Is ATA no Longer an effective Advocacy Group for Bicycling?

I think that the recent BRT on Ashland fight, and the massive political capital being burned on this issue by ATA suggests that it is no longer an effective advocate for Bicycling, but instead has become captive of too many competing interests.   When it was the CBF, it had a clearly defined mission and a specific set of objectives.  Now often the interests of the bicyclists have been pushed aside.

I suggest that this is encapsulated by the Ashland BRT debate.   Ashland would have been a great corridor for a properly designed modern bike lane tying together the north and South.  Instead, this potential bike route has been given over to a variety of motor vehicles and what is left is clearly inadequate, if not dangerous for bicycling.  Further, it will push traffic to Damen and Western and thus make the already not particularly safe Damen lanes even less safe.   A CBF would not only have not burned political capital on this project, it would have (properly) fought against it.  Sigh.

Views: 820

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on January 22, 2014 at 6:56pm

Interesting question. Excluding the BRT debate, are there other issues on which you believe ATA  is no longer an effective advocate for Bicyclists?

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on January 22, 2014 at 7:04pm

I admit that this a little like asking Mrs. Lincoln how she likes the play, but yes.  I think that ATA really has too many "clients" with too many competing interests to be effective for bicyclists.  I think that a group like ATA certainly serves a valid purpose, I am just disappointed that to create this group a strong bicycle advocacy voice was diminished.  Any organization has only so much political capital.   Right now, for example, the ATA is burning this capital on a "shovel the sidewalks" campaign.   A worthy goal..... but one which has no real impact on improving bicycling.   

Permalink Reply by Reboot Oxnard on January 22, 2014 at 9:46pm

If the only thing you care about is cycling - and let everyone else be damned - then an organization like ATA that 'works to improve conditions for bicycling, walking and transit' might just not have sufficient focus for you. If, on the other hand, you believe that 'a transportation culture that values safety, health, sustainability and choice' is in yours (and societies) best interests, you might understand and support their decision to expand their mission.

Clearly, the BRT project will make Ashland (and some of the nearby parellel throughfares) less cycling friendly. On the other hand, mass transit is an important component of a car-less (or less car) community and the BRT is intended to provide some much needed relief. I think, however, that ATA is able to be more effective for cycling issues because expanding it's mission has expanded it's user (and power) base. For every Ashland BRT there is also a Dearborn PBL, something that no one would have dared dream of not long ago.

Overall, the proof is in the pudding: cycling has moved forward a lot in recent years. That's only partially attributable to ATA but they have become better at getting a bigger slice for cyclists because they have started to advocate less for cyclists and more for better transportation choices. That's what alliances do for you.

Permalink Reply by Eli on January 23, 2014 at 3:23am

As someone who's spent much more of my time in Chicago as a transit user and pedestrian than as a bike person, I don't think the ATA does a particularly good job representing those groups either.

While I support the BRT project, and I think a "shovel your sidewalk" campaign is long overdue, in neither these nor any other cases does the ATA seem to be particularly effective in its campaigns. BRT is far from a done deal; I'll believe it when I see it. And certainly the "shovel your sidewalk" campaign (which I hadn't heard of at all) is having no discernible effect; property owners are flouting the law this winter as they do every winter, and as usual, bearing no consequences.

The problem is that the ATA in its current form is predicated on the Pollyannaish idea that cyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders all share the same interests, all of the time--and this idea is wrong.

I'd love to see a focused transit advocacy group like the Straphangers Campaign in New York, and I'd love to see a focused pedestrian group, and I'd love to see a focused cycling group willing to push for things like Idaho stop legislation that the ATA refuses to support, but it seems very clear to me that these cannot all be the same group and remain effective.

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on January 23, 2014 at 3:26am

When the Chicago Bike Federation made the change to the Active Transportation Alliance I too had some reservations about it.  However, with time I've adapted and now think it is a good idea to merge cycling with other forms of transportation.

At the moment, Bus Rapid Transit and Shoveling Sidewalks is in the news.  Also, it is now winter in Chicago and with all due respect the Bike Winter there aren't a lot of people bicycling let alone seeking improved bicycling.  The ATA can't control the weather!

Still, a forum discussion like this might give them a gentle nudge to keep on track.  A large portion of the dues paying membership is made up of bicyclists whose main interests is bicycle advocacy. The ATA doesn't want to lose this core constituency.

Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on January 23, 2014 at 3:57am

The ATA cannot control the weather, but the City has pretty clearly changed tactics on snow removal and our advocacy organization should be working to correct that huge problem. The bike lanes on Archer west of Canal have been effectively un-ridable for three weeks now. Seems like a great missed opportunity for ATA to use some of its advocacy chops. You can't say something like "there aren't a lot of people bicycling" while ignoring that fact that a good number of us are not bicycling because the neglected state of our streets don't allow us to do ride safely. That is a problem that can and should be fixed.

Bob Kastigar said:

When the Chicago Bike Federation made the change to the Active Transportation Alliance I too had some reservations about it.  However, with time I've adapted and now think it is a good idea to merge cycling with other forms of transportation.

At the moment, Bus Rapid Transit and Shoveling Sidewalks is in the news.  Also, it is now winter in Chicago and with all due respect the Bike Winter there aren't a lot of people bicycling let alone seeking improved bicycling.  The ATA can't control the weather!

Still, a forum discussion like this might give them a gentle nudge to keep on track.  A large portion of the dues paying membership is made up of bicyclists whose main interests is bicycle advocacy. The ATA doesn't want to lose this core constituency.

Permalink Reply by JeffB on January 23, 2014 at 6:13am

+1

Tony Adams 7 mi said:

The ATA cannot control the weather, but the City has pretty clearly changed tactics on snow removal and our advocacy organization should be working to correct that huge problem. The bike lanes on Archer west of Canal have been effectively un-ridable for three weeks now. Seems like a great missed opportunity for ATA to use some of its advocacy chops. You can't say something like "there aren't a lot of people bicycling" while ignoring that fact that a good number of us are not bicycling because the neglected state of our streets don't allow us to do ride safely. That is a problem that can and should be fixed.

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on January 23, 2014 at 6:19am

The claim that "cycling has moved forward" in recent years and thus the "proof is in the pudding" about the ATA being a better advocate than the CBF is a false conclusion.    Has cycling moved forward?  Yes.    But the question is not whether cycling has moved forward, it is whether Cycling would have moved forward:

1.   Faster without the ATA and the CBF

2.   Faster with just the CBF

3.   Faster with the ATA and not the CBF or

4    Faster with both an ATA and a CBF.

This is, in many ways, a repeat of the Viet Nam War protest fallacy... that protests brought about a faster end to the Viet Nam War.   The argument -- protests and then the war ended.  The problem is that the country's views about the war were already swinging toward an end to U.S. involvement, and a strong case can be made that the protests actually slowed down the swing and thus prolonged the war.   In the same fashion, Bicycles have been making progress everywhere.   Have the ATA's activities in focusing on a few "big" or "showy" projects actually brought about faster change or not. 

Again, I agree that their is a place for an organization like the ATA.   But I think that such an organization will, necessarily not do as nearly a good job for its various constituents as a single purpose organization.   And thus the single purpose organizations are needed.

The Ashland BRT, as conceived, is going to make bicycling much harder in that corridor.  And the Dearborn and other PBL's are, frankly, something that were coming anyway.   This is a movement in cities all around the country and many of these are superior to the Dearborn PBL..  

Consider:

http://www.streetfilms.org/the-indianapolis-cultural-trail/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2...

(the DC lanes run down the MIDDLE of the street to limit conflicts with doors, right turns and the like.    Wouldn't a PBL Bike Lane down middle of Ashland, Irving, Western and the like in lieu of the planters looked great? )

Or the Hudson River Greenway (which even limits Pedestrians...)



Reboot Oxnard said:

If the only thing you care about is cycling - and let everyone else be damned - then an organization like ATA that 'works to improve conditions for bicycling, walking and transit' might just not have sufficient focus for you. If, on the other hand, you believe that 'a transportation culture that values safety, health, sustainability and choice' is in yours (and societies) best interests, you might understand and support their decision to expand their mission.

Clearly, the BRT project will make Ashland (and some of the nearby parellel throughfares) less cycling friendly. On the other hand, mass transit is an important component of a car-less (or less car) community and the BRT is intended to provide some much needed relief. I think, however, that ATA is able to be more effective for cycling issues because expanding it's mission has expanded it's user (and power) base. For every Ashland BRT there is also a Dearborn PBL, something that no one would have dared dream of not long ago.

Overall, the proof is in the pudding: cycling has moved forward a lot in recent years. That's only partially attributable to ATA but they have become better at getting a bigger slice for cyclists because they have started to advocate less for cyclists and more for better transportation choices. That's what alliances do for you.

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on January 23, 2014 at 6:27am

The cycling movement has never been stronger, with new infrastructure (bike sharing, more protected and buffered lanes than any U.S. city, new bike corrals) and policies (bikes can legally “take the lane” in Chicago and pass on the right statewide) that were not on the radar just a few years ago when Active Trans actually increased resources for bike advocacy. 

We secured the political buy-in and brought the technical and policy know-how to lead the charge and help make these things happen. Indeed, Active Trans devotes more time and money to bicycle advocacy today than we ever did as CBF.

In the past two years alone, we’ve mobilized more than 12,000 people who care about bicycling in support our Neighborhood Bikeways Campaign – turning them out to neighborhood meetings, connecting them with decision makers, and helping to amplify their collective voice.

We’re also getting better results in part because we support walking and transit in addition to cycling.  This “complete streets” approach engenders a receptivity to cycling improvements among the public and elected officials that was harder to secure when we were CBF.  

So advocating for transit and walking helps move cycling forward, and with 4,500 miles of roads in Chicago, taking a few miles away from cars on Ashland should have a minimal effect on cycling. 

We should also note that  he best cycling cities in the world also have great transit. They go hand-in-hand.

Chicago doesn’t have a world class bike network or a world class transit system yet, so improvements are needed on both fronts and we’re on it at Active Trans. Roll on.  

Ron Burke 

Executive Director, Active Transportation Alliance

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 23, 2014 at 7:05am

+1

Reboot Oxnard said:

If the only thing you care about is cycling - and let everyone else be damned - then an organization like ATA that 'works to improve conditions for bicycling, walking and transit' might just not have sufficient focus for you. If, on the other hand, you believe that 'a transportation culture that values safety, health, sustainability and choice' is in yours (and societies) best interests, you might understand and support their decision to expand their mission.

Clearly, the BRT project will make Ashland (and some of the nearby parellel throughfares) less cycling friendly. On the other hand, mass transit is an important component of a car-less (or less car) community and the BRT is intended to provide some much needed relief. I think, however, that ATA is able to be more effective for cycling issues because expanding it's mission has expanded it's user (and power) base. For every Ashland BRT there is also a Dearborn PBL, something that no one would have dared dream of not long ago.

Overall, the proof is in the pudding: cycling has moved forward a lot in recent years. That's only partially attributable to ATA but they have become better at getting a bigger slice for cyclists because they have started to advocate less for cyclists and more for better transportation choices. That's what alliances do for you.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 23, 2014 at 7:09am

The 18th St. bike lanes between the bridge and Clark have been horrible for months, between uncleared snow, standing water, mud, debris, construction signs, etc.  I don't ride it often, but I see it every day from the train. Every day it's some version of terrible. I don't envy the people who need to use it regularly.  18th, Archer, Marshall Blvd. and any other south or west side routes that are being neglected need regular attention so that parts of the south and west sides that are tough to ride become safer and we can fulfill the goals of Streets for Cycling 2020.

P.S. I just noticed a comment on another thread saying that 18th St. was mostly plowed and salted this morning - except for a wall of snow at the viaduct east of Wentworth.

Tony Adams 7 mi said:

The ATA cannot control the weather, but the City has pretty clearly changed tactics on snow removal and our advocacy organization should be working to correct that huge problem. The bike lanes on Archer west of Canal have been effectively un-ridable for three weeks now.

Permalink Reply by Peter Taylor on January 24, 2014 at 7:45am

I'd have to say the answer to all 4 questions is irrelevant. It didnt happen that way.
ActiveTrans is the preeminent organization that has the track record and is pressing these issues
forward. Chicago has made great strides recently in terms of cycling facilites but that has been
primarily because of a supportive administration. IMHO The effect of having Gabe Klein as
commissioner was what pushed Chicago into a different reality. We need to be more conerned about
gauging where his successor's head is at and getting her on board. At this point this is not
clear to me.



Crazy David 84 Furlongs said:

The claim that "cycling has moved forward" in recent years and thus the "proof is in the pudding" about the ATA being a better advocate than the CBF is a false conclusion.    Has cycling moved forward?  Yes.    But the question is not whether cycling has moved forward, it is whether Cycling would have moved forward:

1.   Faster without the ATA and the CBF

2.   Faster with just the CBF

3.   Faster with the ATA and not the CBF or

4    Faster with both an ATA and a CBF.

This is, in many ways, a repeat of the Viet Nam War protest fallacy... that protests brought about a faster end to the Viet Nam War.   The argument -- protests and then the war ended.  The problem is that the country's views about the war were already swinging toward an end to U.S. involvement, and a strong case can be made that the protests actually slowed down the swing and thus prolonged the war.   In the same fashion, Bicycles have been making progress everywhere.   Have the ATA's activities in focusing on a few "big" or "showy" projects actually brought about faster change or not. 

Again, I agree that their is a place for an organization like the ATA.   But I think that such an organization will, necessarily not do as nearly a good job for its various constituents as a single purpose organization.   And thus the single purpose organizations are needed.

The Ashland BRT, as conceived, is going to make bicycling much harder in that corridor.  And the Dearborn and other PBL's are, frankly, something that were coming anyway.   This is a movement in cities all around the country and many of these are superior to the Dearborn PBL..  

Consider:

http://www.streetfilms.org/the-indianapolis-cultural-trail/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2...

(the DC lanes run down the MIDDLE of the street to limit conflicts with doors, right turns and the like.    Wouldn't a PBL Bike Lane down middle of Ashland, Irving, Western and the like in lieu of the planters looked great? )

Or the Hudson River Greenway (which even limits Pedestrians...)



Reboot Oxnard said:

If the only thing you care about is cycling - and let everyone else be damned - then an organization like ATA that 'works to improve conditions for bicycling, walking and transit' might just not have sufficient focus for you. If, on the other hand, you believe that 'a transportation culture that values safety, health, sustainability and choice' is in yours (and societies) best interests, you might understand and support their decision to expand their mission.

Clearly, the BRT project will make Ashland (and some of the nearby parellel throughfares) less cycling friendly. On the other hand, mass transit is an important component of a car-less (or less car) community and the BRT is intended to provide some much needed relief. I think, however, that ATA is able to be more effective for cycling issues because expanding it's mission has expanded it's user (and power) base. For every Ashland BRT there is also a Dearborn PBL, something that no one would have dared dream of not long ago.

Overall, the proof is in the pudding: cycling has moved forward a lot in recent years. That's only partially attributable to ATA but they have become better at getting a bigger slice for cyclists because they have started to advocate less for cyclists and more for better transportation choices. That's what alliances do for you.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service