city-metro_quotes

Some Quotes from Metro Documents
Note: ALL LINKS BELOW ARE TO COMPLETE (ie:LARGE) DOCUMENTS, NOT SPECIFIC PAGES.
Please download and print those of interest (or pages therefrom.)
Also see: keydocs.htm

"Metro Measured:"
By way of contrast, common perceptions of Los Angeles suggest low density, high per capita road mileage and intolerable congestion. In public discussions we gather the general impression that Los Angeles represents a future to be avoided. By the same token, with respect to density and road per capita mileage it displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate.'
From page 7 of http://www.stopmetro/por/docs/metro_measured.pdf (Metro_measured.pdf - 2.3 meg)

"Ten Principles for Achieving Region 2040 Centers:"
But the reality is that some types of congestion are not only tolerable, they are good for the region's short- and long-term health. Slowing down drivers so they can "visually shop from their cars" as they move through a center is positive. The same is true for parking - a center can be over parked (too many spaces) and create a sense of emptiness.
From page 42 of http://www.metro-region.org/library_docs/land_use/ten_principles.pdf

"Evaluating traffic congestion:"
Historically, the RTP has sought to maintain a level of service D, which represents a facility that is operating at 80 percent of capacity with relatively free-flowing traffic.

The new level-of-service policy seeks to maintain a level of service E on most roadways during peak periods, which means that a facility is operating at 90 percent of capacity. In some areas where transit and other travel alternatives are offered (such as regional centers or highway corridors with light rail), an F standard is acceptable during the afternoon peak hour, meaning that it would be acceptable for a street or highway to operate at 100 percent of capacity. This represents congestion as it currently exists during the rush hour on many routes, such as the Banfield Freeway or I-5 North or urban centers like downtown Portland.
From page 2 of http://www.metro-region.org/library_docs/trans/evaluating.pdf (evaluation.pdf - 381k,)

Metro 2040 Land Use Code Workbook: A Guide for Updating Local Land Use Codes, (chapter3 - Mixed Use Areas)
Motor Vehicle Congestion Analysis (Title 6.4.B) -- The functional plan provides optional roadway level-of-service standards for mixed use areas. The standards are meant to anticipate a greater level of congestion in mixed use areas, as compared with other areas. When standards are exceeded, congestion management alternatives must be considered. For recommended policy options, please refer to Title 6.4.B of the functional plan.
From page 39: http://www.metro-region.org/library_docs/land_use/chapter3.pdf

Metro Urban Centers: An Evaluation of the Density of Development

The primary reason for underbuilding in urban areas is the lack of financial feasibility. There is little evidence to support the conclusion that the high densities required in Urban Centers,in the absence of public assistance, are profitable under current market conditions, and that developers and property owners are either unaware that they could make more money by building denser, or prohibited from doing so by physical or policy constraints.
From Page S-v: http://www.metro-region.org/library_docs/land_use/centersreport.pdf (Centers_4.pdf - 3.6 meg )

See www.saveportland.com/metroquotes for hotlinks to above documents

Portland: New Housing Units Built Annually

In City In total
U.G.B.* In Region** % of U.G.B
total in City

FY 1995-96 2,420 12,329 20%

FY 1996-97 3,025 7,827 39%

FY 1997-98 3,535 11,388 16,184 31%

FY 1998-99 3,690 11,738 15,348 31%

FY 1999-00 2,486 7,500 est. 11,713 33%

FY 2000-01 2,477 4,746 est. 10,087 52%

FY 2001-02 2,843 7,243 14,526 39%

FY 2002-03 2,234 9,164 13,110 24%

GOAL 20%

* Urban Growth Boundary
**includes Clark County
SOURCE: Metro and Office of Planning and Development Review

More Metro Documents

Metro Planning Budget (2003-04): $15,854,182
from: page 80, Metro's Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2003-04
www.metro-region.org/library_docs/finance/03-04_vol_1.pdf

Transportation Priorities 2004-07 Project Summary
www.metro-region.org/library_docs/trans/4_1_03applicationssummary.pdf

Maps: www.metro-region.org/library_docs/land_use/ugbmap.pdf

Public Review Draft
Transportation Planning Public Involvement Policy
www.metro-region.org/library_docs/trans/public_review_draft.pdf

The Community Media Project - building community through media
www.metro-region.org/library_docs/trans/buildingcomm.pdf

Highlights of the region's land-use and transportation performance measures
The Portland region: How are we doing?
www.metro-region.org/library_docs/land_use/2040_report.pdf

Single Family Housing
www.metro-region.org/library_docs/land_use/chapter1.pdf

Metro Documents listed above
Note that some of these files are large enough that it will take almost a hour to get all of all of them on a 56k dial up connection.

Metro Measured Metro_measured.pdf - 2.3 meg (only online source for this rare document)

Achieving Region 2040 Centers,. Centers_4.pdf - 3.6 meg

Evaluation traffic congestion, evaluation.pdf - 381k,

Creating Livable Streets cls.pdf - 488k

"Metro Urban Centers: An Evaluation of the Density of Development" metrourbancenters.pdf - 1.3 meg

Ballot title 3NOV92BA.tif -2.8 meg (only online sourve for this rare document)

Voter's pamphlet arguments 3NOV92AR.tif - 6.3 meg (only online sourve for this rare document)

metro docs list with quotes-02.wpd

	In City	In total U.G.B.*	In Region**	% of U.G.B total in City
FY 1995-96	2,420	12,329		20%
FY 1996-97	3,025	7,827		39%
FY 1997-98	3,535	11,388	16,184	31%
FY 1998-99	3,690	11,738	15,348	31%
FY 1999-00	2,486	7,500 est.	11,713	33%
FY 2000-01	2,477	4,746 est.	10,087	52%
FY 2001-02	2,843	7,243	14,526	39%
FY 2002-03	2,234	9,164	13,110	24%
GOAL				20%