Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on November 23, 2011 at 6:42am

Please see the attached PDF flyer for more information.

Attachments:

• S4C Open House flyer final.pdf, 1.3 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on November 28, 2011 at 5:22am

"To interact with Chicago Streets for Cycling Plan 2020 you need to sign up for Facebook first." 

This is beyond appalling to me. Why should the City be supporting a company such as Facebook and excluding all non-facebook users from the conversation? Facebook is not the internet. It is not correct to assume that everyone has a facebook account. Facebook a corporation whose only mission is to make money with little or no regard or its users privacy. Doesn't the City of Chicago have the ability to set up its own site for discussions if that is really what they want to have? 

 

The fact sheet at:

http://chicagobikes.org/pdf/Streets%20for%20Cycling%20Plan%202020%2...

claims that "We want Chicago to be the most bike friendly city in the United States. But we can't do it without your help." 

 

That is an awesome sentiment. If that is true, then why set up barriers to conversation?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zoetrope on November 28, 2011 at 5:45am

Agree on that, Tony.  

 

I'm sick and tired of seeing this "Give us a *like* on Facebook and we'll blah blah blah" stuff.

 

But, did you not see that it says you can email them @ streetsforcycling2020@gmail.com as well?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on November 28, 2011 at 3:05pm

I'm sure Tony saw that, but an email address is not a public forum like a comment thread on a Facebook page, or a blog (which could be setup in its place). 

 

I also believe that a Facebook page should not be the primary website to receive information about the SCP2020 or to contribute comments online. 

Brendan said:

But, did you not see that it says you can email them @ streetsforcycling2020@gmail.com as well?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zoetrope on November 28, 2011 at 3:31pm

Agreed.  It's not a smart move.  

Steven Vance said:

an email address is not a public forum like a comment thread on a Facebook page, or a blog (which could be setup in its place). 

 

I also believe that a Facebook page should not be the primary website to receive information about the SCP2020 or to contribute comments online. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on November 28, 2011 at 4:13pm

Re: using Facebook -- I do recognize what you're saying, but let's give 'em a break. They're trying something new. CDOT tried using a dedicated website for the Pedestrian Plan, and it's a nice site with solid information and opportunity to give input, but they've received a total of only 24 posted suggestions. Since FB has 150 million users in the US, it's a convenient means to distribute information and start a broad public conversation. When you use a standalone website like the one for the Peds Plan, you have to hope people will check the site periodically for news, but FB "feeds" it to you. Plus, FB is free to use. You can say that using FB is a barrier to conversation, but then, so is using the internet at all, including e-mail.

 

In any case, there will be numerous opportunities to participate in person as well. Hopefully everyone reading this will share their ideas and cycling insights in any way they can!

 

Disclosure: I'm a volunteer co-leader for the north side Streets for Cycling community advisory group; however, I have no "inside info" on the decisions made about publicizing the events, and these are just my thoughts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on November 28, 2011 at 6:59pm

I think a dedicated website can be used in conjunction with Facebook, with both sites being updated simultaneously. 

Michelle Stenzel said:

Re: using Facebook -- I do recognize what you're saying, but let's give 'em a break. They're trying something new. CDOT tried using a dedicated website for the Pedestrian Plan, and it's a nice site with solid information and opportunity to give input, but they've received a total of only 24 posted suggestions. Since FB has 150 million users in the US, it's a convenient means to distribute information and start a broad public conversation. When you use a standalone website like the one for the Peds Plan, you have to hope people will check the site periodically for news, but FB "feeds" it to you. Plus, FB is free to use. You can say that using FB is a barrier to conversation, but then, so is using the internet at all, including e-mail.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on November 29, 2011 at 4:12am

How can you call it a public conversation when only Facebook members can participate? 

I'm operating on the assumption that the internet in general is a communications tool, not a barrier to communication. The thing is that we need to keep it open and free and not limit our discussions to walled gardens run by profit driven corporations such as facebook.

Hoping that people will check the site is not a viable approach, but using taxpayer resources to propagate facebook is essentially corporate welfare. 

Michelle Stenzel said:

Re: using Facebook -- I do recognize what you're saying, but let's give 'em a break. They're trying something new. CDOT tried using a dedicated website for the Pedestrian Plan, and it's a nice site with solid information and opportunity to give input, but they've received a total of only 24 posted suggestions. Since FB has 150 million users in the US, it's a convenient means to distribute information and start a broad public conversation. When you use a standalone website like the one for the Peds Plan, you have to hope people will check the site periodically for news, but FB "feeds" it to you. Plus, FB is free to use. You can say that using FB is a barrier to conversation, but then, so is using the internet at all, including e-mail.

 

In any case, there will be numerous opportunities to participate in person as well. Hopefully everyone reading this will share their ideas and cycling insights in any way they can!

 

Disclosure: I'm a volunteer co-leader for the north side Streets for Cycling community advisory group; however, I have no "inside info" on the decisions made about publicizing the events, and these are just my thoughts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on November 29, 2011 at 4:30am

I agree with Michelle.  Facebook reaches a lot of people easily, and can reach many people who are not on Chainlink because they don't identify as cyclists.  These folks may see S4C posts on the pages or their friends and family, which can greatly increase the potential impact of these posts.  This is one of the best arguments in favor of using FB.

 

I think that a dedicated web site to supplement the Facebook page would be reasonable to create one more public forum for those who are not on FB.

 

Steven Vance said:

I think a dedicated website can be used in conjunction with Facebook, with both sites being updated simultaneously. 

Michelle Stenzel said:

Re: using Facebook -- I do recognize what you're saying, but let's give 'em a break. They're trying something new. CDOT tried using a dedicated website for the Pedestrian Plan, and it's a nice site with solid information and opportunity to give input, but they've received a total of only 24 posted suggestions. Since FB has 150 million users in the US, it's a convenient means to distribute information and start a broad public conversation. When you use a standalone website like the one for the Peds Plan, you have to hope people will check the site periodically for news, but FB "feeds" it to you. Plus, FB is free to use. You can say that using FB is a barrier to conversation, but then, so is using the internet at all, including e-mail.

 

• ▶ Reply