note: updated below with informed opinions, as opposed to what i normally publish -sg!

note: updated again with even better material

this is an open thread to discuss the idea that there is some benefit to restricting the gears of junior cyclists.  fixed gear cyclists, put a sock in it for now.  this thread assumes we are talking about riders who choose multiple gears and some mechanism for selecting which gear to ride.  Is there some benefit to restricting what gear the kids can ride?

info from usa cycling: link.

in canada, there is an evolving gear restriction.  link.  juniors under 13 have a maximum possible gear of 42 x 16, juniors under 15 have a maximum possible gear of 45 x 16, and juniors under 17 have a maximum possible gear of 52 x 16.

i am currently trolling for research but it's difficult to find directly applicable stuff.  this article would appear to say that there is little difference.  this article along with this article appear to show that arbitrarily modifying cadence (for instance by riding a fixed gearor using a gear restriction) may lead to suboptimal muscular contraction patterns.  check this as well.  demographically speaking, this is an interesting article, but i don't know if it provides useful proof for gear restrictions.

anyhow, plant your thoughs in the comments.

update (applied experience!): i solicited some feedback from pete lindeman who ran the junior program for ncvc for a few years before becoming their equivalent of maximum leader.  as always, h is insightful and amusing.  he has a lot of experience on all sides of this issue and i think his comments are well worth considering.

new update:  i was sent some more correspondence on this topic.  this is the most coherently argued perspective against this arbitrary rule that i have come across.  i virtually never post anonymous material, but in this case, I will say only that this is from a parent of an active junior racer.  this communique has everything.  be sure to check out the last paragraph.  the ending is brilliant.  simply brilliant.  enjoy...

This Juniors gear ruling is not founded on any empirical research that I can uncover. I've done a lot of research on the origins of the rule and it appears to come out of the UCI, based on nothing more than popular opinion. I believe USA Cycling has adopted the rule only to ensure that US Juniors and Espoirs remain compliant with and competitive in international competition. If that's the case, then why don't they so state. Is there a body of knowledge with the Espoirs National Team supporting the rule? Who knows? Other countries like Australia and Great Britain have even more restrictive Juniors gear rules that change with each racing age year from 12 to 23. Queries to clubs and organizations there have turned up a lot of support for the rule, but no rationale and no origin.

 

Our position of coordinating the 2008 US Air Force 60th anniversary bike race came out of my queries to USA Cycling as to the origins of the Juniors gear restriction rule. No one that I addressed at USA Cycling would discuss the rationale or origins of the rule. In fact, they wanted to get off the topic as quickly as possible.

 

As you know, 15 - 18 year old juniors must be Cat 3 rated or higher to qualify for National Championships. Here are some obvious facts that tend to question the merits of the new ruling that Juniors now must use restricted gearing in Seniors races as well:

 

1. The vast majority of Cat 5, 4, 3 races are flat-ground criteriums decided by a mass sprint in the final 500 meters or less. Loss of control from spinning out (150-200 RPM) in a 40 mph mass finishing sprint presents far more dangers to young riders than potential stress on joints and muscles from larger gears.

 

2. A large body of physiological research indicates that younger atheletes (under 23) are virtually incapable of self-induced stress injuries to muscles or joints, particularly in a sport like cycling, but are more highly susceptable to impact injuries, such as crashing, due to lack of skills and expereince (combine this with #3 above). In fact, adults over 23 are much more susceptible to repetitive stress injuries than juniors from lack of core strength, diminishing muscle mass (30+) and flexibility, and a more sedentary lifestyle.

 

3. USA Cycling cannot rule, measure nor enforce a rule on a minimum pedaling cadence, which is the stated rationale for the rule. Moreover, a bike race is not the place to teach or learn high-cadence pedaling technique. A fixie bike on a track is likely the best place to teach spinning. But in a race, instincts take over, and no amount of screaming from the sidelines will influence a kid trying to win a race, or just hang on to the pack and finish.

 

4. Pedaling stress on joints and muscles is relative to terrain, speed, wind, bike weight and measures, rider weight and measures, rider fitness, rider genetics, and rider pain tolerance, and NOT on the available gear selection. So, a 150lb. Juniors rider ascending a 20% grade at 17mph in a 52 X 17 gear is placing far greater stress on joints and muscles than a 120lb. Junior going 15mph in an illegal 53 X 12 gear on a flat course criterium. Moreover, every competitive Junior trains with one to two days of intervals to increase speed. There are tons of empirical data that support interval training as the only effective way to increase your speed.  So when Juniors spin out doing intervals on flat terrain, they seek nice long really steep hills to get HRs into Zone 5 - rule and rationale defeated.

 

5. Neither NORBA nor USCF Cyclocross rules have Junior gear restrictions, despite encouraging far lower cadences and radical terrain changes with steeper climbing grades.

 

6. There is no empirical data that I can find showing 80 rpms as the universal optimum cadence for men, women and children, in any cycling venue, but its taught and published 10,000 times a year. Where did this optimum come from and when? What types of riding and bikes were around when someone suggested this cadence? What empirical data supports the suggestion?

 

Year after year, I've watched Morgan Gerlak go off the front early in a Junior's race, pedaling at a godawful slow cadence in his largest 52X14 gear, while his mother screamed red-faced at every lap for him to pick up his cadence. He never did. He usually won. He's never had a stress-induced injury from mashing a large gear at a low cadence. He goes right from road racing into cyclocross every year and does suffer injuries there from crashing. Sean Yates (Motorola) was known for his slow cadence, while Lance Armstrong debuted his newly reengineered 120 rpm TT cadence at TdF win #5 I believe. Within the most successful of the pro ranks, there's a huge variance in pedaling cadence, so I conclude that the Juniors gear restriction rule is based solely on popular opinion from some outdated and outmoded cycling official who thought it was a good idea at the time.

 

Popular opinion also taught us that the world is flat and the center of the universe; that spinach is full of iron and good if you're anemic; that bathing causes the black plague; that beer and wine are good for hydration on long, mountainous, hot stages of the TdF; and that the atmosphere is warming and the polar ice caps are melting. Well, sorry Popeye but spinach has no iron. The troposphere has only risen 1 degree Farenheit in the last 100+ years, while the stratosphere and the eastern Pacific ocean have experienced much more significant cooling in the last 20 years. The same supercomputers that are pumping out this doomsday crap about waterfront in DC by 2025 can't even predict the weather three days from now. There's been no significant change in the total ice mass of the poles for decades - it melts a little over here and grows a little over there. 2006 was the calmest hurricane season in decades with the least amount of property damage for a long, long t ime, but that fact isn't newsworthy because it doesn't support Juniors gear restrictions.

 

One thing USA Cycling will accomplish with the new rule is the enduring angst and mistrust of a generation of up and coming Juniors, likely for the rest of their cycling careers. <name withheld> already competes against juniors that are 10, 11 12 months older because he was born in December. What difference would it make to USA Cycling to have your racing age change on your birhtday, rather than the calendar year? That's how it works with drinking age and voting. Now they're going to force Juniors to compete in sprint finishes in Cat 1/2/3/4/5 Seniors races (<name withheld>'s goal is Cat 2 before season end) with a 20% gear-inch handicap (52x14 vs 53x12).  That makes about as much sense as adding weight to a Junior's bike so he'll learn what it's like to race when he gets older and fatter.

Thomas Circle in more simple times

As those more familiar with me know, I have been ranting for some time now about the bike lanes that were included in the reconstructed Thomas Circle, which is on my commute to work from Petworth here DC to downtown Washington.  I’ve even taken my rants to various blogs (such as here:  http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/10/24/go_home_already.php, and here:  http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2006/03/street_renaissa.html) . 

I confess that I’m sort of agnostic when it comes to bike lanes in general.  I see their utility, and can recognize that they may encourage some to ride their bikes when they otherwise wouldn’t.  I also recognize that maybe, just maybe, they could lead to some semblance of recognition on the part of motorists that bikes are on the road.  At the same time, I’m troubled that sometimes it could lead motorists to assume that the only place on the road bikes are allowed are in bike lanes, and that they could lead to a false sense of security on the part of the cyclist.

Martin Luther overlooks the circle -

it's severe, but one of my favorite statues

in the city.

Thomas Circle is a more extreme illustration of the some of the pitfalls of bike lanes, as I see them.  The right lane of motorized traffic in the circle is for those moving forward around the circle and for turning vehicles, so the appropriate spot for a bike lane is to the right of that lane.  However, we all know the behavior of motorized vehicles in circles – the right lane is treated entirely like it’s a turning lane.  And, while you’re supposed to turn on your right turn signal if you’re driving off to one of the roads going out of the rotary, people rarely do.  This is the case even for those who are normally attentive to such matters.  Many of those driving around the circle – indeed, by my experience, most – are paying no attention to any cyclists to their right.  You can see where that problem leads.

Under construction -- looks much better today!

I wrote off to the DC Department of Transportation’s guru on bicycle issues, Jim Sebastian, about my issues with the circle.  And, in the interest of fairness, I thought I should share his response (I did obtain permission to reprint these comments).  In fact, I think it’s a good response, and it sounds like the DC government, in this case, is doing all it can to make sure motorists comply with their legal obligations.  I’m still going to do what I always do, however – take my rightful place in the middle of the right lane of motorized traffic while traveling through the circle.  (By the way, it’s worth mentioning that, in a follow-up email, Mr. Sebastian tells me that they’ve been assured that the blue painting is, in fact skid-proof.)

Mr. Sebastian’s email follows:

As for Thomas Circle, you raise a valid concern, one we considered in the design of the pavement markings.  In most rotaries or roundabouts one would not include bike lanes.  However, these large, signalized, multi-lane circles are rather unique. If you stretch out the circle, you actually have a 4 lane street with a series of intersections, just like the rest of 14^th street north of the Thomas Circle. While we would never put a bike lane to the right of an exclusive right turn lane, we do place them, almost always, to the right of a right/through lane. The difference here, and it's an important one, is the angle of the right turn.  As you point out, most vehicles do not signal (or even slow down) when exiting the circle.

To address this, we are planning to paint the bike lanes a different color and install new signs (see attached).  We're actually doing a before and after study.  We've been taking videos of bike/car behavior since the circle was completed. We will do more after the pavement markings and signs are installed. 

So far we haven't had any complaints (other than yours) or reported crashes.

In the end, we can always take the Thomas Circle lanes out if they do not prove safe and effective.

As for bike lanes in general, you're right to assume they are intended, in part, to encourage basic cyclists to ride, and also to send a message to motorists that bikes are on the street in DC, and to curve out some space for bicyclists in a congested city.  They are not targeted primarily at advanced cyclists like you and me.  But even when we implement the entire bicycle plan for the District, there will only be about 50 mile of bicycle lanes, less than 5 percent of the city's streets.  So 'sharing the road' will continue to be the primary bicycling situation.

Thanks for your interest and please continue to give us your input and ideas.

anyone who races as a junior in 2007 will need to make junior rollout.  this doesn't just mean junior races, this means all races.  a junior doing their categorized race or the senior race will still need to do rollout.  here's a very good link to understanding the details.

http://www.usacycling.org/forms/rules/JUNIOR_GEAR_ADJUSTMENTS.pdf

i believe that the quicksilver winter solstice series will again offer free entry to juniors.  anyone intending to show up there or at tradezone should be prepared to do rollout before the event.  read up on it if you need to familiarize yourself and share this information with anyone you know who might be affected.  i know pete lindemann had a couple of sources for special gear that makes rollout so if you're in the market, you can probably drop him a line for additional info.

-sg

documentary evidence that people don't observe the world around them.

incidentally, this is the same reason that bike lanes are hardly the answer to our problems.

- - - posted by scott

alton brown's energy bar recipes. 

http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/show_ea/episode/0,1976,FOOD_9956_38665,00.html

I've started producing them and will try to bring some to group rides.

- - - posted by scott

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/aaa/213715274.html

if this link is dead, drop me a line and I'll include the message text.

-sg

just south of the plaza de la revolucion, above the command bunker and next to the congress of people's deputies is the supreme revolutonary council for message propogation.  this building houses the tireless servants of the revolution, the very heart and soul of the glorious cause.  they spin endless strands of silky smooth language designed to help people better understand the necessity of change and the centrality of the bicycle.  it's hard work but they excel at it.

and while their operation is usually a seamless, well-oiled and efficient one, they are currently in turmoil.  when it comes to propoganda the language of liberation, we take a back seat to no one.  but the enemy has recently developed some advanced rhetorical methods and constructions that appear stunningly powerful,and beyond our ability to match.  while union forces clearly have solid chops, they have been humbled by the sheer power of this technique:

HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.

TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure. 

simply amazing.  a success that has not occured yet.  this type of pravda is powerful magic.

but i will not be intimidated.  in fact, let me try it out.  as you all may remember, in my last correspondence with usa cycling, i modestly and reasonably argued that the racing union best represents the ideals of cycling and should obviously be recognized for this while other clubs are punished for their mindless devotion to the status quo.  as can be seen here, the clarity of our message was lost on them.  but we can use this new construct to declare victory.  the racing union's ascendancy over all other cycling organizations is merely a success that has not occured yet.  yes, i think i like that.  i think i like that a lot. far from failure, our complete domination of all things cycling is merely a success that has not occured yet.  yes, 2007 is looking like it will be a very, very good year.

- - - posted by scott

http://www.mediathatmattersfest.org/5/fast_and_reliable/

thanks to erik for this nice link. 

http://rodale.typepad.com/bi_audio_blog/2006/12/getting_fixed.html

and thanks to bryan, our mad hectic fixie rider for this link...

- - - posted by scott

updated

I can't help myself...

awesome :: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1s3hxcp5bs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LmAhsEvl7c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LW_VkWyWN8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWc9w-ep1_A

and of course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EaJMr26F5w

p.s. who out there is still interested in a fixed gear pub crawl/poker ride for charity?

bryan b comes through a link that's pure money: what rock opera should have been.  pete townsend and his ilk would likely turn up their noses at it but this smells like revolution to me.

rock on!

Pittsburgh Skyline from the trail along the Allegheny River (from adrasteia9, Flickr.com)

As the WashCycle blog points out (http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2006/12/allegheny_highl.html#trackback), the Allegheny Highlands Trail is now pretty much complete.  Once a small nine-mile portion from McKeesport, PA to downtown Pittsburgh is completed, you’ll be able to ride from downtown Pittsburgh to Washington, DC on a bike.  Truthfully, you could have done that about four or five years ago, because I did just that with a group of friends, though it meant going out on the open road for a good portion.  Although the road portions weren’t an option with which everybody in my group of cyclists at varying levels of experience was enthralled (there were some complaints about the climb up Big Savage Mountain outside Frostburg, MD -- though that sounds a lot more dramatic than it was), I certainly enjoyed it and found it ride-able.  In any case, it seems as though it’s a lot easier now, and I certainly recommend the trip.  From what I could tell from the portions still under construction at the time, sections of the ride included railway trellises with some pretty spectacular views.

WashCycle recommends an article in the Baltimore Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/outdoors/bal-te.sp.trail13dec13,0,3730065.story?coll=bal-home-headlines), though I’m rather partial to the article I saw in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette over the weekend (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06349/746358-140.stm).  An editorial, also published in the Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06352/746932-192.stm), proclaims “Here is a project that is all about fitness, health and vitality -- and is nothing if not cool. It would seem a natural ally to the city's efforts to keep and attract young people.”

Which brings me to a subject that’s been on mind lately – how cycling can be used to promote the economic development of a city with a crumbling downtown.  While the Baltimore Sun article focuses on economic development in Cumberland, MD, the case study in the Post-Gazette piece is obviously Pittsburgh – a city whose glorious past is not always in evidence today, unless you study some of the beautiful architecture downtown.  I sympathize with the dilemma faced by Pittsburgh because I have relatives who now live there and I was born in another rust belt city with even bigger problems – Detroit, Michigan.

Truly, Pittsburgh - though still very much a working class city in attitude - isn't the pollution-ridden steel town many who haven't been there think it is.  Though the former steel mill jobs haven't necessarily been replaced completely by new jobs.  In short, the economy hasn't kept up.

(Luke Swank, Steel Worker in Foundry, c. 1934,

Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh)

A real concern in Pittsburgh is keeping and attracting young people.  Ultimately, their efforts won’t work without attractive jobs, but it has been the purpose for much of the development in Pittsburgh over the past decade or so.   Regardless of one’s feelings about public financing of such things, the new stadiums were about that (though the local funding has a broader “buy-in” than in other places because it is raised through a regional sales tax that goes not just to pay for the stadiums, but also cultural and recreational entities and events); as were the efforts to build bike trails along all of the city’s riverfronts (on land formally occupied by steel mills).  A earlier Mayor, Tom Murphy, promoted the Pittsburgh Marathon to a national level with some success in order to project an image of the city as young and healthy.

Have these efforts worked?  Well, circumstantially, yes and no.  The evidence I have seen from visiting the city is that its economy is still in a slump – indeed, this weekend I just noticed that the Barnes & Noble downtown Pittsburgh location is closing (don’t bother going there to get some good clearance deals on good books – the place was already pretty much picked over).  On the other hand, I also saw evidence that the trails are being used.  On Friday, I noticed a good deal of people in the morning who were obviously commuting to their offices downtown (no small matter for a city every bit as hilly as San Francisco – though the trails overcoming this dilemma for the meek by being located largely on flat riverfront property).  As I noted elsewhere, it’s also encouraging to see

Washington's Landing Condo development

exists side-by-side with the trail.

that the city is promoting cycling to the extent that they provide bicycle racks at various strategic locations downtown (conveniently mapped out on a map provided by the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership) – though, according to the good folks at BikePgh (http://www.bike-pgh.org/blog/), a lot more apparently needs to be done.  In other areas of the city, the trail runs through and around new condo developments, an old Heinz ketchup plant, and is used to promote the historic and cultural heritage of the city.  I’m thinking the guy in the late days of the great era of six day bike races (www.sixdaybicyclerace.com) who rode 80 miles before going to work at the steel mill for the day – he might have it better biking in Pittsburgh today (even though, given the dearth of steel mills today, they would be more likely to work in the heart transplant ward at UPMC Medical Center).  And, speaking of the six-day racers, Pittsburgh has something we don’t have here in Washington – a velodrome!(http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/parks/html/bicycling.html).

This isn’t by any means meant to be a comprehensive view of this huge topic, or even a comprehensive observation of the cycling scene in Pittsburgh – I’m not qualified to make such analyses.  Rather, they are my random thoughts designed to get others to think about it as well.  Ultimately, I guess my point with all this is to note that it’s encouraging to see others point to cycling as a solution to a larger problem – such as keeping and attracting young people, or encouraging economic development, or providing an amenity to new housing – rather than as a detriment to getting home in your SUV heading to the ‘burbs.  And I much rather see “fat cities” like Pittsburgh making use of this kind of healthy option to promote their community over the other options, such as the casino they’re destined to build in downtown Pittsburgh.

-- posted by Chris

note: i have backdated this post so as not to post over chris' extra-ordinarily good post this morning.  yesterday an email went out from the current waba director.  i could find no link to thison their website so I have attached the text of the email below...

Dear Friend,

In the recently released Environmental Assessment for the Visitor Transportation Study for the National Mall and Surrounding Park Areas, the National Park Service has again failed to take into account the thousands of visitors and commuters that bicycle in the National Mall area each year. WABA needs your help to make sure that the concerns of cyclists are heard. At the beginning of the study, WABA submitted detailed comments on what needed to be done to further encourage bicycling on the Mall. Interest among cyclists was strong, and during the initial meetings former NPS regional Director Terry Carlstrom was quoted in a study newsletter as saying the public process, “indicated a great deal of interest in bicycling as a mode of transportation.”

Among our recommendations were to: update the 1991 Paved Recreational Trails of the National Capital Region and include a prioritization of implementation of the plan. integrate bicycle information in all National Park Service communications regarding transportation to and through National Capital Area Parks, such as, websites, wayfinding and directional signage, maps and brochures improve bike parking at Mall destinations by added new parking racks and replacing broken ones widen and improve Mall trails and improve connections between area parks and the DC street network. However, instead of safer trails, better facilities, and increased signage, the NPS is recommending a mandatory helmet policy for adults. And while there are new designated signed routes, they are creating them for Segways! Cyclists have been all but ignored despite the stated goals of the project to provide sustainable transportation solutions and to coordinate with other long term plans in DC that aim to reduce vehicle congestion, improve air quality, and provide a continuous system of hiker and biker trails. Comments are due by January 5th, 2007. Click here for more information and to see what you can do to help. Sincerely, Eric Eric Gilliland Executive Director Washington Area Bicyclist Association

i honestly have no beef with waba, and i share many of their goals but i read and re-read this note and i can't quite get over the tone.  it sort of coveys a mixture of surprise, indignaiton and frustration.  so i'm going to one up him and react to this thoughts with a mixture of surprise, indignaiton and frustration.  i can't believe that any but the most optimistic and naive would be surprised by this.  we have a joke about things like this: we say that it's not a bug, it's a feature.  this post does a very amusing job of pointing this out in another arena, but once you understand the motif, you'll see it replicated fairly often.

the issue here is the same as access to roads.  omnibus federal bills such as the intermodal surface transportation efficiency act have at various points mandated that new construction projects incorporate alternative transport friendly design.  but it never happens.  that's because the system that uses the funds has no incentive to do so.  you can write blog posts and send emails and circulate petitions all day long, every day but it won't make a difference.  that's because the lack of accomodation is not a bug (i.e. an oversight or a mistake or a mis-implementaiton) but a feature or something that essentially was planned, designed for and executed to bring about a desired result.

what we need is a new process: one that starts from a different set of assumptions.  i will try to dig through some of the authorizing bills and see if there is anything that can be used as a lever here but i suspect that the process is pretty far along (see my earlier post on the proposed bike station) and can't be re-engineered at this point.  i may be wrong and i will submit some comments, specifically asking about the segways.  so far as a i know, only commercial outfits have segways so why we would have a design program that singles a business like that out for special treatment when many users and citizens own bikes is beyond me.

let's submit comments where we can but let's also get more involved in the front end of the process.  more on this shortly.

- - - posted by scott

kevin and i went to the public comment meeting on the proposed union station bike station.  my impression was that it was a decidedly weird event.  i'll get to my thoughts on that meeting in a minute, but some recent posts and comments set the stage perfectly for how i perceive this situation. 

chris' post from yesterday is a very good one.  it points out the everyday problems that people who wish to get around by bicycles face.  tom posted a very good comment as well.  in response to tom, my general experience is that the actual property owners are not always easy to work with.  my personal opinion is that they perceive they have enough to worry about and don't see cyclists as a large enough constituency to warrant the outlay of money necessary for something like this.  especially now, around the xmas shopping season, when mall rage breaks out because parking is such a premium.  can't you hear it now: "i'm too busy dealing with mall parking rage to help you with this...what did you say it was again....bike parking lot?  yeah, i'll get to it as soon as i survive the parking situation around the holiday season..."

i may be alone here but i see this issue as being very similar to ADA provisions.  the ada mandates that site managers and buildings must make access possible for people with a range of disabilities.  if you talk to the business managers, they will complain about the costs (very real and thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in planning, permits, construction and equipment) to make the necessary modifications.  but i tend to be less sympathetic to their argument because it often boils down to this: "i don't have many handicapped customers now so why should i be required to spend lots on making my business easier for them to use?"  but this is so clearly a chicken and egg situation that you want to slap your forehead. 

the proximal reason that few commercial real estate owners think they need bicycle accomodations is that so few bicyclists show up or ask for accomodations.  but the ultimate reason that so few cyclists show up is that the roads and parking lots around these commercial areas are so dangerous to ride on and that there are no safe and effective places to put your bike while you're there.  if they built accomodations, would more people come there?  i'm not entirely sure.  but i'm certain that if they don't make it possible that it will never happen.

in very general terms, what's probably missing from this overall discussion is a set of standard tools for someone who wishes to pursue something like this.  maybe we need to develop a tool box so that you could go to any specified area and present them with a very professional package of information.  what might be in the toolbox?  it should probably contain some very brief introductory information about cyclists and what they need (not much!) to effectively use this person's resources/business/services.  you could have descriptions of what other businesses have done (with drawings or pictures and contact information for the site managers) as an example of best practices.  you could have a list of federal, state and local agencies that might offer grants or tax breaks or easements for things like this.  and finally, it would be brilliant to have an architectural firm draw up some generic plans for a simple prototype, cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all solution so you can show the people there, in real terms, what you are talking about.  this would need to include a projected cost-estimate in current dollars.

such a toolbox would need to be customized for each individual application, in the same way that your resume would need to be tailored to each individual job you sought.  it would not be a lot of work but would stress the needs of that particular situation.  what do you guys think?  good idea?  bad idea? 

to address chris's quesiton, I'd be more inclined to suggest that somewhere in the parking garage, spots be allocated.  the garage already has the property of being covered, there's limited pedestrian traffic and there are "guards" down there.  there is also probably a concrete island somewhere that would be suitable.  i generally prefer bike racks that are public and out there and on display.  it helps to communicate the reality that biking is a very good alternative.  but in the case of the mci center, i'm not so sure.

now, on to the union station bike station meeting.  the meeting was initially described here.  kevin and i got there late owing to a really good deal on pints of guinness nearby.  when we got there, it had a very weird vibe.  there were several people presenting but they appeared to be mostly answering questions.  and the questions being asked appeared to mostly come from people who were interested in managing this facility.  many of the questions dealt with costs, overhead, ownership, subsidies, real estate, and regulations.

i'm not entirely sure what was going on so i am going to offer my best guess at what is going on.  i think that some money to build something has come through.  this money is (federal?) pollution abatement money and someone has decided that a bike parking facility is the best way to spend it.  the money will be spent.  and it's very, very probable that it will be spent on this product. 

again, i may be misreading the situation, but that's what i'm getting from it.  the stated purpose of the meeting was to get input.  but they already have plans, technicals, scale art models, traffic flow ideas and what not.  it looks like most of the decisions are made.  what i find troubling is that i think this particular idea is a solution in search of a problem.  when general interest questions were asked, there were really no answers.  what happens if this thing fills up?  there will be more street parking nearby.  what will happen to the existing bike parking?  unclear, it will probably be lost.  is this supposed to be a service for existing commuters or is it meant to be something to convince non-cycling commuters to give it a try?  no answer.  with the prohibition of bikes on marc and metro during rush hour, is union station the best place for this?  no answer.  will there be showers and changing places in the facility?  no, there will be no running water.  so there will be no toilets?  correct.  what happens when the "attendant" needs to go the bathroom?  does she/he just lock the place up and go into union station.  awkward silence.  no answer.  giggles from bikers.

maybe i'm being way to cynical.  i don't think so as i chatted with several others right after the meeting and they had even more and better questions.  but i don't get the feeling that there's much discussion at this point.  which is a shame.

now to tie the whole post together.  some will be saying that i'm not playing consistently.  in the top of the post, i argue that we need to have bike facilities to make it easier for cyclists to get around and seen and fostering the perception that cyclists share the road and bicycles are a real transportation option.  and then in the bottom of the post, after being offered what i want, i'm turning up my nose at it.  fair enough, in a sense.  i think we need accomodations and they need to be visible.  i think the bike station is waaayyyy too much of a good thing in a single place.  it's probably not useful to think about what that money (>$2M) could have funded but i can't help it.  but i think we can come away from this with something valuable.  in place of this, is there something else that would have been better?  and should it be placed all over the city?  and the suburbs?  and the shopping centers? 

i'll start doing some research towards the toolkit and see where it takes me.  any and all help is appreciated.

- - - posted by scott