Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Julie P. on November 18, 2008 at 4:22am

I think the public modes of transportation thing, while important, is watering down the need to keep streets complete and safe. Pedestrian stuff makes sense, though.

Part of this probably pads them a little against the economy and downswing in available grants. Since they expanded their mission they'll find more funding sources.

Permalink Reply by Sam S on November 18, 2008 at 4:29am

Yeah, I'm still struggling to understand this. I liked the CBF name and its mission. I don't want to disparage all the hard work that this must have taken. I just can't help but feel disappointed and worried that the loss of focus means that nothing at all will be accomplished. I mean, trying to solve the problems of biking, walking and *all transit* (their mission) is just too broad.

Permalink Reply by EJ on November 18, 2008 at 4:30am

Good for them! It's good that they are expanding the mission. I can see "Walk to Work" day happening in the spring. As far as the name goes, it's like when OLN became Versus.

Permalink Reply by Chucko on November 18, 2008 at 4:35am

I agree with Julie. While I think pedestrian and public modes of transportation are important, and do have some overlap with bicycling in the city, I don't think the change is for the better in terms of bicycling advocacy.

Even if they continue to have the same support for cyclists, I am disappointed by the name change.

Permalink Reply by Julie P. on November 18, 2008 at 4:38am

look at it this way: they're now advocating for public transit. how many times have you wrestled with a bus as you try to safely ride a bike lane to work?

we had this problem in DC when I lived there, where the city wanted to put in combined bus/bike lanes. it was a bad idea since buses have huge blind spots and are super dangerous when tangling with large numbers of cyclists. Based on their new mission though, would CBF/ATA support this?

Permalink Reply by Chi Tour de Cure on November 18, 2008 at 4:50am

I think it makes a great deal of sense - especially in a political arena like Chicago where teaming up against the red tape can't hurt. How different are bike lanes from cross walks? We're all fighting motorized traffic for space. We're all trying to get from A to B alive and happy. We all hate cabbies. This move might well give CBF greater access to federal and state funding since they now have a broader, defined mission. Really though, I think it's a well-cloaked move to use "walking to work (or school)" as a gateway to cycling. You will all be assimilated!

Permalink Reply by Dubi Kaufmann on November 18, 2008 at 4:55am

I'll do what the media did when prince changed his name to a symbol. I'll call it "the organization formerly known as CBF"

Permalink Reply by evanK on November 18, 2008 at 5:04am

I know it's just a name, but the new, broader, more corporate feel makes me less inclined to be a member. Hopefully, though, it means they're growing and can take on the additional missions without dropping the balls still up in the air. I, myself, advocate for bigger balls (in the air), not more balls.

Permalink Reply by Chucko on November 18, 2008 at 5:30am

Not sure about the access to state funding...especially after the much publicized issues in Springfield related to transit funding in Chicago. In this regard it almost seems like my membership funds will be siphoned off for advocacy of additional funding for mass transit. In theory, it's a good idea, but really I donate to the federation for bicycle advocacy. If I wanted to support public transit, I'd just ride it.

Chi Tour de Cure said:

I think it makes a great deal of sense - especially in a political arena like Chicago where teaming up against the red tape can't hurt. How different are bike lanes from cross walks? We're all fighting motorized traffic for space. We're all trying to get from A to B alive and happy. We all hate cabbies. This move might well give CBF greater access to federal and state funding since they now have a broader, defined mission. Really though, I think it's a well-cloaked move to use "walking to work (or school)" as a gateway to cycling. You will all be assimilated!

Permalink Reply by EJ on November 18, 2008 at 5:39am

Before we start hating, I still think that this organization is the best advocate for the cyclists in Chicago. So, let's see what this organizational (name) change brings and let's judge then.

Permalink Reply by Juliette on November 18, 2008 at 5:53am

I, like Sam, am actually quite frustrated by this change. I understand the political issues in dealing with funding, but to be honest, the issues involved with cycling in Chicago are a lot different than taking transit or walking. Additionally, who made this decision and when? Sam and I are both members of CBF, and unfortunately with this change, we are thinking about discontinuing our membership. As a user of all sorts of methods of transportation, I understand the need to approach these problems diplomatically. Yet bike lanes and bike parking issues are sometimes juxtaposed to transit ones. We joined the CBF because of its bike mission, and the individuals who made the decision to change this name really did not consider their membership needs. I urge all of you to visit the website and to comment on it. I wrote them an email this morning, but I will add a comment to their site as well.

Permalink Reply by Juliette on November 18, 2008 at 5:57am

Juliette said:

P.S. I just attempted to comment on their site, but my comment has to be reviewed by administrators before it is posted.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page