Metro Mindset Madness |
This page is dedicated to METRO's wacky ideas about street design which are infesting most of the Portland region. |
speed bumps | extended curbs | traffic circles | wavy streets | public policy have not made land scarce enough |
Creating Livable Streets is a 94 page document on how to reshape streets
for pedestrians with no concern for the 95% of us that use automobiles. (It
is no longer on the METRO site, get it
here.)
Here are some excerpts:
Bus stops at extended curbs See cls.pdf, page 43 (pdf page not document
page):
Extend sidewalks or curb at transit stops equal to width
of on-street parking lane to increase pedestrian accessibility to transit.
Busses should take over traffic signals. See cls.pdf, page 44
:
Implement bus pre-emption systems on high-capacity, frequent through
and express bus routes.
See cls.pdf, page 46 :
Provide opportunities for stationary pedestrian
activities. Stationary activities are either standing or sitting, where
people choose to stay in a place to observe or participate in public outdoor
activities. Seating can be either primary (chairs and benches, such as that
found at a cafe or a transit stop) or secondary seating (low walls, steps,
fountain edges, where people spontaneously collect).
See cls.pdf, page 48 :
Provide appropriate building densities and land uses within walking
distance of transit stops to facilitate public transit to become a viable
alternative to the automobile.
Provide mixed-use development to encourage and support walking
trips amongst uses and to transit.
Wow, they even care about daylight reaching their high density streets. See
cls.pdf, page 49:
Street trees can be used to reduce the perceived scale of the street
width. With tall buildings located on a narrow right of way, building
stepbacks with recess line can preserve daylight access to the street and
provide street spatial definition.
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
most street descriptions include a bike lane - see any street page.
Plant tree in the parking lane. cls.pdf, page 83:
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.
More anti driving. cls.pdf, page 85:
Community street priorities
Higher priorities
Pedestrian sidewalks with transit access
Bicycle lanes
On-street parking
Lower priorities
Median for landscaping
Number of travel lanes
Width of travel lanes
Main street district priorities:
Higher priorities (cls.pdf, page 85)
Wide sidewalks including buffer areas with tree wells and tran-sit
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.
More METRO curb extensions.(cls.pds, page 88)
The cost estimate is based on the following major design elements and
assumptions:
curb extensions at intersections to reduce crossing distance
curb extensions at mid-block locations to delineate on street parking,
provide for street trees within parking lanes, and increase buffer between
vehicles and pedestrians
Million dollar waste:
Following is a comparison of Division Street modernization costs by major
categories.
County Stds. Street | Multnomah MetroRegional | ||
1. Preparation/miscellaneous | $9,571 |
$82,830 |
|
2. Signalized intersections | $0 |
$34,220 |
|
3. Unsignalized intersections | $39,590 |
$42,065 |
|
4. Street improvements | $19,354 |
$283,545 |
|
5. Storm drainage system | $52,150 |
$191,950 |
|
6. Landscape/maintenance | $0 |
$318,430 |
|
7. Signals and signs | $0 |
$166,601 |
|
8. Miscellaneous utilities | $0 |
$4,000 |
|
Total | $120,665 |
$1,123,641 |
|
The comparison shows the cost of upgrading an existing arterial to Metro regional street guidelines can be nearly 10 times as high as the cost to improve the street to current standards. The difference in the level of improvement and reconstruction is significant in this example.
High density development requires tax subsidies because it is not competitive (see metrourbancentersreport.pdf, page 7 ):
COMPETITIVE ISSUES
An impediment to substantive changes in rent levels in Urban Centers is
competition from other areas,often neighboring Urban Centers.Many Regional
Centers are participants in the same sub-regional market for certain goods
and services.Another competition related problem for the Urban Centers is
the loss of traditional office space demand to industrially zoned land.In
terms of residential development,only highly desirable housing markets can
support the values necessary to allow for high-density
metrourbancentersreport.pdf,
page 8:
SUMMARY OF EXPLANATIONS
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.
Land values are good indicators of when density becomes
profitable.If land values stay low,density does not work
financially.
If the public sector wants the private sector to build more densely it
must do something to affect demand and supply conditions so that
land prices increase,1 or it must subsidize development cost so that
there is profit to developing more density before the market would
otherwise provide it.
Zoning is still ahead of the market.Market
conditions and public
policy have not made land scarce enough, have not made central
locations superior enough in terms of transportation or amenity,and
have not seen demand great enough to cause land values to rise fast
enough in Urban Centers that rents can be demanded that make high
density profitable without public assistance (e.g.,land assembly,fee
waivers,tax abatement).
The fact that zoning is ahead of the market is not a
condemnation of public policy.Planning is looking ahead to
encourage the metropolitan area to be a metropolis it is not quite
ready to be.Getting lower than planned densities should be expected.
Above is from metrourbancentersreport.pdf, page 8: