Friday May 17 is this year’s Bike to Work Day, and my plan is to participate. I ride in to my job about twice a month, and I would like to ramp that up to once a week. It is a 18 mile ride, each way, if I take the most direct route. All of it is on surface streets with no bike lane or other bike/ped facilities. Because of that I have to be up for an early morning departure, and a 40 mile day on the bike, with a work day sandwiched into the middle.

But BTWD is more like Opening Day for fishing season. Even the people who won’t be out on the water at any other time will make it out for the Big Day.

Just like in 2011, my plan is to participate in DEEP Commissioner Daniel Esty’s ride from Cheshire to Hartford (about 30 miles, one way). Notice that the distances I am talking about are very different from the target audience for many bicycle advocacy campaigns: people who live within 5 miles of their workplace. In a region with normal urbanization that might be a healthy sampling. In Hartford it is the land of the 30-60 minute car commute. That is 15-30+ miles of roadway, much of it interstate highways. So those people (like me) have a double whammy of swapping a relatively fast and sedentary car commute for a long and sweaty 90 minute grind on the bike. The immediate options are along the lines of move closer to the workplace, or find a new job closer to your home.

Those options are based on minimal if any change in the current situation. You don’t need special lanes or traffic control or traffic calming… you just need to have a commute that doesn’t feel like you are training for an ironman competition. But where someone like Colville-Andersen comes in is completely about the future, and looking to the past as a codex for projecting how the future can be better than today. I have been following bicycle advocacy and its related branches for over a decade, and I have started to realize that I become most aggrivated/critical when I forget to view things through my preferred lens of futurism, and get dragged into the muddy waters of the status quo.

I have bloviated about the CT Fastrak project a few times and am regularly depressed regarding the way its mediocrity is its defining feature. Half of it, and not the useful half, includes bike/pedestrian lane. It crosses within a kilometer of a university campus (CCSU, my alma mater), but does not include a stop for university students/staff. It is considered a boondoggle driven by federal transt infrastructure funding, as opposed to solving an actual public need. And while it will meet/create a transit need, the lack of a distinct focus means that the peoject is easy picking for detractors.

My futurist mind sees a Fastrak system that links downtown New Britain to CCSU, and CCSU to downtown Hartford. That makes the city accessible to both univeristy people and New Britain people, without forcing them to deal with the cost of cars and parking. It makes the university accessible to the people of Hartford. There is a planned East Street station, over half a mile on foot from the CCSU Student Center. That sounds close, but it is a slog, and currently you would be walking on a combination of busy two-lane and off-campus housing streets. Is that the kind of decision you make when accomodating people, or accomodating cars? Maybe the university starts a shuttle service, but with the State University system taking cuts to essential services in each budget, I don’t see a lot of spare change around to run a shuttle service.

I’ll have a nice blog post with photos of BTWD 2013, but my feeling is that it will be a long time and many more BTWDs before the landscape supports alternatives to automobile commuting in any substantial way.

First, it is not rocket science. Extract citrus zest with vodka, sweeten with simple syrup. Ballgame. There are some fine points that can help with the appearance, color, and depth of flavor, but you could read that sentence and make a good Lemoncello.

I live in an area with no indigenous lemons and no indigenous neutral spirits, hence, my approach is based on the ready supply of imported lemons and commodity hooch. Good lemons should smell like a lemon. Easier said than done in New England. But never fear, look at places selling quality produce and take your chances. Even average lemons get the job done. Any mid-grade vodka will do. Nothing too cheap or too fine.

I have used grain/everclear and the results were drinkable but I found that the high proof spirits extracted too much oil. It works, and the end product is much stronger. Proceed as you wish. I have toyed with using Grappa… I will report back if I dare go down that rabbit hole.

Zest, not peel, 6-12 lemons. Zest means not taking the white pith away with the peel. Don’t stress, just use a sharp peeler and try to avoid too much pith. It is easier than it sounds. Too many lemons is waste unless you are heading towards a 2L+ extraction.

Add zest to a half-gallon widemouth jar and top with 750ml to 1.5L Vodka. The proportions are not super-critical, but you will end up with almost twice this volume of finished Limoncello (this is a good case for starting small and scaling up). Cover and allow this to extract for at least 2-3 days, and a week is a good target. A funnel with a piece of cheesecloth will help you make a clean transfer to a mixing vessel. You can also transfer to a bowl, clean the jar, and then transfer it back for mixing (my preference).

Ahead of the transfer, make a batch of simple syrup. 1:1 water and sugar heated to dissolve, short simmer is ok. Don’t boil. You are not making candy. Cool syrup.

Now comes the part that will help you zero-in on the character of the finished product: Start at 1 part syrup to 2 parts vodka extract. If you used a 750ml bottle of vodka, start with no more than 400ml of syrup. Mix well. Let it stand. Mix again (agitating the bottle us fine). Using that big widemouth jug makes this easier.

Taste and assess. You can always add more syrup if it is a little too astringent. Also, you will have a less dilute product by starting on the low end of sweetness and working up if necessary. Viola! You have a house-made liquor to amaze your friends.

Variations: Oranges and limes work very well. My kumquat experiment, not so much. Live in a climate with local citrus? Use that. This technique is applicable to a variety of flavors. I am partial to citrus, but you can experiment and find a cool variation. Pawpawcello might be good. You tell me. I will take your word for it.

I know what I would do if I was starting fresh, and why I would do it.

• Get the current brand/body you want
• Get one good lens (kit, or prosumer equivalent)
• Get a good bag, and a spare battery.
• Get to work!

In my case I would probably end up with something like the Nikon D7000 or the new D5200 and something like my 10-24mm DX Nikkor. When I first got my setup dialed in I did a lot of good work with the 18-70DX kit lens (that was OEM with the D70 kit!) but I have also owned the new 16-85DX and hated it. I also owned the excellent 17-55 Nikkor and it was great, buty weighs a freakin’ ton, and costs about as much… So YMMV/MMMV.

This decision has become muddied a bit by the variety in sensors and systems. Full Frame 35mm? APS-C? Micro Four Thirds? Advance P&S? Will you buy a Canon? Nikon? Oly? Panasonic? Sony? Leica? While you are at it, how important is video capability? Even the bottom of the DSLR lines shoot full HD video.

[Note: I like Ken Rockwell's reviews and writing. I have not found much to argue with except he might overrate the occasional lens. At least he does actual testing to back up his reviews]

When I got into it there was very little clutter in DSLR land. You went Nikon or Canon. Everything was APS-C. Nothing shot video. Advanced P&S gear was not competitive in comparison. Now you can grab a Canon G12 or G1x and you can get great results. A Panasonic G3 is freakishly capable. As before, the better gear really shows its value in extreme situations: Low light; Fast action; Very wide angle; Very long lens work; Architecture; Magazine covers… And even there you are probably blown away by at least one or two photos made with a good compact fixed-lens camera in any given issue of National Geographic. In terms of resolution, image quality, and dynamic range, compact sensor cameras are where mid-range DSLR sensors were five years ago, and DSLR sensors are off the charts good from where they were.

Example: On my last trip to Europe I shot almost everything with a 10-24mm zoom on my D300, plus my Canon G10, plus my iPhone. The G10 holds up to the D300 very well, but it will blow out highlights faster than you can say “255″ if you aren’t fixated on the histogram and the exposure comp wheel. It also has subpar low-light performance. The iPhone takes great photos for what it is, but it has even less dynamic range than the other two, and worse low light performance than almost anything this side of the Holga. Still, the iPhone’s convenience and good daylight imaging capabilities make it invaluable. You can also text your mum! Take that, Rolleiflex!

So the advice thing got a little muddled in the details (ok, very muddled), but I still think that the cameras available today perform so well, and the “kit lens” quality is so good, that you could grab a standard Canon or Nikon kit and do pro work, or at least above average work, in almost any scenario. You will end up learning to manage the tsunami of files that you will generate, then post process and archive your images, out of sheer necessity, and that will extend the capabilities of your camera as you progress. As well, the skills you develop on the camera will translate into capturing images in a way that targets your post processing workflow. You will take images knowing that they won”t look good out of the camera, but will shine once you get them “up on the lift”. The two phases mesh very well once you get off the steep part of the curve.

I’m considering a short run of blog posts detailing some digital photography challenges. I hope I can follow through on it.

To Be Continued……….

As I get older I can see the beauty in living in a place with a more moderate climate. Less extremes. Better temps. Less mosquitos. Less poison-ivy. But then we get a beautiful New England spring day and I forget all that. Yeah, I would love to give Maui a shot for a year or two. I have the feeling that it would not, as some suspect, “get boring”. It could also be a win/win from a physical perspective. Either I would skip winter weight gain all together, or I would just bulk up and tan up and melt in with the local populace. Mahalo, Bra!

But until that opportunity presents itself I will be content with the weird life of a Yankee, sitting on a beach blanket in jeans and a hoodie drinking hot coffee to stay warm. Nobody goes to the beach in the summer, it’s too crowded! Yogi knew it. You should too.

[If you are ok with Flash-heavy websites, I heartily recommend WeatherSpark for weather graphics and such. Killer website, very good presentation of information. Tufte would approve.... though an iPhone version would be nice]

I just saw him discussing the trade with the Browns that landed them Mark Sanchez in the 2009 draft. They had a decent team, with a good mix of talent at both the rookie and veteran level. They have Nick Mangold, and they had some good linemen with him. They patched their linebacker corps with Bart Scott, one of Rex’s players from Baltimore. They had a good but undersized safety in Jim Leonhard. Again, an ex-Raven. And they had a combination of size and speed at Wide Receiver. They also had one of the best special-teamers in the league in Leon Washington.

What has happened to the Jets since 2010, where they had been to two straight AFC Championship games, and 2013 where they are at the bottom of the league, is both easy to diagram and difficult to explain. They have lost a lot of talent, and failed to replace that talent. That is the easy part. Why they have continued to overrate bad players and undervalue good ones is the real mystery. Instead of looking at film of their loss to Tim Tebow and the Broncos in 2011 and seeing safety Eric Smith out of position, again, and unable to make the play, again, and then deciding to upgrade Eric Smith…. they trade for Tim Tebow. Classic Jets move. Overrate the competition. Instead of continuing to improve their offensive line and receivers, giving their franchise quarterback better tools to facilitate his progression… they release his best possession receiver, Jericho Cotchery, fail to replace him. They compound that by failing to replace a pro-bowler Damien Woddy, and sticking with a scout-team guy at right tackle. That guy was Wayne Hunter, and I am sure he is a good man and a good team mate. However, he couldn’t block a grocery cart, and as a result of him feeding Mark Sanchez to the wolves about twelve times a game his QB may have caught a permanent case of the “yips”.

When I see clips of Mark Sanchez I keep thinking of another talented kid, David Carr, who got was hit more times in a single season than any QB ever and has been on clipboard duty ever since. So the Jets can’t block, can’t catch, and can’t stop anyone from scoring… Do they upgrade their offensive line? No. They bring in a lightning rod in Tim Tebow, and talk about what a great asset he will be to the team, and don’t have the sack to play him. So while he was worth trading for he wasn’t worth playing. He also can’t block, catch, or run while he sits on the bench and watches his career spiral down the shitter. By the way, Tebow’s game was on display all over the NFL in 2012, where the playoffs were thick with eager, mobile QBs with a head for the game. The problem was that Tebow wasn’t one of them. I’m not a huge Tebow fan, but I have become so sympathetic to his plight, another good player rotting on a dysfunctional trainwreck of a team, that I am now in his corner.

Meanwhile Rex Ryan has proven himself to be something worse than incompetent: he is a pathological liar. He told the public that Wayne Hunter was “the guy” when everyone knew he was not able to protect the franchise (huge understatement). He has talked up players like receiver Stephen Hill, who have produced nothing. And I won’t belabor the point, but if it makes the fans seasick I can only imagine what it does to morale on the team. Imagine being a talented professional in any field and watching the boss tell the press that some guy who is on the brink of being fired is “all world”. It is a horrible way to act in any organization. It crushes morale and breaks the chain of command.

So while I know it won’t happen I can hope that someone on NFL Network has the balls to ask “Mr. T” what the hell is going on with the Jets. Because he is one of the few people who actually knows the answer.

A friend sent me a link to a recent issue of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality‘s (TCEQ) informational publication Natural Outlook. It contains a piece on the subject of air quality standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5 – particulates below 2.5 microns in diameter) and an argument against a more strict public health standard. This is in response to the EPA’s propsed lowering of the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM2.5, and the document refers to the TCEQ’s public comment submission on this process, though it does not provide a link to those comments. It also give no details on how the annual standard is calculated or interpreted, and the relationship between that and the short-term or hourly standard. These are not minutiae, but the specific framework of the particulate matter health standard discussion.

On the face of it I have no problem at all with disagreement on public health standards. As a professional in the field I know that there is a need for disagreement, discussion, and a tolerance for diverse viewpoints. I also believe that a well informed populace is the best kind of populace, and that they can make better decisions, better process information, and make better personal decisions regarding public policy. Some of those personal decisions might take place in a voting booth, for instance.

That is where I began to have some concerns about the document in question. I believe it is chock full of misleading information and I believe it serves to confuse the reader about the public policy process and the science behind it. It also seems to cherry-pick over where to provide a technical discussion, and where to treat the reader a a pure layman.

The first paragraph is a basic description of the pollutant. No problem there. The article even includes an info-graphic depicting particle size relative to a standard-issue human hair. Enjoy it, because it is the only graphic you get. We then get a description of the change in the air quality standard: 15 ug/m3 to 12 ug/m3. OK, not much to freak out about yet, except the lack of context for an annual standard versus a 24-hour short-term “event” standard.

From here on out things get weird. TCEQ participated in the public comment period? OK, how? Where is the text of the comment? After that we find out that “many” studies have taken place… involving “large” groups of people… again, no references, citations, or details. This is equivalent to “some say”, a strawman alert if there ever was one. Then we find out that particulate matter is naturally occurring, which is true. And that it can be composed of many types of material, and be generated from many processes, which is also true. But pollen and spores are given as examples of naturally occurring PM2.5, which is not true.  Pollen and spores are larger than 2.5 microns, and in only a few cases are they smaller than 10 microns, so they fall almost entirely out of the regulated particulate matter discussion of PM10 (less than 10 microns) or PM2.5 (less than 2.5 microns). We also find out that PM2.5 is not regulated by composition, which is also true… But then then the penny drops when we find out that Texas thinks the problem might be regional. “The health effects that have been linked to PM_2.5 exposure in human studies also vary by region. Multiple studies report potentially increased levels of disease possibly linked to PM_2.5 in the eastern United States, but the evidence is inconclusive for the central and western portions of the U.S.“. Rough translation: “Yankee Problem”.

One reason for the enhanced focus on the “eastern United States” may be that states in the northeast US found out very early in the PM2.5 monitoring process that they are heavily impacted by airborne PM2.5 transported from large combustion sources in the mid-west. The upshot is that regulating sources within a state’s borders may be, and has been, insufficient to meet the ambient air quality standard. In an effort to better define the sources of particulate matter, Northeastern states have conducted studies where particulate matter is collected and analyzed to determine the type and content of the actual particles. These states operated a monitoring network targeting the quantity and the composition of particulate matter, and did back-trajectory analysis to attempt to identify potential sources. They found out that you can tell a lot about the source of the particles by analyzing their composition. Another point that the TCEQ presentation misses is that there is over a decade of research into PM in many areas of the US, not just the eastern US. Since no specific studies are cited we can’t know how deeply they have investigated the issue. What we can conclude is that instead of deciding that a speciated (composition analysis) PM study might be useful in their region, they seem to be indicating that the problem itself is regional, not the response to the problem.

Then we are treated to a very odd health effects discussion, where the “London Smog” incident of 1952 is the sole example cited, despite the fact that there are many more current examples of PM-spikes, many in the US, and the London example predates any form of scientific PM measurement. The fact that it excludes any of the studies conducted in the US over the past 20 years, including the studies that made the primary case for PM-related health effects in North America, and form the basis for the original PM2.5 standard, is either perplexing or predictable.

There are a plethora of  studies that have shown a relationship between elevated fine particulate concentrations and increased hospital admissions and increased mortality in sensitive groups like people with pulmonary and respiratory problems. This kind of study has been repeated worldwide, both in active studies and in analysis of historical data. [In the news this very day, we could discuss the potential of China becoming little more transparent with its health data, and whether we would see a spike in admissions and mortality associated with their current particulate pollutions crisis]

This is followed by a very balky discussion of dose-response. We are taken back to Paracelsus… and the 14th century, and an example involving aspirin. Then we are told that PM levels are declining, since the year 2000, with no mention of the fact that “since 2000″ corresponds to the implementation of the original EPA PM2.5 standards and the resulting requirement for PM2.5 controls. They just declined. That’s all.

The kicker is the introduction of our good friend Epidemiology! Yes, the “science” that couldn’t prove health impacts from either tobacco or asbestos [that required lawyers, with access to internal communications at places like J.R. Reynolds and Johns-Manville, with admissions that they knew of the health effects and were making business decisions based on them] is here to take the fall for lack of evidence on PM-related health effects.

At this point the damage is done. The reader has been set up for failure, having neither the information or the tools to dissect the final broadside against another crop of unnamed, unreferenced health effects studies that don’t measure up to the situational standards of the TCEQ.

I know that I am riding a fine line, and that it sounds like I am just out to blast some good-intentioned tech writer at TCEQ. I am not.What I am against is pamphleteering in the name of public health policy. I believe that someone intended this document to be informative, and that someone else had a lower bar for “informative”. There is an argument to be made against constantly tightening air quality standards in the absence of health effects evidence. That argument is made on the basis of sound science, and the arguer might have to get their hands dirty with actual research, or funding of actual research. At the very least they would prepare a peer-reviewable analysis of the current science and be available to defend their conclusions. What we have here is what I personally believe to be a good example of bad public communication. The reader has no chance to adequately understand the framework of the discussion, the details of the discussion, or the science behind the discussion.

Being a bike evangilist in Copenhagen is like being a cheese evangelist in Paris. Lots of choir to preach to. So when I read about Mikael getting irate about our American “obsession” with helmets, well, I think it lacks context. Going on the obligatory rant about why he is a charletan is pointless because he isn’t, and I both respect his expertise and appeeciate his opinion. But the upshot is that he misses the point. If we had Denmark’s bicycle infrastructure and were all nerded up about helmets and Spandex, his comments would be apt. But we don’t. And purposely or not he makes a badly drawn criticism of our dilemma.

The dynamic has alot to do with both the history of America, and the current state of the discussion over transportation. We have a history involving half-baked concepts of “rugged individualism”! Which is a problem now that corporations are people, and they get massive government handouts, but if you are a regular ‘murrikin individual you go without a bike lane and any of that candy-ass shit and strap on a styrofoam helmet and roll the dice. Denmark has, I am sure, plenty of rugged individualists, or maybe more specifically, rugged socialists. They have made a massive committment to public services in all sectors, but you see it in transportation infrastructure immediately and clearly. I have heard that when you buy one car in Denmark, you pay for three. The usage taxes roughly triple the cost of purchasing a car. They have made a committment to socializing the cost of the automobile, and using the proceeds to maintain roads, and diversify transit modes. I saw it firsthand in 2009 and it was a shocke to be on a divided highway, and seeing a parallel bike path over the entire length. As well, it was roughly parallel to a train route.

If you haven’t noticed, the discussion in America is about maintaining the infrastructure we have, or at least it should be. There is a bit of head-in-the-sand going on in the current infantile political morass we are being subjected to. But we can at least pretend that there are adults involved… Whether it is bridge maintenance, paving, safety measures… much of it is either lacking or failing, so improving and diversifying it just doesn’t get onto the radar. This collides with the fact that most Americans who want to ride a bike are doing it on motorways. Those roads are designed for, optimized for, automobile traffic. It is the kind of place where a bicyclist might need to take evasive action, or even lay their bike down. They can be rough, potholed, and if you ride on the shoulder or breakdown kane, strewn with jagged debris. Since most cities have ordanances prohibiting bicycles from sidewalks (a bad place to ride a bike anyway) you are sharing a lane with cars, and often parked cars as well. This can put you into the “door zone”. There, an inattentive driver will flip open their door, right in front of you, and you get a “door prize”, aka a “dooring”. How do you feel about helmets now? You will ride on roads with poorly enforced speed limits, where traffic hits highway speeds in residential neighborhoods. Helmet? What color? Despite your day-glo specialty clothing, which Mikael especially loathes, you are left dodging potholes and texting drivers, stoned teens, golden-agers, and all sorts of fun folks, while trying to predict their behavior and “ride safely”. Visor, or no? Urban cool or road racer style? Why double down on a broken collarbone with a side of TBI if you don’t have to?

So without belaboring the point, there are many reasons why an American bike rider would wear a helmet. Looking past the criticism of the device, the helmet, I am totally fine with the point behind the snark: could we build effective infrastructure for modes like the bicycle or walking, lessening the need for excessive safety equipment, and making those modes more accessible to all? That is a dynamic that has the power to shine through even the densest, sootiest, Scandinavian Smug.

Been There, Haven’t Done That

As much as I like what I see in places where bikes have a place in every day life, it is not lost on me that for every Portland, OR story or Manhattan High Line, there is China. China was bike-dominated until as recently as 15 years ago, and has since given over to the automobile in a huge way. I believe that is an indicator that much of this urge to return to bike-friendly fantasy land could be seen as a First World thing, a luxury item where it is easy to want it when you don’t feel you need it. But the difference, as I see it is about where on the development continuum you are. China is a rapidly growing economy with a huge demand for western conveniences. In time they will want to be less dependent on fossil fuels and want a return to bicycle-scale transport. What “First Worlders” have in spades is the opportunity to become more flexible and less dependent. Bike lanes in places like the US could be like Social Yoga, bringing flexability back to a too-rigid frame.

Aggro Culture

In my small part of the world the bike world is dominated by “racer types”. They are nice folks and all. You know, some of my best friends wear spandex bibs! There is a kind of split in the bicycle world between “racer types” and pretty much everyone else. Everyone else rides for fitness or for enjoyment. Racer types ride in more of a competition mindset, and they typically ride faster (less differential between their speed and the speed of a car). Far from being the spandex mafia (though they are) the racer type is a good fit when you lack bike infrastructure. That physical and mental profile can get you comfortable with sharing roads that lack even the most basic bike facilities, like a shoulder with painted line. In areas with real bicycle infrastructure the rider is able to ride in a more relaxed fashion, in normal clothes, at a more moderate pace. The bicyclists we see in Amsterdam, or Copenhagen, or Montreal for that matter, don’t have to duke it out with inattentive drivers on their commute. The “barrier to entry” is much lower, and in the best cases the barrier is actually higher for automobiles. As opposed to some cases where there is a “chicken or egg” paradox, in transit there is no paradox. The transit follows the path of least resistance. The best infrastructure provides the least resistance. If we had throngs of square-peg dorks on Dutch Bikes clogging up secondary roads it would be obvious, but in the case of suburban New England, the bikes are the effect, not the cause.

Back to the Future

To tie back in with the previous post: In central Connecticut, I think that the pessimism over Fastrak is based on lack of experience with successful transit projects. We have a popular rail-to-trail system that recreational bicyclists love, but it does not act as a commuter route for most users. That is recreation infrastructure (linear park) but it is a bad example for a commuter solution. The target for Fastrak is getting people into Hartford for work or entertainment, and then home safely. As the Capitol of Connecticut, and one of the most commuter-intensive cities I have ever been around, there is hope that demand for a better/cheaper solution to local transportation should be a winner. The on-the-books population of Hartford is roughly 125,000, but the “daytime” work week population gain is anywhere from 70,000 and up depending on your data source. A city that bloats from 125,000 to 200,000 in the morning and then deflates by 6pm. That is a commuter rich environment, and an option poor environment.

One of the weirdest arguments is that nobody will use infrastructure. Every example seems to point in the opposite direction. We have Metro North rail system linking the shoreline from New Haven to NYC and beyond. It is positively clogged with riders, and any increase in capacity is filled in short order. We have rail-to-trail and greenway projects that are again, filled to the brim with walkers, bikers, strollers, birders, and if you want to observe the Yeti-like rollerblade, that’s where you go. The same for State Park infrastructure, rivers with fishing and swimming, and boating opportunities, and infrastructure of their own. So we can assume that if you build it, people use it. Just as in those scenarios we can facilitate that use, just as we have done by connecting hundreds of thousands of rural residents to highways and malls with vast networks of solid two-lane. Nobody is asking for infrastructure at that level, but the scale shows how resources are allocated to support a single mode of transportation.

This winter, not so much. It has been business as usual with heavy snows, cold arctic-born winds, and our favorite form of frosty excitement: Wintry Mix! If it is, say, 37F and raining, and maybe some ice, sleet, snow, or other unknown matter is along for the ride, you’ve got Wintry Mix. Actually it is formal slang for “crappiest of winter weather” and can mean anything from a foot of ice nuggets to rain showers onto frozen ground at 19F… black ice machine weather. As a result there has been less time for riding and more time for thinking about riding.

Bike Curious

On top of that I have been following the progress of CT Fastrak, the project previously known as the New Britain Busway. It has many of the markings of a successful transit diversification project. As a pure transit service concept, this particular project is a loser. It provides one mode, rubber-tire buses on a closed roadway, in an effort to provide a service that nobody asked for. At least not that we know of. I have been around Connecticut long enough, and New Britain specifically, to know that it is possible that *many* people in New Britain are big fans but don’t have a voice or don’t feel comfortable in the current discussion.

There is a silver lining for some of us, tarnished as it may be: the southern half of the Fastrak project includes a 5 mile bike/pedestrian path. That solves a problem for me by eliminating one of the worst sections of my bike-to-work route. As usual, it creates another problem by dumping me in a residential area with zero bike infrastructure. That is where I would have been anyhow, but the idea is that the bike route ends near absolutely nothing. If there is nothing but the chance to ride on the shoulder of the road and battle it out with the texting and driving crowd, it can very easily turn into a kevorkian-esque piece of social machinery.

One thing I would like to find is a commitment to development that leverages the Fastrak project. If you are a struggling city you could do worse than have your own transit corridor to jobs and commerce. Location of residential or commercial development with good access to the Fastrak system would seem to be a given. To me, that is the identifying trait of successful transit development. The city needs to buy in for it to be a success. This could mean residential development in the South End or on the East Side, with solid tie-in to Fastrak.

I need to see more about mayor Tim O’Brien’s planning vision before resolving that question. I think he is doing a solid job as mayor, so maybe I need to look harder. In fact, I will. To hear the anti-busway voices, providing transit from New Britain to Hartford, Connecticut is a masterpiece of unintentional comedy. And of course, if that drives the dialogue, they could be right.

Bike Friendly

I recently had the very good fortune to attend a few events where the new direction of the Connecticut DOT has been touted, and even illustrated. The Bike Walk Connecticut membership dinner was a last minute thing, but it turned out to be a lot of fun. Bike geek stuff is usually a hit with me. On top of that I was able to see Dan Esty, the Commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP, where I am employed), speak on the topic of transit infrastructure and how great bicycles are! I have seen the same thing as part of my job, but seeing it “in the wild” was good for some perspective. Dan Esty was an infotational and positive as always. That is a compliment.

As well, there is a 600lb gorilla in most of the high-level communication about bike transit. I appreciate the enthusiasm, no doubt, but most of these presentations miss the fact that those bicycles are ridden on roads with zero bike-safety structure. You might get some painted lines, maybe even a “sharrow” or two. Might. probably not.

Bike Agnostic

Being bike-friendly at the destination is about showers and bike storage. We have had that at DEEP headquarters for a while now thanks to a few people who saw opportunity and bingo! Bike Racks! I had the good fortune to attend an awards event where a Deputy Connecticut DOT Commissioner awarded a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Business award to DEEP because of the agency’s bike-friendly policies and basic infrastructure (Bike Racks!). The DOT showed up with a great slide show on the bicycle infrastructure improvements in Connecticut. I am looking for a link to that content. It is a good example of how priorities at the top effect the actions of the agency.

One of the projects he brought up was Fastrak. I took the opportunity to ask, after the meeting broke up, “why didn’t we get the last 5 miles of bike trail on Fastrak?” Apparently the right of way was too narrow to accommodate more bike lane. I nodded and all, but I have a hard time believing it. I believe the answer, but I wonder what the prospect for the entire project is with the half measures and lack of continuity. As another attendee said “If they needed the space for cars, they would get it”.

I am happy to have a 5 mile section of bike path, so it is a net positive for me [less likely to be run down by a driver hitting 65mph on Cedar Street]. But, it would be many times more useful if Fastrak extended into Hartford. The right of way issues should be a spur in the replacement infrastructure department, but it seems to be off the radar. The challenge now will be to upgrade the roadways that extend from the ends of the bike path, giving them wider shoulders and better sightlines, and allowing more of the surrounding population to reach the trail by bike, and end up in bikeable distance to their destination. That is how you link a community to a job source, and consumers to stores, without tying them to the car as a solution..

The fundamental premise I work under is that PED use is ALL about recovery (with an asterisk for endurance sports). The prevailing theme is that it is all about MUSCLES, like some deranged Popeye comic strip. But little by little the inescapable thrust of PED news is all about recovery from injury. A-Rod, or as uber-mensch Steve Somers would say, A-Roid, gets identified as a possible user of Deer Antler Extract! Fucking “deer antler extract” is where these people are willing to go to enhance their ability to recover from injury and surgery. Alex Rodriguez is, in my opinion incredibly gifted as an athlete, and a complete tool in his interaction with the public. He is also enduring the derailing of his top-flight, top-paying career by injury. He isn’t getting body slammed by linebackers, or enduring the physical grind of hockey. He plays third base for the New York Yankees. Not exactly the decathlon, but they play a 162 game regular season. As I previously opinionated with respect to Barry Bonds, these players have the physical tools, but they have to be able to recover from the constant onslaught of games, batting practice, and conditioning work.

My point here: is it really fair to keep upping the ante in team sports, and not give players tools to recover? Equipment gets more specialized, playing surfaces become more specialized, training diets become honed to a razor edge… but when a player takes a ligament strain, repetitive motion injury, contusion, bone break, etc… we basically tell them to use 1968 technology for recovery. I am well aware of the need for continuity in the record books, but that doesn’t mean that Jacoby Ellsbury has to play in 1940′s footwear. Nobody is telling Vince Wilfork to strap on the leather helmet.

While it may seem like I am promoting the opening of the PED floodgates, I am actually saying the opposite. I believe that the floodgates are open NOW, and that many athletes know what and when and how to dope, and most do not get caught. They use facilities like anti-aging clinics and overseas blood-therapy clinics, and they are not going to stop. They have too much riding on it. IT WORKS, for one thing. They have to negotiate ridiculously short recovery times after surgery or injury in order to stay on the field. And if you can take something to prevent injury, well that is just a whole lot easier and any sane person would go that route.

Back to the centerline of the sports-media depiction of PED’s: They are not looking for better controls on use, or better research, or better testing. The real story is the interaction of sports culture, sports technology, and sports medicine, and the disconnects in that network. As the sports fan (and media) becomes more accustomed to the television revenue, salary cap and team payroll issues, the entertainment factor, and the business factor, should they not also acclimate themselves to the medical realities of sport?

One of the biggest sports stories of 2012 was the recognition by the NFL that brain injuries were becoming a factor in both current players, as well as retired players. Several high profile suicides, and a general easing of a taboo on talking about mental health and brain function issues by NFL players, brought the issue to the fore. Simultaneously there was an eruption of PED-related news, including the spectre of PED’s influencing baseball Hall of Fame voting to Lance Armstrong confessing to Oprah about PED use. (Egad! is that what it comes to? Oprah as Confessor? No wonder the sports media are so thoroughly screwed.) The facts were there for anyone who was interested. Yes, Lance Armstrong is an endurance athlete (asterisk mentioned above), and his PEDs were more in line with oxygen management drugs, but I feel reasonably sure that enhancing recovery from both daily stages, races, and training was part of his regimen as well. I think an honest assessment would indicate that recovery in multi-day events was Job One.

Just like A-Rod and Bonds, and most of the NFL from what I can tell, Lance has some amazing natural abilities when it comes to human strength and endurance (if only I could endure him as well… he has become the Ray Lewis of the bike, simply unwatchable). But as you might expect, so are many of his competitors. Pro-level athletes are both self-selecting and benefit from sport-specific training. Anyone who thinks that a doughy, pot-smoking couch potato is dropping some HGH and running a 4.2sec 40 yard dash should stick to comic books. But if you are watching a 325pound NFL lineman run a 4.6 40, consider that he might be able to handle that kind of exertion, plus the exertion of four months-plus of benchpressing his opponents if he has a pharmaceutical tailwind. You should be OK with that, within reason and out in the open.

As I have already gasbagged it enough here, I’ll just say that i think it is time for the sports fan, the sports media, the sports industry, et. al. to grow up and realize that their ravenous demand for more, bigger, faster, stronger, ouchier sports is not fed by faceless laborers on some distant planet. Real doctors working within a real testing program can keep those highly paid athletes healthy longer, both on the field and and beyond their playing days. You just need to stop pretending that Tinkerbell is the ideal sports league commissioner.