Key Metro Documents list
Note that some of these files are large enough that it will take about 1/2 hour to get all of all of them on a 56k dial up connection.
Also See Companion Document: metro_docs_list_with_quotes-02.htm

Metro Measured     Metro_measured.pdf - 2.3 meg

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

Voter's pamphlet arguments 3NOV92AR.tif - 6.3 meg

Listing of County Agency Budgets

Selections from the above 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.)

  1. The Nov 92 ballot title: Metro's main job would to "preserve region quality of life". One voters pamphlet argument said they would keep us from becoming like Los Angeles. Eighteen months later Metro concluded that "[Los Angeles] displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate".
    From Metro Measured
  2. "some types of congestion are . . . . good for the region's short- and long-term health":
    Sitting in the car in traffic may lead someone to think that all congestion is bad. 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.

    Good land-use planning results in good congestion. If you try to over-solve the "problem" of good congestion by widening the road, the result ends up being a center with inadequate pedestrian facilities - a death knell for any center
    In addition, not having congestion at all can be a bigger problem than having it. If there is no congestion in a particular area, that probably means no one really wants to go there.
    From: "Achieving Region 2040 Centers,. Page 42" (Centers_4.pdf, page 46)
  3. Metro redefines acceptable to be "F' where "D" used to be the goal:
    Analyzing motor vehicle congestion

    Motor vehicle level of service is a measurement of congestion as a share of the designed road capacity. This measure of congestion assigns a grade according to how "full" a road is as compared to its design capacity. Under this system, a road that fills to its capacity begins to fail. 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 repre-sents 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"Evaluation traffic congestion", evaluation.pdf, Page 2 gray block.
  4. We voted for a Ballot title that included: "Requires, as primary function, growth management planning to preserve quality of life". One of the voter's pamphlet arguments (by Hardy Meyers et al.) said: "Assigns protection of our quality of life (keeping us from becoming like Los Angeles) as metro's number one job"

    18 months later Metro wants us to replicate LA: (O'Toole, describing a metro publication): The document notes that in "the LA region, we find high densities and low per capita road and freeway mileage." Metro goes on to say that "In public discussions we gather the general impression that Los Angeles represents a future to be avoided." Yet, says Metro, "with respect to density and road per capita mileage it displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate" O'Tooles source: "
    "Metro Measured ", (may 1994), page 7
  5. All Metro counselors voted to put 26-29 on the ballot in order to defuse the will of the people. Ballot title looked just like the initiative title.
  6. Put Bus stops at extended curbs: " Extend sidewalks or curb at transit stops equal to width of on-street parking lane to increase pedestrian accessibility to transit." (cls.pdf, page 43 (pdf page not document page): )

    Busses should take over traffic signals: "Implement bus pre-emption systems on high-capacity, frequent through and express bus routes." ( cls.pdf, page 44 )

    Plant tree in the parking lane: "Absolute minimum width - 58 feet. At 58 feet sidewalks are reduced to 6 feet, and street trees need to be planted within the on-street parking lane." (cls.pdf, page 83)

    Number of lanes and their width are lower priority than Bike lanes, parking & landscaping. (See cls.pdf, page 78, Community boulevard priorities)

    Higher priorities
    • Pedestrian sidewalks with transit access
    • Bicycle lanes
    • On-street parking
    • Median for landscaping
    Lower priorities
    • Number of travel lanes
    • Width of travel lanes

    Metro recommends narrow lanes (cls.pds, page 87): For example, the existing standard for travel lane width in Clackamas County is 12 to 14 feet, a range not fully encompassed within the guidelines' range of 11 to 12 feet. However, in many cases the upper range of the guidelines equals the lower range of existing standards.

    VERY IMPORTANT: The cost of Metro's recommendations, in this document, is $3 million per mile vs $340,000 to meet current standards in their example shown on page 84-85 (pdf: 88-89). They use an 1890 (1/3 mile) foot portion of Division street as an example. $120,665 vs $1,123,641 fro that 1/3 mile stretch. (Multiply by 2.79 to get the cost for a full mile.)
    From "Creating Livable Streets " (cls.pdf)
  7. High density doesn't make economic sense:
    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 "Metro Urban Centers: An Evaluation of the Density of Developmentt" (metrourbancenters.pdf)
  8. There's more in the Metro code:
    METRO recommends the following densities (3.07.170)
    METRO target 243,993 more people in the region (table 3.07-1, page 3.07-14)
    METRO limits parking spaces (3.07.220)
    METRO density recommendations (3.07.170)
  9. Then there is just plain deception: METRO fools you by reporting that people living in high density drive less, but they don't tell you that most people still drive, so there is more CONGESTION. Just look at NYC, Tokyo, Paris, London - all cities with high density and EVEN HIGHER congestion.