the 700c standard seems like the best choice - I can choose from everything starting at 23mm wide road slicks to a massive 3" wide MTB rubber, although I think that 35-38mm wide tires are likely to be the most optimal.
Studded urban tires - readily available in 700c size.

Drivetrain
This is the part that gets really messy and as such I would want to make it somehow impervious to dirt and mud. It seems to me that the best solution would be to use an internally-geared hub such as the 8-speed Shimano Alfine with a belt drive. This combination means that all gears are enclosed, with no chain cogs requiring frequent cleaning. The belt is completely maintenance-free and since it's running dry, it also means that no oiled, moving parts would be exposed on my bike. While some of you would prefer to just use a singlespeed, fixed drive, I like having at least a few gears to my disposal.
Internally-geared hub with a belt drive - the best choice for winter commute in the city.

Brakes
I would go with hydraulic disc brakes on such bike, simply because they provide plenty of power and modulation in all conditions. Also, they do not wear out rims like caliper brakes do. Being fully hydraulic they are also immune to any water ingress into cable housing (since there are no cables) so I can be pretty sure they will remain operational in our New England winter.

Shifters
To change gears I would prefer using a twist-type shifter (unlike a trigger type). It's simply because a twist shifter can still be operated with thick winter mittens (or finger-less gloves) on hands.
Twist shifters - usable even in thick winter mittens.

Saddle
The saddle on my bike would be likely from Brooks. They are made out of leather and aren't really maintenance-free (need to be protected from being soaked in rain) but provide supreme comfort that's hard to give up.

Pedals
Definitely not clipless pedals, since my commute isn't a race and I prefer riding in my work shoes to work. A simple, wide platform pedals would do the job. As a bonus, I would pick ones made out of plastic or some composite, but not aluminum. That's because metal pedals tend to act like heatsinks at low temperatures and cool down my feet too much.
Plastic/composite platform pedals - plenty of grip and "warmer" than all-metal options.

Accessories 
Full-length fenders are absolutely essential on commuter bike as well as at least one cargo rack. I would prefer a front rack and/or a basket, as that's the most convenient way of carrying an office bag or any smaller load on a bike. An additional rack in the rear could be useful for those larger grocery runs.

Finally, my super-commuter would certainly have both front and rear lights powered by a dynamo hub. This way I would never need to worry about spare batteries. My top choice for a headlamp would likely be a German-made Edelux, as it has a properly-shaped beam that doesn't blind other road users in the city.
 
SON Edelux - pretty much a golden standard for a proper bicycle headlight.

The last items that are likely good to have is a decent, stable dual-leg kickstand and an integrated rear-wheel lock.

That's pretty much it. What would your ideal commuter bike look like?
Posted by at 2 comments:

Monday, December 31, 2018

Good things must end to make space for new ones

This year is almost over - there are only a few hours of 2018 left. But before that will happen, I had a chance to go for one more quick bike ride. I somehow don't enjoy winter riding that much, especially not when winter is this warm, rainy and free of snow. It might be the gloomy weather, cloudy skies, muddy trails or perhaps just all of it together.

Nevertheless, I wanted to revisit an old place nearby - Wharton Plantation in Groton. I always had lots of fun riding there in summer mostly because the trails were not just some ordinary sandy paths in the forest, but at least a part of them are a bit challenging with some steep and rocky sections.
Anyway, once I got to the trailhead I didn't even recognize the place. It turns out that my favorite trail area underwent a massive timber harvesting operation earlier this year and the trail I wanted to use looks now like a muddy battleground.
I had no choice but to keep going hoping that not everything got permanently destroyed by lumberjacks. A bit further down the Dan Parker Rd the situation didn't look any better so I decided to turn right onto a more remote path leading east. This proved to be a good choice, not counting a couple of severely flooded spots. I guess the advantage of winter riding is that most of these places were still frozen solid. Crossing these places in summer could be much more difficult.
Next I reached Blood Rd (Geez, what a name!) and then Whispering Brook Rd (That sounds way better). I continued south along the former railway (Red Line Path) to then turn right and go back west coming back to Old Dunstable Rd.
It was a very short ride since it was getting dark so I decided to head back. I felt sad that some of my favorite hidden gems like Wharton Plantation are disappearing. I have never seen anyone on a bike over there and now I don't even know if I bother to visit this place again. The muddy, wide service road certainly doesn't have the same feeling as the old, narrow, rocky Dan Parker Rd had.

I guess some good things must end to make space for new ones. Hopefully, 2019 will take me to new, unexplored places.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, December 20, 2018

Boring news

Finally, the future of transportation is here! At least that's what Elon Musk claimed earlier this week. He unveiled his first tunnel under Los Angeles area that apparently will take you across the city at high speed:

Sounds like the future? Sure! The only question remains - who is this future for? Because the more I learn about Musk's idea the more I realize this isn't the future for most of us.

But let's start from the beginning.

Elon Musk made some big claims years earlier when working on his project and when he started The Boring Company, with the aim to bring cost of drilling tunnels significantly down. And he did just that - building the 6000-ft tunnel in 18 months for just $10 million. That may look inexpensive compared to the cost of other tunnels until you realize that a lot of development cost isn't included in that price and his tunnel is only 12 feet wide, fits a single traffic lane and doesn't have any emergency exits. Looks more like a sewer than a true tunnel to me.

 Then there's a problem of capacity. Musk claims his tunnels would be better than existing solutions such as subway, because he will move 4000 cars per hour at 155mph (250kmh). This however, means that a car would need to enter the tunnel every second. Since he's planning on using elevators to bring cars underground directly from parking street level, this doesn't seem probable.
As many quickly pointed out, a single subway train can hold about 2000 passengers and as such has much higher capacity than Musk's solution. This doesn't seem to discourage Elon Musk. He thinks he's building "something better":

But the most criticism came pointing out that Musk's idea "totally misses the point". And the point is obviously to move people, not cars, through the city.

Considering the amount of space they require, cars are just very inefficient vehicles. On top of that, they do have a significant impact on climate and are #1 cause of death of young Americans (with SUVs being particularly deadly).
As such, it seems that Musk just didn't do his homework. Or did he? His company sells cars, not subway trains after all, which makes me think that maybe it's all of us who miss the point. Maybe Musk's plan is not to give us the future of mass public transport, but to create a future... for himself (and few wealthy friends). Only then it makes sense to drill tunnels that will take several electric Teslas across the city.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

You can't have a change without making changes

And just like that it's nearly mid-December. Where did that year go? I've been reflecting on what happened in 2018, recent events in the world and here in the United States. Today I want to write about something a bit different. So, no bike content this time. Instead, I want to discuss global environmental changes we are facing, better known as global warming.

First, please keep in mind that I'm not an expert on this topic. I try to educate myself the best I can, but still, this is just my opinion - the way I see things. And the way I see the climate change problem is sadly somewhat pessimistic. I'm usually an optimist but with a firm connection to reality. However, when it comes to climate change, there's just too little to be happy about.
Let's start with saying that you can't believe or not that climate change is real. It's simply not a matter of faith! Essentially, the same way you can't believe that Earth is flat or Sun doesn't exist. If you do - you're just an ignorant - someone who chose to ignore science and scientifically proven facts. In other words, yes, climate change is real, water is wet and Earth is round. Period.

Since we have established that this phenomenon is real and we know it's threatening our future. Apparently, we need to cut down our CO2 emissions by half within about a decade, or we are all doomed. So what can we do about it?

 If you look at majority of related information in media, it seems that we primarily focus on two topics: renewable energy sources and electric cars. Now I have bad news for you - it's not enough. Being green is not just about electric cars and renewable energy, even though it would be nice if the solution was that simple. At least that's what our politicians seem to believe. They are happy to propose a future with "clean coal" (whatever the heck that is) or "Green New Deal".

But it's not enough.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that in order to severely reduce CO2 emissions, we would need to do more. Much, much more. At the same time I just can't see this happening within the next 50 years and the reason is, simply put - money.

Let me explain.

The problem we have now has started back in the end of XIX century with the arrival of Industrial Revolution. Industrialization was the process that allowed countries such as United Kingdom, France, Germany or United States to leap forward and manufacture more in shorter time. The process continued through early XX century, accelerated by two world wars. Then, in the 1950's we started building our modern capitalism and corporate culture.

Now imagine it would all have to end.

Basically, in order to reduce pollution and "fix the planet", we all would need to drastically change our lifestyle. Driving electric car to work is not going to change much just as riding a bicycle won't help much either (sigh). Instead, we would need to revolutionize many more areas such as:

Energy sources
Coal is dead. Close coal and oil power plants. Shut down coal mines. Switch to renewable energy sources as much as possible. We may have to keep some nuclear power plants for critical industrial consumers but otherwise those would be phased out as well. In general - use less energy whenever possible. This means energy-efficient vehicles and devices but it also means to account for amount of energy required to manufacture such goods.

Transportation
Ideally - no private cars. No matter electric or not. We would need to travel less. Family vacation? Sure, but probably more like camping in a local state park than flying across the world to stay on a beach. No more flying for executive business meetings to the other side of the continent. We would need to work remotely or live much closer to work. Use public transport as much as possible. Use bicycles.

Housing
Single family houses in suburbs would be mostly gone. They are largely unsustainable as they require us to travel a lot and consume too many resources in the process. People would need to live closer together in townhouses and apartment buildings. We won't be building cheap, poorly insulated homes for a quick profit but more expensive and longer lasting energy-efficient buildings. We won't have front lawns either but those most likely won't be missed - we don't use them anyway.

Goods manufacturing
To reduce waste we would need to cut down on manufacturing, distribution, packaging and recycle essentially everything. This means no more junk we really don't need. No more buying stuff made on the other side of the world (shipping stuff across ocean is very polluting). Less plastic (ocean are full of it already), more reusable items. We would have to repair everything as much as possible and not throw out something just because it's not fashionable anymore. Planned obsolescence would be absolutely illegal.

Food production
Less meat (its production requires lots of resources). More locally grown food. Simpler menus. Less waste in general.

As you can see this type of future is characterized by words like no, less, decrease, lower, etc. This is in stark contrast with modern corporate world that is defined by words like growth, more, increase, profit and such.

Now you probably see why I said I can't see us being successful in fighting global warming. We are simply too used to our lifestyles and we created a world that worships wealth and monetary profits over anything else.

Try to tell Americans that they have to vacate their suburban homes and move to apartments in the city, they can't drive their cars, can't fly to their timeshare in Hawaii and can't have steak or burger for dinner anymore. Good luck with that.

The same way try to tell corporations that they have to now sell less, manufacture less, make less money, produce less waste, and be responsible for recycling of all old products and packaging they made earlier. I just can't see that happening either.

Of course, this doesn't just apply to Americans (Yes, I'm as guilty as anyone else.) or the Western World. China is now the leading producer of trash and one of larger world polluters (although not per capita). Try telling them now that they have to stop buying stuff, using disposable items and recycle everything. Easy?

But maybe I'm too pessimistic. Maybe it won't be that bad. Yet somehow, I feel that no matter what we decide, our grandchildren will live in a very different world than the one we live in now.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)