outside magazine on bicycles

Once again, Outside magazine caught my veering attention for more than a millisecond by publishing an article about bicycles, this time about bike commuting in the October 2009 issue. Here's the salient bit, stashed under Excuse #3: "A study in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise found that, for new commuters, cycling just 3.7 miles at low intensity only three times a week increased external power and oxygen uptake as much as a training program."

ETA: http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200910/bike-commuting-time.html

That sounds a little suspicious, doesn't it? And, indeed, it is suspicious. Here's the actual abstract:

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2000/02000/Effect_of_commuter_cycling_on_physical_performance.37.aspx

First off, yes, the article _really is_ from 2000. I was surprised, too. Second, that study wasn't done in the US or the UK -- probably somewhere in the Netherlands, but could have been any of a half dozen western European countries. Third, the summary in Outside is inaccurate. The gain in "oxygen uptake" was not significant for the women commuters, only the men, and the frequency was not "only" three times a week, it was a mean of _more_ than three times a week. Finally, it is unclear from the abstract whether the cycle commuting was truly "low" intensity as Outside asserts; likely, it was moderate.

There are a wide variety of other problems with the article on bike commuting (not least of which is their idea of a good commuter bike -- the people running that study would probably have been appalled at what Outside was recommending, given what a typical commuter bike looks like in the countries in which the study was certainly done), as one would expect from Outside magazine.

On the other hand, at least Outside magazine took a break from pushing black diamond ski runs and other activities involving plane fare and crazy gear to write about something that active people could do in a down economy that might be both fun and healthful and not induce a lot of carbon emissions guilt.

ETA: To be fair, they did manage to engage in crazy -- both expensive crazy and stupidly inappropriate crazy -- gear in the bike commuting article.

wondering whether someone could possibly be that stupid?

Here's a little background. It's the War of Northern Aggression and what southern railroads there are don't share gauges and don't meet up, in part because towns and cities are jealous of their teamster business and want to make everything moving on the rails be schlepped in a wagon from one iron road to another. The military isn't happy about this.

From _Railroads and American Law_, by James W. Ely, Jr., page 45:

"New trackage was imperative to link carriers and to expedite shipments. Since private capital was obviously scarce, the Confederate Congress authorized a number of loans to encourage speedy construction of additional track. The most vital proposed connection was between Danville, Virginia, and Greensboro, North Carolina, for which Congress in 1862 approved a $1 million loan to a newly organized company.

"This modest rail construction program by the central government sparked a sharp debate in the Confederate Congress. Pointing to a provision in the Constitution against spending "to promote or foster any branch of industry," opponents argued that the measure was unconstitutional. Confederate President Jefferson Davis, however, countered that the project could be justified as a military necessity, and this position carried the day. Much of the opposition to the Virginia-North Carolina link, while couched in constitutional terms, reflected the fear of local economic interests that a new route would divert business."

I should note that there was a whole lot of stupid to go around in the South during the Civil War (laws passed requiring railroads to move military personnel and cargo for free, for example). But this one makes me go, wow. I'll try to remember it the next time I'm listening to some doctrinaire something or other argue for something utterly asinine.

ETA: p 46

Petersburg, Virginia

"General Robert E. Lee early called for a connection between railroads entering that city. Yet Petersburg officials steadfastly resisted closing this gap, relying on a Virginia statute that banned rail building on city streets without the permission of municipal authorities...Only with the direct supervision and financial backing of the Confederate government was the Petersburg gap closed. Petersburg officials, however, continued to protest. In December 1861 the city council adopted a resolution expressing its opposition to "a permanent connection" between Petersburg and Richmond."

...

"State-owned lines proved especially troublesome. Because of its commitment to states' rights, the Confederate government found it awkward to override sometimes obstructionist state officials."

Look, I'm _glad_ they were so stupid. Really. It worked out for the best. But wow. Just, wow.

what's up with the stimulus money for high speed rail?

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/22/22greenwire-high-speed-rail-effort-proceeds-with-caution-77408.html

We were supposed to have grants last summer. What happened?

Rule #1 of railroads: Change happens slowly.

They are engaged in the first important policy battle of (re)building passenger rail infrastructure (here or anywhere): should we incrementally improve our existing system or purpose-build new stuff. In general, the history of wildly popular, heavily used high speed passenger rail indicates that purpose-built works and incremental, well, that's a lot less clear. It certainly isn't wildly popular, and it certainly doesn't move people nearly as quickly. The economic argument on all infrastructure is weak: clearly, we do need some infrastructure. Equally clearly, infrastructure takes generations to "pay" for itself, even tho we all immediately become completely dependent on it and can't imagine living without it.

The FRA has been around for a while. A long, long while. Anyone working at the FRA has survived more opportunities to lose their job than ordinary humans can readily imagine. No one over there is going to stick their neck out. The politicians, meanwhile, are busy attempting to leverage their committee chairmanships into projects for the places they represent. Funnily enough, there are actually some people saying, what's the point of moving people on the train from point A to point B if there isn't a public transit system in either A or B? That criteria, somehow, never comes up when the infrastructure is an airport. Or, for that matter, a private automobile. And while you might say, oh, well, the automobile solves the problem itself. Well, not if there isn't space on the roads to drive it, or space off the road to park it.

Trains are held to a standard unimaginable for other transport infrastructure.

I've been reading so much about trains that at this point, I have no real emotional response left to this. It just is. I wonder if that's how the FRA crowd is feeling? Or not feeling, as the case may be.