Enzofortune

Monday, March 15, 2021

Streetsblog desperately trying to come up with reasons to shoot down Sepulveda monorail proposal

Streetsblog LA recently posted 10 Reasons to Ditch the Sepulveda Pass monorail proposal. All 10 are a stretch of reality and common sense. It makes me wonder what their real motive is. Let's look:

1 - Caltrans won't allow it

Because a monorail would require posts, which drivers couldn't see past in the curves.

B.S. Do we not have curving tunnels on freeways in CA ? Does the 110 not have posts?

2 and 3 - Freeways transit stations are polluted and loud

And sitting in traffic is better? Sign me up.

4 - Freeway station areas are not conducive to transit and walking

Wah. Doesn't seem to hurt the 10 freeway train. See 2 and 3. Sign me up.

5 - No UCLA station

Wah. No, really, just, "Wah."

6 - Monorail proposers didn't map Metro's existing transit lines correctly

It "doesn't inspire confidence". So what? In their own words, "This gets even more nitpicky..." so they admit that it was nitpicky to begin with.

7 - Monorail technology has few upsides

"Monorail operations would mean ... vehicles that could only run on this line." Yes, you seem to understand how monorails work. :-)

"Monorails ... are ... nearly as old as conventional rails." This doesn't seem to stop Streetsblog from recommending trains...

"When running entirely aerially, monorails can be slightly cheaper than conventional rail." Win-win!

8 - Transit P2s have failed spectacularly in other cities

"Why do public-private partnership at all?" I'm not sure what point they're trying to make here.

9 - Privatization has already failed L.A. transit riders

Namely, bus stops are horrible. Really, that's their evidence.

10 - Proposer BYD has an uneven record

Listen to this hard-hitting language:

"The company is currently manufacturing electric buses for Metro" And yet, no complaints.

"they may very well make a great monorail" No argument here.

"it could be a stretch" It could, but do you have any evidence?

"BYD has sometimes over-promised..." Sometimes? Show me an organization that hasn't.

---

I wish Streetsblog would focus their voice and energy on the actual things that they'd like to change about the proposal, instead of waving around watery language and trying to strike the whole thing down. I've waited 32 years for an alternative to the 405. L.A. can't wait any longer.

Sunday, September 13, 2020

In Defense of Triple (and Double!) Chain-sets

I have a 2001 Trek 5200 bicycle. It was state of the art in 1997, when Lance Armstrong rode the same frame - "120 grams" OCLV carbon fiber - to victory in the Tour de France. While Lance used Shimano Dura-Ace professional components, my bike has the pro-sumer Ultegra family.

And yet my bike is better than his was. Why? Because the Ultegra family included the (5600?) triple front chain-set. That is, it had 3 gears on the front derailleur, like a mountain bike, and so could climb (or descend) hills like its off-road brother, and I love to climb hills.

The "triple" always had a reputation as "cheating", but then again, you can build a drive-train to climb hills using any bike. The only difference is, with mine, I could pedal down those same hills. So the difference was only in convenience.

In the mid-2000s, cog-sets (the gears on the back wheel) with a higher count were introduced. My bike has 9 cogs in back, but now they had as many as 11. As they added more cogs, they could provide a broader gear range with only 2 chain-rings up front. Since more chain-rings is more weight, the triple chain-ring was phased out, relegated to the dustbin of history.

The trouble is, the people searching for this increased range entirely missed the point of the triple chain-ring.

What is the point? What do I like about the triple?

To understand the advantage of the triple, let's look at the opposite extreme: the "one by". The current "fad" in bicycling is to only have a single chain-ring up front - even on mountain bikes! - and have a wide range of gears in back.

The trouble with this arrangement is that, to transition from uphill to downhill, or vice-versa, which occurs often in hilly areas, you have click through a ton of gears. You could entirely lose your momentum while grinding through gears, trying to find the appropriate ratio.

I have a hill that I climb on my weekly training route. I attack the hill standing up, mainly to get some exercise of those muscles, but also as a small challenge or indicator of how I'm feeling that day.

When I transition to sitting, I simply flick the front derailleur from middle ring to small ring - 42 teeth to 30 - and I'm at the perfect ratio. I can then slowly progress up through the back cogs, towards the bigger cogs, as the hill gets steeper.

Whenever I crest a hill, I first flip back to middle ring. I can adjust the back gear too if I like. Then when I tip over the hill, I flip to big ring. Back on level ground? Flip back to middle ring. All these transitions only take a single flick, or even easier, a click.

One may argue that a shifter can actually shift up 2 gears at a time, so it's not that bad. I say "whoopee" (sarcastically). I would also point out that a shifter can only go *down* 1 gear at a time. All this time, you can't pedal.

Two Are Better Than One

The double chain-ring is better than the "one by", because it can at least change the front gear sometimes. Unfortunately, this may not occur at the most opportune times. For instance, you may be on level ground in big ring (because you just descended a hill) and about to climb a hill. You may have to flip to small ring *and* adjust the back gear to compensate. That's a lot of clicking, but you don't want to do that after you start climbing, right?

Conclusion

Sadly, the industry has moved on from road bikes with triple chain-sets. If I still want one, I have to track down one on e-bay or re-purpose a mountain bike drive-train. Thus, I will be hanging onto my old 5200 until it is crushed under a car or is stolen.

Does the market-place always make the best decisions? Does technology always advance? No. No, it does not.

Saturday, March 2, 2019

Pedestrian deaths reach 27 year high

If you're going to blame pedestrians wearing headphones, why is it spiking now? Why are SUVs and heavy trucks suspiciously growing in the percent? Are SUVs magnetically attracted to headphones? And what about deaf people? Are they screwed by your conclusion?