1 / 17

Thinking Through Disaster HR321 Anneka Olson and Katie Reed

Urban Greenways in New Orleans, Post-Katrina. Thinking Through Disaster HR321 Anneka Olson and Katie Reed. Advocacy Proposal Project Goal:. To implement a city-recognized governance structure that works to improve biking infrastructure in the City of New Orleans.

brier
Download Presentation

Thinking Through Disaster HR321 Anneka Olson and Katie Reed

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Urban Greenways in New Orleans, Post-Katrina Thinking Through Disaster HR321 Anneka Olson and Katie Reed

  2. Advocacy Proposal Project Goal: To implement a city-recognized governance structure that works to improve biking infrastructure in the City of New Orleans. The governance structure must also be representational of the city’s biking interests in the form of membership of various stakeholders groups.

  3. Why Biking? • Increasing bike infrastructure, along with bicycle safety and education, means that people will bike more • Making biking a more feasible form of transportation means that people will drive less, thereby mitigating carbon emissions and effects caused by carbon emissions (ie. Urban heat island) • Biking has public health and community benefits—it integrates exercise into lifestyles, increases neighborhood interactions, and is much cheaper than owning a car

  4. What this might look like: A committee within the Department of Public Works that is comprised of a variety of bike interest stakeholders. The commission would work collectively to make suggestions to the city about where bike infrastructure improvements are needed, and would provide a democratic means for community input in infrastructure decisions.

  5. Things that the commission would work on improving: • Bike lanes • Bike paths • Biking safety • Transportation connectivity that integrates bikes • Increasing practicality of biking as a means of transportation, particularly through education • Changing the image of the city to be more bike friendly and safe • More effectively matching the surplus of donated bikes with appropriate recipients

  6. Members who would comprise this commission: • Community members • Bike co-ops • Bike repair shops • Urban planners focused on bike/pedestrian issues • City and Regional planners working on bike/pedestrian infrastructure • Students and Faculty from local universities • Community Development Corporations

  7. Background to the Project: Original Project Goal: to connect the various stakeholders, from the micro to the macro level, to engage in a dialogue and collectively use their knowledge and resources to improve biking in New Orleans and advocate for follow-through with funding earmarked for bicycle infrastructure improvements. ex. Charrette through Tulane University Research: We went to New Orleans over spring break to better understand the current state of biking, to meet with a variety of groups who are working on biking issues, and to find out what the city’s long term goal was for alternative transportation. We felt that a trip to New Orleans would be the best way also to discover what would be best for the city in terms of biking, prepared to completely revise our project.

  8. Stage One: UNOP Plan Biking Research Under the Regional Planning Commission we combed through all 13 of the city’s planning districts to determine what their intended goals were for biking improvements.

  9. Outcome of Research • We found that there was a large diversity between the different districts proposal biking plans. Often times if there was a plan proposed it followed along with the Regional Planning Commissions 2004 Citywide Biking Master Plan, but some were very theoretical, and made few concrete proposals. • We also found a great emphasis on bike paths as part of the goal for all of the city’s residents to be no further then ¼ mile from a green space or bike path. • However, it remains unclear to what extent the UNOP plans will be implemented—so it is important to ensure that other means for community planning exist peripherally

  10. Stage Two: Research of Biking Infrastructure and Advocacy in Successful Bike Friendly Cities As part of establishing this commission the second stage of our project is to research other cities that have an recognized bike supportive and friendly environment. We will be researching the components of their success, looking specifically at: • What government advisory boards do they have in place? • Who serves on these boards? • How do they represent the voices and interests of many different facets of the community?

  11. Case Study: Portland, OR

  12. Case Study: Seattle, WA

  13. Case Study: Sydney, AUS

  14. Case Study: Davis, CA

  15. Case Study: Copenhagen

  16. How does this proposal pertain to “Thinking Through Disaster?” • Importance of community involvement in planning • Community dialogue and discussion • The special role of outsiders, and the way that we engage with community organizations already doing the work • -Jennifer Ruly, Department of Public Works • Information sharing

  17. Got Questions?

More Related