San Francisco Bike Blog

The Chicagoland Bicycle Federation (http://www.biketraffic.org/) has changed its name to the Active Transportation Alliance (http://activetrans.org/). I’d been tipped a couple of weeks ago that this was going to happen, but I wasn’t sure when. Apparently an announcement was made at a general members meeting last night.

In general, I agree with this step - sort of - but I’m not sure it was carried out correctly, and I’m not sure I’m really comfortable with the result. Most important for any advocacy organization is to get big enough to where you can actually be effective - to where you can apply appropriate pressure on public officials so they have to do what you want - this is something Jane Jacobs stressed. At the same time, when building an organization, you have to try to keep people passionate - the bigger the organization, the less likely that everyone will be on the same wavelength. You may, for instance, be able to grow the SFBC into a much bigger organization if you explicitly pull in ‘walk’ people by changing your name and mission to ‘SFBWC,’ etc., but maybe what you really want is 9,500 very passionate bikers instead of 30,000 somewhat passionate ‘walkers and bikers?’ That’s the question - 10,000 passionate bikers with their own organization, and 10,000 passionate walkers with their own organization, but together you can pull in an additional 10,000 people who bike and walk somewhat passionately. Should you do it? There are plenty of pros and cons.

I dig the fresh new look for the website:

Zowie. This is a big deal.

The new website explains the new name:

The Active Transportation Alliance reflects our work to ensure a comprehensive system of safe, sustainable, convenient and fun transportation options.

Formerly the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, the organization has successfully pushed for safer and better bicycling in Chicagoland for nearly 25 years. From this work, we have learned that active and sustainable forms of transportation rely on each other. With an expanded mission that includes pedestrian and transit advocacy, we look forward to even greater success improving the region’s overall transportation culture.

Under the banner of the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, the organization has a secured significant wins for pedestrians and transit users, including bikes on Metra and Safe Routes to School programs.

As the organization moves forward, some things will not change. Members remain the Active Transportation Alliance’s core commitment and will be critical as it builds a bigger movement with members, allies and events; creates a safer and more comprehensive network of streets, trails and transit opportunities; and encourages increasingly dynamic and healthy activity throughout the region.

The Active Transportation Alliance picks up where the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation left off. It continues to strive to reach its two primary goals — seeing a region with 50 percent fewer crashes and where 50 percent of all trips are made by bike, foot or transit.

The Active Transportation Alliance logo, shaped like a bicycle frame head badge, represents three elements: community, pathways and green space.

Their FAQ page gives a more succinct answer:

Why did you change your name from the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation?

We changed our name to reflect our expanded mission to improve walking, bicycling and transit in the region. As the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, our work already reflected this approach. We moved into the new areas of walking and transit to help broaden our voice, gain new allies in reaching our overall goals, and effectively win Complete Streets for all.

We can achieve even more bicycling wins by taking on this greater effort of transforming the transportation culture for everyone — motorists, transit riders, pedestrians and bicyclists.

My first big question is, ‘transit’? How does transit fit in with biking and walking? The FAQ addresses part of this question with a couple of Q&As:

Why is the Active Transportation Alliance’s work important to me as…a transit rider?

Transit riders have not had a formal and sophisticated voice in the region. Transit riders can now tap into our 23 years of experience as a bicycle advocate working to improve the active transportation network.

Transit is severely under funded. Our work will help direct more dollars to mass transit, which means improvements to your trip.

• Our work to connect and expand transportation means more options for you.
• We will fight for increased services such as additional lines, bus rapid transit and additional bicycle access to trains.
• Ensuring active transportation translates into a more connected region.

How is the Active Transportation Alliance working on…transit issues?

• Bikes on Metra
• Securing appropriate funding.
• We will expand our transit work. We are currently working on what that looks like and where opportunities exist.

The other part of that question is, can ‘transit’ really be considered ‘active transportation’? I don’t know if there is a hard and fast definition of ‘active transportation,’ but it has been my understanding that any type of transportation deemed ‘active’ would have to be either or both inherently sustainable and/or human-powered. Things like walking and biking and inline skating and skateboarding and whatever else seem to me to be ‘active,’ but taking the train or bus? Not so much. Granted, you have to get to the bus or train somehow, but that goes for walking out to your car, too. The North Carolina Active Transportation Alliance does not include transit coverage in its mission.

The closest model for this newish organization would seem to be Transportation Alternatives in New York City — ‘Your advocate for bicycling, walking, and public transit.’ That name and description I’m much more comfortable with - they don’t use the term ‘active.’ I don’t hate on transit (much; or not nearly as much as I hate on private motorized transit), but ‘active transportation,’ to me, has a very very important significance in the world.

There are myriad real and imagined differences between active transport and non-active transport:

1. One is human-powered and the other is motorized.
2. One is inherently sustainable and the other is not.
3. One represents the most vulnerable users of the street and the other represents one of the least vulnerable users of the street.

I suggested in the past that maybe bike and walk organizations should consider merging. It’s not my idea, it was just something that I thought I might have been noticing as a trend, and if there was a trend, I reckoned, there must be a reason for it - i.e. people were doing it deliberately, so maybe we should think about doing it, too.

Chicago is a signature U.S. city, and a signature bicycle city — what they do matters a lot.

Here’s what one blogger thinks of the change in name and mission:

However, there is a certain amount of concern that the added emphasis on pedestrian and public transit users may divert resources and attention from the bike advocacy that CBF built its reputation upon. A quick look at the ATA website and it’s clear that the concerns of the cyclist are still paramount - it will remain to be seen whether things will stay that way. Not to say that it would be terrible if it didn’t, because I think we’re all well aware of the issues with public transit in this city and we’ve all come close to getting run over by a cab or truck while in a crosswalk.

I’m especially curious about the public transit aspect of ATA’s mission - not much yet on the site, but I expect that much of the work will be done to improve reach into certain neighborhoods and possibly bike options on the CTA.

Chicago’s the “city that works” and one part of making things work is not getting in the way. If you’re on a bike or on your own two feet, it takes a bit longer to get out of the way - and it only serves all of us Chicagoans better if we have an organization fighting for our rights as a pedestrian or bus rider. Let’s just hope that for us on two wheels, we don’t find our interests mitigated.

The Executive Director of the Chicago ATA is Rob Sadowsky. He’s gone to the blog to address what I expect is probably righteous anger at folks feeling like they were not consulted about the big changes beforehand:

2. Why weren’t members involved in the decision to expand the mission and change the name?

Our board of directors, elected by members, represents our membership. The board of directors had the legal responsibility to guide this process, and it involved our members, volunteers, etc. as much as possible. The board went through an extensive process (surveys, focus groups, research, etc.) with members, partners, staff, board and volunteers to expand the mission and change the name.

Of course, no process is perfect; but we hope that those of you who are concerned or waiting to see what happens will stick with us. We don’t want to lose your critical voices that keep us on our toes. If you want to get more involved with our organization, please contact me directly.

I didn’t know about this change until someone tipped me that it was already done - then, I suppose, it was just a matter of timing the announcement. I checked the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation’s website pretty regularly, and I never saw a hint that they were thinking of changing their name or mission. Maybe everyone was consulted who should have been - I really have no idea, but from my point of view, as an outsider and non-member, I had no idea it had happened until after it had happened.

Imagine George Bush got on TV one day and announced to Americans that we had changed our name to ‘The Place Between Canada And Mexico’, with no notice to the U.S. public. People would riot. The U.S. government would collapse. And as the rioting spread throughout the U.S., a reporter asks the President - “Mr. President, why did you change the name of the country without letting us all know, without letting us have a say? Some people say they don’t want our mission to be making cheese. They say they liked that whole ‘life, liberty, and pursuit’ thing. How do you respond to them?” And the President says, “Our Congresscritters, elected by the American public, represent Americans.” Ouch - I wouldn’t want to be in the press room.

Memo to SFBC and ABC and any other organization with existing members that is contemplating could ever contemplate changing (no, that was not a Freudian slip) your name and mission - you might not want to treat your members like imbeciles. Please, for the sake of all of us, open up the discussion. There will be debate and disagreement and you’ll lose some members. It’s going to happen whether you decide to let people in on the process or not, but it’s crucial that you do it. At this point I would be absolutely shocked if Rob Sadowsky does not publish a gigantic mea culpa and apology and begging of forgiveness post. Again, I’m only an outsider, but from the looks for things, people didn’t know it was coming, and they’re pissed, and maybe they should be.

…The Rails to Trails Conservancy — which cares about re-using old rail lines for walking and biking purposes — published a report entitled ‘Active Transportation For America‘ (PDF). Just another tidbit to describe what might be - might have been? - the prevailing notion of what ‘active transport’ is or was.

…Positive reaction. Positive reaction. Negative reaction. Negative.

…ATA Airlines. Marketing and branding and acronyms and logos and all that are hugely important, in my opinion. I’m really not sure if the ‘ATA’ acronym thing makes a difference - I defer to Chicagoans and experts on that one. Chicagoland is home of the Kellogg School of Management - pretty much the consistent #1Marketing MBA in the country, possibly the world - Chicago should know their marketing, and how important it is.

…It seems my initial impression - that this name and mission change was done without member knowledge or consent - may have been correct. There are 40 comments so far to a post from two days ago that announced the name change (it’s possible the new site was not live yet, though, until more recently). There are some positive and negative notes, but the secretive nature of the decision seems to be what really ticked people off. Below is a cut and paste sampling - not representative - of some of the responses from people who woke up to find out that one of the most important institutions in their lives had changed its mission and identity:

I don’t think that average pedestrians nor CTA users will join the ATA as members.

I understand their desire for collective grant writing but feel this was the wrong way to go about it. To simply tell their 6,000 existing members hey we changed our mission statement and name is disingenuous. A vote of some kind would have been appropriate given that it’s a membership based organization… clearly those who work at the ATA and the board of directors felt otherwise.

As a board member, did it occur to you to let members in on this dramatic change before making a wholesale change in mission and name? This thing was sold very badly, in fact, it was jammed down our throats without input. 97% of CBF members saying on a survey that they “want us to encourage active and healthy transportation options in our work” isn’t the same as taking our cycling $$$ support and flipping the mission statement on its backside.
**Additional** funding opportunities exist for programs that embrace “active transportation.” is the message that should have been sold PREVIOUS to this secretive and disrespectful move.

Additionally, I really don’t feel like we should abbreviate this new name into “ATA”. They probably should have thought of a better acronym, but at least for now we should take an extra 2 seconds to actually say “Active Transportation Alliance”.

Was there a push from pedestrian and transit user activists to broaden the scope? Why take what appeared to be a fantastically working model and radically change it? For example, the March of Dimes changed its focus from helping children with polio to infant mortality and birth defects because polio vaccine whipped polio, and they needed a new focus to exist. I didn’t see any such existential crisis for the CBF.

Please explain why the Bike Federation, with its healthy membership, long track record of bike and ped advocacy, homey logo, and attractive website (with a catchy address to boot) trades it all for a bland name, sterile marketing campaign, and logo inspired by a bank.

Why didn’t you consult with the membership before rebranding?

As a many year member of the CBF, I was disappointed by the Board’s recent secretive name and focus change. Most of us joined because the focus was bikes. We didn’t think there was any possibility of bait and switch.

Since the old CBF is now a dictatorship, with this question not being put towards the membership, it’s now time to leave and NOT renew. I don’t need to have my concerns being overshadowed by bus riders and pedestrians. Let them form their own group.
Oh, in case you forgot, I was never asked.

your coup never was mentioned on site, in an email or any other.

Was it happenstance that the League of Illinois Bicyclists sent an enlistment for membership on the same day I received my postcard on the forming of the “Alliance” or a happy coincidence?

Basically, aside from telling members at a meeting you changed your name in a vacuum. That’s seems like a pretty non-existent communications strategy to me.

The way I see it, there’s no room for this incredible level of ignorance and arrogance and/or stupidity in our movement. Whether or not the Board decided to change their logo and mission is not the major problem - the major problem was the secretive nature of the proceedings - nobody knew. The Chicagoland Bicycle Federation treated their members - even their long-time members - like garbage. Wow.

It’s pretty shocking. Not only was Executive Director Rob Sadowsky in on it, but the entire Board. Not a single one of them objected to the tactics? Not a single one of them resigned their Board position when the decision was made to carry out this plan without consulting the membership? Absolutely incredible.

I’m not sure how something like this happens, honestly. There had to be a lot of people who really believed that their members were imbeciles.

OK - so what now? Here’s what should happen:

1. Huge apology and begging of forgiveness from Rob Sadowsky, Executive Director. It was a colossal mistake on my part - it should have been done differently - I am most responsible - blame me - etc. We screwed up, but mostly me. I acted like a dictator. There’s no excuse. I’m ashamed. Horrible. These are the types of things that should be said, explicitly. Ask for forgiveness on the basis that you will make things right as much as possible. You messed it up, Rob - you fix it. Offer to resign if you do not fix it. Mean it. (And, Peter Smith is not suggesting that you should be spared the unemployment line.)
2. Announce that the entire scheme - the entire name change, the entire mission change, all of it - is on hold until further notice. What does that mean? It means it’s on hold. Do I have to spell it out? No new business cards. No new membership cards. No new letterhead. No new mailings. Nothing. Not until we sort this out.
3. Convene an emergency session with the Board as soon as possible - hopefully within the next 5 business days. We’re going to take a whole new approach to this - a better approach - the approach we should have taken in the first place. It will be open and democratic and we’ll have clear lines of communication with the entire membership throughout the process. At the end of the day, some of us will not be happy with the results, but that’s democracy.
4. Continue to invite any and all comments about the situation to me, directly, or to staff. There is no hurry, though. We should have been listening before, but we’re listening now. Everyone will have a say. Everyone will be heard. Everyone’s opinion is important. You simply must remain a part of our organization. We have to stick together. But please spare us the bile. Your anger is justified, but we’ve already had enough abuse. We screwed up. We’re human. We’re working to fix it right now. Please be part of the solution.

Obviously I’m throwing around the ‘you’ and ‘me’ stuff in there, but at no time am I using ‘me’ to mean Peter Smith. It’s Rob Sadowsky that needs to fix this.

If you’ve read this blog for more than a day, you know I’m not afraid to hand it out. Somebody has to. I have a blast coming up for the BRT folks that is not going to be pretty. They deserve it. In this case, Rob Sadowsky and the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation Board deserve it. They can still make it right. I hope they do.

…Chicago Tribune jumps in. They didn’t touch the secrecy aspect of the changes.

…I don’t see what everyone is complaining about. The Board wants to let the membership help name the blog.

p.s. I put the ATA rss feed in my ‘urban planning’ folder, not my ‘bikes’ folder. Sorry - I have to ridicule people who do such contemptible things, else the fury would consume me.

I am curious what the real reason was they kept this all a secret. Is it possible that it was something other than complete contempt for democratic principles? Did they really think of their members as children, incapable of spelling their own names? I don’t know. Only CBF ATA knows.

I figure, they thought they’d just treat their members like a bunch of imbeciles, spring the change, let the brave ones complain, and then let it blow over. And that may be what happens. It was a horrible abuse of power, but that’s just my opinion. I don’t like to see anyone mistreated, much less fellow bike people.

CBF had 35 paid staff and 6,000 members.

SFBC has 9 paid staff and 9,500 members. (estimates)

What were those 35 staffers doing for the past few months when all this was going down? Chicago does have 4 times the population - are staffing levels more a function of population than membership size? I dunno - 35 people pulling paychecks - you’d think one of them could have been provided the time and resources to send an email out to the members:

Hey, uh, bike people - hey there,

Yeah, we’re gonna change the name and mission of the org. Yeah. We’re gonna talk about it for a while - a month or two. Then we’re gonna pull the trigger. No - we don’t need your input. We’re good. Thanks. We’re bringing in buses and trains. And walkers. And we’re getting rid of that ‘Chicagoland’ thing - blech. It’s gonna be great.

Cheers!

Would that have been difficult? They have these things called ‘mailing lists’ that usually make it pretty easy to do one-way communication with your members. Just sayin’.

Leave comment (1)

[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]