Really Riding On Rails

As you probably know, the Rails to Trails Conservancy has been instrumental in turning abandoned railroad lines into cycling and hiking trails. As RTC continues its work, there are still many former railway lines that would make great trails, but Congress might slash some of the funding it has previously allotted to such conversions.

I have shown, in previous posts, some abandoned rail lines within a few miles of my home that would make wonderful cycling and walking routes.  If and when they will be converted is anybody's guess. 

In the meantime, cyclists who want to use those railways have a two options.  One is to ride in the rail bed.  On a road or fixed-gear bike with skinny tires--or even a touring or hybrid bike--that could be very difficult, if not impossible, as those beds are filled with various combinations of rail ties (in various states of decay) as well as gravel, weeds, roots and whatever people dump there--which can include old washing machines and refrigerators!  Even on a mountain or cyclo-cross bike, such conditions wouldn't be easy to negotiate.

The other option is to ride on the rails.  I thought I was being sarcastic the first time I suggested it, but apparently there are people who do it:



 

Carbon Fiber? Would John Boultbee Approve?

Some of us learned the meaning of the word "oxymoron" through examples like "dietetic candy", "military intelligence" and "business ethics".  Not so long ago, "Brooklyn Republican" would have made the list.

Some would say that "carbon fiber Brooks saddle" would also serve the purpose.  In fact, some cyclists believe that "carbon fiber" and "Brooks saddle" should not be on the same page, let alone the same bicycle.

In one way, I would agree with such a sentiment.  Brooks saddles and anything made from carbon fiber seem to represent the absolute poles of the cycling world.  The latter connotes high technology, light weight, advanced manufacturing techniques and Darth Vader graphics.  Brooks saddles, on the other hand, represent tradition, practicality and hand craftsmanship.  And until recently, they had a restrained, classical aesthetic.

Plus, if you buy and like a Professional or B17, there's a good chance you'll be riding it for the rest of your life (especially if you're around my age!).  On the other hand, very few cyclists are riding carbon-fiber bikes or parts that are more than a few years old.  Nobody really knows how long the latest carbon fiber bikes will last:  They don't deteriorate unless exposed to UV rays--and, according to Steve A, you don't have to worry about them breaking as long as you don't crash them-- but there is no "real world" data as to how many miles and how much punishment carbon fiber frame members and components can endure.  Professional racing teams give their riders new bikes every year as a matter of course; I don't know whether that's done as a precaution (airlines replace parts of their jets after a certain number of kilometers or a certain amount of air time, whether or not they seem to need replacing) or whether the bikes are ready for the scrap heap at the end of a season.

Now, I'm sure there are carbon fiber bikes adorned with Brooks leather saddles.  As "The Retrogrouch" points out, they may be attempts at irony. (To which I say:  If you're trying to achieve it, it isn't irony!) Then again, there probably are people riding that combination because they like the ride qualities of the bike and saddle, or because they figure that they have such a light bike that they won't be weighed down by a Brooks "brick".  

Such people remind me of the woman I used to know who made floats with Diet Coke and Haagen-Dazs ice cream. 

But I digress.  Apparently, there is an attempt to marry, if you will, two of the most disparate elements of the cycling world.  Again, from Retrogrouch, I've learned that Brooks is developing the C13:  a C15 saddle with carbon fiber rails.

A prototype of the brooks C 13. From Bikeboard

 

Now, you might say that the C15 isn't really a Brooks saddle.  I'd agree with you, at least partway:  Its top is not made of leather, and--shocker!--it's made in Italy, where the plastic-based racing saddle as we know it was first developed.

Then again, purists would say that the "real" Brooks hasn't existed in about fifteen years, when Selle Royal purchased the saddle-maker after Sturmey Archer, the company that owned it, went bankrupt.  (Around the same time, Taiwan-based Sun Race bought SA's hub and gear businesses.  So, if you've bought an SA hub since the early part of this century, it was made in Taiwan.)  Thus, while the Professionals, B17s, Swallows, B72s and other favorites of the leather-saddle line are still made in England, more and more of the company's saddle production has shifted to Italy.  And some Brooks accessories, such as the leather bar wrap, are being made in China.

As much as I love my Pros and B17s, I think the name "Brooks" conjures up a legend, even a romance, of bikes past as it does actual saddles and bags.  The fact is that even before the Selle Royal buyout, not all Brooks saddles were made of leather.  During the 1970s, Brooks made--in England--some plastic-based saddles with padding and vinyl or leather parts that seemed to be attempts to mimic their Italian counterparts.  A few bikes came with them as original equipment; however, almost nobody bought them as replacements because the sort of person who wanted that kind of saddle was going to buy Italian anyway. 

Also, Brooks made vinyl-topped sprung "mattress" saddles that were sometimes found on women's versions of English three-speeds during the 1950's and 1960's.  Before that, Brooks offered similar saddles topped with rubberized  canvas (similar, at least in concept, to today's C15 and C17) and padded with horsehair. 

So, while Brooks will probably always be identified, at least in the public mind, with the riveted leather saddles we've all seen--and many of us ride and love--offering technological updates to their products is nothing new for the company John Boultbee Brooks founded in 1866.  When he first offered a saddle that consisted of a piece of leather stretched and riveted to iron rails, it was considered a radical new technology.  (Velocipedes of the time usually had curved wooden seats, rather like the backs of  carousel horses.)  More than a century later, many of us are still riding variations of his leather saddle.  And, I suspect, there will be some cyclists in the generations to come who, once they try a B17, Professional, Swallow, B67 or other leather Brooks saddle, will not want to ride anything else.

Thus, I am confident that Brooks can make a saddle with carbon fiber rails--and still be Brooks.

A Comparison Of Bike Share And Subway Systems: Paris And New York

Although I didn't use Velib when I was in Paris, I couldn't help but to marvel at some aspects of it.

For one, it seemed that quite a few riders on Velib bikes weren't tourists.  Now, here in New York, some people ride Citibikes to and from work, while others who don't own bikes sometimes take out those familiar blue bikes for spins around the neighborhood.  But such riders seemed more common on Paris streets.

But what really impressed me is how well-covered the city is:  One doesn't have to go more than a few blocks, even in the outlying arrondissements, to find a Velib port.  Also, one can find those ports and bikes in areas outside Paris proper:  I saw them in Vincennes, and along the way between the famous Chateau and the City of Light.  I also spotted the ports and bikes in several towns along the way to Versailles.

By contrast, the borough of Queens got its first Citibike stations earlier this month, in Long Island City--not very far from where I live.  Critics say that the new port doesn't really represent an expansion into the Borough of Homes because the ports are next to the subway stations closest to Manhattan, and on the Queens side of the Queensborough/59th Street Bridge.  Many people regard Long Island City (and my 'hood of Astoria) as satellites of Manhattan rather than true Queens neighborhoods.

The same criticism can be made, I think, about the placement of Citibike stations in Brooklyn:  Williamsburg, right next to the eponymous bridge that links it to Manhattan, was the first non-Manhattan neighborhood to get Citibike.  Nobody expects to see the blue bikes in the far southeastern and southwestern neighborhoods of the borough any time soon.  And it would be more than surprising if the bike share program ever came to Staten Island at all.

To be fair, Velib started in 2007, while the first Citibikes didn't roll down city streets until two years ago.  Still, the difference in how each program covers its city reflects another pattern in each city's transportation infrastructure.

You see, all of the neighborhoods that have, or are getting, Citibikes, are ones that are well-served by New York City's subway and bus systems.  They have major lines linking them to midtown and downtown Manhattan, and they are the sorts of neighborhoods in which many people (myself included) live car-free.



New York City Subway map, 2015.  Manhattan is the island to the left; Staten Island is the one in the inset.  Brooklyn and Queens are to the right, and the Bronx is at the top. 

There are large swaths of the city that have no mass transportation at all.  None of the subways cross the city lines into New Jersey, Long Island or Westchester County, and most of the eastern half of Queens--as well as parts of southwestern and southeastern Brooklyn--have never had subway service.  Kings Plaza Mall, the largest retail area in Brooklyn, is about seven kilometers from the nearest subway stop.  So is JFK International Airport--which, until five years ago, didn't even have a light-rail link to the city's subways or the Long Island Rail Road.

Even in Manhattan, there are transportation "deserts", if you will.  One reason for that is that most of the subway lines on the island run parallel to each other, in  north-south ("uptown-downtown" in Big Apple parlance) routes.  Only two lines run across Manhattan:  the #7 train under 42nd Street and the "L" under 14th Street.  The lines that enter Manhattan from Brooklyn, Queens or the Bronx become part of the "uptown/downtown" grid once they reach Manhattan.



Paris Metro map

In Paris, by contrast, the lines are spread in patterns that have been likened to the circulatory system of the human body.  One result is that no point within the City of Light is more than 500 meters (about 1/3 mile, or six New York City blocks) from a Metro station.  Some of the inner suburbs, such as Levallois-Perret, are nearly as well-served as central Paris.  Even so, there are proposals to not only add service within the city and inner suburbs, but to extend several lines further out.

I find it fascinating that both rapid transit and bike sharing systems in New York and Paris reflect the history of planning (or, in some cases, lack thereof) in each city. 

In my hometown, the first subway lines were built by private financiers who operated them, under city contract, in much the same way they would conduct their other businesses.  All of the city's transit lines were not brought under the umbrella of one governmental organization until the 1950's.  In a similar fashion, the city's bike share program, while initiated by the city, is run by Citibank--which can make (or lose) money as it could with its banking, real estate and other businesses. 

On the other hand, the Paris Metro system was centrally planned from the beginning.  That, I believe, is why lines aren't duplicated and, if you want to transfer from one line to another, you don't have to go all the way to the other end of town, as switching trains in New York sometimes necessitates.  And, interestingly, Velib was started by the Mairie  (City Hall) of Paris, which still owns the system although JC Decaux operates it.

Knowing all of this, I don't feel I'm being cynical or pessimistic in saying that Velib will be in Orleans before Citibike comes to Staten Island!